How Mainstream Media Lost its Credibility

In a democratic system, public opinion is the built-in check and balance that ensures that the three pillars of democracy – Executive, Legislative, and Judicial do what they are supposed to do and not start misusing the system for serving their own ends. In India, like in almost every other nation where media is free to praise and criticize these three pillars of democracy, media has played a crucial role in shaping public opinion. It is for this reason that media has been called the fourth pillar of democracy.

The fourth pillar justified the faith put in it by the citizens when it took up issues that had made a mockery of our justice system as a result of botched up police investigations – the Nitish Katara murder case and the Jessica Lal murder case to name a few. Media’s activism despite criticism from legislative and executive quarters was brushed aside by the public which found a hope in it for fighting the corrupt, inefficient system. Liberalization and growth of the Cable TV led to a mushrooming of private news channels and news anchors and journalists presenting the news became known faces with almost celebrity like following. The age of 24X7 news was here and the masses could not tire of consuming the never ending analyses, talk shows and special reports emanating from news channels which were unbiased voices and not a propaganda tool of the government or some entrenched political party. Or so we thought.

There always were people who did not like the way the private channels sensationalized every story to make it an exclusive. But for every such critic, there were hundreds who hero-worshipped their award winning journalists who were always willing to travel to war zones and rugged terrains to get that exclusive story as it unfolded. It all seemed to be working out fine when something disruptive happened: the rise of social media.

As Facebook and more notably Twitter became popular in India, each and every word that was spoken by these journalists came under greater than ever scrutiny. People discussed them online on twitter and even questioned and criticized those who were previously considered unchallenged demi-gods of public opinion. The result of this has been shocking and a revelation. More and more people are realizing that their favorite journalists of old times are not unbiased, neutral voices but men and women with their own agendas who use their platform to shape the discussion or analysis in a way that suits a particular party or political ideology.

Hence, it makes for an interesting observation:

1. When we see shock on the face of an award winning journalist the moment Allahabad High Court grants a verdict in favor of the Hindus in the Ayodhya dispute case. As she repeatedly asks the Hindu community to be large-hearted and share the land with the Muslims, we wonder if her reaction had been the same if the verdict went in favor of the other party.
2. When journalists, who go ad-nauseam about freedom of expression of a painter who repeatedly painted Hindu Gods and Goddesses in the nude and about the freedom of speech of a writer-turned activist who never lets go an opportunity to speak against India, themselves initiate proceedings against bloggers who criticize them or their reporting
3. When a lady journalist calls twitter users supporting rights and privileges of the majority Hindu community as ‘Internet Hindus’
4. When journalists who worry about religious sentiments of the minorities when it comes to certain cartoons in a Danish newspaper have no hesitation in calling Lord Ram, worshipped by Hindus across the world, a divine encroacher
5. When journalists who dub leaders trying to work up the coalition numbers as ‘brokers’ or ‘fixers’ are themselves caught on tape fixing cabinet positions and the only excuse they have is that it was an error of judgment. And while resignations are sought from anybody and everybody not belonging to the grand old party, such journalists continue to hold their positions
6. When the picture of a 42 year old politician, who happens to belong to the most powerful political dynasty of India, is morphed with those of cricket players and fans after India wins a match against arch-rivals Pakistan in the World Cup and the caption says “Yes, We Did”, we wonder if it is independent journalism or sycophancy at its best.
7. When the pretty lady from the network famous for notices and threats to opposing voices keeps bringing in Samjhauta express blasts whenever Mumbai terror attacks and Islamic fundamentalism are discussed
8. When news channels demand resignation of a CM based on charges contained in a Lokayukta report but question the CAG for its report accusing a powerful CM belonging to another party and refrain from asking for resignation because everybody is innocent till proven guilty
9. When the journalists who didn’t think twice about reporting and speculating on Apple chief Steve Jobs’ medical condition are preaching decency and privacy when the High Command of the oldest political party of India has taken ill.

The reaction of these journalists to differing views and criticism goes totally against the rational image they had cultivated before social media arrived on the scene. Criticize their stand and you would be called a troll, a right-wing hatemonger or at the minimum a moron. Sometimes, if you are arguing with their supporters, these journalists tend to jump in and would then ask you to learn some decency or take your poison elsewhere. In fact, there has been an instant where a lady journalist was found cheering her supporters when they hurled some profanities at another lady who has been quite vocal in her criticism of the said journalist. So much for women empowerment and respect for women!

