the life and times

pack your bags!

2012-01-21T01:49:00.001Z

One of the joys of travelling is in meeting new people – and for me, discussing the peculiarities of our individual countries. I’m in Australia right now, based in Melbourne, but trying my best to explore as much as I can. The Great Ocean Road, my latest adventure, is like walking into a geography class. The journey, which I started from Melbourne, takes you through a number of small beach towns, some more tourist friendly than the others. One in particular, Lorne, had a tradition of a ‘Pier to Pub’ race there participants would jump of the pier, swim to the beach, run across the road, into a pub, and down a pint! The winner would… well, I’m not sure, but they’d sure have fun! Going along the drive, you come across stunning limestone rock formations, caused by years and years of erosion by the sea.

The Twelve Apostles (actually 8), Lock and Gorge, London Bridge… the visuals are maddeningly beautiful! Lock and Gorge, in particular, has a story about two people who were caught in the caves after a shipwreck, the only two survivors of a 54 people ship! The caves are then named after them. There are similar stories of great adventures and tragedies which dot the coastline, but the precise way in which the Australians have demarcated these areas for tourism is most impressive. Australia also owes part of its formation and look to volcanoes, and I actually stood in the crater of one such!

And where there are beaches, there must be a forest? No? Well, surprise, surprise! The Grampians National Park is just notch in the countries stunning visuals belt. But to me, the story of the aboriginals who lived there (and still do) was what remained with me. Gariwerd – the original name for Grampians – belonged to these old tribes when the British arrived in 1788. Much like the story everywhere, the British snatched their lands, stripped them of any rights, and treated Australia as it were up for grabs. They tried to poison them, kill them, and even as recent as the 1900s, took an entire generation away from their parents and raised them as ‘white’, leaving them with no sense of their own history. The current Australian Labour government has actually official apologized for the treatment of the tribes – and there is a heated debate going on in this country about whether the constitution should actually state that this great land belonged to the Aboriginals to begin with. In terms of history, belonging, and power struggles, it is certainly fascinating.

For an Indian, British colonization is easy to understand. What is even more exciting – just as a mental exercise – is to compare their experiences with those in other parts of the world. Draw a straight line from the Southern tip of Australia and at some point you’ll reach the Southern tip of South Africa – another place I had the pleasure of visiting a few months ago.

I had been there before, but when I was little, so it was like looking at the country with fresh eyes. Cape Town, where I landed, was a modern dazzling metropolis, and I was in awe of the fact that it was so well held together. That enthusiasm dampened a little when we started driving down the Garden Route and we passed about 20km of shanties on the way. That is where most of the blacks and colored people live – even today – while the Dutch and British settlers built cities and homes for themselves. As recently as 1970, non-white representation was abolished in SA, and everything was segregated. It is only in 1994 – when I was 11! – that apartheid was abolished, but it’s clear to see that people still live in the social order that has dominated this country for so long.

As we drove down the beautiful Garden Route, watching the landscape change from stark brown to beautiful vineyards to the beach towns, it struck me that I could have been in a European country right now. This didn’t have any African flavour to it – unless you count the African staff serving an almost all-white tourist flock in the areas. Our driver was of mixed race, and when asked about his German heritage, he angrily said he did not want anything to do with that. It’s easy to understand – many soldiers raped local women, and left them to deal with the newborn aftermath.

The law of the jungle seems to apply right here in people-world, and its not a fair fight. The Western concept of a developed society is something, by and large, the world has accepted but does it mean that everyone else’s views of the world need to be mocked and dismissed? I know, I’m just stating the obvious (if you have a heart!) but when you stand and look at the natural beauty of these places, and so many others I’m sure, you understand why someone wanted to live here, till you realize the blood price that was paid for it. So brutal.

So, in respect to those who were there when nature was making these places beautiful, have a little read! There is a story about how Australia, or the Gariwerd anyway, was formed. They are called ‘Dreaming Stories’ and you must go and read them here.

As we travel – and if the agenda is slightly beyond hotels and bars – you begin to marvel, (sometimes in disappointment), at the world we have built for ourselves. But it’s always the people you meet who bring back the color. Everyone has a backstory. I was hanging out with a guy who lives in Nuremburg, and whenever he told anyone, sheepishly he’d say, I suppose you know that is. But he was great, and like so many people who just want to travel the world – to SEE it and ENGAGE with it – and it makes me feel better about where we are headed as a people, and how much we will be able to understand eachothers cultures. That is, till you get network coverage again, and start reading the headlines!

That 3%

2011-12-16T12:15:00.001Z

Two photographers from New York -- Reed Young & Michael De Pasquale-- are here in India, capturing what it means to be upper middle class in the country. I met them last week and then this week went with them to Chandigarh to help shoot some portraits! It was very fun.. Read about it here:

The project: http://abstractsofchange.wordpress.com/

And some behind the scenes pics: http://abstractsofchange.wordpress.com/2011/12/16/gettin-it-done-chandigarh-style/

Mission Impossible

2011-12-11T12:41:00.001Z

Tom Cruise should have stayed for this. The American actor, who visited India recently, had a decade ago starred in Minority Report, which was about finding people before they committed a crime or, as it was called, pre-crime.

Not quite as dramatic but we have in India a proposal for pre-screening content by social media providers so that the public may be spared the emotional torture of seeing politicians maligned and religious figures made fun of. So far, so good.

There are several ways to approach the recent comments by Kapil Sibal, the most immediate and obvious of which is to remind him that India is a democratic country where the government of the day should not be trying to curtail free speech. There are already mechanisms in place to act against those who willfully defame or incite violence.

Member of Parliament Rajeev Chandrasekhar has repeatedly brought this up on Facebook and Twitter, reminding people that the Information Technology Act has provisions for victims to legally pursue action. Others, including popular blogger Shivam Vij, have pointed out that social media is run by the people and they will act upon objectionable content as soon as it is identified by those it offends.

However, before making impassioned arguments that "Kapil Sibal is an idiot", we — the Internet society — need to accept one fact: This is a brave new world with new rules and new tools. Cyber terrorism, online fraud, cyber bullying, viruses and access to child pornography are just some of the many challenges facing us today. These are easily identifiable instances of wrongdoing, and the lines of morality can be easily drawn. It may seem rather obvious, but the truth is that most of us have been using Facebook for not more than 5-6 years, Twitter for even less and, although we swear by them today, we have no idea how these will grow.

Today, most Indians don't have bank accounts (forget about online banking) and less than half of the connected population, over 100 million users, is using even one form of social media. That said, it is obvious that the online world is a good mirror of our real world, where crimes mirror physical crimes and gossip, slander, jokes and news travel through communities.

The difference being speed and spread, but our behavioural characteristics largely remain the same, even as we grapple with new forms of media consumption. However, it is for us and Sibal to understand that the meaning of what is "the government" in this society is also changing.

It seems that a decade ago, governance was easier: news media was not as hysterical and investigative and public opinion was sought every five years. Today, there is instant feedback through the Internet, and the government has been trying to cope and adjust to this suddenly robust citizenry.

In March 2011, at a conference on social media, Sibal expressed doubts about opening up government departments on Twitter and Facebook because of the volume of criticism and insults the move might invite. He suggested that just the way the news media manages to show the government in poor light, it seems the same will happen in the online world. Analogous thoughts in this digital world.

However, he has been unable to fully grasp that citizens using social media to vent their anger or complain is paralleled by their efforts to praise and help. Ask Delhi Traffic Police or India Post about their experiences. And, as much support as India Against Corruption received online, there were questions raised about the validity of the movement and its principal actors as well.

Sibal's comments may have been prompted by hilarious videos of "Manmohan Singham", religious blasphemy or even the success of the Anna Hazare movement — we may never know. But by asking the intermediaries to try and correct the behavioural patterns of people, Sibal has shown a great disdain for them.

When I heard Sibal's comments in March, I had written on my blog about the government and social media, "...It will have to trust its people, and it will have to trust its own ability to respond to the people. Otherwise this system is going to crash".

The crash has happened. The government does not seem interested in responding to people or even trusting its own legal system, but is instead clamping down on them. If Sibal was tweeting along with the online community, this might have been a different conversation.

Under the guise of "cultural sensitivity" (after all, it is the politicians who play on religious and cultural feelings before elections), I think the governing cat is out of the bag. Generation 2.0 is being led by Generation 1.0. A good example of the much-needed new age politician would be Omar Abdullah — Kashmir is always a hot button issue and other users on Twitter might not agree with him but he is part of the new media conversation and that instantly makes him accepted.

Think about it — with a push to connect every village in India, will there be a similar push to limit thoughts of the villagers, now that people can finally hear them? Why couldn't Sibal announce that the government had requested Facebook to take down offensive material, and also urge the online community to flag other such content? Why did he not trust them to respond to him? Or, as one of my friends asked, why did he not raise this issue with regard to child pornography, which is truly offensive, instead of what seems like a move to protect his boss?

Punishment for unacceptable behaviour is justified. At the same time, it is wrong to try to "shield" the society from it, if that is the case, because it realises its own acceptance of morality and acceptability when it is faced with unpardonable actions (for which the perpetrators are then punished).

In a democracy, the state works with the citizen. This is why we have ministers for law and technology, but not ministers for morality. This is also why pre-crime didn't work in Minority Report, and pre-screening won't work here either.

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/investigation/minister-for-choke-has-been-on-mission-impossible-since-march

Bloodlust: Sex, Teens & Vampires

2011-10-03T03:01:00.000Z

The vampire was an object of fear, but recent Hollywood portrayals — brooding, dangerous, eternally young — make him the young woman’s ultimate sex symbol.

In an article I found in one corner of the Internet, columnist (and clearly not a teenager) Drew Zahn writes of Twilight: "a misunderstood heroine falling for the perfect guy — athletic, rebellious, dark, mysterious, sensitive, strong, protective, but wounded, needing her to heal him and at the same time worshipping her like a princess, a combination more seductive to girls than any pheromone and more addictive than cocaine." It isn't just the appeal of this older (though he doesn't look it) and deeper (after all, he is *living* history) vampire who falls in love with the heroine; it becomes a question of a relationship with something extraordinary. A tortured soul who needs healing, and teenagers acutely aware that healing isn't just emotional, and expressive love doesn't stop at words.

When I was a teenager, the biggest thing in my television world was Buffy the Vampire Slayer. A 16 year old in love with a vampire-with-a-soul (a vegetarian vampire, as it were), conflicted by the human vs monster dynamic. In that show Buffy is a vampire slayer, so the question of romance with Angel, the vampire, becomes even more complicated. After Angel 'proves' his love to her with puppy dog eyes and by saving her life — and not biting her — they finally have sex, after a particularly hairy night. The consequence? He loses his soul and becomes her arch nemesis. Which really gives whole new meaning to the oft-experienced complaint girls have that guys "change after sex".

I'm ten years older than I was when I saw Buffy, and I've got another vampire on my TV, this one courting a 17 year old girl. (Yes, I know. I know!) The show is called Vampire Diaries, and many of my 28 year old friends are equally enthused by it. The girl is confident, she quickly figures out her almost-boyfriend is a vampire, accepts it, and they begin a sexual relationship. There is minor betrayal after the act — she finds out she looks exactly like his ex — but the matter is rectified quickly enough and it's back to bedroom for them.
The romantic market value of the vampire rocketed with great casting — six packs, angular jaws, broodiness —and story upon story drilled it into the psyche that sleeping with the vampire was special because he was so deeply in love with the human, that he would never hurt (read: bite) her

Somewhere along the line, we stopped fearing the vampire. We humans stopped fearing them so much, that, unlike Dracula, they no longer need to put humans in their 'thrall'. Humans are jumping up and down, begging to be had, as Bella asks Edward repeatedly throughout Twilight. Elevating his status from a mere mortal — and teenage boy — his "ancient" chivalry just makes him more sexy to her. And so the vampire has gone from a coffin toting pasty bloodsucker to an eternal 17 year old who keeps a copy of Gone with the Wind in his bedroom. Now that's hot.

It gets hotter. Some of you were probably waiting for me to get to True Blood, the sexiest, raciest, most graphic vampire show on television. Some would say its soft porn, others would say it feeds every masochistic tendency you have ever had. Without spending too much time on the details, let me give you a few: sex between vampires and humans, unlike our teen lovers, is aggressive and uncontrolled. Humans who go after vampires in this world (called, subtly, "fang bangers") like rough sex, and there are scenes which have vamps doing it while their victims are lying bleeding under the bed. Yeah. In fact, even the oh-so-virginal Twilight hints at a rough ride for Bella when the morning after brings torn pillows all over the room and bruises all over her body.

Its not just these wildly popular TV shows that have us gasping for breath, its the books too. Vampire books meant for teenagers have a great deal of sex in them - some would even call it an inappropriate amount - and its got some people worried. Researchers at the Journal of Sex Research found that scenes meant for 12-13 year old were no less steamy than those for over-14s. Also, since these were vampire related stories, in none of the books (including those for adults), was there mention of safe practices or negative consequences. At the same time, TV shows are freely available to download (legal or illegal) and some of the supernaturally crafted scenes are just plain disturbing. What would have otherwise been shelved at the back of the video store, with promises of handcuffs, dog collars and whips, have made it to prime time telly, with sex and violence intermingling, and the majority of viewers not really alarmed at all.

Over the years, we've adjusted to the fact that vampires are beautiful. Flawless, breathless, perfect shapes; frozen in time but not in emotion. The romantic market value of the vampire rocketed with great casting — six packs, angular jaws, broodiness —and story upon story drilled it into the psyche that sleeping with the vampire was special because he was so deeply in love with the human, that he would never hurt (read: bite) her. The second step, which always follows, is that she lets him bite her, normally because human blood can heal a wounded vampire. The act of biting and sucking is deeply personal; in Buffy it bordered on sexual, while in the Vampire Diaries it is more about the exchange of energy and trust. While there are female vampires in these universes, the story is extremely focused on the vampire man and human girl, because, in the end, the stories are for young women to lust after. Desire is the essence of any love story, but drop it into a parallel universe with little or no rules and it begins to unravel. A horrific scene in Twilight is when Bella's rib cage breaks as the vampire baby inside her grows at an abnormal pace. The TV ad campaign for Vampire Diares — "got wood?" — had parents up in arms about it crossing a line. For True Blood, well, to quote Joey Tribbiani — the line is a dot to it!

In interpreting the vampire's cultural significance, Franco Moretti had described Dracula as a metaphor for capitalism, and blood his currency. Stephen Arata believed it to be a story of colonisation, with the vampire moving to new lands to dominate its citizens. Then, what would today's vampire — sexy, strange, human-lover, as it were — signify? Writers have offered that today's vampires are a voice for America's sexual revolution, where being boring is bland. Or, is it, asks writer Stephen Marche, an acceptance of gay men? Or a wholesome acceptance of different people, with their peculiar choices and sexualities?

Chew on that.

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/artbeat/bloodlust-sex-teens-a-vampires

Love Virtually: (Loved the book, read it - if not the review!)

2011-08-28T17:36:00.003Z

It made sense that after reading Love Virtually, I looked for its presence on Twitter. And there it was, @LoveVirtually, trying to map readers around the world. The book – originally in German by Daniel Glattauer – is a modern day love story between two strangers over email. It's an appropriate romance for 2011, in a world where Facebook is breaking up marriages on one hand and reuniting lovers on the other. In fact, in a world dominated by social media, an email romance seems almost quaint. And in a world even more dominated by the physical expression of love, an emotional affair is, frankly, refreshing.

The plot starts with an accidental email from Emmi to Leo, which slowly develops into an email flirtation. Curiosity abounds, with Emmi taking the first step: 'Either Google's never heard of you, or it knows how to keep you hidden,' and Leo following it up with the first guess: 'Your shoe size is 36. You're petite, bubbly, and you've got short, dark hair. And you effervesce when you speak. Am I right?'

Emmi is married, while Leo is in an on again/off again relationship. For both, the email exchange takes a life of its own. Emmi finds herself getting jealous of Leo's love life, and Leo wonders if Emmi is unhappy in her marriage as she devotes so much time to emailing him. The banter takes a turn when Emmi asks Leo if he's wearing pyjamas and Leo wonders if she sleeps naked. They decide to 'meet'. Not really; but go to an assigned café for an hour,and later go online to hazard a guess over email as to who the other person was. Soon after this, Leo's mother passes away, and their bond becomes stronger. Drunken emails reveal real wanting stirring behind the mask of friendship. And in an attempt to prove to herself that Leo is only a friend, she sets him up with her friend, Mia, and finds herself madly jealous when they actually get along. And then, it's no longer a game: they are in love. You have to read the book to find out how it ends.

The story is told through email exchanges and nothing else. There is no narration, no description other than what the characters offer each other, and the reader knows only as much as they do. But the passion that language allows, harking back to the 'original' romance of love letters, coupled with the urgency of instant communication, makes the story both fast moving and very compelling. There are moral issues here: Emmi is married. She might not been physically cheating on her husband, but having a few glasses of wine with Leo over email exchanges is her way of going on a date with him. There are also human issues here: Leo finds himself utterly in love with a married woman, who seems to feel the same way. And then there are reality issues: Emmi's husband finds out about the depth of their emotional connect.

The third character in the book, to me, is time. In an era when email is instantaneous, an hour's delay can be catastrophic and a whole day, impossible to bear! Each email exchange is qualified with the time it took to reply: 'Five minutes later', 'Fifty seconds later', 'One minute later'. It hints at Emmi and Leo's impatience and confusion at certain emails, and adds the element of an unseen offline life to the story. The brutal honesty of it all makes for utterly interesting reading.

Love Virtually is a book you can finish in a few hours. I read it on a flight. But I couldn't stop thinking about about words and what they mean to people, and how we can read moods through the placement of words. In time, Emmi and Leo want to attach voices to these words and leave voicemails for each other. But they never translate the curiosity to actual phone calls, favoring the literal language of love. And Glattauer succeeds in giving two distinct, decipherable voices to his protagonists, Emmi Rothner and Leo Leike.

Ultimately, the story is about wanting to keep the fantasy, but wanting to realise it as well. When Leo suggests they (finally) meet up and Emmi asks why, his reply: 'Insight. Relief. Catharsis. Clarity. Friendship. The solution to a personality puzzle which I created and then blew out of all proportion.' She teases him further, asking him how he kisses, to which he says: 'I kiss like I write'. Her reply: 'That's incredibly big headed of you.'

As the jacket cover says: 'Writing is kissing with the mind.'

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/bookbeat/bcc-love-infidelity-in-the-age-of-the-internet

The endgame?

2011-08-17T05:11:00.001Z

I don't know what to make of the question everyone seems to be asking: "Who is handling the government's PR/strategy?" It is welcome, in a way, because it shows that we think someone is making incorrect decisions -- those which can be rectified -- as opposed to the government being *bad*. We do seem to have a problem of elitism vs everyone else -- lets not forget that men running India right now are highly educated and boast of qualifications from Cambridge & Harvard etc. They are able to give their point of view (but sadly, arrogantly) and have resorted to finding technical legal remedies to a largely emotional situation. "Don't be clever by half," they would be scolded if they were children.

I find myself in an interesting position of not being sure exactly how to support Anna Hazare. Even during the first fast, I lauded the fact that he got people to care about issues, be it by fasting or coming online to engage in the functioning of this country, and I still do. Helped by constant media coverage, Anna became a household name, synonymous with honesty, and it encouraged others like Baba Ramdev to jump into the frey. Now, we know the Anna side of the story: he wants to see Jan Lokpal through, seemingly with no inputs from the government. There are many who have argued -- convincingly -- that adding another layer to our already weighty bureaucracy is no solution, and there is no guarantee that Jan Lokpal will be manned by honest people. Then there is the whole issue of who can be investigated, and if the PM/judges should be under Lokpal. Okay.

I'm trying to understand the political theatre taking place in front of me. Anna's first fast was a huge success, and the government invited the core gang to be part of the drafting committee. It was the first time any such gesture had been made (etc) and it was an interesting way to invite Anna and co to be part of the process. But a big blunder followed: Ramdev and the government's complete inept handling of his entry into the hunger strike arena. This is another one of those times when you must wonder - of course cabinet ministers knew the press was following them to the airport. Who thought it was a good idea to meet Ramdev there? Would it really raise his profile or lower theirs? Then to send the police in the middle of the night? The ironic part about the whole Ramdev fiasco is that once he was sent out of Delhi, it literally became a out-of-sight-out-of-mind situation, though I have heard that he planning to join Anna & co at Tihar. Anyway, to recap the rest of the story really quickly: the joint drafting commiitee of the government & civil society didn't really work out, Anna and co claimed that only 15/71 of their recommendations were in it, they want their version tabled and passed in this monsoon session of Parliament, else they will keep fasting till the first man drops dead.

Now, I want to reflect upon a few things: the first is this very interesting suggestion by Varun Gandhi (who, btw, also offered Anna Hazare his personal residence for fasting purposes when the government denied Anna permission) to table the civil society Jan Lokpal as a private members bill. I remember commenting, after the joint drafting committee, that Anna & co should exploit democratic options by asking politicians to comment on their bill, if they agree with it or not etc. It seems that as "civil society" one needs to immediately accept their draft as the *only* and *best* solution. Fair enough, but the suggestion to introduce it anyway is smart politics, and makes me also understand that this is obviously an option they (Anna & co) had on the table but rejected in favor of a fast. They might be ok with Varun Gandhi tabling it, but clearly they didn't want to share a podium with him, instead wanting to keep the mass movement going.

I was in Bangalore this weekend, and in my discussion with the cabbie understood that people do understand this issue pretty well. Its tough to be aware of all the nuances, of course, but the two drafts, what is included in each, and how this is the time to act! At the same time, CNN IBN headlines of the country "erupting" over Anna is stupid, its been fairly calm all over the India. Perhaps the government really thought that Delhi IS India and felt the need to stop a hunger strike, but I think they could have clearly avoided putting Anna on this pedestal if they had thought it through. And after arresting the man before his hunger strike, and then offering to release him 8 hours later, there were small news items floating around that this was done due to Rahul Gandhi's urging. Something like that *should* fall flat on its face.

I guess the question I am asking myself is: am I comfortable with endless hunger strikes to move legislation without discussion? Well, to be fair there was discussion but Team Anna didn't like what the Government was saying as much as the Government didn't like what Team Anna was saying. At the same time, the government is struggling to fit Team Anna's actions into neat boxes which they can "lawyer" their way out of. But I think that is the point: Team Anna has the right to fast/assemble peacefully and by placing inane restrictions, the government is exposing itself. Someone on TV commented that political rallies have so many people attended, so what is the point of stopping Team Anna? Soli Sorabjee said that the Congress should beware; the next time they want to hold a rally in a BJP state, the government there might place similar restrictions. So you should be able to fast against the government. Check. But to what end? That is the question I am grappling with.

How would it be if the government bows down? Says, ok, Team Anna -- your bill is law. You are the custodians for morality in the country etc etc. Then what happens? Fresh elections? More fasts for hosts of issues by people more dubious than Team Anna? Breakdown of democratic procedures? Populist policies (well.... I suppose that we already have). Multiple investigations followed by the arrest of the Prime Minister, a few judges, a whole lot of bureaucrats. The Bhushans & Kirat Bedi as the new cabinet? BJP in power before New Years? What I mean is.... where are we going with this? I want people who are to look beyond the political theatre and try exploring this... I would love to throw some ideas around.... ??

You don't know me

2011-07-30T08:54:00.000Z

Of all the recent asinine things I have heard -- and you know I have -- two stung me. One was last night, a joke from a co-worker, who tweeted that I am a "white in an indian girls body". The other was during the break at this seminar I have organized and am attending in Aurangabad, Maharashtra -- when I told a certain gentleman my mother is Maharashtrian, he responded that I am not because I didn't grow up here, and nor do I speak the language. I told him I spent a lot of summers in Pune at my grandparents and understand Marathi, to which he replied, "yes, but came as a foreigner."

The thing about identity is that if you aren't secure in it, you can often be lost. I have written about this on my blog before -- about how, as a child of a cross cultural marriage (Maharashtrian/Kashmiri) who grew up in neither state (I did in Delhi and at boarding school in Dehradun) -- I've always thought of myself as someone with a fluid, cross cultural identity. When the gentleman make this snarky remark about being a "foreigner" I took great offence. I told him that because of boarding school I can understand a host of languages (to get by) which include Bengali, Punjabi, Gujarati. The truth is that in school we didn't think too much about where we came from or what religion we were. Mrs Varma routinely read out prayers from all the holy books at assembly, and as a result the Quran, Granth Shib, Bible and Hindu prayers are equally familiar and alien at the same time.

I couldn't stop thinking about identity. Who am I? Where do I belong? I would say Delhi, because thats where I was born and brought up. But a few years ago I found myself adding a caveat to this explanation by saying that I didn't study or go to college in the city -- a reaction to being categorized with empty headed floozys our city is so famous for. A very calculated decision made me leave the safety of my plush Indian Express editorial job which kept me firmly in Lutyens Delhi to roaming the small towns and villages of India, to feel connected to places out of Delhi. And the thing is I do understand this country better, I see how people are different, but at the same time, perhaps that gentleman was right -- a part of you might always remain foreign.And you know whats funny? All of it has connected me to Delhi stronger than I could have expected!

We've all had these experiences. For us North Indians, it happens in the south where everything is different. I'm sure its a vice-versa case. It reminded me of people who say they are "global citizens" or some who purposely say things like "I am Bengali only by birth." I started to wonder why you would not define yourself by your rightful cultural heritage, and something popped into my head. It could be because someone felt very causal about taking it away from you. I once joked, in a previous post, that thank god for Delhi. In Kashmir I could not buy land since I was not born there, and in Maharashtra I'd be penalised by some for being a half breed/non speaker. I guess that might be the reality. For heavens sake, I have people who casually decide that you are not Indian because you enjoy Hollywood movies and don't east spicy food? Really? Are we that shallow? I can't imagine a parallel situation where I'd tell someone they were not Bihari for choosing to live in Delhi, or not Punjabi for being a vegetarian.

But its never that simple is it. For the scattered people who deem themselves the decider of YOUR identity, there are so many others who warmly welcome you to the fold. When I travel in Maharashtra (and this includes this very trip, with people in the same room, same conversation) who feel an instant connect to that fact -- that a part of you belongs here! Where is your mother from! Oh, what is her family name! They come up with connections, or describe the street she lived on and start asking you simple things in Marathi to be affectionate. I felt the same in Kashmir when I'd say I'm a Kashmiri from Delhi, so many people smiled and said they were glad I was visiting.

Identity politics are fascinating. Not long ago I was at a seminar in Varanasi focusing on Dalits and the media. Not surprisingly, at some point, the conversation turned to identity. Many Dalit leaders felt abandoned by their brothers and sisters who had done well and conveniently forgotten their community. A part of me wondered whether this was because they wanted to keep away from this sense of disillusionment that I could feel running through them. A sense I felt, which was clouding a sense of opportunity. Without analysing that, the point to be made is that we seem to be conditioned to relate to our communities, and when we cannot, it seems both the individual and the community suffers for it.

A while ago, I participated in a workshop for Video Volunteers where we were trying to explain to a bunch of people from all over the country that they should not box up their identities simply into Dalit/Woman/Tamil etc. For this, Stalin made big placards which had words like 'Punjabi' 'Woman' 'North Indian' etc etc and asked people to go to the card they identified with. Through the exercise people moved to different cards, and we showed them that you can see yourselves as many things. Sometimes given a choice between Punjabi and mother, the woman would choose mother. But given the choice between Punjabi and North Indian, she may choose Punjabi. The point to be made is you have different identities on you at all times and you should never box yourself in.

So, what should I learn from all this? That it is easy to upset, anger and manipulate someone based on their identity, especially the threat of taking it away. But its even more important for us to always remember that one identity isn't what defines us, and perhaps even more importantly, you are who you are. No one can tell you otherwise.

Babas, mantris and their eager audience

2011-06-07T05:53:00.001Z

Political theater is the best kind of spectator sport…until it turns bloody. We were all here when Anna Hazare launched his fast in support of the Lokpal Bill, and like many others, I too visited the Jantar Mantar grounds to participate. When people on FB/Twitter spoke out in favour of his ideas, I applauded the fact that many young people were taking an interest in politics, and I still do. The taste for politics and current events has to start somewhere, and for many 26/11 started a fire that is continually fanned by the media when something ‘big’ happens.

The image of Anna Hazare – old man with a nehru cap – worked very well visually. He seemed genuine. Joined by Kiran Bedi and other not-so-well-known (in basic public perception) activists added to his credibility, and when politicians tried to join in, they were booed out. However, behind closed doors, his demand that the PM and judiciary be included under the purview of Lokpal rattled the politicos. What I found very interesting was India’s new experiment of a joint drafting committee – today uncertain because of rising tensions – but an innovative way of attempting to include experts and social activists who often work tirelessly for causes without any political muscle. According to reports (including Outlook) the government looked to prop up Baba Ramdev as a counter to Anna Hazare’s group as he did not support adding the PM/judiciary under Lokpal.

Since I was out of town and away from the media, I didn’t get to see the unfolding of events through either a 24/7 news channel prism or a New Delhi prism. I was sitting in Varanasi at a Dalit gathering, and there scepticism ran very high. Who is this Ramdev who has become so rich in such a short time? Isn’t he the same guy who claimed to have cured cancer and AIDS? Questions, questions.

Later, as I read about the events, they seemed rather extraordinary. Ramdev landed at the airport, only to be greeted – very openly – by cabinet ministers. A deal was struck, but by all accounts, both sides were lying. The baba claimed his demands had been met and the government would “allow” his fast. It became clear to the government (as if this was a secret) that Ramdev’s fast was giving space to RSS elements, and instead of being an anti-corruption rally, this was potentially anti-Congress. The police was sent in in the middle of the night and after 30mins of negotiations on the dias, he jumped into the crowd to escape them. A human wave around him prevented the police from catching it, and it seems that is when it went horribly wrong, with teargas, lathi charge and bullets in the air. There have been some very serious casualties as a result. Ramdev, in the meantime, was found hiding in womens clothing. He was taken in, and sent back to Haridwar by private plane where he continues to protest, this time I believe at the injustice done to him.

As an observer, one can’t help but have a million questions. I’ll start with Ramdev because I can’t understand the intention behind the fast. Is this genuine – a need to protest against a corrupt ridden system, or a platform for launching his political party? Frankly, if it’s the latter, I would be more satisfied because it would make sense. The baba has claimed that in their closed door negotiations at the airport and later at the Claridges hotel (where he was staying) the government intimidated him, threatened him, and told him that they would kill him. He had also made a secret deal to end the fast in 2(?) days but publicly pretended that he had not. So supporters came from far and wide, unknowing that they were pawns in this political game. When he police came, he did not allow them to arrest him – becoming a martyr of sorts – but instead chose to hide in the crowds and then don a woman’s salwar kameez. Right now, conspiracy theorists (and India Today) are questioning the perfect fit of that salwar kameez and wondering if it wasn’t already tailor made to suit his slender frame. But wardrobe issues aside, is the move to have a fast opportunistic or genuine? Everything about the media circus screams opportunistic, but then he is not alone in making this a “success”.

When I saw images of Pranab, Sibal etc go to the airport, I actually thought – no, they couldn’t be that stupid…. Knowing fully well that the media was going to follow them. If Outlook is right, they wanted to accord Ramdev with the kind of status they did not do to Anna – or they wanted people to know that they had reached out to Ramdev. What happened at Ramlila is beyond unfortunate, and for Congress spokespersons to blame to Delhi police is very tacky. For the BJP to jump on this chance is expected and except for Rudy saying on Times Now that the government was planning as “mass genocide” in the dead of the night, I think the reaction is as expected. Frankly, I am dreading the fact that Parliament will again resemble a drunken pub brawl instead of what it should look like. But this situation highlighted the lack of leadership in the Congress. The PM was nowhere to be seen, and 2 days is 2 days too long in this 24/7 media world. By the time he emerged #findingmanmohan was already a popular buzzword on Twitter and the jokes didn’t stop there. I commented that perhaps Sibal, Pranab, Chidambaram should be given the reigns of the Congress party because they seem to be able to stick their necks out. The PM’s statement that this incident was “unfortunate” but “unavoidable” which many took to mean that he had to say over the police action in the dead of the night. And any huge incident also reminds people that the lack of an opinion from our crown prince just means that it is clear case of power without responsibility.

So in the end, the Baba has not come off as a simple sanyasi fighting corruption. The government has come across as wanting to seem decisive but ending up brutal and insensitive. The opposition has come alive in a way that no one could have predicted. And the pressures of all of it has lead to a crack in the Lokpal drafting committee with the government saying that they can certainly draft it without civil society members. And the spectators? I wish elections were round the corner and not 3 years away. Cause in this spectator sport, that is the tie breaker that counts.

bossypants!!

