 |
| Sunday,
March 4, 2001, Chandigarh, India   
|
GUEST COLUMN Cultural identity and Islamic nations |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DATELINE LONDON Moral police vs sex crazy advertising
Humra Quraishi
Party at
President’s house raises eyebrows
Learning
from PR guru of Labour Party
|
|
GUEST COLUMN BACKING out of a job that one chooses to do voluntarily has to have some cogent reasoning and a convincing logic. In this context, the resignation of Mr Barjinder Singh, a newspaper man, from Parliament is an instance that offers us an insight into the psyche of a journalist pursuing the profession as a Parliamentarian. It is not that Mr Barjinder Singh, an accomplished journalist in his own right, could not carry the burden of the public office of a Parliamentarian that he relinquished. He, however, strongly felt that his heart lay in the field of journalism. Admitting that he was a misfit, he explained that he felt no passion for politics; reason enough to render him incapable of pursuing the true role of a Parliamentarian. His role as a journalist, he continues, suffered a severe jolt and he was torn between the two — journalism and politics — and could justify neither. With his conviction to perform the job perfectly, he chose to withdraw from politics despite many friends including the Vice-President, Mr Krishan Kant, advising him against the decision. If “going back to where you belong”, seems to be the message that he conveys, there must be reasons, strong enough to indicate that he felt choked in the new environment. His journalistic lungs were probably not getting the oxygen that they were accustomed to. To the query: “why was he there in the first place then?” he is candid enough to admit that although he did not want to be there, yet constant cajoling of his political well-wishers as also some other circumstances, were so overwhelming that he accepted the public office. The episode of Barjinder Singh joining and pulling out of a public office made me ponder over the issue of a large number of mediapersons, joining the public offices in the form of Member of Parliament or Member of Legislative Assembly. Professional journalists and owners of newspapers (as distinct from just the owners for commercial interest) acquire an extensive and comprehensive insight into the affairs of public and society. The wide and varied involvement with the affairs of public on a continuous basis is the key to politicalise the mind of this fraternity. The contribution of professional journalists thus, could be of immense value and significance in active politics. Sometimes, it is difficult to distinguish between two professions, so closely akin to each other. Quite often, both these classes have deep relations at an individual level and this close relationship between the two has a powerful mutual influence. Punjab boasts of a rich historical experience where owners-journalists and practising journalists had joined public offices and their performance a telling lesson of their latent potential to find better pastures in politics in order to serve the larger issues of the human society. Punjab has had a number of journalists who represented the State in the Legislature and in Parliament with great distinction. Lala Jagat Narain, the editor-owner of the Hind Samachar group successfully contested assembly election and made an indelible contribution in the polity of Punjab. He also represented Punjab in the Parliament in Rajya Sabha. The journalist in him was so powerful and explosive that he was always found to be defying party discipline. An individual caught between the dictates of his journalistic mandate and political compulsions, there was always a clash of interests. Party discipline, of course, was the natural casualty. Sometimes, while performing the journalistic duty to report the truth, he often discovered a great political courage to fight for the representation that he was blessed with. Very often, his editorial and political line was not consumed favourably by the party; and sometimes, the journalistic fraternity did not pardon him for his political bias. Both personalities in him intermingled to such an extent that it was difficult to draw a lesson as to whether a journalist should accept a party representation in Parliament or the state legislature or not. Similar is the case of Mr Yash who also represented the state, both in the Assembly and Parliament. Essentially adopting the mantle of the party, he occasionally did unveil the independent journalist in him and expressed views that were contradictory to his political group of which he was a member. But most of the time he remained within the definite boundaries. Mr Jagjit Singh Anand, who represented the state in Parliament is another example of a journalist making commendable contribution, both in terms of legislative debate and other debates on various important national issues. However, he maintained the party line in the debates and was seldom dictated by the journalistic ideals of stating the truth. Mr Amar Singh Dosain who represented the state in the Assembly also broadly conformed to the stand of his party on issues. The moot question, therefore, is whether journalists, when they opt to become the representative voices of a party, lose out or not on the basic tenets of the profession and virtually become party actors in the political feuds of party character both in Parliament or the State Assemblies? What is the difference between a professional politician and a journalist who turns into one with his