People all across the world have their biases. Journalists are no different. It is perhaps better to openly declare one’s political allegiance than play up the charade of being an independent news agency. News networks in USA openly back one political party over the other. It would be better if Indian news channels and media houses start doing that. It would save their journalists lot of criticism which they cop up for pretending that they present an unbiased, neutral and factual account of what’s happening in the country minute by minute. Thanks to twitter and other forms of social media, it is no longer easy to make fool of your audience. Mainstream media in India must wake up to this reality that they cannot fool all the people all the time, By continuing to try, the only thing they are going to achieve is to further dent their already punctured credibility.

The Case for Capital Punishment

Ever since Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab, the sole surviving terrorist captured during the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai has been sentenced to death, the intellectuals and human rights groups have once again found reason to talk about how humanity would benefit from abolishing the death penalty.  Some have argued that if death penalty is abolished and the culprits given an opportunity to reform themselves into civilized citizens, it would be a victory for our democratic and humanitarian values.

Before I present my arguments supporting capital punishment, let me present some facts about the death penalty (source: Wikipedia).

• Currently only 58 nations actively practice it, with 95 countries abolishing it (the remainder having not used it for 10 years or allowing it only in exceptional circumstances such as wartime)
• Over 60% of the world’s population lives in countries where executions take place and this includes the People’s Republic of China, India, United States and Indonesia
• In a poll completed by Gallup in October 2008, 64% of Americans supported the death penalty for persons convicted of murder, while 30% were against and 5% did not have an opinion
• Roughly six in 10 tell Gallup they do not believe capital punishment deters murder and majorities believe at least one innocent person has been executed in the past five years.

In India, the judiciary has said that death penalty be awarded only in the rarest of the rare case. The human rights groups are evidently not happy even with this and want total abolition. I support the rarest of the rare clause as it is a directive to the courts that they need to be cautious about awarding a death sentence. However, everyone would agree that ‘rarest of the rare’ is a very loosely defined term and what constitutes rare is known to no one. I support the death penalty for crimes like terrorist acts, murder and rape.

Terrorist acts are the simplest of all because they are an act against the entire nation. For murders, revenge killings can be considered cases where the court may want to understand the motive and circumstances behind the crime. But in case of murders committed for robbery, honour killings – the decision should always be in favor of capital punishment. This is because the victim had done nothing to ‘deserve’ such an end and it was the greed or narrow mindedness of the accused which led him/her to commit the crime. Case in point being a murder committed in Borivali, Mumbai a few years back where robbers hanged a small child so that nobody could report anything to the police. What is the use of trying to reform such criminals? Or the honour killings – where one person orders the killing of a couple who fell in love?

I believe our laws against rape don’t take into account the emotional trauma the victim suffers for life. As opposed to a murder, where the victim dies once, a rape victim has to live through the trauma every day and at the same time handle the social stigma that comes with it. Rape irrespective of whether the motive was revenge or pure lust is a crime where death penalty is the best punishment. Nothing justifies it and I would not want to run the risk of getting more women raped by giving the perverts a chance at reform.

Some would argue that what if an innocent gets punished and loses his life? Looking at our judicial system where it takes years to close a case, one is reasonable to assume that the judge would have sufficient evidence before he takes the call. Moreover, rather than opposing the death penalty for fear of punishing innocents, judicial reforms are required to ensure crimes are reported, victims and witnesses are protected and police does its duty. Another check against injustice is the provision of mercy petition before the President of India.

There is an economic angle also. What Kasab did was available for all to see using the CCTV footage. Why did we have such a long trial? When the evidence was there, why did we waste so much money trying to prove something which was proved from day one? Does it make sense if we don’t trust the footage of the CCTV cameras that we ourselves put up? India needs money to take care of its population and the creaking infrastructure. I am now afraid to board a local train, go to malls and cinemas or to crowded markets. Yet it is my tax money which is being used to feed the same persons who instilled this fear in me. What about my human rights?