2011-05-17T08:56:00.001Z

Improv, SNL, babies and 30 Rock — Fey’s giant juggle act

Tina Fey’s already best selling book is not so much a memoir as an explication of her philosophy of being a modern woman, writes Mahima Kaul

At first, a full disclaimer: I have, like possibly millions of other women, a complete girl-crush on Tina Fey. It began with a special edition DVD of Mean Girls, which cemented my Fey Fandom, and since then she has not failed to disappoint. Sarah Palin impressions on SNL, her award-winning show 30 Rock, even the film Date Night...her career has marched to the beat of its own drum, and this is one loud, celebratorial drum!

So, this brings us to her book, a loose autobiography. Fey has departed from the standard format and divided the book into various sections that cover the people and moments that have defined her life. And its decisions such as these and the million anecdotes in the book that make you realise this woman knows exactly who she is, and the confidence is electric.

To the book! Fey writes about the first moment she became aware of the millions things that can be considered "incorrect" on a woman's body. I remember mine — it was Aishwarya Rai, saying in a TV ad, 'if only our stomachs could be as flat.' Fey is clear about the traps society sets women. She rejects them outright, hilariously listing out body parts for which she is grateful, and this sets the tone. This actually is a book that deals with Fey's philosophy about being a woman in the 2000s. It is not really a memoir, which was a little disappointing.

She does on to describe her foray into the world of improvisational comedy (improv) — listing out rules for the uninitiated — and describes the thrill of performing for an audience. This is where Fey hits her stride. She talks about interviewing for Saturday Night Live and meeting her future mentor, Lorne Michaels. From a geeky kid growing up in the suburbs, she suddenly morphs into a career gal who is quite aware that her chosen profession is in truth a boys' club. A very quoted part of the book, when Amy Poehler slams Jimmy Fallon for not finding her funny — "I don't ***king care if you like it" — is a "cosmic shift" for Fey because she internalises this comment. Just because someone else doesn't like it, doesn't mean it isn't good. She advises women to do the same — "Your energy is better used doing your work and outpacing people that way. Then, when you're in charge, don't hire the people who were jerky to you."

Bossypants reveals Fey's love for her coworkers, and I suspect this deep connection can be found in her improv roots. She talks about leaving SNL and coming up with the concept for 30 Rock, all while pregnant with her first baby. Her decision to lampoon Sarah Palin on SNL, and her description of the incredible media coverage that followed, are the best chapters in my opinion. It is the eternal question when looking at a woman as successful as Fey: how does one act, write, executive produce, raise a baby and continue to look as relaxed and pretty as she does, all at the same time? There is a confidence to Fey that comes from an impressive understanding of the world she operates in. Her description of posing for magazine covers, when she reveals her willingness to be Photoshopped rather than opt for cosmetic sugery, is so endearing that you can't help but like her. I absolutely love that she writes about Amy Poehler's rapping during Sarah Palin's SNL guest spot: "The moment most emblematic of how things have changed for women in America was nine-month pregnant Amy Poehler rapping as Sarah Palin, tearing the roof of the place." If you haven't seen this clip, you need to Youtube it, because it is a phenomenal few minutes of entertainment television.

I had been searching for a chapter on Mean Girls and felt a bit cheated when I didn't find it. But, after I slept on it, I realised the book actually continues the philosophy she espouses in the movie -- if women are bad to each other, then it signals to the men that it is okay to be so too. She is brutally honest about her decision not to breastfeed, about the awkward relationship between a working mother and her babysitter (she means nanny) and finally, about deciding to have another baby at 40 and the many complications this brings in terms of her career.

The final verdict: it is an incredibly witty and honest insight into the life of a successful woman executive in the entertainment industry in the US. It is also not a book meant to talk about her life per se; she has glossed over her scar, the fact that she was a virgin until 24, and her romance with her husband. Instead, she's focused mainly on that personal development which led to professional development. By all accounts, the audio book might be funnier, as Fey's reading of the chapters include mimicking Alec Baldwin and Tracy Jordan. If not, watching her hour-long discussion with Eric Schimidt (available online) to see these stories come alive. Because, if anything, Tina Fey is a performer, and by god, Bossypants is an excellent performance.

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/bookbeat/improv-snl-babies-and-30-rock-feys-giant-juggle-act

OBL's death puts Twitter on overdrive

2011-05-10T10:17:00.000Z

Osama Bin Laden may have tried to duck technology, but it ultimately caught up with him. A fairly large house in a well-to-do suburb without connectivity? It was just a matter of time before the inevitable alarm bells rang. In 2011, it is absolutely foolish to not be connected to the internet, and in OBL's case it was downright lethal. (OBL is the acronym Bin Laden goes by on Twitter.) Just how connected are we?

For starters, the fact that OBL's neighbour, Sohaib Athar, was live tweeting the raid, and in doing so, he outed the operation, is impressive: "Since taliban (probably) don't have helicopters, and since they're saying it was not 'ours', so must be a complicated situation." He wasn't alone. After a successful operation, Keith Urbahn, the chief of staff for the former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tweeted, "So I'm told by a reputable person they have killed Osama Bin Laden. Hot damn." This tweet went viral and in a short amount of time, thousands and even more thousands of people started logging on to Twitter, speculating and circulating whatever news they could find.

An online poll conducted by Mashable.com revealed that the majority of people were getting their information off social networking sites, with TV operating in the background. Ask anyone, and the answer will echo that sentiment.

Twitter went into electric overdrive (if that is even a phrase), and official estimates state that right after President Obama finished his remarks, there were 5,008 tweets per second. This means 300,480 opinions per minute. This is second only to the spike witnessed in the aftermath of the Japan tsunami, which peaked at 6,939 tweets per second.

It has been widely recognised that OBL's death has officially put Twitter's influence as a news source above the mainstream media's, with major journalists tweeting away as well.

Not to be left behind, Facebook has seen close to 500,000 people join a group called "Osama Bin Laden is DEAD". Taking advantage of this clear expression of interest, links to Osama's death video have been sent out by hackers via email and social networking sites in an effort to steal sensitive personal information or infect computers. The virus is so widespread that even the FBI has put out a statement cautioning against clicking on the links.

In India, OBL's death has brought up another controversial subject, Indo-Pak relations. Twitter lists out "trending topics" on the right side of the page that indicates the topics being discussed the most, and the group @Trendsmap India tabulates the results for India. Here, the conversation went somewhat like this: #osamadead, #abbottabad, #dawood, #kasab, #zardari, #bombers, #afzal, #assassination and so on. These topics make it very clear that unlike the US, which was more concerned about proof of Osama's death, and despite the large conspiracy theories floating online, Indians were primarily reflecting on their own war on terror. And this demographic has great untapped potential. Half of India's population is under 25, and 2/3 are under 40 years. In a figure released by Antti Ohrling of BLYK this week, a company that works in the sphere of mobile-based marketing, just over 50% of Indian youth accessed the internet in the past three months. Even if a healthy number of these use or begin to use Twitter as a way of expressing opinions, this will give traditional media a run for its money.

Social media's appeal has been widely discussed in the media. I think it has been best described by Patrick Ruffini, when he tweeted, "last night, the real time flow of text on a 3 inch display proved more compelling and addictive than the moving image." The thing about social media is that the narrative keeps shifting and adjusting according to new information and opinion that appears online. So, if someone were to ask, "how did they identify OBL's body?" it is only a matter of minutes before another person links to the New Scientist's article explaining how. The speed at which new information gets updated on social media, and the variety of sources it links back to, is unprecedented. That is why the computer/mobile screen has come to become a hotbed of interactivity that newspapers and televisions simply cannot compete with. And they don't need to since the phenomenon of "Social TV" has arrived.

This is when viewers watch the mainstream and report it on social networks, therefore connecting those who are on social networks with the mainstream. It is also the reason why most television channels and newspapers have a social media component, and why government and politicians are getting social media accounts. And what makes compelling reading is the mixture of news, opinion, jokes — "so OBL is dead... amazing what the Americans can do when they Playstation Network is down" — and personal anecdotes.

As for OBL, his death is historic for many reasons. But the unexpected one is that people went to Twitter first to talk about it. And even bigger, Twitter told them about it first.

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/investigation/obl-death-put-twitter-on-overdrive

New Delhi reacts!

2011-05-08T03:03:00.001Z

My little byte in this video by Global Post:

http://www.globalpost.com/video

"Whats after Bin Laden?"

Digital inclusion is the need of the hour

2011-04-11T07:34:00.002Z

Hot on the heels of a Budget that aims to bridge India's "digital divide", a story comes to mind. About seven years ago, a friend of mine who had been working on Wi-Fi hotspots in Montreal, Canada came to India as part of an Indo-Canadian trade delegation. At a meeting with the then Minister of Telecom, he proposed doing the same in India. To his great disappointment, he was told, "Wi-Fi would never work in India."

Today, everything has changed. Wi-Fi is growing and my friend is back from Canada, but this time he isn't "pioneering", he is just standing in line with the other entrepreneurs, imagining an India connected to the last mile and profiting from e-commerce.

Unfortunately, this country has been driving in second gear for the past decade. The "need" for the Internet was understood, but the urgency, clearly, wasn't. In 2010, 84% of rural India was unaware of the Internet (as revealed a study by the Internet and Mobile Association of India, IAMAI), a gap that the government is desperate to close now. The Union Minister of Communications and Information Technology has set a target of providing broadband coverage to five lakh villages in India, but this target only serves to remind us of time lost. Eight years ago, the Department of Telecom (DoT) set up the Universal Service Obligation Fund, which was meant to get private telecom players to enter rural markets. In 2004, two years later, it amended the rules to enable disbursal from the USO Fund to reimburse telecom operators for rural telephony. In 2006, another amendment supported mobile services and broadband in rural and remote parts of the country. Which brings us back to today.

What has resulted due to the slow moving government machinery is innovation by the private sector in the area of Information and Communication Technologies for Development or ICT4D. For example — and this might be a gross generalisation — governments choose to focus on e-government, businesses look to the online economy, while civil society groups try to make the Internet more inclusive, and therefore, concentrate on creating both content and software that allow minority speakers to participate online. The 2011 budget has further allocated Rs 4,500 cr on e-Panchayat systems, which is a welcome move under National e-Governance Plan (NeGP). NeGP, under which over 87, 000 Common Service Centres have cropped up in villages across the country. These CSCs are front end kiosks for government services such as payment of utility bills (water, electricity, telephones), certificates (birth, death, income) and other services like train tickets, mobile phone top ups and so on. But what is still lacking is an assured supply of power to keep the CSC running and above that, an understanding of how best of utilize an Internet connection. This ties in with the need for fostering entrepreneurship and educating people about the Internet itself.

An example: at a village outside Hyderabad, the village level "entrepreneur" who opened a CSC with government support was unable to turn a profit as not enough people were paying bills or buying tickets. But at another village in Thane, Maharashtra, the entrepreneur, a schoolteacher, understood the need to utilize the CSC in different ways to turn a profit. He put the office hours at a limit and introduced computer classes and is making money from teaching little children how to use a computer. This is the difference between technology and its use. There are countless other projects that use ICT to create opportunities where none existed. Online portals like Aporv, Chanderiyaan and Eyaas help artisans expand their markets by selling their ware online. Eko has set up mobile banking through an SMS system which allows its customers to save and transfer money using the neighbourhood grocery shop, as you would to top up a SIM card. Others emphasise local language content. Community media — both radio and video — are popular ways of getting minorities to engage with technology platforms. There is also the more sophisticated Project Bhasha which translates Microsoft products into 12 languages including Assamese, Gurmukhi, and Telegu.

Of course, the challenges of navigating an increasingly digital world — information societies — are not India's alone. Globally, the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) has been set up to explore common threads; data security, cyber hacking, and of course, the digital divide and inclusion. Civil society organizations have also pushed WSIS to accept the importance of ensuring human rights through an equal distribution of technology. Open source products and online activism are a reflection of society fearing that government and business interests may one day become too big to control. For example, today a lot of geeks fear Google as the company has collected so much private data through people's online activities. WikiLeaks is an expression of mistrust against hegemony, made possible and served up through technology.

The truth is that activities on an international platform can help boost efforts back home. That France, Finland, Estonia and Norway have declared the Internet a fundamental right will help bodies like the Digital Empowerment Foundation and IAMAI who encourage closing the digital divide back in India. More so, it will help smaller bodies apply for funding because international treaties and declarations help guide funders and philanthropists to those who deserve it the most.

Think about our global village in this way. Prepaid connections for phones and the Internet are popular in the developing world as companies are not confident that customers have enough financial stability to pay their bills. After the global financial crisis, the West is emulating these ideas. In Canada alone, four new mobile phone operators have come up, following this model! And above all, as we have seen with countless natural tragedies, most recently in Japan, disaster management has been revolutionalised because of the information society. As has political activism. This is why it is important who gets to use ICTs, and how they use them — "digital inclusion". And this is why my friend from Canada is moving to India.

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/digital-inclusion-is-the-need-of-the-hour

GOI's social skills.

2011-03-15T08:57:00.004Z

Those of us in the digital inclusion/innovation space have understood the crucial need for e-government. We're not alone, the government has realized it too and many states are making a direct play to turn dusty old files into online folders. This intention has been further solidified by the first draft of Electronic Delivery of Services Bill, 2011, which has proposed that all ministries and government departments will have to deliver services electronically, be it through the internet or mobile phones.

All of this sounded very good to me till I attended a conference called "The Power of Social Media for Governance" a few days ago. It was called the 'Gov2.in' forum. Social media, we all know, can be employed to create knowledge networks, disseminate information and keep track of the world around you. Personally, Twitter is a better source of news than any newspaper homepage can hope to be, and Facebook keeps me abreast of my friends in a way email or simple phone calls could not do. But that's not the point right now: in the context of social media, it allows strangers to connect over a decidedly neutral platform and talk about issues. Sure, people get nasty, but there is a distance of a computer screen (mobile) to save you from any unnecessary facetime.

The first time that any of us heard about any government official *really* engaging with people online was probably Shashi Tharoor's twitter account. LK Advani's homepage had created a lot of buzz during the last elections (I did a story on it too, for The Indian Express) but it wasn't quite as chatty as Twitter can be. In fact, I was invited to a BJP youth meet where Advani was speaking, and to my surprise he did not answer a single question asked of him or even address the topic at hand (it was about employment and the future, if I remember correctly) but gave this inane speech about the first time he saw a cell phone and then basically said what he wanted and left. Contrast that to what we see online today, with politicians actually answering individual questions online, with the safety net of being measured if they want, because they can type, delete and retype before pressing enter.

Tharoor, of course, ended up on national TV in (for the most part) retarded "scandal" after "scandal" and social media was perceived as something "serious" politicians should not do. But he did, at a later stage, point me to the Ministry of External Affairs Public Diplomacy Division, where I learnt that officials had set up a Twitter page and were actively seeking social media strategies to let people know about what the ministry and diplomatic missions do. At the time I think they were focusing on promoting India's soft power (even within the country) by creating goodwill among people. I think the whole theory turned on its head in the light of events in Egypt and Libya, where the MEA actually had a Twitter account set up, with MEA officials manning it, and they were able to save lives through the technology.

The rest of us in Delhi were also getting familiar with Delhi Police's Facebook page, and that immediate cause and effect made most internet savvy people proud. The MCD has an online FB page that focuses on garbage disposal, India Post helps people track parcels through Twitter etc. Now imagine being able to converse with any and every department you can find out about electricity issues, passport issues... you name it.

Back to the conference. Kapil Sibal, Minister for Communications and Information Technology, gave the first speech. Although the topic was to discuss what I have already discussed above, I was immediately struck by the reluctance Sibal had in opening up government departments to social media, because it seemed, in his mind, it would go the way of TV News. What do I mean? The way TV news picks up a topic and wages war against it has clearly left a lot of politicians burnt, and it seems Sibal was looking at FB and Twitter (and other social media which we use next) as a device by which campaigns against the government will be waged, and complaints made even more public. He chose to, instead, focus on simple delivery mechanism e-gov stories, which kept the narrative simple. "I build software, you save time = less corruption".

The very interesting part is that this whole time I had this phrase from the West Wing stuck in my head (yes, I know, I'm sorry, I am obsessed!) where a Republican blames Democrats for "not liking the people" and that being a reason for big government. In this case, it was obvious that the government is not inclined towards "trusting" the people and is not very keen to move forward on allowing them to have free say in the way they are governed. At least not via the internet, that vote being saved for elections.

This was a reason the panel that followed, which included many bureaucrats, warmed my heart. These were our own babus who had taken steps to engage with the public (I have mentioned the examples above). The names, as far as I can remember now: MEA's Navdeep Suri, Census Commissioner Chandramouli, Gujarat gov's Ravi Saxena, Dept of IT's Shankar Aggarwal, MCD's Anshu Prakash, Delhi Police's Satyendra Garg, India Post's Ranjit Kumar, MEA's Abhay Kumar...... and so on. There were also other specialists on the panel who weighed in on e-government, but more to the point, using social media to complement e-government work.

The takeways were simple enough: although there is criticism, however, if you respond to it then social media users will also come to your defense. And even if the technology seems alien to you, if you keep at it, you can really bring people over to the side of governance. Perhaps the most important was: if you don't have a team in place to deal with all the questions/comments/complaints that come your way, people become very impatient and think your department is lazy. So, all in all, its not easy to *just begin* but as someone noted, if you are not in it, you are out it. Sounds simplistic, but being out of it will cost a lot.

I know this post is very long so I'll try and end it: In discussing policy and IT laws that govern the country, a very big concern came out. The draft amendment to the IT act places intermediaries responsible for content. For example, now that bloggers have been called intermediaries, they will be responsible for comments on their blogs. And because of these changes, the government can then shut down blogs and sites because of concerns, none of which they are really concerned about spelling out. During the conference this question was asked twice: is there a list of banned blogs and why the government has banned them. The person asking drew the comparison to books and said; we all know which/why books are banned. IT lawyer Pavan Duggal also pointed out that state governments have a lot of power in blocking sites and in the case of non national interest reasons, they must disclose what the reasons are.

What all of this is adding up to is this (for me anyway): there is a divide between the government's instinctive reaction to *not* trust people with the kind of freedoms the internet intrinsic nature allows them, and harnessing this power/potential goodwill to become a better democracy and a more responsive government. However, right now, we must go according to the highest statements -- the additions to the IT Act and the ministers reserved language. And they seem to say: we want to adopt e-government because “technology” is here to stay, but we are wary of blogs/social networks because citizens can offer direct and public opinions, and the tide may go against us.

There seems to be these waves of imagination and creativity passing through the Indian government, especially when it comes to the internet. But it will have to trust its people, and it will have to trust its own ability to respond to the people. Otherwise this system is going to crash.

Egypt has lessons for the world’s Internet freedoms

2011-01-31T12:58:00.002Z

(Written for the Sunday Guardian)

Last week, the Egyptian government blocked social networking sites in the country to control the civil revolution brewing in the streets. Massive protests had been arranged via SMS chains and social networking sites, and this shutdown was a direct attempt to quash them. Very unsurprisingly, some enterprising young people managed to bypass the blocks. Proxy servers helped users hide their locations and access certain social networking sites, while third party apps, like Blackberry for Twitter and UberTwitter, were found to work since they did not access the sites directly. Some people accessed the Internet using private networks, outside of the state's purview. As a result, the rest of the world was able to see videos of the protestors being hit by teargas and read updates online, despite the blockage. That's when the government decided to go for a total Internet blackout.

The reach of the Internet and new media is best understood by its two biggest stereotypes today: the yuppie on Facebook and the fisherman with a cellphone. And while businesses and civil society have been preoccupied with strategies to expand the reach of the Internet to all citizens, there is a parallel attempt to control it by the governments of the day. The reasons cited are overwhelmingly related to cyber security; but this power over channels of communication can certainly be used to control the aspirations of a defiant public, as we have seen from time to time.

The thought of a complete 'black hole', as some people are calling Egypt's Internet blackout, is frightening in today's context. The possibility of the same occurring in other countries is directly proportionate to the control that a State has over the ISPs (Internet Service Providers). According to reports, private ISPs in Egypt shut down their services within three minutes of each other, indicating a directive from higher up. This level of control has never been witnessed, even in China, where access to certain content is permanently restricted. In Pakistan, websites with 'blasphemous' content have been banned at various periods, including blogs and other media that challenged President Musharraf's electoral win in 2008 by alleging vote rigging. Similarly, in 2009, Iran blocked Twitter, Facebook and other social networking sites to minimize a growing urban protest against President Ahmedinejad's "landslide" election. But these are all examples of certain websites being blocked, nowhere near the Egyptian government's total shutdown of the Internet.

Could this happen to us?, is the question being asked in forums across the globe. Most US commentators believe that a systematic shutdown would not be possible in their country because there are too many operators, many of which are far too independent to adhere to a government directive. But the events of the last week have brought on fears of a cyber security bill in the senate -- 'Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset' -- which would allow the President to 'switch off' the Internet in the name of national security. A law that might be passed in the name of economic security might well be used in the name of curtailing civil unrest.

Back home in India, 'removing objectionable content' is pretty standard fare, with even Google complying with these requests from the government. During the Kargil War of 1999, access to the Pakistani newspaper, Dawn, was blocked online, and more recently, in 2006, when the government asked for certain websites to be blocked, the ISPs obliged. And in 2009, many Indian men discovered to their horror that the government had blocked the comic-porn site, Savita Bhabhi. As for social networking sites, Orkut has also agreed to remove 'defamatory content'. But India has never been tested on the scale that Egypt has. One mustn't forget that the government of Jammu and Kashmir banned text messages in the summer of 2010 to restrict rallies and protest marches by the youth. Whatever the official explanations were, denying access to communication only served to further alienate people and resentment against the establishment.

Judging by experiences across the digital world, the move by the Egyptian government to deny the entire country access to the Internet becomes a gross violation of human rights, especially at a time when countries like France and Norway have accepted the Internet as a fundamental right. Today, ICT4D (Information and Communication Technologies for Development) is becoming an increasingly common phrase, and an accepted medium of delivering on the promise of development, modernisation and open communication. Incidents such as Egypt's only serve to remind us that these ideas rest on shaky ground. And in this case, we've just been reminded, yet again, that Marshall McLuhan was right in 1964 when he said, the medium IS the message.

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/a/2711

When everyone comes out looking bad

2011-01-26T05:39:00.002Z

I woke up this morning wondering what happened to the BJP walas trying to hoist a flag at Lal Chowk. You know, when I think of the BJP, I can't help but get confused at exactly who these actions are meant to impress. Don't get me wrong, there are enough Hindu nationalists who will be pumped up at an India Yatra and charging into Kashmir to "re-claim" it (seems to me what they are doing) but at the same time, if the situation dissolves into violence, with innocents killed, what will it get them exactly?

But to a more basic point. When I heard about this proposed flag hoisting at Lal Chowk, like so many others, my initial reaction was "why are they messing with Kashmir?" It seemed like a situation tailor-made for disaster, and looking at images to these well fed hoards of men, walking in a big crowd, one can't help but feel nervous at the potential for violence. Some of the Hindi news channels showed footage of the BSF jawans lining up at the Punjab border, ready for a showdown, and I couldn't help but wonder why they needed to waste their time saving India from, well, India.

But outside of this PR stunt, there were other news items that rung alarm bells. The government was not allowing BJP leaders to proceed to Kashmir. All of us read the tweets and saw on the news when Sushma Swaraj, Arun Jaitley & co were detained at the airport. There was an incredibly funny (read:slapstick) story about how some BJP workers from Karnataka were heading north and the train engine was switched at night to the back, so they ended up back in the south! What kept bothering me about these stories was the blatant violation of our freedoms - of expression, of movement - especially when ostensibly, this is a peaceful march to hoist a flag.

Another point that just bugged me was, as an Indian (even though I don't actually support this PR stunt), why should we be nervous of it? Why couldn't the government in the state say we welcome you to join us at Srinagar, or failing that, we would love to join you to do this together. It was just a few weeks ago that I saw a report in the news that hundreds of young men showed up to join the police force, their reason being a solid job. One can't help but get frustrated at the treatment Kashmir is given by the rest of the country. It almost seems like the Valley being held hostage by separatists is the only situation that is acceptable and any move to treat it much like any other state is met with a harsh NO.

But this stunt itself doesn't make sense to me. I can understand this India Yatra (and as Ravi Shankar Prasad said, the rest of the yatra has been peaceful, no one even got slapped) but I'm not sure what it gets the BJP. I'm a young educated voting Indian, so I understand that no party is particularly interested in wooing me, especially not by appealing to my intellect. But at the same time, I keep hearing about this move to developmental politics (hell, I see enough indications of a rising country when I travel) so why didn't the BJP, or the Congress, or anybody else announce a charity, or expel tainted leaders, to show that we are changing as a country?

Last night I was watching The Daily Show and there was an interview by this Indian-America journalist who said that there is a growing culture in this country, one of creativity and this sense that we need to move forward, and this culture will be a bigger threat to America than economics. In contrast, he felt that America's uber-capitalist culture would be its Achilles heel. While there are so many Indians, now finally allowed to play with their entrepreneurial and development-oriented instincts, if you look at the headlines in this country one can't help but feel sad at how much politics and government lets them down.

At a meeting with a senior government official last evening, he told me that I must take on the issue of how the UPSC exam is letting the country down. How bureaucrats are promoted on the basis of how much they oblige their seniors, rather than competence. He told me that most custom officials keep a few wives and families, with assets distributed equally, to hedge bets. He talked about e-government projects trying to curtail this rampant corruption. "It is the government which has let the people down," he kept repeating, and I honestly don't know who would argue with that sentiment.

But back to my BJP/Kashmir quandary. I'm not really sure what is the right thing here. Should the BJP mess with a volatile region (and possibly lives) for a photo-op? Should the Government of India be this nervous of its own state? And especially when Yasin Malik, separatist leader makes statements like "BJPs flag hoisting won't destroy the resolve of the Kashmiri people". It seems the government is protecting those who want to burn the flag rather than hoist it. What does this say about us?

I think the people of India, one by one, are creating a culture of progress and prosperity which is completely divorced from what our political leadership seems to be pre occupied with. The people I work with, in the digital empowerment and ICT4D sector are the real leaders today. The people I see on my TV every night, really, really don't understand what it is to lead by example. Happy Republic Day!

Edited to Add: So, Omar did finally invite the BJP leaders to his official flag hoisting. Right now, I have no idea what their reply is.

The Indian in the Lobby

2010-12-06T18:57:00.002Z

There is a scene in The West Wing where the Josh Lyman, Deputy Chief of Staff, goes to a Washington Post reporter to ask for information. This is part of the scene:

*

DANNY
What kind of information?
JOSH
You know what kind of information.
DANNY
Hey.
JOSH
You know no one knows where I got it.
DANNY
You know in the highroad, I’m not supposed to hand out any information I get.
JOSH
You’re right.
DANNY
You know I’m right. It’s not my job to help you out. As a matter of fact, I get fired from my job for helping you out.
JOSH
I know that.

*

In an ideal world, the reporter does not help move the story. In the same scene, Danny says, "Josh, the information I get I have to print." I bring this up because, well, duh.

But my real interest lies not in discussing Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi -- let their editors decide what the punishment should be and their viewers/readers decide if they want to continue following them -- but the role that Niira Radia plays. Simply put, I believe that companies, NGOs etc have agendas they want to push, and have people they would like to see in power, and try and achieve these aims through lobbying.

I recently linked an article by Arindam Chaudhuri in which he attempted to defend the journalists by writing about the acceptability of lobbying elsewhere. While everyone was aghast that I would even link an article by this guy, my reason was because I was curious. I've grown up interested in politics and spent a summer as an intern in Washington DC where lobbying was a very acceptable profession. In fact, in my dealings with the development sector, I found myself becoming more and more interested in India's position on the use of ICTs and wanted to write articles with my opinion. Isn't that agenda pushing on some level? (Or it would be once I finally do it...) Aren't we all lobbying in some ways? Of course, it sits better when it comes from passion (like say, the environment or child rights) than a corporate entity and its paid professionals (big pharma)!

There is a reason I think lobbying should be made legal in India -- not that it is illegal right now. I get there is this danger that the firm with the most money will have the most influence, true, but that has been the case till now as well. Lobbying is not necessarily a bad thing. If you stand for something, be it big business or human rights, you want legislators to enact laws that further your cause. You might be right, you might be wrong, but you certainly have a conviction. You, as part of an advocacy group, need to convince the legislator of your opinion, and often even the public. Technically, everyone's understanding of the issues become better. Politicians are meant to vote one way or the other after being persuaded on the merits of the case. In fact, the link between the group and the politician can become a straight line and we can finally have some clarity as to what half a dozen of our politicians actually stand for. Their positions made clearer by the company they keep. I would love for our politicians to have to explain their votes to the public, and also declare their positions on a variety of things. Hardly any Indian politicians have detailed websites with a clear outlining of their positions. The first time the public hears about an issue is in the event of a scam.

The other day I was talking to some friends over dinner and one of them said that in India our MPs don't have the kind of staff that US senators and congressmen do. In fact, there are bodies. I met the founder of one, PRS Legislative Research, at my final round for a scholarship interview. Incidentally, he got it and I didn't, so maybe there is a brighter future there. Of course this organization offers research help to MPs but my point is that our elected members are mostly pretty unaware of most issues (as are the rest of us, to be honest) and by having organized sectors present sides of debates might not be the worst thing.

I suppose the point I am trying to make, which lies at the heart of the matter, is that legislation is very important to interest groups and lobbyists, and something we, as the public, don't pay much attention to. My hope is that getting more groups involved with public policy will pave new ways for the public to be informed of what it actually is. What is *in* this Bill?

To Radia and what she was trying to do. Yes, she was trying very actively to get her guy elected so that she could help deliver, in the long run, some very tangible results for her clients. That's not the lobbying I am talking about, because this is interference in the very formation of the cabinet, and if our PM took cues from corporates on that, it would be a very sorry day for us all. That is playing king-maker.

I guess the question isn't 'does lobbying subvert democracy or strengthen it?', but really, can there be democracy without lobbying? Aren't the millions of online petitions we sign part of lobbying? Dinner parties with well chosen guest of honors lobbying? And it seems, the tilt of a media story lobbying? I mean, an argument can be made that lobbying would be lobbying by any other name so lets call it what it is and figure out how we can make it work for us.

After the politics

2010-11-08T16:56:00.002Z

This was no pat on the back for being good guys. This was not just affirmation and the encouragement of Indian global political aspirations. Barack Obama gave a stunningly candor speech about what lies ahead for India if it aligns itself with the United States. Truth be told, there are many intricacies which cannot possibly come out during a speech in Parliament and I will let those smarter than me and in the know be the judge of that. But as I had done many years ago for The Indian Express, I'll look at this speech and ask the question -- "whats in it for me?"

Obama said that if we take this offer (which we can't refuse?!) then the generations to follow will only hear about the US- India partnership as a historic detail because India would have transformed by then. Just like kids today don't know a world without the internet, I suppose the streets of India will change to look a little more Western, and frankly, that appeals to me. (I'm mainly thinking of streets without filth right now and its making me uber happy!) But, to the offer -- adopt a foreign policy similar to the US and we will prop you up as a world leader/regional leader through political and technological support -- is an interesting one. One that we should take?

Firstly, foreign policy. My internal alarm when up when a reference to India's peacekeeping troops came just a little before his call for India to become more vocal on matters of democratic movements. I'm ok with India preaching about democracy, we are so self satisfied about it, might as well leverage it. But at the same time, I'm not sure I can imagine a country where our troops are all over the world "peace keeping" during transitional shifts to democracy, which as we know, can take a really long time. These efforts have crippled the US to some extent, and I think Obama needs backup. So, is this something we are ready to do more frequently? I mean, a world leader, seat at the Security Council, more say in international economic bodies... this is what India wants in theory. Obama has listed out some conditions attached to US support. At the same time the US wants to, and for India to, "engage East". China was never mentioned in the speech although Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan were (all the problem kids) so one can only imagine what he was hinting towards without saying. The underlying sentiment I got was that India will have to stop with the matyr/victim/good guy complex and start taking an assertive role in the international arena if it really is to become a global player. So, in that sense, we will need really strong leadership and a concrete foreign policy. Manmohan Singhs comments about the outsourcing industry and dialogue with Pakistan was heartening during the afternoon press conference because he indicated what he was thinking. Since Singh he didn't speak in Parliament, he made it quite clear that India also has things to say and America has to listen. To that end, as Obama indicated in Mumbai, our PM too understands his audience!

There were other sentiments expressed in the speech that appealed to me. Obama was very clear about the fact that India has taken some good decisions (ending the License Raj) which has led it to develop in a strong way. Of course, anyone who knows the country knows exactly how lopsided development really is, but I take his point. He also pointed out that earlier US-India collaborations resulted in the Green Revolution etc and moving forward the US can supply much needed agricultural know-how, storage & transport technology and weather forecast technology. He also talked about defense and civil space, which means satellite technology and so on. (Ask my mom about this!)