special flair and knowledge of public affairs? How does wearing just the robes of a politician, without acquiring his basic instincts — not of a political animal but the political courage, that makes politicians to be fearless in representing the interests of either the party or the people, would make him a responsible player in the market of “opinions”? At the same time, I would also not refute that there are journalists who, without the trappings of any party, make a good case to be great Parliamentarians. As journalists they dare to live most dangerously, not only writing on day-to-day issues but expressing fearlessly in their editorial opinions and in the process grievously hurting various interests. There is then a possibility of these types of journalists playing the true role of the legislator. Barjinder Singh Hamdard, an independent, could have played such a role if he wanted. As a profession, journalists have full freedom to express the truth and do not suffer from the handicap of manipulting sacred facts for the purpose of taking the party side. They enjoy enormous opportunity to air their views and express commentary on the views of the others. They are, in fact, the mirrors of society and consequently have no option but to reflect the real image. “I hate to be neutral”, my daughter-in-law, a brilliant student otherwise, would lament while reasoning out her discontinuance of the profession of journalism. The journalists, of course, have within the broad framework, the editorial flexibility to express their opinion that they feel is right but having expressed a point of view on an issue, they do not enjoy the liberty to keep varying their stance. Facts are sacred to a journalist. In politics, you actually have to take sides depending upon the political ideology and expediency of your party. Such routes are not permitted to a professional journalist and as such there is definitely a clash of interest in playing a dual role of a journalist and a politician. The role of both an Editor and a Parliamentarian involves being sensitive to the public opinion and is fundamental to any public society. Both have the full freedom to express the point of view. However, whereas the personal conviction of an editor is not allowed to become a convenience at any time, the capacity to misuse the freedom by a politician depending upon own political mandate or ideology can be to such an extent that the truth becomes a casualty. At the national level, we have had a galaxy of mediapersons who shouldered the mantle of being a parliamentarian successfully. K.K. Birla, the doyen who was not in the category of just the owner journalists, had a tremendous impact. His vast experience in functioning of economy earned him a permanent place in enriching the contributions during parliamentary debates and were in the form of an eye opener to others to arrive at meaningful conclusions. His unstinting effort in raising questions on the efficacy and doubts over the misuse of such laws as FERA led Parliament to think and eventually scrapping them. Take another example, Arun Shourie, a fearless journalist is a successful politician also. However, as for formally joining political party, one doesn’t know whether the party disciplines him to an extent of making him lose his sheen in both truth and conviction. Let Arun himself throw light on this! Others on the national scene are Rajeev Shukla, Badrinath Prasad, Pritish Nandy and Cho Ramaswamy who have had a political stint with varying degree of success. Another striking example is of Kuldip Nayar, who is, of course, one of those who do not suffer from the trappings of a political party and only carry the mandate of his own convictions. Although having strong affiliation, he never belonged formally to any party and gets dictated by the national interest only irrespective of party positions. While entering the precincts of Parliament, he had thought that he will be able to influence policy formulation in Parliament. However, he has been candid enough to admit that the scope for influencing policy formulation by a non-party Parliamentarian is very limited. He can only make his peers in Parliament aware of the availability of alternate stance other than party perspective on some issues. Another example is of
M. J. Akbar who returned to journalism after a brief but enterprising innings. It would be interesting to find out as to whether he found himself a misfit in the party discipline or encaged by the ideological constraints of the party. Did he ever feel a hostage to it since he never looked back at Parliament career? Is it really essential, then, to be in Parliament when you lose the very influence that enabled you to enter there? Is it a fact that when your fundamental journalistic virtues are more perceived as party writings, you lose out on the identity front and do the “Barjinder act”? The writer is a former Member of Parliament. |
|