Finally, there is the lame argument that capital punishment will not deter criminals and terrorists. I agree. It will not. We will continue to have terrorist attacks, murders and all other crimes. But what makes our intellectuals believe that reforming criminals will curb violence in future. If we set Kasab free, will it move LeT to tears and make them disband their jihad against India? No. A big no.

Hence, I argue that India should stick to capital punishment and define the ‘rare’ clause more comprehensively to include rape, murder, honour killings and terrorist attacks in its ambit. It may not make us any safer but it will at least give some relief to the victims when they know that those who wronged them are not roaming freely outside some reform centre waiting for their next unsuspecting victim.

A slightly different version of this article was first published in e-magazine Reader’s Quotient on May 17, 2010

http://readersquotient.com/2010/05/17/the-case-for-capital-punishment-2/

State of Emergency

If like me, you were born after 1980, then probably it is something you have often heard about but seldom given serious thought to. June 25 is just like another day for you but not for those who have seen the India of 1970s when Indira Gandhi ruled India. It was the night of June 25-26 in the year of 1975 when this daughter of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the Iron Lady who played a significant role in dividing Pakistan and creating Bangladesh, obtained President’s approval to impose a state of Emergency in the country.

Those who have lived through that era have mixed feelings about those 19 months when most of the civil liberties were curbed, political opponents were jailed, there was no freedom of press and scores of people were detained without reason and even tortured. Most of the non-Congress leaders we have today were jailed during the emergency. The Jay Prakash Narain movement that opposed Indira actually launched the political career of several leaders of North India like George Fernandes and Laloo Yadav.

As democracy was strangled by the government, it is normal for the intellectuals to recall that period as the darkest hour of post-independence India. What probably complicates the matter is that the period of emergency saw the rise of Sanjay Gandhi, Indira Gandhi’s youngest son who quickly became infamous for his forced sterilization drive. He is said to be the main driving force behind the so-called violations of human rights and slum demolitions that took place during that time.

While the internet is full of horror stories of that era which would seem to indicate that there was nothing good done in those times, the reality is different. Yes, the excesses of emergency were probably uncalled for but there lies the hidden reality. A lot of people have told me that during emergency, trains ran on time, in fact they arrived at stations even before the scheduled arrival time; clerks, bureaucrats and babus were never late to office and were often seen running frantically on the roads if they were late to office.

This aspect is the positive part of emergency. It showed what fear of government can do in this country. Perhaps the execution in 1975 was imperfect but just imagine if our government and leaders had taken some lesson from that episode of our history and executed it in a better manner, how wonderful things would have been in our country. Looking for examples? Sample this:

1. Jat protestors would not have been able to block the water supply to Delhi for their demands of reservations
2. Manipur blockade would not have happened
3. Naxalism would have been crushed by now
4. India would not have been a ‘soft state’ when it came to tackling terrorism
5. Senior policemen would not have been able to molest young girls and laugh their way out in courts
6. There would not have been so many cases pending in our courts for Judges would have worked overtime to close cases rather than take long recesses.

The list is endless. If you look at the above points carefully, you would realize that I am not arguing for a state of emergency to be imposed on us for achieving these goals. Just taking the right lessons would have transformed our dysfunctional government into something a lot better.

India needs to control its population. Sterilization or other forms of birth control are required. Forced sterilization may be against human rights but if certain sections of the population refuse to take part on religious, social or cultural grounds, it defeats the purpose and actually puts those communities who control their population at a disadvantage in terms of representation. Of course, it makes eradication of poverty and hunger an unachievable goal.

Almost all our cities have slums and a creaking infrastructure. If we have to make our cities modern and like Shanghai, London or New York like our leaders keep promising in election rallies, we need to demolish slums and relocate people. Is this possible in India today? No, it isn’t because different stakeholders involved would never agree to a common solution. The only option if you have to make things happen is do it forcibly. Was it wrong to demolish slums and beautify cities during emergency? The answer may not be straight-forward and the move certainly had its merits.

After the emergency was lifted and general elections called for, Congress led by Indira Gandhi and Sanjay was routed in the elections especially in the northern part of the country were JP movement was strongest. Both Indira and Sanjay lost and a new political formation led by Janata Party formed the first non-Congress government in Delhi.