For me personally, a very welcome part of his speech was this: "This leads me to the final area where our countries can partner-strengthening the foundations of democratic governance, not only at home but abroad.Now, in a new collaboration on open government, our two countries are going to share our experience, identify what works, and develop the next-generation of tools to empower citizens. And in another example of how American and Indian partnership can address global challenges, we're going to share these innovations with civil society groups and countries around the world. We're going to show that democracy, more than any other form of government, delivers for the common man-and woman."

This is a direct reference to ICT4D (information and communication technologies for development) and e-governance which is critical if the entire country is to be lifted out of a cloud of poverty and disinformation. The knowledge divide is a real thing. I have a meeting in two days with the National Institute of Smart Governance, a body that helps government organizations digitize and become accessible to common citizens. We already work with American organizations like CISCO and of course, many Indian technology organizations, to implement, scale and replicate projects. But by no means is this near completion. By making this, and marking this a priority above what was said at the WSIS - World Summit on Information Societies - Obama has, for me, hit the nail about what kind of a society we should expect to live in if we shed our distant skins and work closely with the Americans.

"Seize the possibility of this moment" is what Obama said to those of us watching TV. And its a tempting offer to imagine a life a little more American in nature, especially given that some of us have lived in the US/Canada and understand what it means to live in a society like that. At the same time, we have seen from the outside the pressures of assuming the role of a global/regional leader -- the responsibility it brings forth.

Today I spent some part of the afternoon with professionals who have been given scholarships by the Ministry of External Affairs to study development journalism. Ministry officials have told me on other occasions that India does so much in the regional sphere but people don't know about it. As a attempt to showcase our soft power leadership the Ministry is now on twitter and facebook with updates about events, schemes, scholarships. I can see why the UN seat appeals to us so dearly.

So, the ultimate question remains - is India just a market for the US? Is India a much needed ally that America is ready to invest in to make it (truly) an equal? Will India gain or lose by closer ties with the US?

Obama has come to tell everyone he knows there is a new world order only when it comes to the fact that it is not a unipolar world anymore. But democracy and free markets are still what *should* be winning and he needs India to jump on this bandwagon. How much of our economy and defence will we have to open up in exchange for (what I believe) will be leaps and bounds in social/civil/agricultural society? But there comes the sobering thought: outside of a few national level politicians, can our petty, corrupt, illiterate, incompetent politicians understand the nuances of this offer? Or perhaps embracing American ideals and meritocracy will allow us to, in the long run, purge this political system as well? Too much, too much? Probably.

A girl can dream!

Before the politics

2010-11-07T17:44:00.003Z

Obama has a matter of fact style of speaking which has appealed to me since I saw him campaign. He deftly explained issues about Muslims, war, extremism to voters back then, and he explained his protectionist logic when the economy demanded it. In India, he has equally been calm and measured in telling us again and again that America's interest lies in trading with India: you have a growing market and we want this trade to be a two way street. Unemployment has rocked America and Obama is here with a clear economic agenda. And another thing is clear: Obama is not making a political argument for business, he is making a business argument.

If you saw some of the panelists on TV giving their opinions, you then saw that unlike some of our trigger happy anchors, seasoned diplomats and officials have been taking pains in explaining why Obama cannot come to India and start immediately pandering to a country that honestly can't even vote for him and even more honestly is not his top priority in the war on terror. Before he landed in India, in an interview to PTI, he made it quite clear that Pakistan needs to control terrorist elements that are bred there, but to make similar statements just as he landed in India would color this trip quite differently. For many of us watching the first speech at the Indo-US Business Council in Mumbai (on TV - I wasn't there!) it was immediately clear that this speech was not aimed at India but at America. He was quite frankly telling the Americans that I am going to solve this economic crisis even if it takes going to every Asian country and signing business deals myself. That he did not point out to the Indians - us - what the advantages of these deals were was never more obviously then the befuddled expressions on the faces of so many illustrious anchors, but this is the job of the Indian government, not Obama. He wasn't giving that speech to win the heart of the business community - after all, $10 billion deals were already signed - but he was there to announce these to this constituency.

If people have immediate needs - shelter, food, clothing - "healthy materialism" as Obama called it in a town hall meeting "is made happen by businesses and people". I think he needs the common American to not worry about these things, and that is what he is doing. Plain and simple. Of course, tomorrow's address at Parliament may open up some political questions but I am not sure that is his focus. He has already said that he is the President of the United States of America, as differentiated from the leader of the free world, and I think this is a different Obama than the guy we saw cockily accepting a Nobel Prize based on intention! The more measured personality we see, trapped by the recent mid term elections that has seen Republicans win the House in the US, is not what are used to seeing. After all, when he visited Cairo, his speech made a play to end animosity between the American and Muslim word. We are used to the "yes we can" stuff which is why we want him to come and give some impassioned speech about how India is wonderful and Pakistan is evil and Afghanistan is useless and because we are such an emotional people we are reacting rather personally to the fact that he hasn't! But diplomacy is diplomacy and what is talked about in private between government often never makes it to the public fora and I didn't need to have seen The West Wing to know that, but I have and I do.

What has been pointed out by many, and is clear to anyone watching analysis of the past two days is that we don't hold the US or even President Obama in awe. People, including the students who met him, have raised some tough questions and made some valid points. I haven't yet seen all the articles in the American press to analyze how Americans are reacting to "this" India but as someone pointed out, the India-US relationship is more equal today because economics is taking the front seat. In fact, we feel richer and so by extension, more comfortable to call out the Americans on what they are "not" doing, but in truth if this was simply a political visit, over time India might not have this backbone. In a political context we still have a desire to get a pat on the back for being the good guys in South Asia and that has never been more obvious that sentiments expressed all over the media. However, economically, its different. America was hit hard by the recession, we were not in comparison, but to grow we need more markets and the US is one of them. So do they.

I'm looking forward to the speech in Parliament. It'll tell us more about how India is viewed in the global marketplace.

Delhi O Delhi!

2010-09-23T07:05:00.001Z

Going back to my CWG story.. Remember when we said the CWG Village site was not good because its right in the path of the Yamuna Floodplains? Well. Hello floods.

Anyway, while watching the madness that is the CWG, and even worse, the media coverage of the CWG... I was asked by TV NZ to comment, and I thought, why the hell not!

So here it is:

http://tvnz.co.nz/commonwealth-games/delhi-doco-maker-slams-village-site-3797407/video

Dear Diary

2010-08-23T09:16:00.001Z

(This is fictional. A silly little short story I'd written for someone a while ago, in hopes of getting published, but sadly, it was rejected. Hope you crack a smile... even a little one?!)

Dear Diary,

I gave in my article to the boss today. He grunted, as is usual fashion, and told me he’d get back to me. My heart was racing the entire time and even coffee didn’t slow it down. But that was, if you can believe it, the best part of the day. In the afternoon he came to our room again. At first, the entire edit/op-ed page was furiously typing into our (pretty old) computers, that we didn’t even notice. Then suddenly, without warning, he told the op-ed editor that the main piece for the day had the intellectual equivalence of a rasogulla and could not go. This got me really happy. I stole a look at my watch. It was 5pm, far too late in the day to commission another article. So, this meant, I calculated, that each piece would shift up the page, leaving a gaping hole. And perhaps, I thought, raising an eyebrow, mine could fill that hole.

The room was tense as op-ed editor and edit editor (lets just call him ‘Boss’) had a silent fight. How can you say that, she cried, the writer is a well-respected political science professor from Chandigarh! He taught me when I was in college, she added. I think she was trying to build her case but I suspect that did more damage than the Chandigarh part. Boss was unmoved and mumbled something and left the room.

So here we were, stuffed in our little edit room, with nothing but the slow hum of that damn A/C. You know, there is also no privacy, so Facebook is out of the question. I know this for a fact because once, during lunchtime, I sneaked a peek at last weekend’s pictures. One of my senior colleagues walked in right when a picture of me drinking directly from a champagne bottle loaded. Enough said. Also the reason I can never update my friends about the crazy things that happen here.

The room felt quiet. Then someone offered their support to op-ed editor who bravely brushed it off. I was wondering if it would be too insensitive to offer my article as filler, but decided against it. You know, I started in my most concerned voice; I do have a piece that can come to the rescue today. Op-ed editor ignored me. Go to Newsweek, she ordered, see if Fareed Zakaria has a new article we can use.

Damn you Zakaria. You already have Newsweek. Can’t you give me this little paper?

Dear Diary,

We had another fight in the edit room today. Op-ed editor commissioned a piece from some uncle in Chandigarh. Boss clearly saw this on the system and came by. He said it was overreaching. Whatever do you mean, she asked, offended. It is like a transvestite that wants to vote twice. I started laughing although I wasn’t even sure I got the joke. Two angry glances later, I pretended to drop something and hid under my table.

Dear Diary,

So today I decided that I would gather up the courage to ask Boss if he has even read my piece. The first time I went to his desk, he seemed to be writing the day’s editorial. I got distracted by the fact that he had set Microsoft word to a green background and then chosen a incredibly childish font to type with. If you ever needed to know how to make terrorism fun, this is it.

A little while later, I returned to hover when I found op-ed editor at Boss’s station. She was, quite sarcastically, asking him if today’s lead met his intellectual sensibilities. Yes, yes, he grunted, I trust your judgment. She seemed a little confused by this.

I wonder if he trusts my judgment, I… well, wondered. Boss, I asked hesitantly, have you had a chance to read my article? I can work on the end if you like. This was met by silence.

As you know, Diary, I am obsessive and I think Boss knows it. He looked at me. Kept looking. Then said, no, I actually haven’t read it. By then I had completely forgotten what I came for. Well played Boss, well played.

But in the evening, while we waited for the designers to make the final pages, Boss came to our station. Over the shoulder of op-ed editor, he asked her if she really wanted to keep the main headline. Why, she asked as if she had been stabbed, what is wrong with it? It stings you like your junior colleagues wit, he said, looking at me. I’m pretty sure that was a serious dig at me so I pretended I was shooting him with lasers from my eyes. I think I won that round.

Dear Diary,

Today was really exciting! It was 6pm and Boss came into the room and told op-ed editor that her lead article was fantastic. As she beamed and beamed, he added that it was so good he was taking it for his page. Leaving us with, as usual, a gaping hole.

World. War. Three.

Dear Diary,

As I walked to the water cooler (fine, I’ll be honest, a cigarette), I saw op-ed editor go into executive editors room. She was never seen again.

I’m kidding. Jeez. She came to the room and told me she was taking a few days off. She looked really upset. I didn’t want to make a faux pas, so I simply nodded.

Then Boss came into the room. After she left. So I’m quite sure he had been watching the coast. You are responsible for the page now, he told me. I know you are new, and young, and have the attention of a fly, but I think you can do it. A Bengali fly, I asked, because that would be a compliment? No smile back. Fine, I’ll be honest, just a Bengali grimace.

I did complete the day, thank-you-very-much. He did change all my headlines, but what the hell. There were no typos and I left work on time. Job well done.

Dear Diary,

It has been four days since op-ed editor has gone to an undisclosed location. I joke; she is sitting at home. I even sent my mother’s sari-wala to help cheer her up.

I went to show Boss the final page before sending it for printing this evening. I went to his desk. He wasn’t there though a detective novel, almost finished, sat on his chair. I went to the executive editors office. They liked all my headlines and actually complimented me.

Using the moment to my advantage, I ventured, so Boss, have you read my article? I will, he said dismissively. I really wish I had superpowers. Evil superpowers.

Dear Diary,

Today Boss called in the afternoon. He admitted, quite sheepishly, that he liked my article. He then offered to help me structure it better so that the argument is stronger. He also suggested I find some more data to back up some of my claims.

Well, hello there. In honor of this great moment, I have cancelled drinks tonight and will work instead.

Dear Diary,

Guess who came back to work today! Everyone was quite happy, including me! I missed the company. It seems Boss and op-ed editor have made up and everything is as it should be.

Except for one thing. My revised piece, which was meant to go today, was held back. I think Boss didn’t want to force my article down her throat on her first day back. I can respect that. I said nothing, and did all.

Dear Diary,

You won’t believe what happened today. Boss finally told op-ed editor that I had written something quite good, and that it should go as lead on op-ed. She read it and agreed! I was so excited.

You get your picture on the op-ed page as well. The photo department called me downstairs to shoot something. I didn’t know if I should smile or not. Why? Because from here on this is the picture that will be kept on file every time I write. What if I write about murder or something really sad, and in my picture I’m grinning like a jackass? In the end I settled for a little smile. Later I realized one of my fangs was visible. So not ladylike.

Anyway, it was 6:30pm. We had the articles on the page. It was looking good and I couldn't wait for tomorrow when everyone I know would open the paper to see me! Suddenly, op-ed editor says that I should go as second lead since the other writers were far older and wiser than me. Sorry, she said, but sometimes you have to suck it up. I nodded away.

But I couldn’t believe it. This was totally unfair. I felt like I should get a little reward for holding down the fort while the grown ups fought.

Boss had come to check on the progress so I tried to appeal to him telepathically. I didn’t work so I tried to give him the whole big, sad eyes routine. Baited and hooked. He didn’t want to say anything to op-ed editor, clearly, so he just kept standing there. After a while, he took the computer from the designer and changed my headline to something quite provocative.

Everyone will look at that first; I know it. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: well played, Boss, well played.

Dear Diary,

So everything is back to normal at work. We had a meeting in our little room and the first twenty minutes went in asking the Boss to decide for us at what temperature the AC should be set at. I said it should be eighteen degrees because with so many people in the room, it is at least twenty-two by the time it gets to me. Mr Cold Feet over there said it should be put on twenty-five. So I said why don’t you wear a sweater to work. And he said because it’s June in Delhi. And I said, well you just made my point for me.

Boss seemed to enjoy the passionate fight, mostly because he didn’t give a damn.

I had another idea for an article but I know it won’t be printed for at least another two weeks so I should sit on it. Mull it over. Not be impatient.

Of course, that means I did none of the above. I asked op-ed editor if she thought my idea was good. She gave me an obligatory nod and told me to go ahead and explore the idea. So I chased Boss down the hall.

I started to jabber on when he told me this wasn’t a good time. He had some problems at home. Later when I went home I sent him a message asking him if everything was okay. He said, forty-two percent it was.

Okaay.

Dear Diary,

You might have figured out now that the life of a junior op-ed writer is a lot of chasing and a little writing. I’ve had to walk up and down the corridors of the office so much that I’ve stopped wearing heels altogether.

So as things stand, I have submitted my second piece to the Boss. He has grunted and said he will look at it. Articles from Chandigarh have started to resurface. I can only guess that it will take another monumental blowout to get my lovely fanged picture and byline on that page again.

Ain’t life grand.

Is the best over?

2010-06-22T18:53:00.000Z

When I was invited to Santiniketan, I wasn’t completely sure what to expect. I know about Rabindranath Tagore and the history (and what I didn’t I googled) but I really haven’t come across someone from Santiniketan either through work or the media – ever. I wasn’t sure if this is a wholly Bong college now, or if people from across India went there. I didn’t even realize it was a government college. I had assumed the Tagore family might be running it.

Anyway, so I went to the university – “from nursery to PhD” I was told really proudly. Of course Tagore is an overwhelming influence and his houses, chai spots et al are part of the guided tour. You even get to see Indira Gandhi’s dorm. There are sculptures all over campus. Most of them are by some guy, Tagore’s friend – whose name I can’t remember. They are really good! Classes are still held under the trees in the open. I asked if there is a holiday on rainy days, but sadly I was shown some covered spots. The college classes are held in buildings.

It was a typical government college in many respects. A bit run down, you can see the lack of proper infrastructure, and you can sense the complete lack of technology. At the same time, you can imagine the sculptors and painters loving this place.

Anyway, to my real story. The next day I spoke at the 10th anniversary of their media department. I was telling the mass com students that outside of TV, print and radio, as journalists they can become part of the development sector. I told them about the community video movement that we are spearheading. Etc.

So, it went well. Then came their regular program. “Discussions” which were actually debates. Two professors were called to sit on the stage and grade each speaker on style and presentation. No kidding. I thought I was back in high school!

But what really disappointed me were the debates. I have always sensed this since the time that I studied political science at Welham Girls, but the subject of politics (and media) seems to have an inbuilt institutionalized negativity. While I realize that corruptions and nepotism are all to real problems, but we teach students to hate the system, to hate politicians, to hate the media and to hate Indian government.

Ok, so things I picked up in the debates.

1. Youth in politics: Everyone talked about Rahul, Varun Gandhi and Sachin Pilot. That only children enter politics and that other young people have no chance. This really pissed me off. While I’m no BJP/Left lover, but these parties have seen many bright individuals rise through the ranks, as have other parties. It’s the Congress along that has this mummy-daddy issue written all over it, but I still don’t think that is the approach to take. When you talk about youth in politics, ESPECIALLY for students, counting only those who stand for elections is such a disservice. What about strategists, speech writers, online departments? When Advani ran last time, his office was filled with volunteers who came to help by leveraging their professional experience. It was all over the media. But it seems no one in Santiniketan could be bothered to read the papers. For soon-to-be professionals this is crucial,
2. Apathy: Let me say this for the record. I really really REALLY don’t think “todays youth” disinterested in politics, I have seen a lot of evidence to the contrary. Only one debater said that not everyone needs to be interested in politics, so lets not generalize. I was so surprised that that all the speeches said “During 1947, the youth came out to support the country… but today..” Ok, I know this college has a great Tagore hangover, so I will allow it, but seriously this logic is deeply flawed. Times, what was at stake, and passions were completely different then. Liberalization has happened, so many more avenues are open, people are rightly trying to build personal careers and personal lives. Politics is a career option and to be honest, when people are affected by a crisis – Jessica Lal to 26/11 – they pour out onto the streets.

I don’t mean to single out Santiniketan, it was a wonderful experience and the students there were very bright and articulate. But it did worry me as to what we are teaching our kids. (And really most of these ‘kids’ were just a few years younger than me.)

That these political science and mass com students are proceeding with a sense of disempowerment and even worse, that the best is over is criminal. That everything about this life, this India, is terrible. That politics is for criminals and there is nothing we can do about it. Ok, that is a gross generalization. I did meet a young girl who stood for local elections to prove a point. She is a great example of how we need to stop bitching and start doing.

I tried to tell the Professors my points and that there is a lot of opportunity and that students should be idealists not bordering on depression, they agreed. But I didn’t get the sense anything was going to change.

I see honor killings on TV and I see scams everywhere. We need to inculcate a sense of confidence in our students and I really don’t think we are doing that.

This is worrying.

I went to China and all I got was a suitcase full of clothes

2010-06-11T14:03:00.005Z

50% of my house (mother, father, dog, me) is preoccupied with China. (I am not, dog is not). Its often China this, China that. Foreign policy, territory, look at what the Chinese are doing now. My parents went to China last year and came back super impressed with the technological progress. I heard about Shanghai's elevated roads for weeks. I remembered that, a few years ago, when an Indian Express reporter had gone to China, she had written that you never see an extra person hanging about in China. They are all doing something that means something. And they stand in lines. You know, everything that is not India.

So, with all these things in mind, I decided to join a friend in Beijing and Shanghai. I had a list of things I wanted to see: The Great Wall, Forbidden City, Military Museum; everything that sounded deadly, and to be honest, scary. Even my Express editor had made a face when I'd mentioned I was going to China..."why there?" So you can imagine, I was expecting some form of a sterile clean hospital masquerading as a country.

Hello, shock -- I didn't expect you! The Chinese are noisy, pushy, smelly (noodles and cigarettes), juvenile, talkative and obsessed with ice cream!

As I travelled through the streets of Beijing and Shanghai, the question that was swirling in my mind the whole time was: "how would I describe China in an article?" And the same answer kept coming back to me again and again. I felt that the urban populations -- because I never ventured out of these two cities -- are encouraged to be, and also trapped in, a state of perpetual adolescence. Perhaps its the consumer culture that is literally exploding from every corner because of new-to-China capitalism. Perhaps its the fact that its a Communist country that needs its people distracted enough to not challenge government. Perhaps it is the fact that the state encourages these mass good that spill onto the streets. Perhaps its the fact that most of urban China consists of young, single, trendy people with no siblings; so therefore very independent lives which cash to spend and not much family to spend it on. (In fact, imagine a generation of people who have no idea what it is to grow up with a brother or sister. They have at the most, two first cousins.) They are riding the wave that the Chinese government is providing them: fast jobs, flashy cities, deep pockets, and the joy of being an only child. Perhaps its all of the above!

And what do I mean by perpetual adolescence: fasination with cartoons (especially wearing cartoon themed clothes), ice cream nearing a national obsession, most grown women wearing only "cute" clothes (its as if the concept of 'sexy' has not yet arrived in China) and finally, a meekness and an inability to think for yourself.

To clarify, I don't mean that there are no independent, mature, wordly men and women in China. There are. But allow me to highlight some simple stories that might show you what I mean by stunted personalities. Of course, there is no doubt that this is a direct result of a communist regime where rules and rules are rules -- and they are not meant to be broken. We took a boat ride in Shanghai. By the time we reached the top of the boat, all the chairs were taken. Predictably, we asked the waiter if we could have another chair. He said no, only these chairs were available. I looked inside; a few rooms had spare chairs. Can we bring them out, I asked. No. Getting angry, I said I didn't want to stand through the boat ride and went off downstairs, with my friend Ankur, to find the captain. Finally the captain gave us 3 folding chairs from a stack of folding chairs downstairs. We came upstairs, sat on them. Another Chinese couple looked at us curiously, and inquired about getting chairs as well. The waiter said no, they listened. Finally, an hour later, when we were leaving the boat, the couple noticed the stack of folding chairs on the way out. The man went beserk. I hadn't really seen that. I thought about it -- in India, the enterprising waiter would have made a big production about getting a chair to earn a tip. Not in China. A rule is a rule is a rule. The same thing happened with us at the Shanghai Museum. Purchases were paid for on one card, but we wanted separate bags. "One bag per purchase," the cashier kept repeating till we explained to him that giving out an extra plastic bag really isn't a big deal. I won't bore you with more stories, but you get the drift.

At the same time, there is a growing concern about these nuclear families. Outside the MOCA (Shanghai Musuem of Contemporary Art), after a lazy lunch at the fabulous garden restaurant, Barbarossa, we came across tens of people in the garden sitting with posters with lists on them. They were in Chinese, so I couldn't make out what was going on. A few of the signs had pictures and for a fleeting second I wondered if this was a protest about missing people. But on second glance, the pictures were more facebook-y than anything, and I realised this was a marriage market! Reading the year of birth on the posters, it seems the parents of countless 29-33 year olds had given up on letting their children find a suitable mate and taken to the streets (or gardens!) There were even more people browsing through the posters, mostly older couples, ostensibly looking for a mate for their child. Coming from a country built on matrimonial ads and the rest, it wasn't new -- but the desperate form it took spoke volumes about what the undercurrent regarding the single child is.

Its not just the parents. Young Chinese are definitely thinking about this policy too. For better or for worse, Psingh and I were stuck in the middle of a 5 hour diatribe on the subject (in Chinese) on a local train from Beijing to Shanghai. Firstly, we were told only a chair car was available. 13 hours? Seemed a bit much, but mentally picturing a Shatabdi, we decided to wing it. I won't bother going into how we almost missed the train -- literally running on the platform with our bags as the trains signal went off.... getting into whatever bogey was in front of me... trudging through the local compartments that were teeming with people -- because me and my friends always ending up chasing trains, planes and buses. But when we did get on, it turned out to be 3rd class equivalent of China's train system... complete with seat sharing, smoking indoors and the stench of alcohol. And surprise! The lights were not switched off at night (how much was I missing the Indian Railways at night!) and people are "expected" to talk. And they did! After the initial staring at us, laughing at us, and half the compartment watching Ugly Betty with us on my laptop, they finally forgot us. Unfortunately, we were caught in the middle of a hectic conversation which, as much as we tried, we could not end. Betty, a young Chinese girl who spoke some English, translated a bit for me -- and yes, the single child policy was being hotly contested. Perhaps liberal living will ultimately give way to liberal thinking; it must surely be interlinked at some level. This -- without a free media.

By the way, Betty also asked Psingh and me if we were sisters and then told us that she couldn't tell us apart! Nice racial profiling here, Betts :)

But my own racial profiling aside, I have to say I was so impressed with Shanghai that I kinda want to live there for a bit! Its a newer New York in terms of infrastructure, and time will tell in terms of energy. Right now the World Expo is going on and the city is basking in the glory. Signs are everywhere, the road adorned with flowers, English hotlines have been set up for clueless tourists like me and restaurants are full. In comparison, Beijing is like a sleepy old town, the hotbed of monuments and government. I'd be inclined to make a Delhi-Bombay comparison, but I assure you, these cities a couple of many decades into the future!

That brings us into this whole planning debate, which can get messy. It also takes me back to my living room. Is the Chinese model better? But what about democracy? Can you really plan out entire sections of the city, neat and clean, and then allow people to settle there? Or must it always through extensive debate and protests and have each vote counted. I know that a lot of the older people I have met who have gone to China (even people I met at the airport) feel disillusioned at the fact that India is no where close to looking - and functioning - as developed as China. After visiting China, Kamal Nath's "India China in the same breath" statements seem hollow. That I've met people who have travelled to the interiors and said that development is taking place everywhere makes me wonder if China will ever move towards democracy the way it is moving a few centuries ahead. After all, Google, Facebook, Youtube and other staples of our online lives were missing, and I have heard about email accounts being closed overnight.

In the end, my test to myself is: would I rather be born a girl in India or one in China? Riding the wave of urbanization here, or riding it there.

I choose India -- as long as I can make it to China's banging cities every once in a while. As yes, fill those suitcases!

PS - I had a whole of adventures in China that I'll write about soon-ish! Keep coming back!

On the Cards

2010-06-09T08:18:00.000Z

Urban Indians are hooked to poker and are playing it everywhere—on trains, in business schools, on movie shoots and in farmhouses.

Delhi seems to suddenly close shop on weekends. Even the phone doesn’t ring often, and when it does, I am usually asked, “You don’t play poker, right? Good. Let’s do something else!”

Poker, the saying goes, takes a day to learn and a lifetime to master. Urban India seems to be spending its lifetime mastering this game. My friend Dhaval Mudgal, 25, lead singer of the popular Delhi band, Half Step Down, arranged to teach me the game at his small flat. “Some games are pretty serious and they wouldn’t want a stranger—or a non-player there,” he said.

His friends were settled around a small table, shuffling cards when I arrived. Guitars and mini bongo drums were in a corner in the bright orange living room. Coronas were being passed around, and IPL cricket was being played on TV. The day’s “buy in” was Rs 3,000 (players buy chips worth a certain amount and play with that; like traditional card games, you have to make your card sequences but poker has the added kick of betting on your hand—and your opponents’). Most of the players had come after work, still in their office clothes, and would go home just in time to wash up and sleep. A poker game lasts for at least four hours. Simrit Tiwana, a fashion designer seated at the table, recounted how she lost a great hand in a dramatic play amidst peals of laughter. So was she playing with only Rs 3,000 tonight? Laughing, she said, “That’s an eyewash. If the game is good, you can end up buying in four times, and then you’re gambling with Rs 12,000.”

In upwardly mobile India, this American game that involves playing with your mind—and money—has struck the perfect chord. That Indians love to gamble is no secret. We’ve been seeing it from the time Yudhishtir gambled away his wife and brothers in the Mahabharata. Today, poker is just exclusive enough and accessible enough to be the game of choice—on movie sets, in overnight trains, in farmhouses and in business schools. Chances are there will be a game at your neighbours’ tonight. And if you are a “shark”, a good player “who really understands the game,” you’ll have a social standing.

In Delhi, on any given night, some12 to 13 poker games are on. “Wherever poker has started, it has stayed,” says 29-year-old Pranav Bagai, an entrepreneur who has started Shark, a design label devoted exclusively to poker products. By Diwali, Shark will have poker tables, and chips, even customised tables, sets and other accessories. A poker table costs around Rs 25,000-Rs 30,000 and the chips Rs 5,000-Rs 10,000.

In Mumbai, poker tournaments are becoming popular. Since gambling is not technically allowed, organisers collect money on entry and then players play for prizes like laptops and flat-screen TVs. Weekend trips to Alibaug normally involve poker sets. People have started putting disclaimers in party invites saying that “this is not a poker party” to keep it light and breezy.

So what is the pull? Sakshi Salve, a 27-year-old scriptwriter who “was curious about the game since everyone was playing it”, says poker “tells you a lot about people”. “When you play with them, bluff, bet, win, lose… you see a person’s character. I know so much more about my friends now,” she says. Salve has been hosting a poker evening at her house every few weeks for the past couple of months. Bottles of wine are cooled for the occasion as are crib notes. Her poker gang consists of young, fashionable women, and in her Delhi house, Jimmy Choos, Blackberrys and poker chips go hand-in-hand. Salve feels it’s a good way to spend an evening without going out. “I only gamble as much as I’d spend on a night out,” she says, “so, not more than a few thousand rupees.”

For others, it’s a way to de-stress. Akshat Kretrapal, a student of the prestigious Indian School of Business in Hyderabad, arranges poker games for students. During orientation, about 50 students turned up at poker night to learn the game. Even the professors play with students, “a good way to relieve the stress from a hectic study schedule,” he tells us. Bollywood too is catching up. Producer Vicky Bahri started playing the game three years ago while on location for a movie. A crew member, who had returned from Hollywood, taught them the game. They played daily for 20 days and were hooked. “Now we play every Friday,” he says, “and people often ask me to call them for the next game. We always have new people at our table!” His group enjoys it so much that instead of flying down to Delhi for a trip, they chose to travel by train , making the overnight trip a poker night. He adds, “If you play it with the right spirit, it is a great way of catching up with friends and de-stressing.”

Delhi-based businessman Anirudh Khaitan likes the skill involved in the game. “It’s all math,” says the 32-year-old. “You calculate your chances of winning a hand and then you can decide if you should bet. Say, Rs 50,000 is lying on the table, and you have a chance to put in Rs 30,000—this is your decision: should you put in Rs 30,000 to win Rs 50,000? It would be made much easier if you only have to put in Rs 10,000 for the Rs 50,000 – because your return is higher,”says Anirudh whose farmhouse, many say, has seen legendary poker games. Some months ago, a game that began at midnight ended only at around 2 pm.

Riding on the wave, Powerplay, a Gurgaon-based sports company, is launching the IPRT (Indian Poker Ranking Tournament) on a large scale, starting in Goa and expanding to Sri Lanka and Nepal. This is a platform for Indian players to get ranked so they can play at an international level. And while it is arranging to form a poker team which will have payouts like trips to Vegas and Macau, it also mentions that it is not promoting gambling because poker is not a game of chance, but one of skill.

Players want poker to be removed from the gambling law because they believe luck is but one component. When talking about other players, phrases like “he really understands the game” crop up a lot. There are books, videos, journals and articles that discuss poker plays and what to do when faced with certain set of cards.

Former poker player and author James McManus says, “Sometimes…the game is much more than just a game.” In the 1800s, when poker started gaining momentum, it suited the mood of the American Wild West. McManus writes that poker was a game “whose rules favored a frontiersman’s initiative and cunning, an entrepreneur’s creative sense of risk, and a democratic openness to every class of player.” Poker was tied up with images of gunfire and manliness, but always, a game of winnings. McManus claims to be surprised by “the extent to which poker logic was deployed by the leaders of countries with nuclear weapons to help them figure out when and how to bluff, as well as which adversaries are or aren’t bluffing: from the war between the US and Japan, through the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, to the standoffs today with Iran and North Korea.”

Young, urban Indians probably wouldn’t care about world politics, as they comfortably shuffle cards in their living rooms or on train coaches. Seems they are right after Mark Twain’s heart, who might have one of the best quotes about poker: “There are few things that are so unpardonably neglected in our country as poker…It is enough to make one ashamed of the species.”

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/on-the-cards/629539/0

India Unheard Promo

2010-04-30T05:19:00.002Z

It was taking too long to upload the video here, so just click on the link and watch it on youtube. The video is only 2:30 mins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK24KZoaVms

We worked really hard! So do see, it explains everything, lets you meet some of the people we trained.

And now... I shall go back to regular blogging :)

The media has failed us

2010-04-16T05:26:00.000Z

This is a rant. A truly angry one.

I returned from Kumbh/rafting to have my friend Kundan ask me "have you heard about the latest Shashi Tharoor scandal?" No, I hadn't. I turned on our 'trusted' news channels, the ever useless bunch, and found myself in front of the telly for the most part of the day. I needed to catch up on news, you see.

I was bombarded with images of Shashi Tharoor; how he "may" have used Sunanda Pushkar as a "proxy", a woman who he is "friends" with and influenced investors to choose Kochi as an IPL team. Then the anchor went to the ever useful 'reporter on the ground' to ask, "Do you have any updates?" -- "No, none" -- Anchor: "Well, there you have it, no updates and no real information. Breaking news people, we are as lazy and useless as ever!"