Cultural identity and Islamic nations PAKISTAN and Afghanistan seem to be the rare non-Arab Islamic countries which do not have their own mythologies in addition to the Arabian-Judaic mythology of Islam. Their own mythologies in addition to the Arabian-Judaic mythology might have provided them with the elements of a distinct cultural identity. In Arabian north Africa and the Arabian peninsula, Judaic mythology is native — although even there, Egypt does have its own mythological mix of Judaic and Pharaoh cultural identity. In Iran, the Turkistani regions, the South-East Asian Islamic countries and perhaps elsewhere, the various Islamic societies have a similar mix of their own and the Judaic mythology which has come by way of Islam from the Arab world, where the Islamic religion was born after the passing of Prophet Mohammed. Evidently, a society tends to possess a distinct cultural identity only when its traditions, observances, rites and customs are particular to it. As, for example, the observance of Basant in Lahore and elsewhere in Pakistan-administered Punjab, even though the Pakistani mullahs angrily describe it as “Hindu” and un-Islamic. The fact is, the “Islamic” fundamentalists of Pakistan and Afghanistan are fiercely religion-minded. They are not necessarily religious. If they were religious they would be concerned with their own individual religious belief and spiritual progress. But, like the fanatical “Hindu” fundamentalists of India who are their mirror-image, the concern of the fanatical “Islamic” fundamentalists of Pakistan and Afghanistan is with the religion and religious belief of others. An instance of Pakistani “Islamism” comes to mind from the 1960s when a meeting of Islamic countries took place in Jakarta. After one of the sessions, the Indonesian authorities put up a stage show for the delegates, in which were shown scenes from the Ramayana and Mahabharata —-- epics which Hindus in India like to describe as Hindu and Indian. All the delegates present watched the show with interest and evident enjoyment except those from Pakistan. The Pakistani delegation walked out in protest against the staging of the “Hindu” mythological show. Subsequently, an Indonesian official explained informally to pressmen present that Indonesians did not consider the Ramayana and Mahabharata to be either Indian or Hindu. In other parts of South-East Asia too —- Malaysia, Thailaand, Cambodia, Laos etc —-- these epics are not considered to be Indian or Hindu. In fact, the third or fourth station from Bangkok on the way to Vientiane by train is Ayutthia —-- from all accounts, the region’s capital city in ancient times. The Thais believe firmly that the events of the Ramayana took place in Thailand. The walk-out of the Pakistani delegation from the show in Jakarta took place some years before East Pakistan separated from the rest of Pakistan to become Bangladesh. If that separation demonstrated anything, it demonstrated that religion is not a basic factor in the make-up of a society’s cultural identity. It may be useful to recall in this context that differences between the Bangla people in East Pakistan and the leaders in West Pakistan had begun to simmer from the early 1950s, starting with the question of language. The East Pakistanis wanted Bangla in addition to Urdu as the official languages of Pakistan. The West Pakistani leaders insisted on Urdu exclusively —-- possibly on the unstated ground that the struggle for Pakistan had taken place most actively in UP. Recently, though —- around mid-September last year, in fact —- at a meeting in London, Altaf Hussain, leader of Pakistan’s Mohajir and Urdu-speaking Muttahida Qaumi Movement, startled Pakistanis by stating that the division of the sub-continent into Pakistan and India was one of history’s biggest blunders. He compared Pakistan’s condition with the sinking of the Titanic: “The Titanic of the Islamic ummah is now sinking. It is time for everyone to play his or her role. Do you know the sinking process of the Titanic? Did you see that film? The Titanic did not sink suddenly. It sank slowly. They shot off distress flares. But nobody came. In the end it sank. And this is not a film, it is a fact.” Altaf Hussain mentioned, incidentally, that there were more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. This remark took its cue possibly from the observation of Indonesian President Abdur Rahman Wahid, who said during his visit to Pakistan in June last year that India, “with more than eighty million Muslims”, could not be described as “out of the Muslim world”. But prior to Wahid’s visit to Pakistan, an eminent Pakistani journalist, Najam Sethi, editor of Lahore’s The Friday Times, had said in an address in New Delhi that Pakistan was heading for a point of no return and remedial measures were needed desperately: “India remains a determining factor in Pakistan. My country’s obsession with India hurts Pakistan deeply.” Sethi enumerated the various elements of “crisis in Pakistan’s civil society”, but did not refer to an absence of a distinct Pakistani identity. Would it be incorrect to say that, in some kind of negative way, Pakistani obsession with India affirms coincidence of Pakistan’s cultural identity with India’s? On account of common history, common cultural responses, common languages? The concern with religious beliefs of others and not their own leads Pakistan-and-Afghanistan based “Islamic” fundamentalist mullahs and followers to a mistaken concept and way of jehaad. According to an explanation in Footnote Number 1270, to Stanza 20 in Section 4 of Surat 9 (Page 503), of the authorized translation of the Holy Quran, brought out by the King Fahd Holy Quran Printing Complex in Saudi Arabia, the essence of jehaad is in, among other things, “(1) a true and sincere faith, which so fixes its gaze on Allah that all selfish or worldly motives seem paltry and fade away, and (2) an earnest and ceaseless activity, involving the sacrifice (if need be) of life, person, or property, in the service of Allah. Mere brutal fighting is opposed to the whole spirit of Jehaad, while the sincere scholar’s pen or preacher’s voice or wealthy man’s contribution may