However, if emergency was all wrong and nothing right, why did Indira Gandhi storm to power in 1980 within three years of her biggest political defeat? We need our civil liberties, we need freedom of speech, we need free journalism but we also need a strong government. Despite all its flaws, full marks to Emergency for showing us the face of a government that acts and gets things done.

First published in e-magazine Reader’s Quotient on July 26, 2010

http://readersquotient.com/2010/07/26/state-of-emergency/

Why Are We Afraid of New Ideas?

Ever since Mr. Shashi Tharoor has joined politics, he has been shrouded in one controversy or the other. It’s not entirely his fault actually. If we leave out his ‘cattle class’ remark which was more a joke than anything else, the other controversies provide an interesting insight into the way our Indian society looks at views which are out of sync with the beliefs and values of our times.

Therefore, when he said that on Gandhi Jayanti, people should be working rather than taking a holiday, there was an outrage. How can this educated fool disregard the day set aside to pay homage to our father of the nation? Similarly, when he said something which was interpreted as criticism of the foreign policy pursued by Gandhi and Nehru, knives were out and he was forced to issue a denial and may be apologize to the powers within his age old party. Surprisingly, comments to this tune were found even on online news and discussion forums which are supposedly the forte of the educated, internet-aware younger population that resides in cities. If Indians start working on Gandhi Jayanti, will it really be an insult to the Mahatma? Were Gandhi and Nehru ‘super-humans’ who could do no wrong? And if it turns out that one out of so many policies drafted by Nehru was indeed wrong, will it make the man fall from the pedestal of greatness he enjoys? If no, then why contempt for a man who has just expressed an opinion or a fresh idea?

The icing on the cake is the criticism Tharoor received for questioning the relevance of tightening of visa norms for tourists. He was criticized for two things – publicly disagreeing with the government stand and airing his disagreement on twitter. The media which has been calling him ‘twitter minister’ went into an overdrive. Stories of how his boss S.M. Krishna has publicly rebuked his opinion were played again and again. India’s educated youth started commenting on various sites and the criticism fell into three buckets:-

1. As a minister, he should not publicly disagree with the Government of India and more so on a platform like twitter which anybody can use.
2. People of India don’t need a minister who spends his time tweeting rather than do work for the public.
3. His tweets on visa norms actually weaken the national security (may be because it opposes stricter norms)

I disagree on all of these. What is the harm if a minister publicly voices his opinion against some policy? It happens in US all the time and shouldn’t the public of India know what their elected representatives think? If they need not, why do we have RTI for? As far as twitter is concerned, its just a platform. Saying something on twitter is same as saying that in a public gathering or rallies that our leaders frequently hold. Yes, there is an international audience but that is a threat only if some strategic information is leaked out. Just because someone doesn’t agree with a policy doesn’t mean that the law or the policy gets weakened. Unanimous decisions are rare in a democracy and differing viewpoints are what make a democracy vibrant. Sillier is the argument of wasting time. Are we sure that ministers who do not tweet are utilizing their office time to do good for the public?

In my opinion, the points of criticism and the kind of logic his critics have presented give us a reason why India is rarely at the forefront of anything groundbreaking. Barack Obama used technology to pave his way to the Oval Office. But if our ministers use technology, they are dubbed as cut off from the real India. ‘Minister for Twitter’ is just one example. Technology, no matter how useful, is considered elitist and therefore, is disliked by those who are interested in projecting the rural face of the country which sadly, for lack of suitable implementation of technology, is still underdeveloped. If Tharoor were holding four rallies every month, nobody would have noticed and he would have gone scot free despite using public money for self-promotion. But he prefers to use a cheaper alternative, that is, technology and suddenly, he is a wastrel. No points in this country for trying out something new.

The issue with our society is our reluctance to try out something new. Everybody wants to stick to the plot. So, if your child is good in studies, he should study science or engineering; if not, commerce or arts. If you are sharp and still choose arts, people laugh behind your back. In our corporate world, innovation is a buzz word but you are told to find a market first and then innovate. Why risk making a product which cannot be sold? As a result, there is hardly any innovation beyond copy-paste and changing the look and feel.