The point is this: I don't know or care that Tharoor is guilty. It is the job of the media to tell me the story, not the million allegations they are throwing back and forth. News channels are not meant to gossip central, but no one has told our wonderful editors that.

At night, my own parents, normally really smart people, were on this anti-Tharoor kick. "Arrogant, tweets... " blah blah. I asked them if they had read his tweets or press release, or anything beyond the tv news story. They hadn't. I got angry, but then realised, how many times must I have done this? Trusted by news channel only to be fooled into an opinion by lazy journalism.

The more I think about it: I don't understand the media. And the media doesn't understand the story.

NOW - they ask, where is this IPL money coming from? For three years, they have given (what I assume is free) publicity to IPL, Lalit Modi and the whole gang because it was fancy, fun, had glitz and glamor. All the journalists, who keep having award shows to celebrate eachother, never once asked the tough questions -- where is the money coming from? how are they claiming to make profits? where did the Sahara group find money?

Editors like Rajdeep Sardesai (the most guilty in my view) keep writing columns and tweets lamenting the state of the Indian media and when will it improve, while actively doing nothing but chasing TRPs? We've trusted him, Barkha, Arnab etc etc and allowed them into our living rooms for hours on end, listening to them and their 'expert' commentary. I trust my lawyer, banker, waxing woman for god's sake, so I should be able to trust my anchors.

But I can't now, can I? For every Tharoor, Sania-Shoaib blah blah... they behave more like a gossip column than real news. There are countless stories across India -- good and bad -- that need to be in a news line up. Yes, they will cost money and physical effort to go cover, and you might need to leave an AC studio to do so. But they are important to India. It seems that Tharoor may or may not have had something good or bad to do with the IPL and that Lalit Modi might have allowed shady money into IPL is far more important to India and Indians than the home minister addressing Dantewada in Lok Sabha. Sometimes I thank my stars for Doordarshan and NewsX, the only channels who give you a range of stories, instead of parking themselves in a living room in Hyderabad for a whole day.

We need new people in charge of our news channels because it seems like our current guards have failed us. This is a plea. Please do your duty. Don't chase TRPs and easy reporting, but fight the good fight. Serve the country. I know that has nothing to do with getting nominated to Rajya Sabha or winning India's highest civilian honor. But for yourself and for us.

NEWS. Not opinion. Not gossip. Not allegations. NEWS. Please, please, please.

we are not always born to lead

2010-04-05T09:25:00.002Z

If you ask my mother, who was a good leader, she will tell you "Shivaji, Churchill, Indira Gandhi..." If you ask my father, he will tell you who wasn't a good leader.."Pandit Nehru.."

We tend to think of national and international level leaders when discussing leadership for obvious reasons. Theirs are the achievements that burn the brightest in the sky, and they are the people who have either risen or been born to achieve monumental change.

I cannot disagree with this. I too have people I admire very much...

The more I leave the books in their shelves and travel around the length of this country, working with grassroots leaders, the more I have begun to deconstruct the beginnings of leadership and how it is formed -- and how it can be encouraged

* We have rungs of leadership, starting at the grassroots level. These are people I have been fortunate to work with, and at times I feel that they are the ones who achieve the most because their fights are the most passionate, personal and often, hardest.

* They are born of their circumstances. Many I know are not the ones "with a vision" - no, they are often fighting hard to earn respect for their communities ("we are not untouchable") or fighting a physical displacement because of the growth of industry.

* It is not at all easy to rise above the discrimination you face because of caste, religion or economics, but it is all the more an astonishing achievement to be prepared to lead your community to a better future. When Ambedkar went to visit Mahatma Gandhi to ask him to speak out against untouchability, Gandhi did not agree. When Ambedkar left, Gandhi was told that Ambedkar was a Dalit himself. Gandhi remarked that he did not know this -- it is easier to feel compassion when you are significantly better off than when you are a victim of these circumstances yourself. (You see, Ambedkar is a upper caste name given by his tutor so that BR could study further in life without discrimination).

* Many of these grassroots leaders (I won't say most, because some were drawn to the NGO life) have battled horrific personal tragedies that would make a lesser person turn to alcohol, drugs, suicide.... or depression. But these people have fought the hardest when backed up against a wall. Now, as vauge as that cliche sounds, the turning point of most of these people has been that they got involved in some local NGO that was involved in either womens rights, education etc etc

* This is the first important point: leadership needs to be harnessed. Local NGOs, through various activities and often a substitute for schooling, teach people how to think constructively. They in turn, understand nuances about issues that concern them, and lead a team from their community that can work on it. You cannot imagine some of the people I meet, shy housewives with pallus draped around them, who lead all the women in their village to defy their families and open bank accounts... it is truly amazing how a million little steps help open a million minds.

* Where we come in is the next step. Our dealings with grassroots organizations and leaders/members is that we are "enablers". Our worldview is bigger, and we have more experts on our staff that can help put context to events around the world, and also introduce new tools as we have access to technology. For example we need to introduce many grassroots people to (a) identity (b) the bigger picture.

* Those fighting for Dalit rights or womens rights only see themselves as those things, whereas, their other identities are pushed back. For example, a Dalit can be from a state, a region, a country, a philosophy. Same for a woman. In terms of the bigger picture, often NGOs oppose development without studying other factors besides displacement. If they correctly understood monetary value for their land, opportunity this project could bring.. or on the flipside their rights as per international conventions many of these struggles would not be for nothing. (Case study: Dongrias vs Vedanta).

* Technology is also another factor that can help raise their work from a strictly low impact local action to one that is accessible everywhere and immediately scalable. Technology also encourages creativity and employment.

* The point is that armed with information, often imparted through tried and tested skill development camps, local leaders can become successful on a national level.

* For me, where I work in a high impact organization at a national level, and for us, we can step outside a community led struggle and see how we can tie up these movements at a national level to have the kind of impact that will generate a movement. For example, we are currently arming many grassroots people with video cameras so that stories of their communities can be brought to a common platform where we can generate action.

* But for this me to grow further/ for the org to grow further we need to educate ourselves in what is out there, what people are doing, and how to build on these things. For example, we meet people from the UN and now have developed a model by which beneficiaries of schemes can document the pace at which they are being implemented. There is a potential to help Google create content in local dialects and so on. Conversations with MDGs help us align our future goals with a common international vision.

*For that platforms that help you meet people with big ideas, a breadth of experience and often the funds are important. It helps connect dots you never knew existed.

I need some helping in thinking..... guys, your thoughts?

Explaining India Unheard

2010-03-29T10:30:00.002Z

India Unheard Community Correspondents Training workshop

(A new program by Video Volunteers)

India Unheard

The first thing one needs to understand about undertaking such an ambitious project is that India Unheard, in both mission and scope, is a path-breaking program. Taking into account that the mainstream media cannot adequately represent all sections and geographical regions of India, Video Volunteers decided to create an alternative media channel. Funds are always a barrier to entry, and therefore, instead of trying to launch a “channel” on TV, Video Volunteers looked to new media projects, the internet and phone based initiatives to carry video and information from small villages and towns to the cities (both nationally and internationally).

The first question that arises is why? Why are we doing this? I would offer a simple explanation, and one that I vehemently believe in. Along with the basic needs of food, water, infrastructure that communities need, there is a crucial need for creation of a media outlet which can both educate and offer a platform for carrying voices. All too often small communities are fed information from bigger cities, and to that end, this information often has no local resonance. To train local community members to become journalists helps them identity their problems and address them in constructive ways. There is a feeling in the community that ‘someone is listening to us’ which further leads to the confidence that they are too included in the democratic process (beyond election time). For individual members of community media, who are often from the most neglected parts of society – so-called lower castes, women, religious and sexual minorities – it is both a voice and also a paradigm shift in terms of professions available to them. The tag of ‘journalist’ allows their social status to rise and in turn they can help raise the profile of their community.

The next question is how. To sit in a room and plan to bring together ‘marginalized’ sections of society seems an impossible task. The first phase of the plan was simple enough: two persons from each state of India would be selected to participate in this program. We would have to ensure, to the best of our ability, that they would be equally from both genders, and also from the least represented pockets of society. For the purpose of the first phase running smoothly, a decision was taken that these ‘community correspondents’ (CCs) would have to speak either English or Hindi, which meant that immediately their economic profile was raised as they would have to be formally educated on some level. We decided to send out applications throughout the country through grassroots (and some national) NGOs, who could nominate intelligent and driven persons who wanted to explore using media for development work. Applications flooded our office, and a careful selection was made so that a diverse group would be selected. We took special care to ensure that we had adequate North East representation, as this project is pan-India.

This brings us to what. What exactly would these CCs do? Firstly, video is the mainstay of video volunteers, so therefore, video training would be imparted. Since these CCs would be individuals from different regions of the country, it is our responsibility to train them as ‘video journalists’ capable of conceptualizing, scripting and shooting a story by themselves. The second part would be to familiarize them with new media – sms updates, twitter, facebook – so that people could not just follow their video stories but get invested in the individual CCs themselves. On our end, we have to create an interactive website that hosts all these stories, identifiable by themes, CCs and regions, so that it could become a one-stop spot on the internet for finding out stories from the ‘real’ India. An online platform essentially means that our target audience is not necessarily an Indian audience (as broadband speeds and internet penetration levels are quite low) but it is to find and secure a large international audience. Through their interest we can show these videos on multiple websites, TV channels and so on. But for all this to happen, one needed to also create a very efficient system at the Video Volunteers headquarters that could handle the influx of these videos every month. Right now we have about 30 CCs, and if they send in the decided number of 5 videos per month, then VV will have 150 videos come to the Goa office that will then have to be edited, subtitled, uploaded and organized. For that there was a rapid expansion of staff; a program director was brought in from the US along with project managers, editors etc.

When? The program has already been officially launched by our brand ambassador, Bollywood star Abhay Deol in Gujarat. In a month the first batch of videos will come rolling in and VV will find out how well they managed to train the CCs and also the individual capacity of these CCs to produce 5 videos a month. The basis of all this was a 2 week video training bootcamp organized by VV where these 30 CCs were trained in the technical aspects of video production as well as the theoretical concepts of journalism which includes staying away from personal agendas.

So who were these people we trained? I can’t possibly go into all of their personal histories but let me try and paint some stories. A girl who grew up wanting to be a boy but was so abused at home that she tried to commit suicide many times. The clincher is that she was adopted by hijras who took her confused sexuality as an insult to them. Only when she left home and lived on the pavement did she meet her first transsexual and realize she is not alone. We had amazing women who have been victims of severe domestic violence, but have finally stood up to fight for womens rights. We have young men from communities where their peers are either manual laborers or scavengers, but they have stayed in school despite the odds, to fight for a better future. We had many from tribal communities, here to find a platform to talk about how they are being displaced around the country. We had a muslim woman who told us that this training was the first time in her entire life that she had not been forced to wear her hijab and felt free. I had the opportunity to work with all of them in creating a script for their ‘profile videos’ which will be featured on our website and was overwhelmed with their passionate stories.

Outside of the training I am also arranging partnerships for this project. People and organizations interested in supporting, working with or showcasing community media. We are finally going to become a rural newswire, so this means muchos expansion. There is a lot more to be said about the issue but I wanted to explain the many pictures I had put up on Facebook to everyone.

See the pics!

Valley Girl

2010-03-02T10:15:00.004Z

You expect to see security when you land in Srinagar, but the sheer number of army personnel still takes you by surprise. I had promised myself to enjoy this break in Kashmir without getting involved in any political conversations, especially since I was totally unsure if you should strike up a conversation with the local fisherman about whether he preferred India or Pakistan. Is there any etiquette to this? Can it quickly become violent? Do I want this in the five days that I am here for some R&R?

Kashmir, you all know, is stunning. It was still winter there, so the landscape was a mix of grey and brown. One of the first things I noticed was that unlike other villages and small towns I go to, none of the houses were painted in colors. Especially in the countryside, the homes with their steel slanting roofs, remain true to their brick color. The few that were painted kept a low profile, opting for a muted green. As we drove to our hotel, the fantastic Dar-es-Salam on Nagin Lake, I couldn't help but smile at how completely different the landscape looked from all the other places I've been travelling to recently. I've become used to the Goan beaches, and the hills of Mussurie, and most small towns of India can't help but look alike with the malls, insane traffic and lack of trashcans. Kashmir felt different, special.

I have these memories of going to Kashmir with my family when I was really little. They've been made stronger over the years because of photographs. I don't know if I actually remember playing in the snow, or the apples, or my grandmothers houses, or if I think I do because I see pictures. It doesn't matter, really. Though unfamiliar, it just felt so familiar to me. But what I didn't expect to be smacked in the face with was the overwhelming sense of poverty. Maybe it was the bleak colors of winter, or the almost uniform sense of dressing (phiran), or the lack of tourists which made the city seem sleepy, gloomy, peaceful all at the same time, but honestly, I didn't know what to make of it. Kundan, from the region, told me that his father had told him that in Kashmir, people aren't poor, they still eat two meals of meat everyday. Looking at the fat cheeks of most kids around, I hoped this is still true.

Shops had Hurriyat posters, though my mother said that might have been for the same reason that in Mumbai people have Shiv Sena signs -- to be left alone. But, while looking for walnuts and salwar kameezes, it felt unsettling. But the people took that feeling away with their charm and simplicity. It is a place stuck in time, and the sense of waste -- of resources and of energy -- is overwhelming.

Let me explain -- we drove from Srinagar to Gulmarg for a night. We started at 10:30 in the morning and reached the small village of Magam, which we had to cross to get to Gulmarg. We were told that there there had been some trouble between the Sunnis and Shias, and two houses had been burnt. Trouble over land allocated for a mosque. All the taxi drivers who were also similarly stranded with us made sure they stressed that this was a "local conflict" as opposed to terror/freedom fighter/what-have-you driven. A convoy of army trucks loaded with weapons went into the village, and after an hour we wondered how long this would take. We are busy getting calls from friends in Gulmarg that this could take a few hours. I was on bbm with Kundan who told me that sometimes the curfew lasts longer than necessary, and local hawkers selling tea, coffee, biscuits and the like, make a tiny profit. Almost on cue, food arrived.

When we finally did make it through Magam, it was an odd sight. All shops were shut down, and since all shutters had been painted by Vodafone, it seemed like we were driving through a big commercial. The army personnel and jeeps station at very regular intervals brought an sense of danger and safety at the same time. If my cab driver hadn't been happily reuniting and chatting away with other cabbies during the curfew, I think we would have been rather worried. But normalcy of it all, coupled by the rain that seemed to say 'everyone get indoors' kept the mood upbeat yet under the radar. But our task wasn't over yet. Army barricades didn't allow us to go through although for no particular reason. One friendly army man told us to tell his senior up ahead that we were just going a little further up, to our house ahead of Magam. I thanked my Kashmiri last name, cause the story could be believable! It took a lot of cajoling and pleading. Finally, I think we were let go since we had place in our taxi for two people who needed a lift to their villages on the way to Gulmarg. I suspect some of the army chaps charge for providing this transportation service to locals. Once on our way, our cabbie was muttering that all the army guys are correupt and can be bribed. I decided to keep quiet.

Gulmarg was the amazing ski town I expected it to be -- and then some. To be honest, I really had no idea how popular it was. Not a skier, I was looking forward to a Gondola ride the most. Just as we were about to hop in and get a panoramic view of Gulmarg, a three policemen got into the same Gondola. They were with a senior government official, here for a visit. I tried to make conversation. "So who's here?" (No response). "Don't worry, I come from Delhi where all the VIPs of India live" (No response).

On the way back, a special taxi with snow tires was summoned to take us down from Gulmarg. Fifteen minutes into our downhill drive, we realised that traffic was backed up. 22 army trucks were coming up the hill and needed place. One of them hit our cab at the back. While we sat in the cab for an hour, our cabbie (again having reunions) brought all the taxi drivers and assorted hangers on to show them the damage. Finally, on the way down, when we passed some officers standing on the road, our cabbie called out to them to say "you have damaged my cab .. who will pay for this?" Once out of the army area, he told us that this (and a million other reasons) is why Kashmiris hate the army.

The next cab that took us back to Srinagar was driven by a more gentler chap. His father had been a cab driver, only to have his ambassador blown up 12 years ago in an attack. A hotel owner had been kind enough to help his family buy another taxi. Finally, I succumbed to all the questions in my head and asked him what he thought about India, Pakistan, Kashmir. A focused sort of chap, he just wanted Kashmir to have more tourism so that he could have more business. "Open up Kashmir to India and remove special status?", I asked. "Yes," he said.

Potential is the word that comes to mind after you have done being astounded by Kashmir's natural beauty. While on the shikara, enjoying a peaceful boat ride, enterprising salesmen come up to you, locking their shikara with yours and offer a range of products -- paper mache products, earrings, seeds. (Yes, seeds). At the Mughal Gardens, they waste no time in dressing you up as a local Kashmiri girl (for those who know me, yes, I was a very willing participant) and start taking pictures till you realise you cannot afford to get a whole portfolio shown. Even at the foothills of Gulmarg, where you need to change into a taxi with snow tires, you are caught by locals and told that the "government doesn't allow you to go upto Gulmarg unless you rent boots and jackets from them." (Ya, right!)

In the end, there is deep sense of belonging that people have in Kashmir, more than I have experience in any other part of the country. Maybe its because they don't belong anywhere else but here. Or that they still don't know what "here" is. There were times I felt relief that I was able to say "I am Kashmiri" or "Did you know Vimla Kaul of Srinagar?" because suddenly I belonged too.

I need more time there. So, the moment the flowers bloom, I'm going back!

Box of memories

2009-11-27T05:24:00.005Z

Last night was the anniversary of the first day of the Bombay attacks. Most of you know I went to cover the story for PBS -- I reached Bombay on Day 3, after the major operations were over, and stayed for the next week, talking to people and sussing out the security situation. It was heartbreaking.

Been a year, and I've been revisiting those days in my head. It makes me so sad.

So, imagine my surprise, when I opened the Indian Express this morning -- to find the lead article called "The Vanished Moment" asking why show of grief by the "middle class" is pushing to "replicate -- artificially, inaccurately, in miniature, and in bad taste -- the trappings of America's grief?" I'm sure not what sort of show of grief would be deemed appropriate by the columnist and others who may share his view. Perhaps, since we are Indian and not America, we must always beat our chests and sob uncontrollably? Perhaps, since we are Indian and used to violence, we should not try and be this affected by an event that should ideally bounce off us? Perhaps we need to apologize that the Bombay attacks affect a demographic that has easy access to the news media and therefore dominate the news?

We have not had the hysteria that surfaced in America, the columnist argued, so why are we trying to be America by holding vigils? Are we going to do this for every attack? Must our grief be a "cheap knockoff"?

I, for one, am deeply offended. Say what you will about TV channels cashing in our collective urban grief, but to chide people for showing their solidarity with victims, survivors, the buildings, the city and for showing up to make themselves feel better is rubbish. Perhaps if we could all write national columns, people wouldn't need to take to the streets to express themselves.

I never thought you'd have to be present at the scene of a massacre to feel sympathy, but I might just be proven wrong today. To call emotions still unresolved from that attack "synthetic" is awful. Have a heart.

India is not America. 26/11 is not 9/11. I think we know that.

Don't tell us to get over it. YOU get over it.

PS - You blame the country for comparing the Bombay terror attacks to the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York. In your article, you have compared "genuine collective emotion" for Bombay with grief for Princess Diana's death.

PPS- I was told many years ago to lock my idealism in a box because that's the only way I will succeed in life. I beg to differ.

Need your vote

2009-11-10T09:00:00.003Z

As many of you know, Video Volunteers won the Knight News Challenge two years ago for our Community Video Unit project. We are hoping to expand this now.. and so have made a new application for funding...

BTW the CJ program is aiming to create a Rural Reuters in the long term so that the mainstream will understand the realities of India and the media will reflect it..

Please click on this link, read... RATE it.. and leave a comment if you want. But DO it... NOW.

http://generalapp.newschallenge.org/SNC/ViewItem.aspx?pguid=6aee8166-fb7c-4a2e-8581-fa6f6ff036dd&itemguid=66b29faa-3602-4308-b5cd-f8ba7c62a4b3

Thanks guys!

What I see is what you get

2009-09-22T17:54:00.003Z

At a conference of 'community video producers', Yasho and Bipin were invited on stage to share their love story. If you didn't know that they were from slums, you could be fooled into believing they were high-powered executives who met at a business conference. In a way, they did. Yasho and Bipin are both 'community video producers'. Yasho is from Maharashtra, and Bipin from Gujarat. They met a few times at community training camps. Bipin was quite bold, he told us, and called Yasho and said "I love you". She, in turn, lectured him about how they couldn't get married. But he persisted, and they did! As people congratulated them, Yasho took the microphone to make a speech. "It is not easy to do this," she warned, "you have to fight for your marriage. Remember you will need a lot of strength to fight for a love marriage." Her husband agreed. This is why they remain deeply involved in community media. To change not just their own lives, but those of the others.

For Yasho, if she hadn't joined the local NGO that was offering to train locals in camera work and editing, she would have never married a man of her choice. It is a fact. She is the oldest of seven sisters and was stuck at home taking care of them. Venturing out of the house was a challenge, but she fought for it. Her new team, called Apna TV was a motley crew of people, some of whom had been mechanics and housewives. Akshara, a NGO for women, sponsored their training, which continues to this day. At first, when they went out into the locality with a camera, people were sceptical. But when they screened their first movie, people changed. They congratulated her father on what a smart girl she had grown up to be. People were eager to help them make the next movie and the next time even more came to the screenings. And in the end, when she finally told her parents she wanted to marry a Gujarati boy, they told her they had complete faith in her judgment.

Bipin too changed during his tenure as a community media producer. He used to hit the young girls in his family, if they made a mistake. He didn't think about it. Now, he says with a chuckle, they beat me up! Although his family is conservative, he doesn't mind that Yasho will not wear her 'mangalsutra' ("why should she have to if I don't?") and likes having an intelligent working wife. In fact, he still lives in Gujarat while Yasho lives in Maharashtra, and they meet about twice in a month. The work they do is larger than their story alone, so they don't mind.

So, what exactly is community media? Democratic to its core, it is media 'by the people, for the people, of the people'. While mainstream media concentrates on national issues and the big cities, the poorest in India get left in the dark. Community media aims to give them their own media industry. The New York based NGO, Video Volunteers, is spearheading this movement across India. Under the leadership of Jessica Mayberry, a former journalist in the US and Stalin K. Padma, a social activist, community video outfits are being set up in many different parts of the country, under VV India. First, interested NGOs tie up with Video Volunteers. They make the initial investment that buys the equipment and pays the salary of the local producers. Video Volunteers provides in-depth technical training for the next few years, free of cost. Together, a team of journalists emerges at the local level. These are journalists who make surprisingly great quality video stories on social issues including domestic violence, migration and infrastructure needs. But, the story doesn't end there. The main aim of the entire exercise is to induce action from the people watching. People normally left out of the great debate about the future of this country find themselves empowered with information. They understand how they can take action to get positive results.

Manjibhai, a popular community video coordinator from Gujarat -- Apna Malak Ma -- is a Dalit. During his video screenings, non-Dalits come, but sit on chairs while Dalits sit on the ground. He hopes this will change over time. What has changed, though, is amount of wages being paid to Dalits in the area. In an interview with a local upper caste businessman, it became clear that before he watched the film, he had never ever considered, even for a moment, the plight of a Dalit who needed to feed his family. Enlightened, he now pays minimum wage.

In a workshop in Goa, Manjibhai, Yasho, Bipin, Jessica, Stalin and countless others came to celebrate and assess community media today. Stepping away from the romance and nobility of it all, the simple truth is that unless these community video outfits operate as independent self- sustaining entities, in the end, they will not be truly empowered. Presently, NGOs like Akshara pump in money for the purchase of equipment (about Rs.14 lakhs in the first year) to set them up, in addition to another Rs 3 lakhs per annum towards running expense. The producers are employed as full-time staff, because otherwise productivity of the project is compromised. This also allows the newly employed ‘producers’ to change their own paradigm from manual labour to blue collared work. It gives them the respect they deserve and fuels their ambition further.

The aim is to allow for a workable entity that is financially self- sustaining. Only when the new unit becomes a profit centre, will the transformation will be complete. To this end, two CVUs (or community video units) may have paved the way. The first, Chetana TV from Andhra Pradesh has secured government funding and a contract to provide their content to four local regional channels. Of all the CVUs assembled in Goa, they had the fastest turnout rate for social impact movies. The other CVU, Samvad, is Gujarat based. They record marriages and other events around Ahmedabad, which provides a source of income.

In a world where content is plenty, pouring out of every cell phone in every corner, the larger question is to ask is: will community media content sell outside its reach of influence? Would a mainstream channel, really, honestly, want to buy hours of footage about dowry in Gujarat from a local CVU? If yes, then problem solved. If no, then CVUs need to get innovative about packaging content. The other question which Samvad will have to grapple with soon is: should CVUs ultimately become production houses or should they remain forever the agents for social change? The first option is tempting and easier. The second is not. To remain true to the primary purpose of the CVU, those involved with the movement will have to abide by the strictest definition of its core values and aim.

In its ultimate ambition, community video volunteers want to make big changes. But in order to get there, they need to continue the little changes. Sofia, a producer with Samvad, has a 9 year old son, Aftab, who has watched his mother work for the past three years. Not as a maid, but as a community leader. Her son, she says, will know the clear difference between right and wrong. He will go to college. Her resolve is amazing as it is firm, considering that the first time she left home to attend a workshop, her husband beat up when she returned home.

Today, Sofia helps make movies that expose domestic violence.

tell me a story

2009-08-05T20:12:00.002Z

http://littlegirlsbigpolitics.wordpress.com/

Emmy Nod

2009-08-03T19:59:00.005Z

I apologize to everyone for staying mum for over a month! I was in DC, then back in NY, then London, and now Delhi. Some work, some holiday. In the middle of it all, I kept writing in my head, but somehow none of it made its way to my blog.

Then I got terrific news! The Mumbai Terror Attack stories I worked on for PBS (remember?) have been nominated for an Emmy. We are up against CBS and NBC, but I hope we win! How exciting is that!

Also, one of the main reasons I didn't write was because more than focus on the news, I was attempting to wrap my head around the future on journalism. When I went to meet my friends at the PBS World Focus studios, it was very sad to find that programming budgets were being cut sharply, with more focus on studio discussions. Even my friends at the NewsHour (PBS) complained of budgetary concerns. But, we all knew that. The question is, what is next?

What has hit America, and will take a much longer time to come to India, is dealing with the online world and the trap of free content. Because people are used to getting things free online, it is becoming difficult for news organizations to charge for content. I mean, we pay for cable. We pay for internet services. So what about individual websites? Well, I think, and people agree that certain established brands can charge for a premium service (as many do -- WSJ, Economist) and the customers will follow. The new thinking about online content (even if it is newspapers) is, give some content free and charge for the rest.

But there is an separate problem: too much content. In this case, something like "youtube" can serve as an example. Before a CNN can break a story, it is up on youtube. So what happens? CNN will slowly start showing youtube content on TV. CNN International already does, although it often says it cannot verify the source. So, do we need an "editorial" filter which is not necessarily a news channel but a media organization? Someone who can make sense of all this information and then give it to a news organization or let it remain floating on youtube?

I am strongly considering working with an NGO that uses the media to empower people, but at the same time I also want to look into the challenges new media poses for us. Do you know of any organizations that deal with these issues in India? I am not sure doing straightforward journalism is as rewarding for me, or perhaps its because I can't find a job! Who knows!

But anyway, I came to say hi and to give you the great Emmy news!

Iranian turf war

2009-06-16T16:13:00.004Z

How should Obama react to the Iran crisis, everyone seems to be asking. Should he take Mir Hossein Mousavi's side or should he just express concern and stay out it?

While watching the events unfold on TV, an expected thought popped into my head. I wondered if the people of Iran, especially the middle class which is sensitive to world opinion, would have ever reacted so violently if Bush hadn't made such a big deal about Iran being part of the "axis of evil"? His branding may have been unfair, but considering the rhetoric from Admadinejad, it isn't surprising that a huge demographic just want him gone.

It also occurred to me that Pakistan and Iran can (could) take to the streets because there is some sort of a democratic process that already in place. It made me think about Iraq and Afghanistan. Could the people have ever been so organized? I suspect they can now. But could they have done so earlier? Just a thought.

But back to Iran. I've been reading about this with great interest. Here is some history for those of you who need a refresher course (although it ends about three years before today).

I spoke to Afshin Molavi, a fellow at the New America Foundation in DC, and he told me a few really interesting things. He said, essentially, if you look at the players in this election (outside the Ayatollah) then it is a battle between the 1st gen and 2nd gen of politicians. The 1st gen came into play when the Shah was overthrown (also, ties with America). This includes the saviour de jour, Mousavi, who is fighting to be the next president. Ahmadinejad is part of the 2nd gen, which came into political maturity during the Iran-Iraq war. Therefore, they are anti-US.

If you look at the majority of the supporters of the two candidates (I'm keeping it simple for the purposes of this discussion) then there is a clear divide. Ahmadinejad has the support of the rural base while Mousavi has the support of the middle class.

Now, from my understanding (which I suppose was wrong) it seemed to me that Iran might clamp down on democracy, but elections are largely free and fair. However, with allegations that entire boxes of votes were not counted, or that the powerful Guardians Council was making up numbers of votes, clearly it seems my instinct was way off. I only thought this because Ahmadinejad was a surprise win in his time and also because the presidential debates etc were so robust and healthy in the run-up to the election.

What was going on during these debates? Mousavi blamed Ahmedinejad for leading Iran down a dangerous path. Not just isolation from the world, but what many people don't know is that there is enormous frustration with the economy. Ahmedinejad came to power with a cash rich economy (oil money) but now look at the state of affairs. There is enormous frustration at that.

But while Mousavi and others were making the case of incompetence (and staunch conservatism) , Ahmedinejad wasn't too far behind. He essentially blamed his opponents of being fat cats who have been taking bribes and are corrupt. Look at their big houses, he said. Afshin Molavi (the analyst I'd mentioned) said that this will definitely spark a crisis of legitimacy in the Islamic Republic of Iran, no matter who is in-charge.

And that brings us to the Ayatollah. It is well known that he supported Ahmedinejad, but there are a few other factors to take into consideration. There is a school of thought that believes that he won't be averse to a moderate coming into power, because it makes dealing with America simpler. In the sense that earlier, with Bush, it seems perfectly normal to have a conservative who ranted against the US on the high table. But now, with Obama, and his desire to perhaps cooperate with Iran on the matter of nuclear energy, a moderate might make it easier to resume dialogue. In fact, a month before the election, the Ayatollah went to visit Mousavi's sick father, and many saw this as a big hint. Other cracks also appeared: the Ayatollah had sent a letter to the AMC (Association of Militant Clergy) that they should support Ahmedinejad, but that led to rumours that many in the AMC were angered by this and in fact, oppose Ahmedinejad.

Given all this, and a demographic re-entering the electoral fray. Yeah, thats right. The middle class never ended up voting last time, and so this time they have been super involved. Now that their man didn't win (or maybe he did) they have taken to the streets, but unfortunately, things have turned bloody. But what has come out of this is that a tried and tested way of mobilising the middle class is the Internet, and internet activism is here to stay. I also wrote about this here.

Back to my question. Obama. What should he do. I keep thinking of something Jon Stewart said the other day ... who knew Iran would turn out to be the most democratic country in the Middle East?

Lines Crossed

2009-06-04T15:59:00.002Z

My day began with an interesting twist; I had to run to the US State Dept for a press briefing. The new guy -- well, the new old guy -- PJ Crowley, spokesperson, was addressing the press about the issues of the day. Predictably, US policy in the Middle East because of Obama's visit ("why does he call it the 'Muslim' world, as if they are all one") and US policy on China, given the anniversary of Tienanmen Square ("China has a come a long way in terms of human rights") were the highlights, but there was a different reason I was there.

I was to ask Crawley what the US response to Hafiz Saeed being let off was. You know the story -- Saeed (Pakistani) is the leader of Jamaat ud Dawa, which India believes is not really a charity organization but a front for the LeT. The UN put sanctions on the charity in December 2008. Well, our lone terrorist, Ajmal Kasab, in his confessions said that Saeed was one of the many people who visited the terrorist camps while they were being trained in arms/explosives, in the run up to the Mumbai terror attacks. India, being the restrained force that she is, decided to pursue a diplomatic track and not attack Pakistan, and with some pressure from the US on Pakistan, Saeed was put in jail. And Pakistan did agree that Saeed had a role in the attacks.

Now, Saeed has been released. I've read a lot about this and I'm quite unsure what the US can do -- well, in an obvious way. But let me explain what I mean. Pakistan claims there is not enough evidence to hold Saeed under house arrest anymore and has let him go, but voices within Pakistan have come out to say that they will appeal this order by the Lahore High Court as this will tarnish the reputation of Pakistan in the international community. We obviously expect the US to be aghast on our behalf, but it isn't saying much. I have read views in India that the government should release evidence against Saeed so that the Pakistanis can detain him, but it seems we are not doing that. Nor does it seem likely that Pakistan will, as we would love, send him to India for trial.