be the most valuable forms of Jehaad” (italics supplied). The mullahs and other jehaadi preachers have given to jehaad the meaning of “mere brutal fighting” which is opposed to “the whole spirit of Jihad” and is based on “worldly motives” whether these be in concern with the religious beliefs of others instead of one’s own or with political wars such as in Kashmir and Chechnya. The real spirit of jehaad would seem to reside in the individual’s waging war against himself or herself, to fix the gaze firmly on Allah. To the extent that the jehaadis violate the spirit of jehaad as explained in the Holy Quran’s Surat 9, they are un-Islamic. But loud and emphatic Pakistani thumping on “Islamism” most of the time by most of Pakistan’s leaders, and its utilization to “justify” the so-called jehaadi “proxy war” in Kashmir which is killing people in sneak and cowardly attacks, may indicate implicitly lack of a distinct cultural identity. This is possibly the core of Pakistan’s socio-political problems, the country’s prime reason for inability to settle down to a democratic way despite having the same political background and same socio-political evolution up to 1947. It is an issue that, primarily, would have to be dealt with by Pakistani intellectuals, sociologists and historians themselves. And there certainly are sensible intellectuals and scholars in Pakistan —- for
example historian Dr Mubarak Ali, who edits the Pakistani journal of history, Tarikh. He was reported last July saying dejectedly that there was “an attempt to partition the history of the sub-continent”. “There is”, he says, “an ideological framework —- either you write history within that or
you don’t write history.” Along with physicist Isa Daudpota of Hamdard University in Islamabad, he wants to produce works on the history of the sub-continent collectively with Indian historians, which would include also school textbooks. Such a collective venture could be the first step in Pakistan’s finding itself. Is anyone listening? |
|
DATELINE
LONDON MY immigrant heart did a double whammy when all the national newspapers recently carried an independent report, commissioned by the Cabinet Office, showing widespread bias against ethnic minorities throughout the civil services. Not that I am working with the British Government, but my husband is. That fact also does not matter actually. What matters is the recognition of the fact that there is an element of sub-conscious racial discrimination that has not ceased to exist even after years of racial and cultural diversity in Great Britain. To tell the truth, I have yet to come across or even experience any sordid tales of racial discrimination or intolerance and I happen to be working in an all-white office. I cannot relate to the stories of little brown boys and girls being spat at in the schools or being always robbed of their dignity just because their shade of skin happens to be a little darker than the others. But I can certainly relate to me being the “village bumpkin”, who comes to Britain, braves the miserable cold and the wet weather and yet manages to survive. Yes, I can relate to this when my colleagues raise their eyebrows when I tell them about the air-conditioner in my house in Chandigarh or the car rally that my sister participated in (and won!). Sure, I did not have to go through what my in-laws had to go through — years and years of skimping and saving and silent suffering of the abuse hurled from every side possible. Everything from low wages to rude gestures from horrid white kids round the block was just another routine attack for them. Little wonder then that the government is reportedly trying its best to cover up the embarrassing report on this widespread bias against ethnic minorities. At least till the elections. Till that time, and even after, most of us from the ethnic minorities will carry on being sponges, taking in all that the alien land has to offer. Everything from the English accent to short-gelled hair to even the love of football. We will certainly not be guilty of any cultural debts or borrowings, “because aren’t we after all, the village bumpkins?” *** The strains of an enchanting sound of flute through the radio in the evening sounds purely divine, especially if you have travelled through London and have had the everyday luxury of being squashed under a big-huge man’s smelly arm-pit! And if the radio happens to be playing a delectable sound of Hariprasad Chaurasia’s flute, then even in the land of snow that music and its melody can easily conjure up the sight and smells of a land of sunshine. Last week, BBC’s Radio 3 broadcast The Concert for Gujarat, which featured Chaurasia and Ustad Amjad Ali, the sarod maestro, along with his two sons, Ayaan Ali and Amaan Ali. The benefit performance is reported to have raised over £70,000 for the Indian earthquake appeal. The reflection of the cause of the entire performance stood out when a traditional Gujarati folk singer, Praful Dave, sang in his highly emotive voice. With Dave having lost his own home in the quake, his songs were not only highly poignant but made those of us who had contributed a handful of sterling towards the cause count all our blessings. *** By the time I have kids, there would be school buses running in the United Kingdom. Hurrah! That really is progress. Yes, Britain will finally be ready sometime this year to run school buses which will collect children from their own front doors and obviously deliver them safely to their schools. So, what is the fuss really all about? Surprise!