The shiv-sainiks were not even born when Shivaji ruled the lands that are now Maharashtra. But today if you do some research and unearth something new about his kingdom, you run the risk of getting yourself bashed up unless until your findings appeal to the local politics. The novel ‘Da Vinci Code’ told us something new about Christianity. It was a new line of thought for most of us because it was not mainstream. Majority of the world read the novel, saw the movie and went about their lives without thinking that it disparaged their religion. But in India, people demanded that the movie be banned. Surely, Christianity came to India from Europe. They can tolerate a difference of opinion, why can’t we?

We as a society are risk-averse and want to stick to the tried and tested path. We often lament about the way our politicians behave, the way our bureaucracy works and how our system is useless but if somebody tries to do something different, we are quick to dismiss the new approach. Why did the brain drain to US happen? Why are we always followers and never leaders? Why Indian scientists who migrated to the west did better than those who stayed back? Because our society did not let them think new. It is okay if not many of us Indians have heard of John Milton Cage Jr., an American poet, composer and philosopher, but it is time for all Indians to remember what he once said – “I can’t understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I’m afraid of the old ones.”

First published in e-magazine Reader’s Quotient on February 4, 2010

http://readersquotient.com/2010/02/04/why-are-we-afraid-of-new-ideas/

There are better ways to cut costs!

Cost-cutting must be one of the most commonly used words these days. CEOs and MDs of top companies are making appearances all around us and are declaring that cutting costs is going to be one of the focus areas in the next 12 months. Of course, these statements are tied to the economic slowdown which doesn’t seem to be ending soon.

That the purpose behind cutting costs is sustainability of the business is beyond doubt. And in tough times, expenses must be cut. However, almost every time someone from the senior management utters the phrase – ‘we will cut the fat, not the muscle’, it indirectly means that people are going to be fired. HR personnel throughout India and the world are busy searching for excuses in order to meet their sadistic objectives and almost always the reason cited is poor performance. I find it hard to believe that all of a sudden so many people from the Indian IT industry have turned poor performers. Hard to digest till Infosys declared that now the tolerance for poor performance is zero. Does this mean that companies that valued excellence and claimed to be driven by intellect were actually turning a blind eye to incompetence all these years when the going was smooth?

To an extent, this allegation is true. Most IT companies, big or small, have tolerated laggards and not just tolerated them but have even promoted such employees. I remember one Ms. P. Sahu, an Account Manager with a leading IT firm, who was in the habit of having weekly project status meetings that lasted for a minimum of two hours every Friday and all that was discussed there was what children were doing in school and how her children didn’t let her sleep the previous night. You will easily come across people who did fabulous work in their projects but were given a lesser rating as they didn’t participate in account-level initiatives like celebrating birthdays of their colleagues. Many of such poor performers like Ms. Sahu are among the senior middle management now presiding over the ‘pink slip distribution ceremonies’ that happen every now and then.

I am all for cutting costs and promoting a culture based on meritocracy. But IT companies have themselves to blame if they find themselves with a large pool of employees who don’t have a project and are on bench. These companies always had a sizeable bench size and this was seen as bench strength. But these firms cannot shrug the blame now as they themselves created an illusion of explosive job growth in IT sector by hiring in far larger numbers than required. Even today as these top firms fire people in the name of poor performance, they are continuing to hire freshers in large numbers. This is because freshers will be paid lesser salary compared to the experienced associates and as a result the wage bill will be in check. A true capitalist will find nothing wrong in this selective firing but at least the companies should have the guts to admit that this is for purely economic reasons and not for performance.

Coming back to cutting costs, companies must fully exploit other avenues before resorting to layoffs. Here are some of these:

Cut back on deputations and transfers: These increase costs for the company as well as for the employees.

Try to retain employees: Like acquiring a new customer, acquiring a new employee is costlier than retaining the existing one.

Reduce Business Travel: Despite teleconferencing and videoconferencing technologies being available, only a handful of companies have effectively utilized these.

Discourage the culture of working extra hours: A lot of managers look down on employees who work for 8-9 hours and want their subordinates to stay late in the office. Owing to this culture, a lot of employees also prefer staying back, both for the sake of appraisal and for using free internet and air conditioner. Just imagine the electricity that will be saved if people worked for not more than 10 hours and no more than 5 days a week unless business required them to work on weekends.

Switching off PCs before leaving: Make it mandatory for employees to switch off their monitors when leaving their workstations for more than 1 hour and to shut down their PCs before leaving for home.