So back to Crawley. I asked him if the US wasn't worried that this move to build up Indo-Pak tensions, after all, the US has been trying to convince Pakistan to shift its focus to the Afghanistan/Taliban problem. Crawley gave me a long winded answer about respecting Pakistan's rule of law, and that they continue to impress upon Pakistan the need to carry on with the Mumbai attack investigations, but that right now Ambassador Holbrokes focus is on the humanitarian crisis resulting from the Swat attack in Pakistan. That was that, another journalist pressed on, but he did not take the bait.

I had to come back to work to file the story. As it turned out, the client was Times Now, and so I sent them a report from Washington saying that the US is not involving itself in this legal matter and that in Washington (really) this is hardly a concern. But, as Crawley had mentioned, Holbroke will have private discussions and this matter could be discussed. Times Now ignored that part of my report and chose to highlight that the US is asking Pakistan to continue with the 26/11 investigations. Fair enough, but they didn't stress that, what they stressed was that they were not going to do anything about it.

What is clear is that Pakistan attacking the Taliban is the biggest thing over here, and India is not going to ruin that for them by crying about the release of Saeed. I woke up in the morning to find out that a travel advisory had been issued against INDIA because, I believe a LeT operative was captured in Delhi. My father, who I spoke to on the way to work, said that the Congress had been voted in for non performance, and why was SM Krishna the minister for external affairs and not Kapil Sibal, Pranab or even Shashi Tharoor -- people more vocal and forceful?

What exactly is the US position on India? I know people are waiting for Hillary to come in July to get a clearer position. In fact, a few months ago (or was it weeks) when she made statements which seemed to reflect the situation in South Asia correctly (that Pakistan need not be obsessed with India and that Pakistan has not been using the money the US has been giving them for the intended purpose), it seemed that there might be a policy shift, finally. But as of right now, it is frustrating to find that it is not.

Holbroke has now said that other countries should also give aid to Pakistan -- he's appealing to the Europeans and Muslims. (Ah, there you go lumping all the Muslims together). But the real point is that it seems, poetically, in their eyes, they are saving a Muslim country from the brink of extremism and really, unless we have the exact same problem, we will just have to get in line.

After all, the problem child gets all the attention while the good kid sits in his room, seething.

A new old start

2009-05-19T01:00:00.001Z

In the run up to the elections, more than ever, I’ve had people come to my blog to accuse me of being elite or not talking about “issues”. I want to explain something to all these wonderful people. This is MY blog. Perhaps you find me “elite” because by sheer twist of fate I went to a good school, then with a whopping 92% got into Stephens, managed other schools, grad schools and ended up working with brands like The Indian Express, Al Jazeera, PBS. Perhaps you would also be livid to know that I am currently doing a course at NYU to hone my editing skills.

Call it what you want. I work hard and most of the time, I get good work. Sometimes, I don’t – that is the risk. But I do my thing. Hopefully, I do it well.

And when I write on my blog, I write about the world as I see it. I don’t grudge other people their opinions. But I guess it is what it is, it does make for interesting reading.

Anyway, I actually flew out the day before elections. I voted for the first time – well, I was under 21 the last time we went to the polls. It was a great experience, especially the proud smiles everyone gave each other.

I was hoping this government would continue. My father had a very different view; he believes Manmohan Singh is a weak PM. I have my reasons, but mostly, I find this alternative better. I had a minor debate with another blogger recently about (again) how I was elite-baba log for not supporting Mayawati. I told him, I have no issue that she is doing well (not so much, as this election revealed), but I am not ready to have her represent me on an international stage.

I’m pretty bummed out I missed the countdown. I had booked my tickets a while ago, and hadn’t paid attention to the dates.

I had personally predicted a Congress win (although it was based on a feeling) because of one simple reason. I have no data to back it up. I traveled a bunch all of last year, and one thing I noticed in equal measure all over the country was that there was construction everywhere. Seriously. And that told me that people saw some movement in their lives. And if the going is good… why mess with it. This time, there was a lot of talk about development. A former colleague of mine from the Express told me that some people were worried that Nitish Kumar would not be voted back because he was developing the state. Why, I asked. She said that when people’s expectations rise, another guy will come and claim that he can take it further. And people might be tempted to work for the one with the maximum promise. A few weeks later, in fact, on the way to my polling booth, my father was talking about anti-incumbency. I told him, in my opinion, that concept did not really exist anymore, and people would not vote for the sake of it. I can say that because Delhi has voted for Mrs Dikshit only because of all the work she has done. It is so visible! And taking that logic further, when I saw work everywhere I traveled, I figured it must prove favorable to the government of the day.

There is another thing. I thought the political situation in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks was handled quite well – Chidambaram as Home Minister, and also out diplomatic discussions with Pakistan. I was not one of the people who wanted to see a knee-jerk reaction.

So I’m a happy camper for the moment.

Small is big

2009-04-16T14:34:00.002Z

Double whammy: http://worldfocus.org/blog/2009/04/13/small-parties-are-big-players-in-indias-upcoming-elections/4926/

India, the world's largest democracy, is scheduled to begin its multi-stage parliamentary elections on April 16. Neither of the country’s two major parties, the Congress party and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), are expected to gain a majority, meaning India is likely headed for another coalition government.

Mahima Kaul is a freelance reporter based in Delhi who has written for The Indian Express. She explains how India’s political landscape has changed over the past several decades, as political support has fragmented and smaller parties have become more influential.

Election fever has peaked here in India. You cannot escape it — even local pastry shops are baking goodies in the form of party symbols. This is typical of the fanfare and celebrations that engulf the country as political parties, their numbers increasing every day, chase the Indian voter.

But to understand the real significance of how India votes, one needs turn back the clock a little. India’s particular brand of democracy has gone through many changes over the past 60 years. It is a parliamentary system, much like the British, and every five years national elections are held and the party with the most seats forms the government.

Simple enough. And it was, when the Congress party was the single largest party in the country. But in the 1970s, the political landscape of the country started to change. Smaller political players began to move to the center stage, and by the 1990s, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in particular had grown in stature. Regional players began to flex their electoral muscles. This led to the system of government India has today — grand coalitions forming the government, with either the Congress party or the BJP leading it.

Over the years, the Congress party has steadily been losing ground in individual states, with regionalism trumping national concerns. Small state parties can hold the national government ransom because of the need for coalitions.

Political scientists have tried to decipher the mind of the Indian voter over the years. Overwhelmingly, votes are cast on the basis of identity; along religious or caste lines. That is why many members of parliament — and even chief ministers — have been voted back to power despite their obvious corruption and non-performance. Indian elections must be viewed through this prism.

This brings us to 2009. It is an enormous task to explain the internal dynamics of Indian politics because the number of players keep increasing by the day.

Some basics: The Congress leads the UPA (United Progressive Alliance) government, backed by smaller players that once included the Left (Indian communists). When Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed a nuclear deal with President Bush, the Left objected very strongly, and ultimately withdrew support from the government. This led to a “trust vote” in parliament where the UPA had to prove its majority.

What happened then was shocking and revealed the underbelly of Indian politics. The Congress-led government, allegedly, began to buy votes. BJP members brought, on live television, suitcases filled with wads of cash “proof” that the Congress party had tried to buy support. The nation was disgusted with the blatant display of corruption.

Not much later, the terror attacks in Mumbai revealed that while Indian politicians had been horse-trading and making money, the real work of a government — for instance, securing the borders — had been woefully neglected. Anger against the entire political establishment grew, because successive governments — be they Congress or BJP-led — have not taken these concerns seriously.

With polling beginning in only a few days, it is widely believed in the country that no party, including the Congress, will get a majority. Another coalition will be formed after the numbers are crunched. Opportunistic alliances will be made. Some of the larger regional players have also formed the Third Front; a credible threat to the UPA and the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA).

Bookies all over the country seem to think that the present government, under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will continue. However, if that happens, the Congress will undoubtedly need the support of smaller parties prove a majority in the house.

The refreshing electoral trend this time is that a number of urban professionals have decided to contest key metropolitan seats as independents, signaling that perhaps urban India is done voting for morally bankrupt political parties. Right now, democracy is a numbers game. Parties with no common ideology will come together to form a coalition if it means sharing power at the center. Then comes governance.

The hope young India has for itself is that it can change the country’s priorities by greater participation. Let us see how it votes.

Reprinted at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wires/2009/04/13/small-parties-are-big-pla_ws_186189.html

March

2009-03-29T14:32:00.005Z

So many things, you guys. I've been battling it out at work -- who doesn't -- and as a result I have only been watching the news, not adding my two bits to all the bits that keep getting added. Ah, english. I love you.

Ok, so first things first. Varun Gandhi: seriously? I understand the guy is desperate to get elected his first time, probably by a landslide to impress his party, but seriously, really? It was his mothers constituency, and like every other young, educated person, he could have talked about development, but no. Pandering to the worst in people. Like I told someone, maybe he wanted to win badly, but is this really the way? And what is even worse is that people admire him for his speech. Reports say he can become a star BJP campaigner (if Modi is too busy, call Varun for some fireworks) and many people believe he was right to stand up for the Hindus. Man, India really is the land of contradictions. Does our majority constantly need validation? It boggles the mind. My take on it is this: I do think the speech is real, but of course, it is yet to be proven. I don't think his being a "Gandhi" is anything. What I think is sad is that he is a living example as to why professionals need to enter politics. When you've had the responsibility of running a company, holding a job, being part of an organisation; other people matter. You will, hopefully, not go shooting off your mouth in order to get votes. Anyway slowly but surely, politics is changing in India, I feel. These idiots are getting exposed for their empty rhetoric faster.

Ok, story two. IPL: Elections are bigger, so that is that. Now, if the IPL clashed with the elections and they decided that rather than cancel it, they wanted to move out the entire tournament, so be it. Yes, this will hurt India's image because not many people will look at all the details and just say that, well the government of India said it could not provide security. Yes, it will hurt our economy, as many people were banking on the IPL to make money, including hotels. But shit happens. We need to elect a government, and next year IPL can try and make up for lost time. The only thought I keep having is that what if they like holding the IPL in other countries and shift it country-to-country every year?! That would be something!

Elections: Post-poll, pre-poll. This year the election cycle is starting off pretty boring as far as I'm concerned, despite Rajdeep's attempts at making every single statement sound controversial every single night. Are smaller parties claiming their space by rejecting big parties, is the Third Front truly viable? We won't know till they try and form a government now, will we? The only sad thing is that this is all truly a numbers game. Like a lot of commentators say, this elections and the government that is formed will be built on numbers, not ideas. The trust vote was a teaser, post-election barter will be shockingly corrupt. I think it might be the peak of open corruption. After this, it will just have to go down. Who knows? But, maybe.

My back's hurting. Be back with more thoughts later.

Indian Express Video Features

2009-03-10T10:33:00.003Z

So, as I'd said, I've been busy trying to produce videos for the Indian Express website.
I know the quality could be better, and I think my VO is too slow... but I am doing all the work myself... except for the occasional cameraperson, I am functioning as a one-woman-army..

Have a look, give me some feedback..

Rich man's world: There is nothing underground about the black economy.
The War Room: L.K. Advani's campaign proves that technology can be a great motivator.
Midtown in Mumbai: The residents of Dharavi are sceptical about the intent of the Dharavi Redevelopment Project.
Sun Burnt: Urbanisation has yet again been at the cost of the farmers, a visit to Hyderabad reveals.
Road to Change: Young people finding exciting business opportunities in being environmentalists.
Out with the trash: “Disposable” points out that ragpickers perform an essential environmental duty, yet are denied a place in society.

More to come....

Pity party

2009-02-17T19:02:00.005Z

I was sitting in Gurcharan Das's living room, watching with fascination as he and Dunu Roy, of the NGO Hazard Centre, were battling it out. Is India really rising, or is just a small fraction of it? Both had good points of view. Das said that since liberalization the country has moved leaps and bounds, while Roy said that not much as changed for those outside the system.

People often talk about the urban-rural divide. More distressing, sometimes, is the divide between the urban rich and the urban poor. Someone once said, in India, the rich must live necessarily with the poor. It's true. Don't kid yourselves, this rich-poor divide is everywhere -- not just the cities.

A few weeks ago I did a small story for the Indian Express about the unhappy state of Delhi's ragpickers. We are trying to set up an online video section (its still a work in progress so don't be appalled at the poor quality, please) so the story remain buried, but it was a really interesting example of how our system works -- or fails to. The ragpickers -- your kabadi vala -- are not officially part of the governments waste collection system, which is to say they are not government employees. They aren't exactly organised private players either; just very poor people with no other job options. When there is talk of privatisation of waste disposable, it always centers around a new company bring brought in, instead of them. Props to Vimlendu for pointing all this out to me. Anyway, so I went to the Ministry of Environment and also to Social Welfare Ministry to ask the Delhi state ministers why nothing was done for them. The answers were typical of the red tape that exists. As the Ministry of Environment is not in charge of waste collection, they could only help by providing gloves; not employment. Yes, the ragpickers are not paid for their services, but make money off the garbage they manage to recycle. Same with their welfare; the problem is known, but they are quite far away from the loving arms of the state.

But that is a story about the poverty that exists in the extreme outer circle of our cities. Poverty that could be helped by different government bodies sitting together and coming up with a coherent strategy. A thought echoed all over the country, in different ways. For example, take the village of Picharagarh outside Hyderabad. The farmers could not stop complaining about the NREG scheme. Why? Because they said, not only does it pay more than what they could pay for farm-hands (Rs 120 vs Rs 100) but the NREG schemes only required a few hours of work, unlike farming that went on all day. So the younger lot rather take the easy route. The farmers were totally confused about what to do, and one of them told me it might be more viable for him to give up farming. Others suggested that the NREG not limit itself to infrastructure development, but also farming. "But won't that mean that the government pays for your labour?" I asked them, and they said that they were ready to pay their workers if the government could work out a system with them. Food for thought. Or else we go hungry!

Ask anyone what the biggest concern in India is, and it is governance. It isn't terror attacks -- not for most people -- and corruption is passe. It is governance. Both political and of the bureaucracy.

How systems work, and how they allow themselves to ignore festering problems. I have spent some time in Dharavi on different shoots now, and it has come to represent, in my mind, one of the biggest problems this country has. We claim that we want to become a "rich" country; a superpower. Yet, very casually, we behave as if poor people have no aspirations and should, in fact, we happy for any little bone thrown their way. A loud voice from the slums and the corridors of power bristle. Like this Dharavi Redevelopment Plan for instance. Dharavi is in Mumbai now (which it wasn't when it was first set up) and so obviously, people have decided that the land could be put to much better use than slums. But the people of Dharavi are many, united, and refuse to move out of that area. So they have reached a deal with the government. They are going to be relocated in tall buildings, freeing ground space. How tall the towers will be, the size of the houses, is under debate. But one thing is very clear after speaking to everyone involved. The houses they are going to be put into are going to be really, really small.

Now the thing you need to understand about Dharavi, any other slum, or even a village is this: there are levels of poverty and also, in my opinion, definite signs of progress in some families. So while some have plastic sheets as their roof, others have tiled floors with TVs and fridges. But when we talk of them, we assume that they are poor and helpless, and also that we shouldn't plan for their future (i.e. give them space so that their families can breathe easy) but we do expect to be utterly grateful for small mercies. So what is going to happen? The slum will go from being a horizontal slum to a vertical one. Their lives will be put into these suffocating boxes for a new mall. And when a new slum will crop up next to that mall, the rich will complain loudly about their view being spoiled. And those who have actually saved money over the years to make their little hole in the wall a home will lose it all to a generic plan.

You know the most popular question I am asked in a lower income locality? How much I earn per month. I'm not kidding. They want to know whats out there, they want to reach that. These are not people who want to live by a different standard, they are only being forced to by circumstance.

But talk to people, even people in your own office, and they say insensitive things such as "oh they will be happy with anything" and I wonder why we assume that poor equals less than human. It's not true. And unless we give them tools to help them lead respectable lives -- no matter what job they have -- this country will forever remain third class. And countless lives wasted and unfulfilled.

P.S. The Dharavi story is truly fascinating. I'll post more on it later. Do come back and read.

M on TV

2009-02-03T19:29:00.002Z

A long time ago, I was on Talk Back, a show on Dawn TV (Pakistan), with a few friends... anyone interested in hearing me babble (boy, do I talk fast!) ... here you are :)

http://in.truveo.com/Dawn-News-Talk-Back-Ep-39-part-one-The-Youth-of/id/963974973

http://in.truveo.com/Dawn-News-Talk-Back-Ep-39-part-two-The-Youth-of/id/380620686

http://in.truveo.com/Dawn-News-Talk-Back-Ep-39-part-three-The-Youth-of/id/2427729104

http://in.truveo.com/Dawn-News-Talk-Back-Ep-39-part-four-The-Youth-of/id/258296521

http://in.truveo.com/Dawn-News-Talk-Back-Ep-39-part-five-The-Youth-of/id/3659276858

It is also on youtube.. Dawn News Talk Back: Ep 39

Clash of Californications

2009-01-20T04:20:00.006Z

Little did Samuel Huntington know, when he published a book called Who we are: The Challenges to America’s National Identity in 2004, that later that year, a young black man called Barack Obama would dazzle the nation at the Democratic National Convention by defining himself as the ultimate example of the American Dream. Obama’s interpretation of Americans couldn’t have been more different from the renowned Huntington — while the latter believed that immigration was taking America away from its core values which were build on a decidedly Anglo-Protestant ethic, the former believed that America is truly the land of possibilities where the son of an immigrant could rise to become a senator, now President.

Ironically, those who vehemently disagree with Huntington — as I’m sure Barack “Barry” Obama would — use the very strength of America’s social and political institutions as the reason for people coming to America in the first place. America is not the world’s leader because it is a country of white people, they say, but because it believes in freedom and liberty, and that all men are created equal.

To be fair to Huntington, and as the Economist put it, this is a “rational expression of a rational fear”. Watchers of American politics haven’t yet wrapped their head around the fact that a black president will mean that America will no longer be perceived as a white nation — or have they? The concern is not simply about black, Asians or Hispanics cracking glass ceilings; it is about the influx of communities who are slow to assimilate with American culture on the whole. The US census bureau reports that by 2042, what are minority groups today will form the majority of America’s population. The Hispanic population, today at around 43 million, is expected to rise to 133 million by 2050.

The question then becomes about the essence of multi-culturalism. Do you really need to abandon your original culture to become American? And conversely, is America ‘diluted’ if the majority if not white? Obama’s own story disproves these concerns. As a young man in the 1960s he initially went by the name Barry Obama, which he later abandoned for his real name, Barack. Owning up to his roots allowed him to appreciate and serve America better, and further the American Dream.

America was indeed based on the Protestant work ethic, which has become a part and parcel of what America is — capitalism is as instrumental in assimilating immigrants as government or politics! The focus, however, often lingers on culture — Huntington wrote at length about Hispanics being far too slow to assimilate into American culture, and in turn creating a dual system of dual language in the country: English and Spanish. But the Pew Hispanic Centre studies have found that while only 4 per cent of first-generation Hispanics can speak English as their first language, by the third generation the number rises to a phenomenal 78 per cent.

These fears of Americana getting lost, or dissolving, have surfaced before. But the world would not admire “Americana” so, if the White House referred to the colour of one’s skin and not the colour of the walls.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/clash-of-californications/412886/

Pandagiri, Pushkar estyle...

2009-01-17T06:55:00.003Z

It began with a bus ride. Three of us -- a lifestyle writer, a photographer and I -- had overslept and missed our train to Ajmer (in Rajasthan) from where the small town of Pushkar is only a half hour bus ride. The short version of how we finally reached Pushkar (and only three hours behind schedule) involved that bus, a smaller bus and a vegetable cart. The cart, of course, is an eyebrow raiser, so let me explain. We had gone to Pushkar during the "Pushkar Mela". Held annually, this is a camel fair, where traders from surrounding states come with camels, and around this event an entire industry has cropped up. Clothes, handicrafts, ferris wheels -- you name it. Visitors throng the tiny town, both from within the country and outside it. The fanfare of the mela is complemented by the fact that Pushkar is a religious hub. The Pushkar lake, around which the town has come up, is sacred. There are 500 temples in the town alone, and also a famous temple to the God Brahma. This is the only temple to Brahma in the world, we are told, as legend has it, Brahma fell in love with his own daughter, and so, is not worshipped anywhere except here. Back to the vegetable cart -- with the influx of visitors and camels alike, cars and other modern vehicles are not allowed in the town, and some vegetable sellers moonlight as makeshift taxi drivers for the duration of the mela -- much to our shock and delight.

So here we were, on a vegetable cart with our bags and a tripod, navigating our way through the narrow streets of Pushkar. Radheshyam, our illustrious driver, had promised that this was normal during the mela, but all the tens of people pointing and laughing at us made us rather suspicious. I'm ashamed to admit, but we made Radheshyam take us to four different guesthouses before we settled on one, although we did get off the cart! We settled for Sunset Cafe, right next the lake, and the hotel came complete with a one year old Alsatian called Honey who jumped on you every chance he got. (Yes, Honey is a boy.)

At night, we eyed a rooftop restaurant called The Bird Eye; a Goa-lite eatery, complete with wall graffiti, psychedelic music and an Israeli menu. The owner, about twenty-five, defied the image of Pushkar we had in our minds. As we sat down, a waiter offered us beer, a clear no-no in the religious town. (Non-vegetarian food, alcohol and drugs are not allowed, as hoardings all over Pushkar constantly remind you.) Interest piqued, we chatted him up and asked him what life in Pushkar was all about. He hinted that his restaurant had police protection, and therefore he could serve whatever he wanted, directing us to look at some of the patrons who were smoking more than just regular cigarettes. So, is this a hippy town rather than one filled with religious people, we asked. He took offence, and told us with great pride that he went to pray by the lake for three hours every morning and insisted that all his staff do to. What's more, he told us, he belonged to the Parashar family who were alone allowed to touch (and therefore clean) the Brahma idol in the famed Brahma temple. His cousins rotated this sacred duty he told us proudly, adding with a slight chuckle that sometimes they paid one another to take their turn, as these holy duties were performed at the unearthly hour of 3am!

It was clear to us that Pushkar's local gossip was going to be far more interesting than the Camel Fair. We asked him who else we should meet, and he pointed us in the direction of a Canadian girl who had settled down in Pushkar and opened a cafe. The next day, armed with notepads and cameras respectively, we headed to Laura's Cafe. Her story was a common -- she had come to Pushkar and fallen in love. We were interrupted by some guests, and while she scurried to the kitchen I waved down one of her waiters to chat with him. Are you from Pushkar, I asked him. What do you think about foreigners here, especially the women? Are they not different from the local Pushkar women who are kept inside the house, I probed, and how do you feel about that? He was a bright boy, only a few years younger than me, but much taller. Laura appeared as he disappeared. She told us it was for the waiter we had just been talking to that she had decided to live in India. She knew she might have to move home in a few years, but she mused that at least she could leave him better off than she found him; as the owner of this fine establishment.

I can't lie and tell you we were not a little shocked. I know love breaks through all barriers, but we were so blindsided by this plot-twist that we remained mum for a while. How do you communicate, we asked her. ("He knows some English.") What about his family? ("They have been really good to me.") What about your own parents? ("I can't tell them because some time ago I tried to date an African American, and they did not like that at all.")

While my fellow companions wandered off to take pictures, I decided to explore the street shops with their curious little pajamas and fashionable kurtas. I was accosted by a pandit who literally forced some flowers into my hand and insisted that now I better go immerse them in the lake. Before I knew it, another pandit had appeared to escort me to the banks, and then another sat me down to start the prayer. Now, I'm a fair girl -- Kashmiri -- so it's understandable that the pandits were a little confused whether I was Indian or not. I was dropped like a hot potato the moment they heard I was from boring old New Delhi, and not Italy or Spain. Of course, I resisted all attempts they made to empty my pockets, giving them only Rs 100 as donation. I'm not that cheap -- but the pandit doing my ritual called out to another take over while he was doing it, and the next took a cell phone call while he was performing the rites! I was also told that if I did not have the money on me, I could go to the ATM and call them (I was handed a business card). Ignoring this, I asked him what he thought the young people of Pushkar. He told me, with much disdain, that a lot of the young Brahman boys who should be following in the family footsteps are more attracted by commercial ventures -- eateries and guest houses -- and are being lured by foreign girls "by the sex". As long as the romances stay causal, the pandits seemed to accept it, but the moment they wanted to get married, was the moment trouble would start, they predicted.

To a married couple, we thought! We found one in the whole town. The foreign half was a French girl, a doctor, who had settled down with a farmer in Pushkar eleven years ago. (There were two other couples, but neither Indian was native to Pushkar). Her husband, she told us, is illiterate. She home-schooled her children because, if they went to a local school, they could never fit in French society. It isn't easy, she mused, telling us that she has seen many girls attempt to settle down inPushkar for love, but ultimately give up and go home. She found the pace of life peaceful, and although she prayed as a Hindu, she felt the pandits had become too commercial for her liking. She was trying to teach the locals to recycle, and to join drives to clean the Pushkar Lake. She was busy. She was happy.

The three of left this little bubble brimming with thoughts. In a place known for religious tourism, romance was blossoming. For my fellow journalists, their story was the people who travelled through India and fell in love. For me, it was the tide of events leading to a new Pushkar itself. Tourists with cameras abound. For every picture you took, ten people were taking a picture of you. Everyone knew everyone. Even the three of us were waving to all shopkeepers and entrepreneurs as we walked by, as if we'd known them for years! But far beneath this cosmetic change, is real churning. India today is bursting with news of religious extremism and bomb threats. But here, in a religious hub, there was no talk except that of romance (with a few wily pandits trying to make few extra bucks thrown in)!

Before we left, we decided to visit the mela again; we'd gone the previous night be we had been overwhelmed by hundreds of men trying to get into "entertainment" shows featuring young girls promising to change into 'nagins' (snakes). In evening light, it looked lovely. We climbed aboard a ferris wheel to get a proper view, and were rather amused with the scores of Rajasthani aunties riding along with their faces covered with their chunnis! Camels -- 50,000 -- were everywhere, with the usual cows and horses thrown in. Very much the show we had originally come for.

There is a lesson to be learnt. Go visit, but when you do, dive in. You get much more than you paid for!

Online Armies

2009-01-08T05:05:00.004Z

The internet’s grown, and so has cyber-crime: it’s a national security problem now

A lot happened while you were sleeping last night, and much of it won’t be reported in the news today. Silently but with great precision, hackers around the world have been attacking various websites — it’s the new frontier of politics. And unless we understand the many layers of the web, we’ll be caught up in it.

Paint me a picture, you ask. Here goes: The Eastern Railway website was hacked into last month, its scroll changed to read “Cyber war has been declared on Indian cyberspace by Whackerz-Pakistan”, apparently in revenge for Indian violation of Pakistani air space. An Israeli news website, Debka, blamed cyber terrorism for its site shutting down following the Gaza attacks. And Jane’s Intelligence Group (UK) just reported that Al Qaeda has been using online gaming websites to launder money to finance its activities.

Online crimes come in various sizes. There are some against persons, such as child pornography. There are some against property — corporate espionage, banking fraud, defacing websites. Hackers; those who “destroy or delete or alter any information residing in a computer resource, or diminish its value or utility, or affect it injuriously”, according to the Indian Information Technology Act, 2000, have also taken to social networking sites with great enthusiasm. Group discussions tend to turn rowdy, and in the end, resemble a drunken bar fight. Facebook has been caught up in a virtual war. A group formed to collect 500,000 online signatures in support of Palestine was hacked into by the Jewish Internet Defence Force, which closed the group, signing off with ‘Israel forever’. The Palestinian hackers, not to be outdone, reacted by taking back their group and posting a cartoon of Calvin urinating on the Israeli flag.

But a more sinister avatar has surfaced as crimes against the State. Organized hackers go into government websites to collect information. Last December, reports emerged that the prime minister’s email had been hacked -- and traced back to China. In the same month, the internal communication network of the Ministry of External Affairs was hacked into, as was the website of the State Bank of India. Even the German Chancellery and Pentagon have been victims.

This isn’t science-fiction, and books like Scott J. Henderson’s The Dark Horse, are very real. Henderson explores what Military Review magazine has termed China’s “active offence” online, and reveals that the Chinese government supports hackers who travel the internet in search of information crucial to other countries. India is one such favoured destination. As a response, the US, Russia and even China, employ ‘ethical hackers’ to hack into their systems to reveal any vulnerabilities that the malicious hacker could exploit. One of the worlds leading ethical hackers, Ankit Faria, has stressed the need for India to wake up, but even as late as December 2008 National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan stated that India had “limited resources” in this regard. The fallout of this can be lethal -- imagine state secrets in the hands of the enemy.

We are all too familiar with hearing news of terror emails being ‘traced back’ to some location, but it is not enough. Cert-In (Indian Computer Emergency Response Team) set up by the Department of Information Technology, has been pushing for a national cyber security policy that will require government offices to keep updated with the latest security developments and also come up with a crisis management plan. Whats more, new amendments to the IT Act, 2000, have removed all references to ‘hacking’ (which was earlier said to be a crime based on intent and knowledge) and limited it to an activity that requires ‘permission’. Further, the Act makes no reference to the multi-jurisdictional issues involved when the attack is from another country, and makes all cyber crimes bailable offences, allowing our illustrious hacker to go home to delete all evidence of his crimes. “A toothless tiger,” is what Pawan Duggal, a cyberlaw expert calls it.

We need more bite for our byte.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/online-armies/408052/0

Mumbai Attacks: PBS Special Coverage

2008-12-08T17:38:00.004Z

As I'd mentioned, I was working for PBS (The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer) in Mumbai following the attacks.

Do see our reports:

1: Amid shocks, Mumbai residents question security
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec0 8/mumbaireport_12-01.html (click on "stream video".)

2: India's government under scrutiny after Mumbai attacks
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec0 8/mumbaianger_12-02.html (click on "stream video".)

3: After attacks, India's coasts are still vulnerable
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec0 8/indiasecurity_12-03.html (click on "stream video".)

4: Impact of Mumbai attacks resonates throughout India
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec08/indiareaction_12-05.html (click on "stream video".)

Give me feedback!

Muslimonomics

2008-12-05T19:20:00.002Z

I can’t stress enough that we need to give more weightage to the special Friday prayers held in parts of the country to show mourn the terrorist attacks in Bombay. We’ve been saying for a long time that we wish the moderate faction of Islam would be more vocal and visible – and now we need to highlight this trend – so that other Muslims who have not yet voiced their disapproval will. I don’t think need doubt any ones intelligence and bother to spell out why.

The tide has to change. After the attacks, the gut reaction of many was that they were scared the fallout would be communal violence. Indians have shown great sense in distinguishing an attack on India by foreign terrorists and attacks between Hindu/Muslim factions within the country. This is vital, because it allows us to examine the situation at hand without further endangering the country by having to deal with communal violence as well.

We visited a village outside Bombay. It seemed people there had watched the attacks on TV, but most of them did not really understand the significance of what had happened. A few of them understood from the news that Pakistan is implicated and still seemed far removed from any urgent emotions. The rest seemed unaffected by what they had seen.

What struck me though, was that while the villagers may not have been able to understand the enormity of what had happened, they had all seen it live on TV. In fact, as I peeped into the many colorful houses, I could see TVs and fridges in almost all of them. In fact, our search for a village had been a challenge, because many farmers have sold their lands and concrete structures are replacing them. There is enough construction work in the area to bring home the fact that little India is rapidly urbanizing. And that means that the distance they have from events in the big city is slowly going to shrink. What this means is that the largely urban anger we are seeing will slowly penetrate to the hinterland. As yet, it is a work in progress, but television will be a huge catalyst in attitudes changing as much as the landscape changes.

But as news channels feed more Indians, what message do they wake up to? It is not just the news anchors I am referring to, because we all know that politicians use the media for their ends too – good or bad.

During our visit to Ahmedabad, Simon asked Narendra Modi his reaction to the news item that Modi’s frenzied speeches were used in the training camps to charge up these young boys. Deadpanned, Modi told him that he had no idea about any of it. Later, he turned to me and asked me if I’d forgotten about Godhra as yet or not.

Modi also categorically stated that he was ready to help the government in its fight against terror. “At a time of war, there is consensus,” he said.

But was there something he was not telling us? In highlighting security in his campaign speeches (will he undoubtedly well) will he be tempted to cut this “India problem” into little pieces of Hindu, Muslim, Sikh and Christian.

What could allow this division is another factor – as yet a non-entity – which Shashi Tharoor brought up this morning when we spoke to him: if any proof emerges that there were Indians complicit in planning the attacks – and those happen to be Muslims whose sympathies lie with extremist factions – then the danger of using that knowledge to play politics will lead to a very volatile and most certainly violent situation. So I have to ask, do we have it in us to further distinguish extremist elements from the majority of Indian Muslims as we have distinguished between international extremist Muslims and the general Muslim population back home. Quite a mouthful, I know, but a question to ponder.