Surprise! This is supposed to be Labour Party’s one of the many new initiatives that it is announcing just before the onset of the elections. One of the newspapers even featured a picture of an excited Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, along side an American school bus — a “style” now being adopted by the UK. According to an ecstatic newspaper: “Youngsters will be able to board the buses, a familiar sight in American films and television series, outside their own front doors or at the end of their street at an agreed time”. Funny why: “Burra Sahibs” couldn’t learn a lesson or two from the Indian style of school buses. For them saying school-buses and India in one breath could hardly be termed exotic. And sure enough, a few days later another newspaper carried a photo-caption of an Indian exotica— a rickshaw carrying 30 children to school. By the way, last summer at Covent Garden, in London, rickshaws were a big hit. Colourful rickshaws, being plied by students taking the locals and tourists around town, could be seen all around. In fact, I saw one in Soho last week — there was even a haggling row that could be witnessed. Oh! The pleasures of simple life. **** Yet another Asian show has hit the national TV, called Bombay Blush. The show, which is all about taking the Mickey out of Bollywood, follows the highly popular Goodness Gracious Me which shows Indians pretending to be English. The first time I saw it, I was quite offended. But guess just took it too seriously, and especially so, because soon after landing from the land of cows and curd to the island of Aryan perfection I was asked by my husband, “Can you eat with a knife and a fork?” That was a serious question. And that is preciously what the Goodness Gracious Me: show is all about — the evolution of browns into whites. Now that I see the funny side of it, I think it is just amazing how liberating it is to be able to laugh at your own self. Bombay Blush, meanwhile is everything that Goodness Gracious Me: is not striving to be. The programme is pretentious and highly irritating. The first episode had this funny looking man, with his hideous close-ups, trying pathetically to learn skills of acting in an acting school and some tips on how to entertain yourself in Mumbai with something like Rs 10 in your pocket! And by the way, which stupid audience would be liked to be addresses as “Blushers”? That was what the presenters kept calling me and my husband that night! Next week it will have Gulshan Grover doing his repetitive “Bad Man” bit. I don’t think I will be up that night. Sorry Bombay Blush, you have just lost one “blusher” audience. |
|
Moral police vs sex crazy advertising WHAT does an average buyer look for in a scooter or motorbike? Reliability, fuel efficiency, speed and good design. He does not visualise the motorbike as a young woman and run his hands over the machine as though in a prolonged foreplay. No member of a fire control body or anyone with a bit of common sense would recommend removing their clothes to put out a fire. But there are people in the country who had to introduce sex at every level of their job. Unfortunately, they dominate the advertising industry and are hero worshipped by celebrity-cum-frivolous journalism. With such one-track minds firmly focussed on the female anatomy, these ‘geniuses’ howl at any action, which they felt, was aimed at curbing their ‘creativity’. Their recent target is Union Information & Broadcasting Minister, Sushma Swaraj. She had been condemned by the ‘liberal and creative’ ad brigade for banning certain ads from being exhibited on television. The ‘Close-Up’ ad showed a jailer kissing on the mouth a condemned prisoner. It was more silly than vulgar in view of the fact that mouth to mouth kissing was not done in public in India. The ‘Bajaj’ motorcycle ad showed the male model removing his shirt and running his fingers all over the bike and then taking off with a scantily clad woman on the pillion. Only the ad geniuses knew if these provocative actions had anything to do with the genuine qualities of the bike! In the ‘Wrangler’ jeans ad, a tall woman with shapely legs coolly removed her jeans to put out a fire and walked away, watched by awe-struck men. I presume this ad showed the strength and versatility of the jeans though most viewers focussed on the legs of the model. I am not a prude. Banning such ads was of no use; it was simply a case of over reaction. But what I find reprehensible was the attitude and arrogance of the ad community that reacted as though the government had banned great works of art and