When confronted with tough economic conditions, senior management should lead by example by turning down their bonuses and curbing wasteful marketing and relationship building expenditures like paying high stipends to summer trainees. Only when these steps have been tried, should companies consider firing employees. Granting leave without pay or with 25% pay for 3 months may be a better idea than snatching away somebody’s means of livelihood. I am not turning communist but one must explore all other avenues before taking extreme steps like layoffs.

Where Customer is not the King

I have completed almost two months in Kolkata, the capital of Left ruled West Bengal. The experiences have been mixed as they would be in any part of the world. It is a city where life is not as fast as Mumbai, where you get delicious street food and where you can have a sumptuous meal for fifty rupees. But there are certain areas that weaken the case for the city. The metro and the former capital of India, performs poorly when it comes to customer service. The attitude of service staff (not all but most) is appalling at best and if you are moving from Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai or Bangalore, you are in for a culture shock.

The first I experienced this ‘so-what-if-you-give-me-business’ attitude was when I was eating egg rolls at a roadside stall. It was 8 pm on a Friday evening in Sector-2, Salt Lake, one of the posh localities of this city. A couple came and ordered for two egg rolls. The vendor prepared these and asked for money. The gentleman handed him a 50 rupee note. The vendor asked for change and when he didn’t get it, declared – ‘Roll hobe naa‘. I was taken aback at his refusal to sell rolls that had already been prepared. Nobody would buy them stale and a roll costs Rs. 10, so it was not that he had to produce change for 500 bucks. The couple had to walk away.

Sector 5 Salt Lake is where all companies are located. I had skipped lunch and so at around 4 pm, went to Tea Junction, outside RDB Boulevard for some snacks. I asked for two samosas (costs Rs 8 each) and gave out a 20 rupee note. The vendor said – ‘Change nahi hai?‘ (You don’t have change). When I replied in negative, the standard answer came – ‘Samosa hobe naa‘ (No samosa then). I had to leave and move around to get something else to eat. I am still not able to believe that this guy couldn’t have managed 4 rupees change after doing brisk business (the place is always full of people coming for tea and snacks) all throughout the day. May be if he had waited for another customer, he would have got his change.

One of my colleagues has recently shifted from Chennai. He had an Airtel number there and since he has been with Airtel for some time, he wanted to transfer his connection to Kolkata. So, he visited the Airtel shop at City Center, Salt Lake. The guard stopped him and asked him why he wanted to transfer. My friend got so pissed off that the guard would not let him speak to the Airtel Customer Care guys sitting behind the desk that he just walked out. And the Customer Care guys just kept looking at the whole incident and didn’t intervene at all. Now, this gentleman gives a business of around Rs, 1000 per month. Shouldn’t such a customer be treated with respect?

There are many such incidents that I am coming across almost at the rate of two every week. My blogging here is not going to change anything but perhaps this is the reason why City of Joy offers no joy to the customers at Kolkata and why people keep ranting about work culture and unprofessional behaviour in this great city.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Postscript:

I would like to add here that I am very happy with the Airtel Broadband service that I have recently taken. My calls and queries have been handled very efficiently. However, this post is not a bundle of lies  or conclusions derived in haste – my mobile service provider Vodafone has refused to send me a PDF copy of my April bill as the paper copy has already been generated. So, they say I will get the PDF version from next month onwards. What puzzles me is why can’t they accept and process my request immediately when PDF generation costs them nothing! [April 25, 2009]

Why Dev D is a classic

A lot of my female friends who have watched Dev D, a modern take on Devdas conceptualized by actor Abhay Deol and directed by Anurag Kashyap, have dismissed the film and the concept. The reasons I hear are one of these:

• There is nothing new about the story except an overdose of sex
• It’s all about sex and drugs

However, it is this alleged ‘overdose’ of sex which indirectly hints at the message that today’s younger audiences should have grasped. But first, let me honestly accept that some of the scenes are indeed quite shocking. Like the one where Paro, played by newcomer Mahie Gill, carries a mattress to the fields on a bicycle in order to be able to make out with her lover Dev. Or the dialogues that Chanda, the MMS scandal victim played by Koel, speaks to her on-screen father.