But you see, the moment you ask this question out loud – “will politicians use the Bombay attacks to incite communal violence” – you expose the hypocrisy of such a electoral strategy.

We talked to people along the way, quite literally. Stuffing ourselves in a local train, we journey to a small village outside Bombay. While on the train we found people eyeing our camera equipment, and then quickly offering their analysis of the situation. I was heartened to find that within the confines of that box, many diverse voices came out. A young man, studying for his MBA, told me that he did not link these attacks to religion at all. It’s all about economics, he told me, and these young boys who fall prey to terrorist dogma only do so because they are poor and this is a quick way to earn money for their family. It’s quite true – if reports are to be believed then the captured terrorist told the authorities that his family was promised Rs 1.5 lakhs (a little under $3000) for his services. That is the extent of this deep poverty that breeds discontent, he told me. This is not the first time, it won't be the last.

But we might just come out of this stronger.

Reaction. But action?

2008-12-03T17:29:00.003Z

I’m still in Bombay. You’re going to watch the news and read all about the peace protest at the Gateway of India. People poured in from all parts of the city; much more than had been originally anticipated. At one point, I found myself separated from my colleagues, and watching an amazing sight. Some person – a politician I did not recognize – was accosted by a news anchor who threw a flyer in his face. She asked him why he was there with police protection (I could count about ten) and why that protection did not extend to common people. Needless to say, a crowd gathered, and the man just stood there, speechless.

There was emotion, there was chanting. The calls for Vande Mataram made me want to cry, but those were drowned out by cries against Pakistan, Deshmukh, Raj Thackerey and all politicians in general. A few cries against Sonia Gandhi, but not many people obliged.

I climbed on top of a small building where a number of photographers were perched. The crowd was gigantic, unruly, pushy, enthusiastic, angry, sweaty, patriotic, considerate, and unstoppable. But that birds eye view that I had also allowed me to see things from a distance, and brought home the fact that a few days after the terror attack, we are still as vulnerable as ever. Our police for the most part look disinterested and fat, and while crowds throng the Gateway, it seemed to me, from my vantage point, there is still no protection. No clear lines were demarcated, so surveillance of any kind (unless you count the countless TV channels).

Now, I’m sure this won’t surprise most of you reading my blog. It didn’t me. So let me not pontificate and let me start telling you a few more things. This morning I went down to the coastline and found a few obliging fishermen who took Simon, Denis and me to shoot the unending ocean. A little chatter, I broached the terror subject. Once they were sure that I was not implying that they had some prior knowledge of the event, they started telling us about the hapless state of security there. To their credit, and I kinda loved them for it, they were really defending the coast guard with some misguided patriotism, but did admit that they didn’t really see the coastguard much at all. They couldn’t remember the last time they had been checked for documents.

Yesterday we had gone to Dharavi. The mood there was angry too, and although no one from the world’s largest slum had been killed in the attacks, they were offended that this could happen in India. But when it came to the real world – had they even seen an extra policeman in their neighborhood? – they had not. But that didn’t worry them. They told me very proudly that they were such a tight community that even if one stranger walked in, immediately he/she was asked who-why-when-what. And, they added, we will protect ourselves. We’ll give our lives for each other. But they were all a little worried about stepping outside – catching a train – but like everyone in the city, if they had to do it, they’d just go right ahead and do it. What I liked was that the children were all well informed and very opinionated – and not in the mainstream media (how children are traumatized by the coverage of the attacks) but they spoke like little adults. That’s when I turned to Simon and said, “this is when you realize why India is such a successful democracy.” Why? Because he had expected them to be more concerned with their own economic struggles than national security – but was quite surprised to find out that was simply not true.

And that brings me to the real point I wanted to make (yes, I did take my time, I know). A day or two ago, we had an in-depth interview with MD of the Mahindra Group, Anand Mahindra – a person I was totally blown away by. He was very smart, introspective and very articulate. I want to briefly recap some of the things he said to me in the middle of a deeply emotional crisis.

Firstly, he hoped that the result of all this “unprecedented” urban anger was not that we secure ourselves and leave out the poorer sections. The fishermen, the people in Dharavi. Them. He also told us why this attack has struck such a chord around the world (well, one of many reasons). It’s the ultimate urban nightmare, he said. Ten men running around the streets of a modern day urban city with guns and grenades. Honestly, I was getting visuals of The Dark Knight in my head when he was talking and it sent a chill down my spine. He also touched upon the fact that because we have tried to inject democracy in every aspect of our laws and the Constitution, there is no single unified commander-in-chief in India, and that needs to change. I think many people are echoing these thoughts. Another interesting observation he made was about the “Spirit of Mumbai”. He said that the very people who built up this myth following other attacks were the very ones tearing it down right now, and that both are extreme emotions, and the only way forward is to find a balance.

He’s right about that. If any of you saw yesterdays news report, then you would have seen the byte of the man in Dharavi – John Bhai – telling us that the government should attack Pakistan and it would take, what, two and a half hours to defeat it? Well, today at Gateway of India, stronger than Vande Mataram was “Pakistan Murdabad”. I think it was even stronger than anti-politician chants.

But the politicians might have gone one clear message – if it lasts – is that we will go after incompetent people, and that politicians will have to start becoming accountable like any other employee/CEO. Their careers should end with a huge debacle. We spoke to Milind Deora today, and he also agreed. He said that when a man is elected from a rural area and somehow is catapulted to becoming Home Minister of the state; it is no surprise that he is intellectually incapable of handling the job. That’s true, and its heartening to see that many voices have gone from blaming the government to the realization that if you don’t vote in urban cities, then it’s the rural votes that count. Nothing wrong with that – that’s not what I’m saying – but those are also places that vote according to identity for the most part (Dalit, Muslim, what have you). And we need to start voting on capability and credibility. That’s a long-term plan, but it has to start somewhere.

And most importantly, just as how I had briefly mentioned in one post about the MP elections right before the terrorist attacks, we need to see what the political parties will be up to in the lead up to the general elections. In the cities, I suspect, the conversation will have to be more mainstream – about policy and action to be taken. But in the smaller towns, will the BJP play the anti Muslim card, and will the Congress, in an aim to pander, again not take a stand on anything? And let’s not forget the rest of the motley crew.

The real fallout, and if there are any lessons learnt, we will find out when the election gets closer.

Death of a hero.

2008-11-29T18:52:00.002Z

Hemant Karkare (12 December 1954 – 26 November 2008) was the chief of the Mumbai Anti Terrorist Squad. He was killed during the November 2008 Mumbai attacks after being hit in his chest by three bullets fired by terrorists

Not the best footage, but you can hear what a state funeral sounds like. I was about to cry the whole time.

An equal attack

2008-11-28T10:20:00.003Z

I just want to remind everyone, including the Indian media, that this is not an A-list attack. The Taj and Oberoi were just some of the targets -- local spots like the Chattrapati Shivaji Terminus and the Cama Hospital -- have seen the most dead. With the inclusion of the Jewish House and the demand for the US/UK passports, it seems they have targeted rich, poor, Indian, foreign all in one clean sweep.

Shame on the government

2008-11-27T11:30:00.013Z

I've been watching the news in horror -- this entire situation has been going on far too long. It's been almost twenty hours since the first gun shots, that turned into grenades, that turned into a hostage situation. But while I was watching Bombay burn, a thought kept gnawing me from behind: aren't we in the middle of cracking a terror trail right now (Malegaon). Why is it that the intelligence agencies are only adept at a post-mortem, and not good at any preventive measures? The fact that these guys are still bombing the Taj (its 5:07pm as I type), I can't understand how much ammunition they have hoarded up with them. My guess, that I also heard on TV, is that they checked into some hotel rooms a day or two ago, suitcases packed with grenades and bullets. The PM just addressed the nation -- his choice to do it so late in the day -- but personally, I don't think he should have waited this long. A country needs some sense of leadership, and the Congress certainly did not provide it. I'm not even going to talk about our extremely incompetent Home Minister.

The international news channels have some interesting commentary -- they said that the attack has been planned in time for Thanksgiving (as those five stars had dinner events going on) -- because the attacks are geared towards UK and US nationals. Terrorists have been unable to attack Americans and British in their own countries, and the call for people with British/American passports by the terrorists in the beginning has only cemented this idea -- This just shows how pathetic WE are; that terrorists cannot penetrate those countries, but ours, is easier than easy.

The Indian media is doing what it can. The only channel that is pissing me off a little bit is CNN-IBN as it has a huge screen at the back with its anchors placed on chairs in front very stylishly; as if they are covering elections or cricket. And sure enough, they have started opinion polls, and their chat topics, proving once again that they can and will never be a BBC.

Another point is that these terrorists have specifically targeted Jews -- Nariman House -- could be a game changer. Firstly, Americans won't stand for the Jews being targetted, because the American Jews won't. And Israel will be in the mix soon enough. Actually I think we should learn something from the Israeli's -- perhaps tie up with them and take some security training. I'm afraid to say but we don't seem to have well trained, fit, officers in our countries. And now, with senior leadership of the ATS killed in battle, we can only hope the younger bracket is up to the challenge. The police and defense services also need to be paid well so that top officers don't leave. And just like the army chaps, our police need to be physically fit. It's just something we need to stress on as a country. But I am happy to see that the special forces are taking special care to make sure no more civilian lives are lost. About 800 Army personnel, 400 NSGs, 40 Marine commandos, 600 Rapid Action Force personnel besides Mumbai Police officers are engaged in a fierce gun battle with the militants. That is quite a lot of forces, but yet we see no signs of the situation ending.

Cricket has taken the first hit, with the IPL in danger. Foreigners in other parts of the country are apparently fleeing, and national elections are no longer going to hinge of the economic meltdown. And on the other side, Pakistan has offered a "hotline" from Delhi to Islamabad so that we can share information. And this offer comes in the wake of Zardari claiming all Pakistanis have a piece of India in their heart. And while we have newspapers filled with Zardari's praises, we suddenly get news of these infiltrators coming in by sea from Pakistan. So what is it? Are they as bad as us when it comes to intelligence or just turning a blind eye? Every time we feel closer relations with Pakistan might serve the sub-continent, there are reminders that our neighbours are not to be trusted. It would be something if the government and army of Pakistan is completely unaware of these outfits running in their country. (No offence to my friends there, but my country is my country).

"Deccan Mujahiddin" is the alias for which group, we don't know. Experts are saying this is not Al Qaeda as there are no suicide bombers, but the outfit can change tactics, can't they? Lashkar is involved, apparently, having sent an email from Russia as a red herring. A terrorist just caught (5:38pm) seems to be a wanted Lashkar operative. Is this attack against India, is it against the visitors in India? There is still doubt, obviously. And I hope some RSS, VHP, BJP leaders have the presence of mind to call out to Hindu outfits and ask them NOT to plan attacks against Muslims as a retaliation (as the perpetrators are suspected to be all Muslim at the moment). I wonder if anyone is even capable of that.

My mother just said that she hopes the channels don't harp about the "spirit of Bombay" tomorrow -- instead stress on the point that people are ANGRY and demand action. It's this resilient spirit that allows our politicians to get back to doing nothing very much. And on the other hand, my friend Kundan informs me that many posters online seem to think that Narendra Modi is the man who can protect India from the terrorists.

I'll check in later; probably update this post itself.

Meanwhile my dog is suspicious that the piece of chicken momo I have given her is not as exciting as the one I am eating. Sometimes, I'd like to be her.

** 8:21pm

Arnab has rightly pointed out that in this attack the terrorists have exposed themselves in this attack -- walking around freely -- the "audacity" of this attack. Watching live news is a little tough because there is so much action -- and we are keeping track of a number of locations -- that putting together a coherent sequence of events is tough. But the NSG and RAF are in the hotels, and fire and grenades can both still be heard, which to me in insane.

Ratan Tata was on TV earlier, and was being asked some really stupid questions like "have you figured out how much damage?" It's still going on for heaven's sake. But he did point out that it seems the terrorists have very intimate knowledge of the buildings.

Advani has landed in Bombay, and immediately starting saying that this attack was worse than anything that happened during the NDA government. As the news pointed out, there had been rumours that the PM and Leader of Opposition (Advani) would fly down together -- much needed symbol of solidarity -- but it hasn't happened. In fact, Advani has shown himself to be rather petty and small minded by playing the blame-game while people are still fighting for their lives.

Suhel Seth came on Times Now and gave a very passionate and correct speech, talking about how pathetic our politicians are. He said that the people at the hotel, hospitals etc are the one who have stood by the people, not the politicians. And that we should delay elections, call a national emergency, and solve this terror crisis. I'm so glad that we are finally getting ANGRY -- Seth also pointed out that our political system has not allowed us to reward our heroes. And he said the same thing my mother did, that Bombay should not rebound in the morning, it should retaliate. Damn straight.

Maybe business houses and rich persons should get together, and without any strings attached, donate money for the armed services, to be used for training, uniforms

But away from the emotional feeling of it all; we need to discuss reasons. My uncle, a former foreign service man, having served in the Middle East called me to say that it probably ties up to the fact that Mulla Omar had recently announced that they were going to go after countries that sent troops to Afghanistan (therefore the call for US/UK citizens). Also, Pakistan and Afghanistan has been increasingly unhappy with our role in Afg; started with bombing at our Kabul Embassy -- this might just be a natural progression. Also, these terrorists have no escape plan, they are ready to die for their cause, so jihads. And they are very well trained. Some great points, and I've tried to contact Times Now, because perhaps the discussion needs to get away from the emotional to the practical now.

Another point he made was about the terrorists coming by sea; at this point it is not very clear where the two ships seized by the navy came from. Reports suggest that to be in Indian waters they had requested permission through normal channels. But from a cell phone left behind by one of the terrorists, one thing is clear -- calls are coming in from Pakistan. I went to the Dawn website to see what they had to say about Bombay, but their report made no mention of who is responsible for the attacks.

Actually, Times Now now (9:26pm) has a security expert from London -- Bob Ayers -- on, and he said that this attack has nothing to do with India the way the Madrid bombings had to do with Spain -- it has to do with attacking westerners everywhere they go. Morderchai Kedar, a Counter Terrorism Expert from Israel says that India needs to get to the root of it, fast, and figure out who sent them. Bob Ayers said that a period of confusion and false reporting always prevails, and that to suggest that Pakistan might be behind this is wrong and dangerous. A chronology of what happened has to be made, and when factual information is at hand, and to speculate on solutions before the facts have been ascertained is unprofessional.

Meanwhile Barkha Dutt is talking to Shobha De.

Something to talk about.

2008-11-26T07:39:00.005Z

Watching TV, as is my calling in life -- apparently -- I got thinking. I was watching Sreenivasan Jain on Witness (NDTV) explaining the Malegaon blasts -- the Sadhvi and that insane gang who find the RSS inept and corrupt (as they apparently took money from the ISI??). Last I checked, the RSS, VHP and Shiv Sena were pretty much the bottom of the barrel when it came to non-Muslim extremism of any kind in this country, so I kept wondering, who the hell is going to take Abhinav Bharat's place, thinking them to be neutered? Lord.

We can't run away from the fact that we are a predominantly Hindu country and that there will always be factions who will prey on minorities to solidify their status. They will want support by inciting fear of the unknown, by playing identity politics, instead of actually doing society any good. That is old school politics and should end. My father and I had an argument the other day about the "Indian Obama". He said that Mayawati could be compared to him, for the reason that both have had a decent education and are minorities. I vehemently refused, because I said, Obama never asked for votes because he is Black, while Mayawati's entire rise was based on her identity as a Dalit. The day someone in India shoots to power because of the vision they have for the country, is the day we can compare them to Obama.

I see reports in the paper everyday that Obama's election -- plank and use of multimedia -- is inspiring politicians back home. That's good. But think about this: I read in a column in Mint the other day that India has always aspired for greatness, but never really done anything about it. I was mulling over that thought (I suppose the nuclear deal was a recent effort to acquire greatness), and I started watching late night TV.

My ex-colleague, Akash Banerjee, now with Headlines Today, was hosting a show called Ground Zero. The question he was asking was: after Sadhvi Pragya hit the headlines, has the conversation in Madhya Pradesh become about religion and not development? The usual suspects were there; Advani crying about Pragya's alleged abuse in jail, and Rahul Gandhi trying to remind people that the BJP only promises "temples" "terrorism" but never develops. And to be fair, if you look at the national media (save a few half an hour specials thrown in), the entire public discourse is around Sadhvi Pragya.

But the Indian Express carried a small piece about the inside details of the MP election. They said that speeches about Sadhvi Pragya and gang is left to the national leaders, the local leaders find that they cannot deviate from development issues. People understand that they need water, roads, food more than they need fluffy pillows for Sadhvi Pragya. It was most telling -- and reminded me of last years UP elections where Mayawati was doing all her campaigning on the ground, away from the glare of national media -- and that's why when she won, everyone in the Delhi studios were zapped, because for the most part, they had been on a different tangent. And again, reports have been published that it seems the BSP is going to gain in the state of MP. So again, it seems, not for anything the BSP has actually managed, it will be because everyone else has lost focus of why they are actually standing for those elections.

So, then, a question -- do we need to settle the question of Hindutva once and for all, or are we, Dilli-valas, so enamoured with the discourse that we fail to see that during election time, people are getting increasingly wary of these issues and rather focus on development issues. And aren't we media savvy enough by now (NDTV is celebrating a 20 yr anniversary for heavens sake) to admit to ourselves that talking heads in all out prime time debate shows (perhaps not Times Now as much, I find Arnab Goswami quite good) are increasingly pointless.

There was a time in the US (well, it still continues) that politics was being carried out by news anchors and talking heads. They came, they spoke, they argued: all about the issues they deemed important, and the audience was ... captive. The Jon Stewart "Spin Alley" moment was a turning point in my head (watch this) and ultimately, this election, you had people finally desperate to hear something substantial -- and Obama was the right man at the right now.

We in India are falling victim to the same issues. We don't need Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Rudy Pratap Singh's views on every issue, every night. We need some real people, experts, people from the states about which we are talking. News is increasingly going the spin alley way. In fact, this US election, an anchor called Campbell Brown hit the big time, mostly because she said, its one thing about giving everyone equal time, but its quite another to hear someone tell you its raining outside when its not, and not call them on it. (I like Arnab because he seems to do that. Perhaps not sitting in Delhi and therefore meeting politicians socially allows him this distance.)

Well, MP results will be out. Then we can see what is true: is talk of Sadhvi Pragya more important than talk about development? Are national leaders simply on a different tangent than local ones? Are our English channels really having a meaningful dialogue?

Watch and learn.

Bollywood Dynasties

2008-11-23T20:31:00.003Z

It's a tiny feature that has gone on air many many many months after it was done.. but I wanted to share..

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VunWQsnzZi8&eurl=http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/fps/2008/11/2008111862719249160.html

You can skip to about 4:20 but the first story is really interesting (perhaps more than ours!!) -- but the second is something I worked on, and it's just a fun little snippet of an industry I almost never think about.

Hello world, blog will be back to business soon!

Black is the new President, Bitch!

2008-11-07T12:34:00.005Z

Trust The Daily Show to get it right. In the run up to the American elections, people so busy trying to brand Obama as a socialist or a radical, everyone seemed to forget he was Black. In a way, that is amazing. African-Americans have done exceptionally well in many fields in the US, including politics, but in that sphere, the same glass ceiling (due to the Bradley effect or what have you) applied. Not anymore. Not anymore.

Martin Luther King's dream has been realised. Once the announcement was made, suddenly anchors on every channel left Ayers and Acorn and his middle name and all that other rubbish, and realised what a historic day it was for Black people. In McCains victory speech he acknowledged this -- perhaps its all the better he lost. Otherwise he would have been the man who came in the way of the equality of the races, and as a symbol he would have been hated by history. One of the bad guys. When McCain spoke I wondered if he realised that he was a footnote in history, because it didn't really matter who stood against Obama; I feel this was a time that just had to come. The culmination of the civil rights movement. If Beyonce and JayZ (?) can own the music industry, and everything Will Smith touches turns to gold... politics was next. (Especially when politics and media are so intertwined in the US. Infotainment at its best).

The New York Time's Judith Warner wondered if children will realise the sheer enormity of this singular achievement. Come up with all the reasons for this victory -- economy, Bush, a new message, a younger generation finding a voice in Obama -- that he is Black is the symbolic achievement we will remember for decades to come. We will all remember where we were when Obama was elected President. It has touched us all on a personal level. Just look at the Facebook generation. Practically everyones status had been changed to hail Obama.

It was fantastic.

PS - If you don't know where the title of this post came from, please watch Saturday Night Live sketches online. This election cycle they have been fantastic, starting from the primaries.

PPS And for an analysis of the Obama factor that I made over a year ago (and I think is quite correct), go here.

Mutually Suspicious

2008-11-04T10:43:00.003Z

You might expect me to talk about the US presidential elections, and ordinarily I would. Obama is likely to win according to me, but lets wait another day! If I was in the states right now I think I'd have a nervous breakdown, but luckily I'm not!! (Ok, I'll be honest, unluckily -- I'd have given anything to be part of this election!)

So, to other matters, more important matters. Tehelka carried an interview -- Prakash Sharma, Bajrang Dal leader -- which was very interesting to read. With Hindu-Muslim mutual suspicion out in the open now -- you can no longer point only at Muslim extremists as being the perpetrators of terror in this country -- we need to take a long hard view at how we think.

Now, let me be honest, at the start of the interview, I was nodding in agreement with a few things he said. But they made me think, question myself.

"See, no matter what you say, the basic thing is, Bharat is a Hindu rashtra and because it is a Hindu rashtra, Muslims and Christians can live with such ease here. What Muslims are doing in India today, they will not be able to do in any Christian country. Similarly, what the Christians are doing here, they will not be able to do in a Muslim country."

Is that true, I wondered. I have friends in many Muslim countries, from the Middle East to Pakistan, and perhaps he is right. After all, it is our very secular nature that allows people to do as they want. But then again, I've met people who've come from places ranging from Doha to Dubai.. and no real complaints about their lifestyles as such if they are not Muslim. Perhaps I don't have knowledge at the grassroots level, but considering the violence against minorities in our country, I don't think we can really boast of this secularism any more.

But the more I read, the more I wanted to understand the mind of a Hindu nationalist.

"See, Hindus believe god can have any name, and the paths to god can vary. We have 32 crore gods and goddesses; it won’t hurt us if one more Mohammaden or Christian is added to the ranks. So what difficulty do Indian Muslims have in saying they are “Mohammamed panthi Hindus” or Indian Christians have in saying they are “Christ-believing Hindus”? After all, this is a Hindu nationality. "

He giveth and taketh away in one breath! Because he already calls them Indian Muslims and Indian Christians! What is with this insane loyalty test Hinduism espouses? Agni pariksha anyone?

He made it amply clear in the interview that he will justify his own Bajrang Dal's violence by any means, but anything other than that is to be condemned. Even when talking about conversions, and why Dalits convert due to the extreme caste system in the country, he admits Hindu society has its faults, but they are not so bad.

"No, this is the problem with the secular media. What is so complex about the issue? There was an agreement; Kashmir was given to India. If Nehru had not kept the issue in his hand and had left it to Sardar Patel, there would be no issue today. If these eunuch governments would give up their impotency, there would be no issue today. I am neither concerned about the BJP nor any other party. It is because of the impotency of our political parties that the Kashmir issue is not sorted out and has got so out of hand. Why do they get such a free hand? They go over to Pakistan and make friends with them, and we sit and feed them biryani? They should be crushed, not treated like sons-in-law!"

Ah, the secular media and Kashmir. Just remember this, I will come back to it later.

"I am talking of the whole secular spectrum. Tell me, what is wrong in our opposition to Husain? Muslims burn buses demonstrating against Taslima, so you send her out of the country. Why are you defending Husain? What is the need to show Sita minus her clothes? Will he paint Mother Mary naked? Will he paint his own mother naked? I say Husain should be punished in such a way no one in his family will remember how to paint seven generations later. If he ever comes here, I assure you there will be a spontaneous reaction to him. "

It is a good point though. These guys started harassing Husain ages ago, but they are not alone in violent protests over religious idols. Thats universal. But this whole "spontaneous reaction" bullshit needs to stop. You're not fooling anyone. It's like in school when they told you that some voluntary activity was compulsary.

"How do you justify your demographic insecurities? We are a billion plus. Minorities barely make up 18 percent. Orissa has 95 percent Hindus –
Don’t look at it at a national level. Go to the particular district and see. There used to be a few thousand Christians there, now there are several lakhs. Why did only particular portions of India become Pakistan and Bangladesh? Because they were Muslim majority areas. Why are there secessionist movements in Christian dominated regions of the north-east? In the future, there might be fresh talk of partitions. They will raise their populations then ask for partitions. You will not understand these things. We do not oppose Muslims per se, we only oppose statements like Abdullah Bukhari who said recently that they will create such a movement, things will be worse than 1947. "

How do you ever manage population control in an environment like this? And its such a myopic view from a leader who rather have a thosand hungry, poor, illiterate followers than plan for their successful future.

The point that he considers every demand of the Muslims as anti-national. Even their demands of being treated equally, equal opportunity -- everything is considered anti-Hindu by him. So where is the space for debate?

"You will find the only reason the talks broke down so totally is because Shri Shahbuddin made that incendiary statement: “What proof do you have Ram was born here?” If you question our very identity, the basic fount of our culture -- Did Ram exist or not -- what discussion can there be? Let them take the initiative on anything. Let them amicably give us the three birthplaces, and there will be no more fight. Does any Muslim leader have the courage and statesmanship to initiate talk on this? "

AKA this conversation will only work if you agree we are right.

BUT his comments on secular media being great apologetics and in fact doing a disservice to the country made me think. It's not that his views are totaly baseless, its that they are an extreme version of what they should be. Agreed, there is a deep divide over Ayodhya (and he mentions this funny statement by a Muslim who said, if my baby is born in a Boeing 747 will I take the plane home? Hee.) and perhaps he is such a staunch Hindu that he does feel threatened by other religious groups being present, but his outlet is violence, spontaneous as it may be, and thats the problem.

But he did mention how secular media/people react. It made me think about a email doing the rounds, claiming to prove who actually owns the Indian media. It says that there is a lot of Middle Eastern money coming in that wants to ensure that the media is sympathetic to Muslims more than Hindus -- thus the secular bias. The same claim is made for international channel tie-ups, that are funded by Christian groups in their countries. How true this is, I don't know. But its out there.

Now, this Hindu-Muslim/Secular puzzle is made even more complicated if you take Kashmir in the middle. To give Kashmir autonomy would encourage other secessionist, so a no-no. But the alternative is to let them continue living under guard. And with Kashmir, where the Muslims could not decide if they wanted to stay with India or Pakistan, we equate their struggle with the rest of the Muslims in India (who wanted to stay, and struggle for their place within Indian society), and so neither can be addressed correctly? Am I reading this right because it is just so complicated!

Anyway, I read this piece by Pankaj Mishra in Outlook. He said a few interesting things too. "For years the overtly Islamic and violent aspect of the insurgency in the Valley kept many secular Indian liberals from visibly sympathising with the plight of the Kashmiri Muslims." And Prakash Sharma's answer to that is that the media has not highlighted the plight of the Kashmiri Pandits (though Tehelka says it is working on such a story). I've heard my dad, a KP although my family was already in Delhi at the time of the exodus, complain of the same. Why is one story lost in the service of the other? Or perhaps its not lost "in the service of the other" but simply waiting to be found?

Does Kashmir hold the key to solving these problems? Can it be a catalyst? I'm throwing the question open guys, cause I want to know too. What do you think?

Are we also caught up in "the idea of India" (much like the idea of the "American Dream"?) he asks. Great question I think. Because we keep claiming India is this, it is that, but its not really, and you just need to put on the TV to understand that simple fact. Everyone seems to hate each other, mutual suspicion. And this common love of cricket and Bollywood that we seem to find so cute, to me, isn't all that cute anymore.

A tale of two cities

2008-10-21T06:14:00.003Z

Mumbai and Bombay. Somehow the usage just seems to -- inadvertently -- denote the biggest difference between how people see the city.

Bombay, of course, is cosmopolitan. Open for everyone. BUT Mumbai is only for Mumbaikars. Raj Thackery (who finally someone, even if it was Lalu Prasad Yadav, called a mental case) has been arrested, and as I type, is going to be taken to court shortly.

As you all might know, Raj and his band of MNS workers have been attacking non-Maharashtrians in the city, claiming that they are taking away jobs that actually belong to Maharashtrians. The hysteria has been a multi-pronged strategy, which has included calls for all shop signs to be in Marathi, all state communication in the same language, beating up taxi drivers and so on. The sheer power of Raj -- his ability to lead other goons like him -- made the state government nervous about arresting him. Bombastic threats were made, to the effect that "watch what will happen if you arrest Raj Thackerey!"

This entire deal has been making me think of identity as an Indian. The fact that Raj has a following is most disheartening to me. But its not just as an observer. I'm half Kashmiri and half Maharashtrian. Since I wasn't born in Kashmir, I can never buy land there. (Consider this my pitch to change that law!) Chances are, especially since I can't speak Marathi fluently (and plus not a pure breed), if it was up to Thackerey & gang, I wouldn't be welcome there. Delhi is my home. I can't imagine what I would do if this state because some exclusive party too. But as my mother reassures me, I was born in the city! (Phew -- that has to earn me some brownie points!)

But then again, if I have to be fair, the Delhi CM also lamented a while ago about migration into Delhi. (Poor UP and Bihar). And the frustration stems from a real place, of course, because since movement within our country is a constitutional right, the government can never be sure of how many people will reside in a state on any particular month. So, resources are never enough. They cannot be planned well enough. Bigger questions about budgets follow.

Beating up people who are looking for a better life is not the answer. Many have argued that it is the fault of governments of backward states -- especially UP and Bihar -- that just do not have jobs and infrastructure to provide to their people. It's probably very true, and these states need to be developed with some long term aims. Bihar has been destroyed again, and I hope Mayawati is actually doing some good out in UP -- one mostly hears of her many statues and fights with Sonia, but I'm ready to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Our media, of course, is helpful as ever. Is this the face of urban terrorism, asked CNN IBN. I'm not sure exactly what the meaning of this new label is, and if that is really the point. Arnab Goswami, I was very happy to note, was holding representatives of MNS, Shiv Sena to task.

What will happen to Raj? Because I'd sooner go to Bombay for a visit than Mumbai.

money matters

2008-10-16T12:34:00.010Z

The closing statements said a lot. There was McCain, appealing to the American voters to let him fulfill his destiny, to serve Americans again, and Obama, focusing on how he wants to change policies to rescue America from this slippery slope.

You must have seen it all, read it all, how McCain sneered and rolled his eyes as Obama spoke; how Obama smiled as McCain criticized him. McCain was simply unpleasant. He wasn't always like this, go back and google his appearances on Conan, Leno or even The Daily Show. He spoke his mind. He was fun. But, I suppose as a Republican candidate (after all, he is not running as an independent candidate) he was taken more traditional positions.

But it all boils down to policies and the Republicans severe aversion to having the government involved in people's private lives. (Although, under Bush, the government was not only in their phones, but now is nationalizing banks, which for them, really, is a strict no-no.) Coming from India, we are well used to the government with its finger in every pie. In fact, over here we want more privatization. We feel that is more effective. But let's also keep in mind that if private companies were allowed to do what they wanted -- as has happened in the States -- one would need to government to come out and sort everyone out. Obama's basic argument is that private players have not always been able to solve problems, because they don't have larger policy issues in mind, but profits for themselves and shareholders. That's not wrong, but a country needs a long-term plan too. Even here, say the phone companies hiked up charges to insane amounts, we would expect the government to step in and tell them to calm down. Remember the common man, and all that. ((Same to same Obama.))

I won't bother recapping other arguments they have, you know them. But I did see something on BBC that is worth recounting. They reported, last night as I lay awake at 3am for no reason, that America has seen shopping sales drop drastically in this year -- and the trend seems to have started even before reports of a financial crisis. The country -- despite problems -- has always depended on the American consumer to spend, spend, spend, thereby reviving the economy. That's why, as I understand it, Republicans say taxing the rich doesn't make sense. Then they'll have more money to spend, and it will all go back into the economy and trickle down. Well, clearly, that's not the case.

So, is it worth taxing the rich so that government has the money that it must necessarily spend on some kind of reform, research, relief, instead of a jacuzzi?

I guess my point is that a mixed economy seems to make the most sense.