creativity! Sushma Swaraj was castigated as a member of the moral police as well as representing a fascist group. Howls from the ad community made one feel that our hard won freedom was in danger! There was no mention about the crude ads which had very little to say on the qualities of the product and played up the sexual theme. The ad fraternity had come up, as usual, with all sorts of silly explanations, defending these ads. One of them, Ramesh Narayan, in a Mumbai daily that glorified these creative geniuses, explained that the woman who dropped her jeans and used them to put out the fire was shown to be stronger than the men in the ad. What does strength and courage to do with provocative stripping? If that were so, why did the woman did not remove her shirt also? Did the silly sections in the ad fraternity think that women bought jeans on the strength of its fire-fighting abilities rather than the fit, quality of the material and stitching? The Chairman of the Advertisements Standard Council, Mr Balsara, gloated that the ads were banned only on Doordarshan and could be freely seen and enjoyed on the satellite channels, which were popular among the urban elite. Well, I am happy to learn that the urban elite enjoyed watching women dropping their jeans or men caressing motorbikes. Another ad man who writes terrible limericks in a Mumbai daily came out with something special for the occasion describing the minister as sinister. The only consolation was that the specially-composed ‘poem’ was as bad as the original ads. But the ad fraternity need not worry. Mumbai’s celebrity press would nominate the ‘poet’ for the Nobel Prize for literature! The ad fraternity never lost an opportunity to pull down Hindi films and how they handled sex scenes. But when will they realise that many of their ads were as bad, if not worse than scenes in commercial Hindi cinema? If Salman Khan can be criticised for removing his shirt at the slightest provocation in Hindi films, why did so many male models did the same in the commercials? If bosoms heaved in Hindi films, they were partly exposed in ads. How can the limerick-writing ad man term the Hindi films absurd when his own profession turned out ads which were even more absurd by linking a variety of commercial products with sex and the female body. Actor-director Rahul Bose warned people in a city daily that we had a culturally ‘fascist’ government at the Centre and we should not be surprised when fascism entered culture. He was more worried about the attitude of the ‘fascist’ government to culture and not the communal situation in the nation. Everything would be all right in India if nudity and free sex were introduced in the ads. India would be rid of the fascist threat! Union Minister Sushma Swaraj may be guilty of over reacting to such ads. If she is a member of the so-called moral police, then what about the majority of the ad fraternity who with the help of the celebrity-cum-frivolous press set themselves as the trend setters in cultural affairs. Mumbai, unfortunately, encouraged this fraternity which managed to penetrate several cultural avenues, like theatre, media and even cinema. Living on borrowed ideas from the West, they advocated a life style which was totally alien to the majority of the people. Their culture was made up of five-star parties, living together, swapping partners, begetting love children and sneering at those who did not agree with or admire them. The celebrity cum frivolous press in the city was an ideal outlet for their cultural musings. Love, romance and sex are certainly a part of our life. These cannot be ignored. There had been several films where they had been handled with sensitivity. Can our ad geniuses agree that treatment of sex and the female body had been as sensitive and appealing? If they did so, they must be the most hypocritical people in the country. One did not need sex to sell toothpaste, motorbikes or jeans. This only happened when ‘creative’ people ran out of ideas and sought solace from the universally popular theme, sex. But there are a few sane voices even in this profession. Bharat Dabholkar, well-known ad and theatre personality was quoted in a Mumbai daily, “We need to keep in mind our social sensibilities. Agencies which had bold campaigns in their pipelines will have to junk them and start afresh.” But will they? |
|
A dream analyst’s ‘Psychology of Love’ WHERE