Let me make it clear here that while these scenes are shocking, it doesn’t mean that they don’t happen in real life. Go to villages and you would find that couples having sex in a field is nothing out of the world. Chanda uses the same slangs and vocabulary that today’s college going crowd uses daily.

So where is the message I am talking about? The message lies in the treatment Paro receives at the hands of Dev. And it’s not a single message, rather there are four points that the director leaves its audiences to ponder with.

The first point is the obsession with sex that today’s college going youth has. In the movie, it is not difficult to assume that Dev is addicted to porn. Look at his expressions when he is downloading Paro’s topless picture on his laptop and you would know what he has been learning in London. The second example of this is when Dev tells a married Paro that he wants to love her and in the very next scene talks about ‘making love’ as if you cannot love a person without ‘making’ love.

The second point about our society reveals itself in the way a village guy who claims to love Paro talks about her sexual behavior. Not only he says this to Dev, he brags about it to others as well. I was surprised how true this is to real life. During my intermediate and engineering days, we often heard such stories about girls who were more outgoing that the average. And the rumour-mongers often went to great lengths to claim that their stories were nothing but the truth. The fact, as we know now, is that 9 out of 10 such stories were totally fabricated. How easy it is for we guys to malign a girl’s character, isn’t it?

In the movie, Dev believes the rumours he hears about Paro. The reason is simple. Because Paro is ready to do it with Dev, her beloved, she must be doing it with other guys as well. And he calls her a slut. Isn’t it amazing how quickly we brand women who are not meek and have a mind of her own as ‘sluts’? This is the third point that Anurag Kashyap makes.

Dev refuses to marry Paro, breaks her heart and his own in the process. And after he goes on a path of self-destruction, he finally meets Chanda and finds love. And it is here where the fourth and probably the most disguised point about the movie comes to light. Not many people have understood that Dev D is a slap on the face of a male-dominated society that is so obsessed with a women’s virginity. Dev has no reason to doubt Paro’s virginity but does so because he himself is no saint and finally accepts as his own a woman who has taken to prostitution. Can it get any more hard-hitting than this?

Dev D is a tight slap across the male community who equates love with sex and brands women as sluts.

Misusing Rights, Misusing Freedom

A few weeks back, I read an interesting piece in the Pune edition of The Times of India. It was a letter to the editor. A sindhi lady had expressed her anger at Shahrukh Khan for showing five fingers in the ad for his quiz show ‘Kya Aap Panchvi Pass se Tez Hai’. The reason – showing five fingers is considered unlucky according to sindhis. What had me laughing for the next five minutes was the next line in that piece. The lady wrote  – ‘The mayor of Pune has been informed about this. Hope she takes necessary action’.

This got me thinking about the way we Indians misuse the freedom of speech and expression granted to us by our constitution. If this sindhi lady believes that showing five fingers is a bad omen, she should observe this in her personal life and within her community. Who has given her the right to force others to follow the same? More importantly, isn’t she wasting the time of Pune mayor by raising irrelevant issues?

Sometime back, some clerics have raised objections on the length of Sania Mirza’s skirt. Needless to say, Sania’s skirts, t-shirts etc. are her business and hers only. Still people who use their freedom of speech to curtail someone else’s freedom are found everywhere in the society and go unpunished. The intelligentsia dismisses them as publicity hounds and they go scot free. The same applies to those who try to don the mantle of protectors of our culture, morality and religion. Yet no action is ever taken against such elements.

After reflecting enough on this topic, I have come to the conclusion that preaching or lecturing is not going to change the behaviour of us Indians. We listen only when punishment is in the offing and by making an example of these people only can we expect to move towards a society wherein an individual is free in the real sense of the word. For this to happen, the courts and the administration need to play an active role. If someone files a complaint or PIL or makes a statement in front of electronic media and it is found by the mayor or the district magistrate or the court that the complaint is based on personal whims or preferences and infringing upon someone else’s freedom of speech, expression or way of living, strict punishment should be given to the offender. The officers cited above should be given the power to act directly against such people even if no other member of civil society has lodged a protest.

The punishment can be in two forms: A fine and some hours of community service. An indirect benefit of such a law would be a decrease in baseless cases and hollow PILs. Anything that can reduce the burden on our already burdened judicial system would be good for the society in the long run.