All about the trigger

2008-10-09T18:28:00.004Z

What Bal Thackeray said today, that Sonia Gandhi’s attempt to de-link terrorism from religion is wrong, made me think really hard about some issues in front of us. One the one hand she is correct – by making terrorism a purely ‘Muslim’ issue (instead some some very, very angry people who just happen to be Muslim), we put the entire community at risk. People don’t trust them, the police give them a hard time, and their lives just suck that much more. But then again, de-linking it from religion is also kind of a Sarah Palin answer to global warming: she says it doesn’t matter whether it is man made or not, but of course it matters, if you don’t know what caused it, how will you prescribe the right cure? So, and especially so, after the Indian Mujahideen (responsible for the latest series of bomb blasts) claim in an email that they are angry about anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat, about the Babri Masjid and Mumbai riots, which were clearly Hindu-Muslim issues, how can we dare to frame this entire problem outside the purview of religious problems? Now, I’m not a total retard and of course by linking this recent spate of terror activities to Muslim extremism, I don’t mean to link every Muslim to terror. But, unfortunately, the Catch-22 is, this happens.

But at the same time, in the light of Hindu-Christian strife, there have been calls to ban the Bajrang Dal. This is a clearly religious problem, and again, by lashing out at Hindu extremists, it doesn’t automatically mean all Hindus are extremists. (There are just so many more Hindus in India, the same rules do not apply.)

See, the entire problem (and of course I’m not pointing out anything new here) is that politics takes advantage of the religion, and then any normal, rational discussion is lost. For example, in the news are reports that Ram Vilas Paswan and Lalu Yadav would like the Bajrang Dal banned because that would help their minority vote bank. Now, their reason for supporting the ban should ideally be that the Bajrang Dal has been proved, without a shadow of a doubt, to be an extremist organization, and for the safety of its targets and for the national peace, it should be banned. The same goes for extremist Muslim groups – the reason we should go after them is because they kill people and create chaos, not because it would excite a Hindu vote bank.

But, my point is, if people are using religion to perpetuate violence, then we should call them on it. As all non-extremist Hindus should denounce extremist Hindu organizations, so should Muslims do the same with their rouge outfits. And we should not become too political correct (or incorrect) and not do the right thing.

The world is what it is.

Modi to the rescue

2008-10-07T12:35:00.003Z

So, is Narendra Modi a national hero for rescuing the Nano -- the car for the common man? The one lakh car? How does one feel about the fact that Ratan Tata, known to be one of the most honest businessmen in India, is sharing the stage with Narendra Modi, one of the most villified politicians by the educated elite (a crowd that ironically, Tata belongs to, although I have no idea if he ever vocally criticized Modi). Are we to forget Modi the communal evil now, since he has recently been exonorated from some communal carnage in the state? Is his new avatar the saviour of capitalism? Even his toughest critics will have to praise him for this move.

This story is as much about the Nano, capitalism and industry in India -- as much as it is about Narendra Modi, the good guy.

Mind boggling.

random house

2008-10-07T06:48:00.003Z

Was meant to go to Orissa for a shoot, but with the violence and flooding, things came to a standstill. That's when I started writing -- aimlessly at first -- a book. Now, there's no telling if I will finish the book, I can't make out if its interesting to anyone besides me (although the two people who've read it seemed to enjoy it). Plus I'm more racy novel than anything deep and insightful, but who cares! As long as its fun and you learn something. (What is it about, you ask: all in good time!)

Anyway as I started to lift my head and watched news, I was as disappointed as anyone with what happened with the Tata's in Bengal. And whats more, they have now decided to go to Gujarat with the Nano, which makes me wonder how Modi, villified for violence against Muslims, has proven to be a good CM in terms of business and industry. I guess this experiment with democracy is all good, but when you need something done, a firm hand is the best?

Meanwhile, a fellow journalist gets killed -- murdered -- on Delhi roads late at night and the CM thinks she was being "adventurous". Just makes you realise how out of touch Old India is with New India, where travelling at night is quite routine for many women -- and men. Did our CM not know this? That's what I'm shocked about. On my own, I've seen this city at all times of the day and night, thats for sure, and I've been lucky; nothing has ever happened. I was stopped at a police check near the PM's house once, all the cops were drunk, misbehaving. Luckily one was sober and told me to just drive off. I know that unless a female cop is present they can't stop me at night, but there was a barricade -- I had no choice. But thats almost all of my misadventures.

Recently I attended a do where there were many of my ex-collegues from the Indian Express and I was asking them what the deal was with this Indian Mujahideen. The emails said the bombs were for Gujarat, but to me, its still baffling how bombing Delhi aimless really helps their own lives. It's a pretty retarded strategy was strategies go -- unfortunately, a very dangerous one. So thats my new project for myself; following the terror trail more closely. I remember when the Indian in Australia was suspected of terror -- I forget his name right now -- India boasted of the fact that there was not one single Indian Muslim terrorist. Now they seem to be everywhere. What is it then?

We had this conversation about stereotypes last night. I won't repeat much of it since it was politically horribly incorrect, but at the end of the day my thought was that stereotypes are based on behavior patters, and then blown out of proportion. But, as far as my understanding is, the best part about stereotypes is that they can be broken.

So, to things we believe are so not true and how we can prove that. And aimless racy novels. Cheers.

Countdown 2010

2008-09-03T10:03:00.004Z

DELHI'S ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT

Delhi is undertaking a massive development scheme before it hosts the 2010 Commonwealth Games. But Al Jazeera's People & Power found that many locals are doubtful the new projects will benefit everyone.

As the dust settles on the Beijing Olympics preparations are proceeding full-steam ahead in the Indian capital Delhi for their own multi-sport bonanza – the 2010 Commonwealth games.

With 85 nations due to compete in 17 different disciplines it is the largest event of its kind ever to be held in the country and the construction in the city reflects the scale of the event.

"We're a big economic power now. I mean India is looked at, India and China are looked at from a different angle altogether," Suresh Kalmadi, the chairman of the Indian Olympic Committee, says.

"We are going up economically, and people expect that sports-wise also we must do well."

Delhi has promised it will surpass the Melbourne games of 2006 and the Delhi Development Authority is the agency that has been charged with converting the capital into a "world class city" in two years time.

"The city, because of the Games, wherever it is – whether it is Athens, China – moves 10 years ahead, and Delhi will also move ten years ahead with the Commonwealth Games," Kalmadi says.

Moving ten years ahead means 24 new flyovers are in the pipeline and ultimately about 200km of new network on the Delhi Metro.

Infrastructure fear

"We have a big Commonwealth Games Village for 8,000 athletes. A number of competition and games venues are being built almost from scratch, some are being renovated," Tejinder Khanna, the chairman of DDA, tells Al Jazeera.

"So there's almost several billion dollars of infrastructure up-gradation and new infrastructure is being added."

Critics fear this new infrastructure will damage the existing environment of Delhi and that it will be the poorest who pay the price for this development.

"Delhi has many landmarks around the city from the Qutub Minar to the Red Fort to Safdarjung's Tomb. I think everything here should be preserved. There's a lot to keep. A lot to accentuate, a lot to rehabilitate,” Michael Jansen, the CEO of US consulting company Satellier, says.

"For Delhi the question really is, how do we maintain and accentuate the historic buildings in the city and then build a modern city around or into it – which I think will be the challenge."

But some people are being pushed back to accommodate this modern city. Forty kilometres away from Delhi is the area of Bawana.

People now forced to live here had been living in a slum colony in Delhi known as Yamuna Pushta before their land was taken away by the government.

The area will now house the Commonwealth games village, a state of the art facility for athletes competing in the games.

Appalling conditions

"Almost 200,000 people were actually displaced and were pushed to the outskirts of Delhi – to Bawana – so that there could be beautification that could happen," Vimlendu Jha, an environmentalist, says.

Bawana residents say their conditions are no better than before

In Bawana, the memories of the day of demolition are still fresh in people's minds.

"It was the afternoon when the bulldozers came," 25-year-old Rafiya recalls. "When it came towards us, we stood in the middle. All around us, houses were being torn down. My family was amongst the last to leave.

"My father had spent his entire life there, and died there, so we did not want to leave that place and move anywhere else."

What also angers Bawana's new residents is that their new living conditions are as equally as appalling as before.

The government gave them land to build houses. They can stay here for only five years and none of these houses have toilets.

There are some temporary toilets but they are often unaffordable for people living on less than a dollar a day.

Khanna says there was no other option for Bawana residents as authorities do not have substantial housing to provide.

"What you've done is that you have removed a slum and created another slum at a different location. So you have displaced a problem, rather than solving a problem," Jha says.

Authorities claim they are under no legal obligation to re-house residents but critics argue they have no real choice in the matter.

"Right to resettlement doesn't exist," Harish Salve, a lawyer with the Supreme Court of India, says.

"But yes, as good government, as a welfare state which we are as far as possible, if driven by poverty people have come and settled in inhospitable surrounding you must resettle them."

'Race against time'

Meanwhile, the government is busy building the Commonwealth Games village on the bed of river Yamuna, a construction that Jha says is highly hypocritical.

"We've seen lot of illegal constructions; lot of slums have been removed, vacated from the river bed, saying that 'oh well, they pollute the river', and that any form of encroachment is bad for the river system and the eco-system of the river," he says.

"How about the Commonwealth Games? Where did the government think that it was suddenly eco-friendly to have big construction and it was eco-unfriendly when there were slums that were supposed to be there?"

The authorities however insist they have all the necessary permits to build on the riverbed and the Indian Olympic Committee says it is too late to switch the project to another site.

Some analysts say that setting up facilities for the games is proving to be a race against time for the government and in order to meet deadlines they are taking quick decisions that sometimes result in irreparable damage.

Local residents say that trees in the Siri forest have been cut down to make way for the Commonwealth stadium and have been done so from the centre, in order to disguise the cutting for as long as possible.

Delhi has developed the city's Metro system for the games [EPA]

"If 1,000 trees are cut anywhere – I mean, that we are very particular, at least 10,000 more trees must be grown elsewhere. So all those factors have been looked into," Suresh Kalmadi of the Olympic committee says.

Salve says this attitude is a case of literally not seeing the forest for the trees.

"A forest which is a few hundred years old, as this Siri Fort forest is, is an eco-system. You can plant trees - you can't plant an eco system," he says.

"It is this attitude, and its this complete lack of awareness and planning, which is at the heart of the Indian problem."

Planning problems

Lack of planning is hindering Delhi from becoming the "world class" city it aspires to be.

The Road Research Institute has been monitoring the infrastructure in Delhi and says that basic facilities like pedestrian signals and zebra crossings are sorely lacking – meaning walking on Delhi roads has never needed more maneouvring.

"Just for the sake of widening the roads we are just cutting down the size of the footpaths. And whatever footpaths are available they are not at all pedestrian friendly," Nishi Mittal from the institute says.

The games' organising authorities suggest such hindrances are merely teething problems and that a fluid transportation system will be in place by 2010.

"There's going to be a lovely transportation system coming in," Kalmadi says.

"All these stadiums are also being connected by the Metro. So, lot of things happening for the common man."

However, despite the millions of dollars already invested in the infrastructure of the Games, many believe that millions of people may not benefit from it.

"Whatever Games we're talking about, it doesn't really help the common man. It comes and goes," Vimlendu Jha says

"But in the process of coming and going, you don't lose so much. You don't put everything at stake."

WATCH:

(I worked on this).

Of presidential decisions

2008-09-02T06:34:00.002Z

There are a couple of things that really hurt the intelligence of the American voter, and the Republican party’s recent justification of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate is one of them.

Let’s start from the beginning. When he announced Palin as his choice for veep, she said in a minor speech something to the effect that even though Hillary Clinton is out of the race, this move (and her becoming VP) could show women that the glass ceiling can still be broken. Fabulous. But for me, the entire point of Hillary Clinton was that she was someone who made it on her own. (You might say being married to Bill helped her, but I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that she would have kicked ass even if he hadn’t been a politician). So picking a random woman to be his running mate, the only qualification needed that she be female, makes McCain seem like a total idiot in my opinion. Harks back to debates in India about making Pratibha Patil president of the country simply because she was female. (And from what I understand this president has made no impact on the country, except for occasional reports about crass behavior from her family in the press.)

But back to Sarah Palin, who I’m sure must be a nice lady. But McCain met her in February for the first time. So let me try and wrap my head around this – he has decided to make this woman, who he barely even knows, his VP. And so, if he were to die in office (I know, terrible to talk about it, but the man is old, so you need to think of Plan B), then Sarah Palin, someone who admittedly has not given Iraq much thought, will be leader of the free world -- and in charge of foreign policy?

And then of course is the small gloating from the GOP about Palin’s 17 year old daughter being pregnant, which they think will make voters think she is just-like-them and can relate to them. You know the last time we heard such an argument? When they were selling George W. Bush to the Americans!

In presidential candidates, you don’t need people who are like the rest of us. You need people who have higher standards, who have excelled in life.

I think it was Bill Clinton’s speech at the Denver DNC when he said that in his first presidential decision (of choosing a VP), Obama has “knocked it out of the park”. I like Joe Biden. So what about McCain’s first presidential decision? I read somewhere he picked a Palin rather than one of the usual suspects because he still wanted to appear to be a maverick, and that he still had it in him to keep people guessing. Pick your battles, I say. And in picking a running mate, pick someone you admire and respect, not some person you barely even know, but think might fit into some narrative the media will love.

Very disappointing John McCain. Not that you had my vote (if I could) but you are losing the respect too.

toilet mafia

2008-08-27T13:27:00.002Z

There is a sanitation officer, the residents of Bawana Resettlement Colony tell me, who makes Rs 3000 a day. ‘Makes’ is just a nice way of putting it. What they mean, of course, is illegal earning. The police are not far behind, with a daily intake of Rs 15,000. All thanks to the toilet mafia. I know, you are wondering: What?

Some background: When the slum dwellers of the Yamuna Pushta were moved to Bawana – “resettled” – the government told those who could supply ID cards that would be allotted plots of land. They paid for them – Rs 7000 or Rs 5000 – depending on the size. Empty plots, which, depending on the savings of the slum dwellers, they have either built up into brick houses or jhuggis. From illegal colonies to actually owning land is a great leap for many, but before you wax eloquent about how we are serving the common man, wait. Sewage lines do not connect the plots of land, so houses cannot have individual bathrooms. So, an entire block has to share a bathroom complex or two. That’s 4000 families, roughly 28,000 people. And so whenever any of them want to use the bathroom, have a bath, wash their clothes – they have to brave the heat, the cold, the day, the night, lines, men, women, children, to have a little personal space. But it doesn’t end there.

From 2004 to 2006, Sulabh was handling the toilet complex. The lavatory cost Re 1, and to bathe/wash clothes cost Rs 5. That’s a lot of money for a family of six or seven, as they often are in the Resettlement Colony. In 2006, the MCD took over, and made use of the toilets free. But the more things changed, the more they remained the same. The Sulabh workers stayed on, taking money from residents who did not know the rules had changed. And so the daily struggle continued. If anyone was unable to pay, but needed to use the bathroom, they were manhandled. Poverty was a reason the bathrooms were made free. But practically, it seems, it did not serve the interest of the authorities to tell them. And from their daily collections – remember that the strength of the colony is about one lakh people strong – the sanitation officer took a cut, the police took theirs, the men who guarded the toilets, and some money trickled down to the local politicians office I was told. And therein lies the toilet mafia.

But the story hardly ends there. A few NGOs – Action Aid, Par Darshita -- along with some residents who work with them figured out this game. After consulting a lawyer, they decided that the best weapon against this mafia was to tell everyone the truth. A pamphlet was prepared, ‘nukkad nakat’ or street plays with the message, and a rally called on June 30th to announce this to the community. The night before, in true Hindi movie style, members of the mafia turned up at the NGO office and threatened members if they proceeded. But they did, the rally was held, the message spread, and sure enough, it ended with the mafia coming in and disrupting everything.

I was there the day of the rally, and saw quite a few fights over bathroom usage. It should be surprising that a toilet mafia exists, but its not. Who is responsible for the mess in Bawana? I told a bunch of senior bureaucrats this story over dinner, and most of them simply shrugged and told me that the MCD has a very bad rep. But what does that mean, exactly? That because the MCD is known to be corrupt, we cannot expect it, or rather, we will not expect it to function? This is not just a problem for the residents of Bawana. Not just for the MCD. It is a health hazard to have areas around the house and colony be used like open bathrooms, which they invariably are, for the lack of another option. Isn’t it an environmental matter as well? And can the Government of Delhi wash its hands off the problem by squarely blaming the MCD?

The colony might be able to recapture its bathrooms; it might not. All I know is that waiting for a bathroom can be unbearable sometimes.

Now imagine if you didn’t have one at all.

It's my trust vote and I'll shout if I want to

2008-07-22T15:42:00.005Z

They came from everywhere; wheelchairs and stretchers – jail. And the anticipation of drama delivered! From the moment a crore of rupees was placed in the House by three BJP MPs – everything changed. Read on to see how the BJP's staged drama did not hold a trust vote down.
Any spellings, typos, etc, I’ll do tmr – I’m exhausted from typing and need a drink.

To be sure, the day did not start like this. My alma mater, I was a little surprised to read in the morning, lauded the first day of the debate – “the country was given snapshots of major political formations’ thinking on a complex and crucial issue. Hosting debates of such depth, apart from passing laws, is really what Parliament is about,” it felt. But the contrast between a real conversation about where this country is heading and name-calling just served to remind people like me that some people, unfortunately, just don’t care.

But Chidabaram, Gandhi and Lalu, all gave entertaining and fiery speeches.

“The BSP and SP, so far outside of the two coalitions, have not so much ditched partners as much as tried to find space in national politics,” the Express editorial had read. I wasn’t so sure I agreed with that, but what do I know?

But I’ll say this, despite what anyone says, it did turn out to be a vibrant debate in the end! Not deep, just dynamic.

The prime minister was to speak soon.

More than one crore rupees has been placed in the House – is it orchestrated drama? It is a “blot in the history of Indian democracy”, says Barkha Dutt, asking if “ a vote can be taken at all”. Its 4.16pm. The Speaker is obliged to refer this to a committee. But last night, as Barkha said, the PM had challenged MPs to prove they were offered money. This could be why this is happening.

But the Speaker’s hands are tied and cannot allow a vote now, can he?

Lok Sabha adjourned till 5pm.

Historic moment of shame, they said. Honestly, I didn’t feel shame as much as irritation. You were offered money? You refused. Then shut up and vote. Buying, bribing, bartering MPs is not new. That they are waving this money around means that they are not voting/abstaining under pressure.

Then came news of proof. S.C Mishra, BSP, came on TV so say that the PM should resign.

Speaker spoke. All three leaders have been asked to submit their complaints. BJP, again, made demands. Let people air their grievances in parliament, the PM should resign.

Back to the studio. Vinod Mehta echoed my thoughts, that people of this country will not be very shocked. They may be enjoying the stunt? I wonder. Shekhar Gupta said this is how cynicism builds up – all politics is run like this. Mehta said cynicism cannot increase in this country!

Mayawati on TV: Wants PM to resign, if this is how he has behaved to save his government. Standard statement.

Vote or walk-out? Shekhar Gupta says but a walk out is also a vote. Also that Mayawati had people join her “not because of some long lost love for Dr Ambedkar”.
A “cattle market out there” pointed out Vinod Mehta but made a good point – “it has been a cattle market since the day the trust vote was announced”.

Danger of homemade stings is, Shekhar Gupta pointed out, “Even when a good thing happens, it gets lost”. He said we need a deterrent, even if one person went to jail, it may go a long way. And if something like this happened? Should the PM resign? No, they said, but “someone should go to jail” says Shekhar Gupta with a side story. A BSP MLA was sent to jail. His widow has now been elected from a BSP ticket. And the man who murdered him, is now out from jail, to vote right now, on a BSP ticket!

Jaswant Singh was on the phone, he sounded so lazy, like he was sitting at home having a whisky and cigar, I couldn’t help smiling. But he said the BJP is fine with a vote in an “extraordinary situation”.

IBN had some leads on the bribing story, and had in its possession some tapes of bribes. So it decided to hand them over to the Speaker, because they had concerns over Parliamentary Privledge.

6.30pm, the Parliament was back on. The Speaker was again interrupted by disrupted elements. Mr Owasi was allowed to speak. He said the BJP had guided the Left in this drama, and he supports the government on matters of social welfare. He believed the Left front “for no reason whatsoever” withdrew support. He went on to ask why people are claiming Muslims are against the deal – why has no one pointed out what Hindus stand for, Dalits etc. It is for the PM to decide foreign policy, and said the Left front hates minorities. If Advani becomes PM, it is the Muslims who will suffer.

Mehbooba Mufti got up, and said after listening to the debate, that the BJP is only opposing the deal because it wants to take credit for it. Screaming to be heard, she said they only want to renegotiate the deal.., she was drowned out by cries from ‘istifa do, idtifa do’.

Omar Abdullah got up said he did not know if the one crore is true, but it is the reason smaller parties are being disrupted. He does not see a distinction between being a Muslim and being Indian, and he sees no reason to be afraid. The enemies of Indian Muslims are “the same enemies the poor people of India face” – poverty, hunger and so on. Not a member of the UPA, but he, being unhappy with the Left for becoming certifiers of who is secular and who is not. When he was with the NDA, he says the Left thought he was an outsider, but now they claim he is secular. He did not resign over Gujarat and his conscience has not forgiven him – he would not make that mistake again. To catcalls of the Amarnath Yatra, he said the fight was for land, but the Kashmiris has not turned away pilgrims. “Hum aapke jaise communal nahi hain!”
Very powerful and well spoken, I felt a chill, and I won’t lie – I welled up a bit!

The next speech was given by man – Virendra Kumar (JD)S -- who wanted clarification on certain things the PM had said on the Hyde Act. (I want to point out that all these speeches were made with the BJP shouting slogans in the background). He desperately ran through a page or two of the speech of the PM (as far as I could make out). He laid his objections on the table.

Next up was a speech to support the government, for the poor by Briswamuthiary, an independent MP. “We are indigenous people and have numerous programmes in our villages,” and in Assam, he wanted some tribes on the SC list, one area to be made another district (?), more funds for the Bodo people. His demands were very basic – schools, money – probably not the best time to discuss this, but he’d probably never had a full house with the nation watching before.

The Speaker insisted that the North Easterners speak – Mani Charimeiner from outer Manipur – said he would support the government as he has been promised that the Common Minimum Program would be re-examined. It is an under developed area, full of problems, but he said he has decided to “share the problems of the nations” and support the nuclear deal. He also wanted the desire and aspirations of the Naga people to be fulfilled.

Yerranaidu, TDP, very angry, bright yellow kurta. He opposed the motion not just on the basis of the deal but other failures. The PM’s office became a hotbed for political deals in the name of energy security, and the sovereignty of the country is being given to the Bush administration. “The Bush is going,” so he asked what is the hurry? China took ten years to finalize the 123 agreement, he said, and there is no unanimity among political parties, no majority, and since this issue is not of the Congress but the country, and he could not support the motion. He asked the PM few questions. One seemed silly, even the Speaker chuckled, the other (as my mother said) was not true.

Next a woman –Ranjeet Ranjan (LJSP), asked for respect of the House (which she actually got). She praised the PM for his honesty and said that she was prepared to come here to denounce the deal, but after seeing the events of the day, she is disgusted. She was clearly impressed by Rahul Gandhi and Omar Abdullah’s passion. She said, fiery and passionate, some people point a figure at others while they have ACs, money and criminals with them, and that the opposition has shamed the country. Single handedly she was blowing up the BJP and Akalis (as her husband is from Punjab, she seemed to know Punjabi very well), and said Sikhs always sacrifice without asking for something in return, and it is the duty of the Akalis to support the government. Then she supported it herself.

The next got only two mins when he started – in support of the government – Murmu of JMM. The need that the country has for electricity, and how the government is going forward to meet that need – the deal is for the good of the country. He was satisfied with the explanations of the deal, and did not understand why the Left deserted the government after four years. He said the opposition keeps talking about the government giving money – well, who was ready to take it??

I was glad to see other MPs disgusted by the BJPs behavior in the House today, not just us couch potatoes.

The PM stood up and the BJP flocked, asking for resignation, not allowing him to speak. “Whatever decision there is, we will carry on…” I could barely hear through the loud chanting for his resignation. He handed in his speech after barely even a minute, so that the trust motion could take place.

7:21pm – He asked the House to ‘ay’ and ‘nay’, but everyone sounded equally as loud, so he asked for a division. Some demands came out saying ask the Rajya Sabha members to leave, but the Speaker asked those asking not to be frivolous. Votes were being collected physically in the House.

Lobbies were cleared at 7:26pm. The secretary-general was asked to stand up and make the announcement with screaming and shouting in the background. The Speaker himself is quite talkative and I thought spoilt a few moments of quiet.

But then it started. Buttons were there to be pressed. For those who didn't use them, slips were going to be provided, and they had to sign, write their names and ID numbers, area, and date. Abstention slips would be provided. A screen on the wall had a computerized number.

Yes 253
No 232
Abst 002
Total 487

Confusion. Weren’t there more people who had to vote? Another 54 votes have to be counted yet; those are people using the slips instead. I don’t really understand why some people haven’t used the buttons, but all I know is that it could still swing another way. But the Congress is in a substantial lead, people starting congratulated the PM. Jayanti Natrajan explained that sometimes peoples buttons don’t work, or were not pressed properly, so right now the government still has to wait.

Barkha asked the question again – “Has the vote been overshadowed?” Swapan Dasgupta asked, the question is, “Will it be a tainted victory?” Will the deal seem compromised? Shekhar Gupta still thinks that if allegations are true, then one person needs to go to jail at least. Vinod Mehta was more concerned about smaller parties and their role now. And the question invariably turned to elections – should they have done it earlier, when should they do it now? More talk went on in all studios – Sagarika Ghosh making a really funny crack about how this might just be a good reason we need new technology (buttons not working)! The PM’s standing, the future of the Left… it was quite an interesting evening at the NDTV studios.

The government won the trust vote, and Vande Matram played, and we saw Parliament standing quietly for once. Sounds like 275 v/s 256, but no one seems sure. Ten absentations. Much wider than anyone expected, except, Prannoy Roy tells us Barkha was sure the Congress won have a clear win.

After the event, we find out about the best speech we never got to hear, that of the prime minister. I look forward to reading the text.

Singh is King.

The one with Rahul Gandhi

2008-07-22T09:31:00.008Z

In the conversation that followed this post -- I had promised to give Rahul credit when credit was due. So, I decided to follow his speech in Parliament today and 'live blog' of sorts, report what he said and give my thoughts etc. Here goes you goes (btw props to Lalu for this highly entertaining speech that I am watching as I post this!)

**
… The day seemed to pick up with Rahul Gandhi. “I have decided to speak as an Indian” he said as the BJP erupted in flames. He then asked some BJP members to listen to him, and also to speak as Indians (and that they do, he does not doubt that). He made the assumption that all parties speak for the interest of the country. Why are we meeting he asked, because of the “serious problem of energy security”. To an interrupter, he said, “I will explain how energy security is directly related to poverty”.

Talking about his recent visit to Vidharba, and meeting a woman laborer with three sons; their income, their lives. (We had entered the ‘common man’ part of the speech). The sons want to collectors, engineers and in the private industry. Sasikala is confident her sons will achieve their dreams. That house had no electricity. He asked them how they study. They pointed to a lamp and said that was how. Energy security reflects itself everywhere – Sasikala, industry, all Indians.

The opposition was unable to shut the hell up, probably as not to give Rahul the respect I thought he deserved. Energy is necessary for growth – both for BJP schemes and Congress schemes. The point, that if we do not supply our energy supply into the future, growth will stop and we will not be able to fight poverty, he said. He had stated the problem, and now wanted to give the solution.

At the mention of another farmer Kalavati, the opposition interrupted. Rahul burst into a smile, while the Speak tried to keep the calm. Rahul graciously told him “aap se sikhe hain”. After repeated interruptions, Rahul got angry “I’m glad you find it funny, but Kalavati is a woman whose husband committed suicide because he was dependant on only one crop – the cotton crop.” Kalavati, who only depended on her husband, told Rahul that she- - (we had to wait a while for the story, because big, hairy men kept screaming at the Chair and Rahul) -- the Speaker got totally frustrated and said he would fix a time for the vote and allow no further discussion. Pranab Mukherji asked the House to allow Rahul to speak. Back to Kalavati, she said, instead of sowing one crop, she sows three, including milk from her buffalo and a pond for backup water. “So the answer to our problems is..” he said, as the BJP burst out into flames again. Renuka Chowdry very cutely (I thought) got up and sternly wagged her finger at the Opposition, lost in the din. Pranab Mukherjee actually had to physically go to where the Left was to calm them down. The Speaker got frustrated and adjourned the house.

Back to the TV channels, the news of numbers of MPs shifting around seemed crass in comparison. Barkha asked, “Why didn’t he speak as a party member? (in politics you are judged by how political you are)” – I could not disagree more. Jayanti Natranjan said the speech would resonate with the young people of the country – and she is right. I personally feel (having heard only the first half of his speech) that he has shown me a glimpse of the lead that he could be. But Chandan Mitra, editor Pioneer, looking more and more like a pet of the BJP, says of Rahul’s speech “Barkha, you and I have been seeing villages with kerosene lamps for years. And the Congress was in power all that time.” What the hell does that even mean? Does that solve the problem from any angle? Does it look forward? I can’t understand it at all.

My mother came for lunch (reminding me I have a dental appointment, but I’m missing it for the rest of the show) and said – “It is a measure of his success that he is being interrupted.”

Chandan Mitra, while not defending interruptions at all, said that if Rahul was seasoned he would have continued because the “decibel level was not that high”. About horse-trading, Mitra said, this marked the end of ideology. Newstrack India, a website, wrote an editorial saying that a “political party is a group of people who come together to contest elections and hold power in the government” -- very apt I thought.

Meanwhile, IBN was tracking Mayawati and her impromptu meetings as indicative of desperation outside, to keep her flock together. Dipdosh Majumdar said that the opposition might be interrupting to try and postpone the vote – which is why the Speaker at one time burst out to say that he might as well have the vote right now. Is this a strategy while more horse-trading goes on behind the scenes?

IBN then said the numbers for the government have changed to 272 as a MP from Nagaland had just decided to support the government. Has the government “fixed this vote?” Many allusions were made to the fact the Congress is an old hand at riding out no-confidence motions in the past, and can do it again. A smug Brinda Karat told NewsX that Manmohan Singh was finance minister when Narasimha Rao won his trust vote, so has the experience necessary to win this.

The markets started looking positive around 1.44pm, although I don’t think anyone could concentrate on anything but Parliament. Mohammed Salim meantime, very good naturedly laughed off Kumari Shailja statement that the Left has been living in an ivory town, now turning saffron. In retaliation to what Chidambaram said in the morning – Salim said that China is self reliant when it comes to energy, and India wants to depend on outside. He said to Shailaja – “You are working for ‘self’ and ‘Reliance’”!!! That was charming!

The thought was echoed again by Brida Karat to NDTV “Now we know why this government never takes action against black money because it comes in handy at times like this”.

Break over – and some MP I didn’t recognize was speaking. He was defending Mayawati, so I guessed he was from the BSP –Brijesh Pathak, as I found out. The Speaker chided him – seemed the grouse was about Amar Singh’s allegations about Mayawati. “Ab dekhiye sadan mein kya ho raha hai” says the man speaking out of turn. The irony! There was a curious defense of Mayawati going on, and how she will be trapped through the CBI despite evidence to the contrary. The man was screaming, claming that he was approached and that he was told that cases against Mayawati will be dismissed if the BSP votes with the government. Other members jumped in, apparently BSP men have been approached by the CBI. The Speaker told them to calm down as they were under the protection of the House, but they were too hysterical. Then Gurudas Dasgupta wanted to speaker to form a committee to look into the allegations “here and now” which made the Speaker laugh!

This went on for a while. The Left, BJP and BSP kept making the same point over and over again, probably nervous of what Rahul Gandhi was going to say, delaying it for as long as possible. The Speaker then graciously allowed them to finish, after which, asking Rahul to continue.

Rahul started again, “I spoke about two poor families..” and went to compare Kala’s pond to nuclear energy as the country’s insurance policy. The way our nuclear industry is today is neither going to act as insurance or a direct resource. The hands of the government are tied – we neither have the money or the technology. The PM, he said, has identified the problem. But, he added, Vajpayee, also saw the problem and moved to address it. A light moment when he encouraged the BJP to clap at this.

There is need to talk about energy security in the long term, and everyone needs to work together. Diversification means a balanced portfolio – solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear. “The magic of what PM is doing, is that out of within the problem, he has identified an opportunity that is significantly larger than the problem itself”. It is based on the fact that two countries will use the largest bulk of new energy that comes online – China and India – and can define how the world’s energy moves.

(Silence in the House followed the rest of the speech.)

“Like a big buyer… we have the ability to shape the global energy market... energy has destroyed nations and built nations. Our old opponents grew to their prominence because they controlled coal… the US controls hydrocarbons”.
Think like a big country, he said -- “Instead of worrying about how the world will impact us, we should start thinking about how we will impact the world”. Talking about the IT and Telecom industry – and the role that India has grown to assume in these industries globally – “we see the revolutionary impact that IT and computers have had on this country”.