Secular Credentials of Mr. Dasmunsi

Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi has emerged as the new face of pseudo-secularism. Just sample what he had to say about the Taslima Nasreen issue that has been going on for more than a month now. According to the Union Information and Broadcasting Minister, Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen must apologise with “folded hands” for hurting the sentiments of Muslims in the country. Munshi says and I quote – We are a pluralistic nation and we respect all religions. I love literature and I have nothing against her writings. That does not mean she can use her pen to insult and hurt the religious beliefs of any community. The comments made by her in the book in question (Dwikhandito) were uncalled for. She should bow down before the people whose sentiments she has hurt and apologise with folded hands, and expunge those pages from her book. We did not allow Salman Rushdie’s book (‘The Satanic Verses’) when it caused a flutter and raised controversy. She will not be an exception. Bangladesh is a neighbouring country and neither the society nor the government can allow such controversial writing.

Now who is Dasmunsi to say this to Taslima? If our ‘secular’ government has any problems with what she has done, it can throw her out of the country. But it certainly cannot ask her to apologise. And if Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi is so concerned about our beloved pluralistic nation, why didn’t he give the same advice to Tamil Nadu CM Karunanidhi when he passed those comments about Lord Ram’s existence among other things? Is it okay to allow such comments about Hinduism, Mr. Dasmunsi?

Doctor Foot In Mouth

Never before in the history of independent India, we have had a minister who is known more for controversies and foolishness than his policies. I am talking about about health minister Anbumani Ramadoss. Here are some examples:

After his support for caste-based quotas in medical colleges, he proposed one-year compulsory rural posting for government doctors. The logic: they pay dismally low fees for their education. While the minister’s idea for improving the quality of medical services in rural India certainly seems noble, he has conveniently disregarded the infrastructure that is needed to provide good medical service to villages. Sending doctors to far flung villages will not have any impact, if dispensaries and hospitals located in these parts of the country continue to face shortage of good quality equipment and medicines and other supplies. This move will only end up depressing the new breed of medical practitioners. He must also ensure that if compulsory rural posting is implemented, it is government’s responsibility to ensure that the doctors are provided good living quarters and safety is ensured.. Houses with thatched leaking roofs are hardly an incentive to someone who has toiled hard to get this education. The service motive has to be there in a medical student ideally but let’s get real here.

Indeed, this was visible when many junior lady doctors asked Ramadoss to marry them and accompany them to villages. “Be our husband and come with us to the villages to protect us. If he (Ramadoss) is so keen on sending us to the villages then he should also be there to support us,” a student said.

Hon’ble minister created another stir by claiming that Delhi media hauls him up for any issue concerning AIIMS because he belongs to the Most Backward Caste (MBC). Ramadoss was clearly referring to the flak he faced after introducing the bill on the retirement age of AIIMS head, aimed at removing Dr. P Venugopal as the director. This behaviour and mindset highlights an important aspect that is often ignored when we discuss reservations. Ramadoss, a man belonging to the MBC category has reached great heights and is now a minister in the Union government. Still, whenever someone speaks against him, he cries foul and considers it a casteist attack. Clearly, reservations and all the incentives has not changed the caste-based mentality. Even for a highly educated person like Ramadoss, caste comes before logical reasoning. If this is the state of affairs, how can we say that continuing caste-based reservations will make everyone equal? How can everyone be equal if caste is linked to each action and decision?

Some of the other remarks which were equally crazy range from criticizing the BPO lifestyle for all ills of the modern day society to asking every member of the family before lighting up a cigarette.

And the latest in a never-ending saga of PR disasters is a remark that a doctor from Bihar was the sole cause for Britain de-recognizing MBBS degrees. After several protests and customary burning of effigies, Ramadoss defended himself by saying “I am also a doctor. I will be the last person to denigrate or defame any doctor from any state. It is a noble profession and I respect everyone coming from any state – be it Bihar or Uttar Pradesh. I have always said that Indian doctors are the best in the world. I have lot of respect for doctors from Bihar.” As is the norm Dr. Ramadoss later blamed media for misquoting him and projecting as if he had denigrated the image of the doctors from Bihar.

This story will not end here. The coalition dharma of the UPA government will ensure that Ramadoss continues in office. And knowing him, the entertainment would just keep coming.