The decision is not about 3% or 7% or usage of energy. “Whether India can become a global power in a type of energy that will become very important in the future”. We know the link between dependence on hydrocarbons and poverty today. One must not underestimate the link between industry and the poor. Many governments will run this country, but we should not be scared.

He repeated the point a few times, I thought it was to give the channels the best soundbyte possible. “We have to sit in this room and solve our problems together… Any voice can be heard in this room, any voice can disrupt another in this room... I’m proud of this”.

Act on courage. 70% of us are young, he said, he was above the average age, one that is brimming with confidence. We have to believe in our people and what they are capable of what they can do. These are guides for every single Indian.

He ended with a call for bipartisanship, and support for the motion.

***

What did the pundits make of him? Dipdosh Majumdar felt the first part of his speech did not work too well – stories about the poor women – but the latter half was good. He gave him a 5, because he did not begin in a way that “did not gel with the audience”. Perhaps he is right, after having seen Lalu, there are ways to control the house – yes – but substance, foreign policy and a point of view was clearly there, whether you agree with it or not. And posturing is important. He positioned himself as a decent, thinking man, in a rowdy, crass crowd.

Manjeet

2008-07-17T20:37:00.003Z

You guys don't know Manjeet. He's the head waiter at Aura, The Claridges. He might even be Manager -- am not sure, known him for a while, not sure how the promotions have gone. Often, because he knows a good chunk of out "gol-chakar" circle (oh the irony)... we end up having a great conversations. Sometimes its about who hasn't paid the bill in a few weeks. Others, its about whats happening with the world. Now, Manjeet is the proud father of two -- savvy, because he sees a very rich crowd come in and out of his 'office' -- and everyone wants to be his best friend. "Manjeet, a few extra shots...", "Manjeet, get us in... oh TEN of us".. It's a process. But as his kids approach school going age, he's less interested in talking about social deviants, and more about what school they can go to.

In Delhi, as you all know, its tough. He's figured Sanskriti (a government officials school for the most part) is his first choice. Some others follow. I've told him to take a look at Shivniketan (or Mrs Gauba's School -- great legacy, Rajiv Gandhi went there, but now it's expanded beyond nursery). It's tough for Manjeet, he doesn't quite know it yet, because he hasn't done the drill, but schools don't come cheap. But he's from Himachal, he tells us proudly, and even on his 80,000 salary (a wife and two kids) he finds time to give an occasional 500 rupess and the odd blanket to the 80 year old mochi in his neighborhood.

I asked Manjeet if he knew what was happening with the government right now. A little amused, he asked me if I was pro-Congress. He had been listening to a friend and I talking at the bar all evening about big business, how much they were worth, and how some of the richest people in town (I don't mean rich.. I mean richEST) were the simplest. He figured we were pro-government. In this case, I was. I said, yes, Manjeet, I don't want his government to fall. Not over the nuclear deal.

Manjeet told me how the Congress was pathetic. Vajpayee, he said, was the best PM we've had. And, if you think about it, the partition of the country -- fault of the Congress. Terrorism -- their fault. Today? Look at inflation.. sugar.. rice... that's my concern. I tried to tell Manjeet that inflation happens with every party at the helm. Sure, there are policies, but gas, its a worldwide phenomenon. Not limited to the Congress. Right now, have you heard of the nuclear deal? Of the Left?

He shrugged. He'd never heard of the Left. This man who works on Aurangzeb Road. A road here, a gol-chakar there, and he'd be at Congress headquaters, at BJP headquaters, at CPM headquaters, hell, at Parliament if he wanted to! But he did have family in the army.

A jawan is paid, what, 10,000? 8,000? Some, when they come home, after saving and saving, come home with 60,000. Is that anything? What have they done? I'm from Himachal, he said. My people joint the army for honor. What did Indira Gandhi do? I don't know if this is a fact but, he said, she once said that the army would only be paid for 26 days in the month. So the General at the time told her, fine, but the other 4 days, if there is a problem, don't expect us to be there. "Uski phat gayee", he told me, giggling.

He hadn't even heard about the protest on India Gate, when ex-officers tried to ask the government for better pay. It was ten minutes from where he works, about fifteen from where he stays (somewhere behind Lodhi Colony).

It made me wonder. His faith might be misplaced, but where exactly should it be placed? This is not rhetorical. Give me an answer.

Left out

2008-07-17T10:58:00.006Z

For some reason, as I listened to Prakash Karat’s speech on how the Congress was a “sinking ship” and how his other friends in the UPA should get out before it was too late, I kept thinking – “rats leaving the sinking ship”. Not that this ship would have sunk without his help. But, ours is to question why. He’s determined to oppose the deal – not just oppose it – but to bring the government down if he doesn’t get his way. On that end, I thought Jyoti Basu’s comment, that the Left has made its strong objection known and so there was no reason to bring down the government, made sense. Unless they really do buy into this subordinate ally crap; if we made the same deal with China, we would be what?

Anyway it’s the whole controversy regarding the Speaker that got me pissed. As usual, the family sat over dinner and fought over it. My dad said, why shouldn’t they ask Somnath to resign (although, he admitted, they should have spoken to him before they submitted his name to the president). My mother and I were adamant that once you accept the post, then you are not a party-member for the duration of parliament, and they should have respected that. Because now, if Somnath resigns to vote with his party, then all his actions as Speak are suspect of having a clear Left bias. They’ll ruin his legacy too. I hope he doesn’t given to the pressure, and if he has to, then I hope he resigns from the party as well.

My father then said, well what the Left should do now is kill him. Thus ended Kaul family dinner.

(Yes I know, theres where I have inherited the drama from. My mother is a minority!)

Live...Learn... Sewage is a plus..

2008-07-02T21:30:00.001Z

Listen up

I'm a few drinks down.. being my 25th birthday and everything.. although, truth be told, birthdays are pretty over rated, I'm just a tad bit sozzled cause my friends were around. We don't need an excuse -- it could've been a Monday!
(For all of you who know my Monday night theory... shh)

ANYWAY.. I spent the day shooting in Bawana. Basically, there is this slum outside Delhi. Technically its not outside the city -- but for us Delhi folk, it kinda is -- and what happened is this: they needed to build a luxury apartment "space" (not sure what the end result will be) BUT for this residential complex is getting built on the side of the Yamuna. The space they are building it on used to be, to an extent, where these slums were. Some history: what happens is this -- people who can't afford buying houses start building "jhuggis" -- shacks -- and live there. No water, no electricity, no nothing. It's illegal. Slowly, over time, as they work as domestic help, city cleaners, tea shop owners, they start making money. Bamboo/wood roofs make way for brick walls. At the same time, the government never really allowed it. Years go by. And as was the case, the other shoe drops. (What was the first shoe, well, its confusing, especially if you are a resident of the area).

NOW, the government moves you. Collective "you". A lakh people plus. They say, this land is not for you to live on -- fair enough. The government has a way of giving this makeshift community, but a community all the same -- a place to live -- "go where we tell you", they say. Notices go unheaded. Then comes the bulldozers. Move, dammit, says the government. So they do, our rebels without a clue.

AND, they come to the new place. Considering where they lived before -- "illegal" technically -- this is good. You have ID, they are told, and we will give you land. Ok. So far, so good. After all, lets be fair -- law and life can deviate often (and I'm the product of a lawyer and a government official, so I say this with some authority). The land they are given (if they can pay for it) does not have sanitation facilities. Build a HOUSE, withOUT a bathroom. So, you.... hundreds of families you... wanna pee? RUN to the end of the residential complex, and when you get there, pay Rs 1 to pee, Rs 5 to bathe/wash clothes.

YOU KNOW WHAT? People can live with that. Sometimes. In those plots of land, they have build houses. Richer ones have built brick houses. Poorer ones, the daily wage laborers, live in makeshift tin houses. The others, who could not muster up official IDs -- well, many, I mean tens of thousands, have disappeared -- they did not qualify for a plot of land, you see. Some, who live here -- this 'resettlement' outside Delhi -- live on the footpaths of Delhi so that they can skip daily travel expenses, save money, go home twice a month, and give their families money for food, life, school, and bribes.

COMING TO BRIBES, local officals, for a lack of a better word -- SUCK. (In more ways than one). I don't think I need to elaborate.

...

It's not like this is new to me. I live in New Delhi, born to parents who have worked with much of this before. Before I met some of you in Montreal/DC/London, there was Dehradun. I guess I'm more aware of what we can do, what we can't. NGOs: Need to tell people to make their own versions of RWA (Resident Welfare Associations) rather than wait for local government authorities as their saviors. Ain't gonna happen. I met a lady the other day, who worked with a Road Research Institute in India. She went on about how long she has polled data on why its not safe for pedestrians. And, tell me, I asked her, when you come with up "what should be done"; does the government listen -- incorporate it? "Umm... no, I mean, we give them suggestions..."

...

3am. As good a time as any to call it a night. Mr Vijay Mallya, we made you much richer this fine evening. Everyone else, I apologize. I heard what I did, thought what I thought. Now, all I can do is to wake up a little bit older, a little bit wiser. And any incoherent, incomplete thoughts.. **** ***

Hug.

28 states... and counting?

2008-06-16T13:19:00.005Z

There have been many moments over the past month that I have wanted to sit and write my blog. On a more personal note, I want to change my blog around. Its too static -- I want to have more regular posts, frequent updates on news (articles I like etc) and probably a vodcast (?) whats it called? I feel too old for the internet sometimes -- shocking, I know. Anyone want to join me in this casual but regular online magazine, please email me at: mahimaf75@yahoo.com, and we can talk about starting a new blog together. I know there are a lot of collective blogs out there, why not try it out for size? You know what I write about, so you can imagine the content. Let me know, it might be fun!

Anyway, to what got me out here. Any guesses? Narendra Modi. I mean, Obama almost did but Jon Stewart always says what I wish I could and then it just feels like repeating. But, yes, Modi challenging the center -- don't collect our taxes and don't bother giving us funds. And what next? Make Gujarat his personal fiefdom? (Make Gujarat? I suppose he could not make this claim unless it already was.)

So Pratap Bhanu Mehta has written a really interesting piece in today's Indian Express -- Modi's secession? Read it. The talks about the center-state economic relations, and how what Modi has said ties in to a larger point about where this relationship is heading. Could, Punjab, for instance, make this claim at a later point? Is this the first of many? Not secession based on religion or ethnicity -- ironically when I saw this on TV, it followed a report on the demand for Gorkhaland -- and my family was arguing about whether the centre should not just allow it, seeing as how they allowed UP to be broken up. So, what is this? Economic secession now? Hmm.

Mehta might have made a sound academic argument, and perhaps looking at a micro statement in the macro scheme of things is the rational way forward, but I can't help but be fascinated with the specifics of the situation.

I have a friend in Gujarat at the moment, and I asked him what he thought of the statement. He told me that if you ask anyone here (Ahmedabad), they swear by Modi. Why not, he said, since you have to come and see their roads and other infrastructure. But his problem is this whole going national agenda, that's where he might fall. What is alright in his little corner might not be so acceptable on the national stage.

I do remember thinking (or did I mention this in a post too) that if he tones down his anti-Muslim rhetoric and concentrates on economics, he has a fighting chance to become PM some day. But although this last statement is economic in nature (if you insist on reading it that way, anyway) there is no doubt that it is highly political too. To make such a remark -- that Gujarat doesn't need "India", only itself, is worrying.

So I looked to the press to find some method in the madness, and except for Mehta's piece in the Indian Express, I didn't really find anything of note. Odd, because unless there was some internal memo to the press to let the moment pass -- shouldn't someone be pointing out both, the enormous ego of Modi and the unbelievably limp government we have year? Or are we just tired of doing that anyway? But again, Swapan Dasgupta has also responded to the statements with an economic explanation. He thinks under the banners of 'equitable growth' we have rewarded mediocrity. Ok. But what I don't understand is this: Granted that Gujarat pays heavy tax -- money that goes to poorer states (but this being India, gets squandered), then to save such useless outflow, Gujarat should stop paying the centre any tax, and in return not receive any grants. But my question is this: when what becomes the relationship of Gujarat to the country? If there are no economic obligations, only cultural and other ties, then its as good as another country to us, isn't it? Is that why Modi followed up this statement with "let them try me for sedition?" -- because he knew thats what he was suggesting in theory???

I asked the same friend, but why has the press not responded to this point. He said its probably because the press -- if attacking him -- will bring up riots, Hindutva and communalism again, and Modi can brush that away quite easily by saying they are only stirring up old arguments. So is ignorning his more flammable statements the way to go? Perhaps. People like me would fall into that trap I'm sure, but I'll try not to. Instead I'll ask the rest of you what you think.

The Congress as responded by telling Modi to stop telling lies (and go stand in the corner and face the wall too?) and that statements such as his will lead to the balkanization of the country.
If they believed that -- or if they had balls -- they could file that case of sedition now, couldn't they?

Trees, apples, and elections

2008-05-06T15:24:00.005Z

Have you heard? Shri Akhilesh Das, member of Rajya Sabha, has resigned from both the Congress Party and the Rajya Sabha. The reason? Rahul Gandhi. More specifically, Rahul Gandhi and his ‘coterie’. He’s not the only one with this grouse. Did anyone see the NDTV puppet lampoon that has Manmohan Singh ask Rahul if he wants Sachin Pilot as a minister, and Rahul says, no he’s not a Dosco! A bit of a leap, but point taken.

I’ve been mulling over why I’m not impressed with Rahul. He seems nice enough, he seems quite eager to travel the country and meet people, even his media tricks of visiting Naxal villages and that march in UP are kind of endearing (at least he’s not sipping champagne and snorting coke in his bath tub with another man). So I thought and thought. And by jove, I think I got it!

It lies in symbolism. What does Rahul Gandhi stand for?

Although not his fault, Rahul Gandhi is not representative of his age-group, in as much as he too is of the old guard, the ancien regime, as it were. He might be young, but the clamouring around the politician, and the repeated requests by his mother to her party men not to indulge in sycophancy, only serves to remind us that, in the end, Rahul is the son of a famous father, a child of historical political legacy. Therefore, despite his own capabilities, he will always represent an old India at every turn -- dynastic politics at its best -- and thus, will remain divorced from Young India.

Most of India is young. Young people are growing up fast, aspirations running high and opportunities their parents could not have dreamt of. The 20 year olds are the children of liberalisation – the change India was looking for. They are going to take this country forward. And just the way babudom is relegated to the background as private enterprises grow, people need a symbol that a meritocracy is here to stay.

Unfortunately, Rahul Gandhi doesn't fit in as the right symbol; he didn't have to climb his way to the top, a seat was reserved for him. And even if he proves to be worth the hype, he will always be the ultimate insider, despite trying to prove he is actually on the outside. As far as a youth symbol goes, his critics are correct, he is not the "exclusive" answer. Far from it.

Now before you rant at me that he should be judged on his merits, I agree, but what he stands for counts. For example, in tonight’s debate on NDTV, on Mayawati, Sonia Varma told us that when discussing who should be ‘Indian of the Year’, when it came to Mayawati, the question of corruption was discussed. Can she even be nominated considering how many cases have come up against her. No, said many, because she is a Dalit woman and a force in national politics. So that is more important than her corruption cases and in fact, the “potential” of Mayawati as a national figure is far more fascinating to people than the fact that her party has actually not performed in HP, Maharashtra etc.

But see the difference is, she is the only Dalit woman on our national platform. She has probably opened the doors for others to follow, when they will. But when they do, as with the men, there will be choices and choices. (I can’t say what the quality will be!) And so, drawing a parallel of sorts, when you talk about young India, Rahul is not the only young man on the national platform. Therein lies the problem. To be force-fed that he is our ‘yuvraj’ is just disingenuous. In fact, the term ‘yuvraj’ is at once insulting because it implies that we are not really a democracy, but a disguised monarchy. And that just does not sit well with me!

Another point, my original point on RG had actually been inspired by an analysis of Clinton vs Obama, and what they stood for. What Clinton stands for as a woman is historic -- but other than that, she is an old player, also tainted with the whiff of corruption scandals. Obama, instead, is a Black man (so his election would definately be a culmination of the civil rights movement), but also as a Black man who grew up well, he is able to analyse the country is a unique way. His observations about the frustrated small towns (Penn controversy) and also his reading of why his Pastor grudged America and why White America grudged Black America was refeshing and insightful. If you haven't heard it, this is a very brief recap. His Black pastor cried out that America had not helped his community. People reacted. Obama said that despite civil rights, many Blacks are still unhappy with their lot, thus the rant. And many Whites of the same vintage remember they gave these rights in the 60s and cannot understand why the Blacks are ungrateful. My generation, said Obama, does not suffer from this anger. Then about smaller towns, he said that they work hard, and are told they are honest Americans, but still don't see jobs coming their way. Thats why they are angry, thats why they turn to God and guns. An honest reading of the problem as he sees it, but Hillary, no, she could not believe he had insulted middle and small America. Thats what bugged me, TALK, don't brush ideas under the carpet.

Enough deviating! Anyway, back to India. And the choices we have to make in terms of the leaders we want to represent us.

Ultimately, it's a question of national identity. And what the leader of a democracy signifies -- a land of freedoms or a land of half freedoms?

BTW I don't know much about Akhilesh Das, but he's set to join the BSP I hear.

AsSeenOnTV....

2008-04-04T17:20:00.007Z

Along with the next generation of politicians will come the next generation in media management. Exactly what does that mean? If you have been watching the news over the past few weeks, it has become quite clear that Rahul Gandhi, as an individual member of the Congress party, is gearing up to become a viable and serious candidate for prime minister in the next elections. The country is, for better or worse, increasingly run through television, and that’s where the focus has shifted.

Suddenly Rahul is headline news everywhere. Let me count the ways: a trip to Orissa and his much publicized de-tour into Naxal area, criticism of the hockey selection process following India’s failure to quality for the next Olympics, speech in the Lok Sabha about the problems facing the education sector, the call for inner-party democracy, modification of the finance minister’s loan-waiver proposal by raising the land-holding limit for farmers in dry areas such as Vidarbha, a visit to Aminabad village in Etawah, UP, where five Dalits were massacred last week — complete with the perfect photo-op of Rahul carrying a child on his shoulders – he’s been busier than most Page 3 people during fashion week!

But this isn’t about Rahul Gandhi. It is about personal media management. This is a real life experiment. If Rahul (or any other variable) appears in the press more, does he automatically become a more central figure in our narrative of Indian politics? Is it really that easy? And how?

The to-do list when it comes to political PR begins with scanning the press. The main point is to attract media attention without resorting to paid advertising. Another key factor? The politician should be in control of what the media is going to say about them. So, the areas of interest that said politician can speak about with some authority are identified. Pick the top few. Education, development, aspirations, economics and the topic de jour is a good way to start. Come up with a definitive line on each. For example, the budget — don’t just praise/condemn, come up with a smart suggestion. Writing articles to win over the arm-chair experts is also recommended. And so on.

But there is one thing to keep in mind. It is the narrative on TV that really matters. It’s something American politicians have long understood, and now we can see signs of a trend emerging in India too. If Hindi news decides you did good today, you have most of that demographic in your pocket, those who agree with their trusted news anchor. Articles like Tavleen Singh’s Sunday Express column, which talked about Rahul’s escapades in Orissa having been designed by an event management company, don’t matter too much, but that is precisely because these PR strategies work.

How? Take for instance the recent murder of a 15 year old girl in Goa. Instead of focusing on the real dangers of that scenario (after all, a rape and murder could have equally taken place if she was not 15 or under the influence of drugs), television went for the emotional jugular – was her mother a bad parent? And Goa officials who wanted to accept no responsibility for the incident encouraged this line of thought. This example might seem very far away from a speech on Indian hockey or a call for more democracy within the Congress party, but the point remains the same. News needs a new narrative everyday. And unlike print, which can wait a few days to frame an opinion regarding news items, TV has to serve up incidents and their ultimate analysis by 9pm prime-time.

This phenomenon is not without precedent. Television was first used for political debate in the 1960s in the US. It took about forty years, but by the 2000s, 'spin alley' was thriving: television would tell viewers what to think instead of letting them come to their own conclusions. And politicians started living for an audience, not for citizens. India has only had cable TV for about a decade, but we are fast learners. And as a relatively immature media scrambles for news, what if this is the lesson other hopeful politicians take from Rahul’s media blitzkrieg? That focused personal PR strategy – not that of a party gearing up for elections or a MP who wants positive publicity – can be highly effective? The more familiar you are on television, the more legitimate you become as a national-level entity. As long as you are controlling what the media can cover about you.

The television generation understands the medium, its power and its reach. And as this generation comes closer to assuming office, it will employ the same medium to reach their goals. The press is certainly free. But that also means it’s free to cover what it wants, and how it wants it. The media is a player in our democracy. The question is: can you play a player?

http://sacredmediacow.com/?p=1062

pieces of a puzzle

2008-03-14T10:40:00.008Z

Babri Masjid. Bombay Riots. Gujarat. Caste. Communalism. Politics. Elections. Violence.

This is India. You read the morning paper, and it screams to you -- Raj Thakerey demands only Maharastrians in Mumbai. Others, Muslims, stay out! You have to wonder, how is it that India survives? Since 1947, has the country agreed to disagree? Set the common lowest denominator for living with the 'other' and made peace with it?

What is the idea of India?

Go back in history. The Hindu-Muslim demographic divide has always been around. Some Mughal leaders like Akbar made overtures to keep some peace, once their rule had been established. Others had plundered the country to establish their dominance. But it was during Shivaji's time, half a century after Akbar, that the sentiment of a "Maharashtra Dharam" was first heard. Shivaji's little kingdom was nestled in the middle of the Shia Muslim kingdoms of South India, and Maharashtra became a calling card. Scholars have long held that when it came to the villages and common folk, neighbours peacefully co-existed. Mosque and Temple, side by side. And the East India Company, too, did not want to meddle with the personal laws of either religion, and so the British only introduced a common commercial law.

Fast forward to the demands of self-government, and it was with the Minto-Morley Reforms of 1909 that the seed of divide and rule made head ways into a democratic set-up. Seats were divided by religion. And once both camps tasted power, it was difficult for them to give it up. By the time India became free and the Constitution was drafted, these separate interest groups could not be removed.

But we know all of this. The real scandal is the answer to the next question: When did Hindu v/s Muslim become an acceptable, even popular, election platform? After Gandhi's assassination by Nathuram Godse of the RSS, the extreme Right Hindu organisation was banned. Writings such as Veer Savarkar's "Hindutva" -- where he took the concept of Hindu as a way of life and converted it into a political concept -- were becoming dangerous because hatred for Muslims was reaching a fevered pitch. The RSS reinvented itself as the Jan Sangh in the 1950s. But the Congress ruled India as the only party, and there was no space on the national arena for these voices to be heard.

Till the Emergency. That's when J.P. Narayan emerged as Mrs Gandhi's alternative -- and attracted youth leaders from all over. Laloo Yadav, Sharad Yadav, Ram Vilas Paswan, all began their careers there. And when in 1976, the Janta Government was formed, all these little parties and people that cropped up in the shadow of the Congress, tasted power. But the coalition didn't last long because leaders such as Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L.K. Advani of the Jan Sangh refused to resign from the RSS. What did emerge from the ashes was the newest addition to the Indian political scene, the Bharatiya Janta Party.

In the early 1990s, when V.P.Singh found himself prime minister of India, and Devi Lal our deputy PM, all kinds of trouble started. Devi Lal wanted to polarize urban and rural voters, so as to capitalise on his kisan backing. Not to be outdone, V.P. Singh resurrected the Mandal Report. And so, caste became key. Quotas remain a buzzword till today. But what about the BJP? Here you had a relatively new party, one that stood for Hindus, but what was their natural platform was already taken by other leaders. So began L.K. Advani's Rath Yatra, from Somnath (where Alauddin Khilji destroyed a Hindu temple) to Ayodhya (where a Ram temple had been destroyed by Razia Sultan). To his credit, Laloo did not allow Advani to enter Bihar, saying he would not allow communal violence in his state. (That caste violence flourishes in Bihar is another story). Meanwhile, another off-shoot of the RSS, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) became very active, demanding the demolishing of the Babri Mosque. Ultimately, on the 6th of December, 1992, under false assurances given to the Supreme Court of India, under the watchful eyes of Advani and his flunkies, the Masjid was demolished. "The happiest day of my life" is how Advani described the occasion.

But why did all this happen? Talk to people around you. Do they think that communal, even caste-based violence, is inevitable? Ashutosh Varshney, a highly regarded political scientist (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor), has suggested that areas where there are no civic ties between communities are 'riot-prone'. Is that true? Does that mean that Narendra Modi's statement, that the Gujarat violence of 2002 was an "equal and opposite reaction" to a train burning in Godhra is correct? The frenzy that is caused by communal violence is described by Dipankar Gupta, sociologist (JNU), as "picnic rioting" -- referring to the manner in which Hindu mobs actually celebrate the killings of Muslims. Not everyone thinks so. Another opinion is offered by Steven Wilkinson, another political scientist (Duke University), who believes that these ethnic riots are "far from being spontaneous eruptions of anger" and are instead used to "advance political agenda".

Advance political agenda. Scary thought, but think about this too: statistics have shown that communal riots are more likely to take place close to elections. And that there are sharp state level variations in the handling of riots. Translation? That preventing, controlling, stopping violence is not a problem with the state machinery, but has everything to do with the directive of the politician in-charge. But why? Why not a quest for equilibrium? The answer is a numbers game. Governments are unwilling to fight minorities because they systematically under-represent them in government, police and local administration. And this means, that local politicians try and secure whatever votes they do have. And the best way to ensure their identity is locked with their voters is to create a common enemy -- for example, the "Muslim threat". If they do react, then the mobilization of minorities is projected as "anti-national" and the ever convenient "myth of the foreign hand" comes into play. Think about it, is every Muslim a terrorist? No. Is every Muslim pro-Pakistan? No. Is everyone Muslim anti-development? No. But yet, these myths thrive despite a free press.

I'll admit, it's a bleak picture I am painting for you. That communal and often caste rioting in India have sharp political and electoral undertones. Institutionalised rioting, if you will. But mull over this as you sip your drink: it begins with the 'rehearsal' -- tensions are kept alive, such as cow slaughter or kidnap of a girl so that the community is offended; then 'enactment' -- all this, of course, in the right political circumstance such as elections; and an 'explanation' -- the community is told who is to blame, and finally, once the time is right, comes the first blow.

There is a difference between people who take the law into their own hands, vigilante crowds who stone a man to death for raping a girl and calculated communal violence for political gains. Tehelka broke this story. It got testimonies from people who made very clear that the Modi government encouraged the Gujarat riots. The response? "This might actually help Modi win the upcoming Gujarat elections".

What does one say to that?

bitch is the new black

2008-03-07T09:28:00.002Z

Have you been watching the American primaries? Since I’m not so keen on a Republican winning office, I’m not really looking at that side of the pond. Especially because McCain has won the nomination and now there isn’t really much to do but wait for the Democratic nominee.

Listen, if I could vote, I’d probably vote Hillary. It’s a gut instinct. I just think she’s tough and smart enough to push for the right agendas and get things done. I know people are worrying about the trade policies, that’s what India should be worrying – Clinton and Obama have an isolationist twang to their thoughts – in fact, I think Fareed Zakaria recently wrote a piece saying that people in other countries were almost feeling bad Bush is leaving office because of the way he backed free trade. But I don’t care to get into these conversations right now. My practical side tells me I don’t have a vote so I will just watch the election process as a study of human behavior. Plus politcal satire always rocks during election time! Jon Stewart is supporting Obama and SNL is supporting Hillary. You have to jump in on this action if you haven’t already! Tina Fey hosted the first SNL after the Writers Strike, and they had this whole section on women’s news, where she says, “people don’t like Hillary cause she’s a bitch. Well, I’m a bitch… Amy’s a bitch…. Bitches get things done! Bitch is the new Black!!” Its insane, go to the website and see the links!

Anyway I’m rather uninspired in life, I apologize, so I just came here to say this. That is all!

Oh, btw, has anyone read Life of Pi? I read it recently. Imaginative, yes, but normally, with my love for cultural analysis I can really jump into “what it all means” I really didn’t. So then I picked up Chetan Bhagat’s five point someone, about these three IIT students who screw up their years in college, try to steal the exam papers, all that jazz. It was so bloody cute. Read it!

stuck in the middle with you

2008-02-18T22:50:00.002Z

Lets for a moment imagine that I don’t know what India is. No. Let’s say I don’t understand South Asian dynamics. Is that what makes us a whole (parts of a whole, perhaps more accurate) is that everyone – Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, even Afghanistan – is that they are all connected through India?

Now, what divides us?

I went to a meeting recently, of a forum, organized by the Asia Foundation. Ambassadors and/or their aides, diplomats, the works. And they were all discussing the sub-continent. The point, actually, was to discuss the US’s role in the region. But, as it turned out, there was more introspection than one imagined. What is India’s role?

Before I come to the point that Naresh Chandra raised – that India is isolationist by nature – I will talk about two instances that struck me. Day 1: Someone from Nepal – he asked me, do you know about what has been happening there? By sheer good fortune, I have been editing the op-ed page of the Indian Express (till mid-December) and have been reading Yubaraj Ghimere’s column as a result. Yes, I told him, and we had a talk. Day 2: Someone from Bangadesh – more passionate, asked us, why do we get Indian channels on cable, but despite trying, cannot get our channels to India? A Bengali journalist tried to explain that they do get to watch them in Calcutta, but perhaps there is no real demand outside Bengali speaking areas in the country. The other point that came out was that talking to the government probably won’t help at all, because cable is now increasingly under private operators. But (and I did miss Day 3) was the overriding question – we know everything about India, why don’t you know about us?

I had to bit my lip and try not to be politically incorrect. Because the demand isn’t there? It reminded me of the point of the conference – we know so much about the US – bloody primaries to elect delegates who elect nominees who will then campaign for the seat of the President – yet, we know every move. Why? Because, it’s important to us what happens there. [A side note – some Obama fever is dying down in Indian circles because Mulford was talking about the nuclear deal only going through with a Republican frame of mind.] And I tried, as did others, explaining the newspaper’s reasons for not carrying as much Nepal, or Bangladesh as they would like -- [we are Pakistan obsessed, Afghanistan is sexy because the US thinks so, and Sri Lanka.. well, violence always sells, I’m sorry but it does] – is because you only have one, maybe two, and if you are very, very lucky, three international pages. Now, in the round-up of a million stories from around the world, there are a few reasons why some make it, and some don’t -- importance. That is decided on (and I’m no editor so this is not formal newspaper policy, especially not of my alma mater) but violence, familiarity, sexiness (Sarkozy-Carla, hello?!) and finally, images. But tell that to someone who says… and for very good reason… it’s the sub-continent. You want to be a leader? How about paying some attention???

So what is it then? Are we really isolationist? I bought a R.K. Laxman book today – actually, it’s about 600 of his most memorable cartoons in one book. One thing he said, which really struck me was this – we, as a country, as more interested in the personalities, the intra-party dynamics, squabbles etc, than we are in policy. Isn’t that true? How many schemes have fallen by the wayside because no one cares? 500 crore scam? Flip channel. I bet the kidney racket is second billing to Jodha-Akbar by now.

So let me also not get distracted by the digression – I bet you did. Almost, huh. But the question about India’s role in the sub-continent kept bugging me. Not that we barely know about the histories of our neighbors. (I don’t think Taslima Nasreen really counts as *eye on Bangadesh*) As a non-policy maker, what are you giving me, an average but interested citizen, to make me care about a neighbor who isn’t China. So are we isolationist? Why do we not care – or perhaps the government is an entity divorced of its citizens – then, the government cares, but the people needn’t bother? Or, like the US, in our own bubble, we don’t know what happens in our Canada’s? Unfortunately, I’ve lived in Canada. Our neighborhood isn’t that peaceful.

So one diplomat asked, almost naïve I would say, but don’t your papers have a policy of carrying [x] much news about India’s neighbors? Noo, we laughed. You have to be a non-profit for that one.

I’m not even going to try and assess India’s role at this point. It’s almost 4am and if anyone I hang out with reads this – I have been for two birthdays and it’s a bloody Monday – so, all I am capable of is probing. One of my best friends from Karachi and I sat down once and discussed the histories of our countries after Independence, because we had no idea what happened to the other side after… except that, maybe, maybe, they are eviiiil. But I can’t help but think; the sub-continent? Ask a sadda Punjabi who the government is in Tamil Nadu, in Kerela, in Arunachal? Blank, blank, blank.

And it’s not just the role of the media. It’s the history books too. I remember a project on why NCERT books were biased – while still at Welham Girls, Dehradun -- began with this statement – “Akbar, though a Muslim, was fair leader.” You want to talk about being mature enough to talk about outside these walls, without playing the blame-game? Or just being mature.

Then you get why I say we’re *stuck* in the middle. You think its time to start the education of India? Really, this time.