do we begin? With the release of Rashna Imhasly Gandhy’s book “The psychology of Love” (Roli Books and Namita Gokhale Editions) or with the dos lined up for the International Women’s Day or else with the visit of vineyard owner Marquis de Roussy de Sales Nicole or with the tremendous response to Pavan Varma’s translation of Kaifi Azmi’s poetic verse or should it be the inauguration of the month-long exhibition of contemporary art from Germany at the NGMA? This is the peak time in New Delhi, as they say... So let’s sneak a peek at these peak time happenings. I have known Rashna Imhasly Gandhy as a dream analyst (if I am not mistaken the only one in town) and though I‘ve yet to read the book but I’m told it goes beyond dreams and “examines the expectations and realities of love in its various stages through the perspective of Indian myths. Taking the reader through the entire journey of love with its tumultuous ups and downs ....” In fact, besides a formal book-release at the Max Mueller Bhavan, editor Namita Gokhale had arranged for a question-answer session at the Habitat Centre and one was amazed to see how curious each one of us is about man- woman relationship and also by the uncontrollable act of falling in love! In fact, very recently Namita and I held our own discussion on love and it wouldn’t be a bad idea if she and the author hold such/similar a discussion in your town. After all, they are flying to Mumbai where a special discussion stands arranged together with Kiran Bedi launching the book. Before moving ahead I cannot help but chant that when and if in love never deviate from the golden principle —listen to your heart. And, though the International Women’s Day is blatantly symbolic (little surprising!) yet we poor women take pains to put up little shows and discussions and now even tea parties stand arranged (as though that’s all that matters). This year on the day — March 8 — the UN is hosting ‘an afternoon of literature on this year’s theme of ‘Women and Peace’, where the chief guest will be the First Lady of India, Usha Narayanan, who will not only speak on the occasion but read out one of her short stories. Then a whole range of programmes lie fitted through the entire day, including readings by women poets and writers etc. Somehow I get the feeling that much in keeping with St Valentine’s Day we have closeted the woman for that one particular day. I mean why just a day-long hype on one of the most precious sentiments — that of love. And only a single day around the most fascinating of creations, the woman. Moving on, the ever-active French Embassy (specially after the new French Ambassador Bernard de Montferrand took over last August) is now concentrating on wine and vineyard. And last week they hosted a special evening in honour of Marquis de Roussy de Sales Nicole, owner of Chateau De La Chaize ... Besides wine and its wonders for your health (actually I wouldn’t know for till now I have actually managed to remain a teetotaller) she spoke about her first visit to India: “Seventeen years back I came to India for my honeymoon in Srinagar and Leh and have lovely memories...” So, I suppose, wine drinking could be doing wonders on the marriage front too. Moving still ahead, from wine to poetry. It is definitely creditable (I should use a much more stronger term) for writer-diplomat Pavan K.Varma to have translated the poetry of Kaifi Azmi and got the verses out of the folds for those of us who do not read Urdu. In one of my recent columns I ‘ve mentioned about this Penguin book and now let me concentrate on the feedback it is receiving. Tremendous. For how else would you and I have managed to read it, or to quote Kaifi sahib himself: “It would’ve remained locked in one language…” He has even called Varma “hum kalam shayar”. Wife Shaukat has even gone beyond and said “His translation has internalized and touched the poet’s soul...” and not to miss son-in-law Javed Akhtar’s one liner “Pavan Varma sahib wah!” And I will reserve my ‘wah’ till Varma goes still beyond and pens his own book of poetry — perhaps the only aspect he hasn’t laid his hands on. And together with that starts a movement to end the political murder of the language called Urdu. Finally, just back from the inauguration of an exhibition of contemporary art from Germany. Since it is a month-long exhibition so it is best seen, for how can one write about artistic expressions in the confines of constrained space. Especially when the exhibition covers German art of the last 30 years. In fact, with the closure of this exhibition on March 31, the ongoing German Festival in India will come to an end. (Though the official closing ceremony is on March 26). |
|
Party at President’s house raises eyebrows CAN
a visiting dignitary hold a private function in Rashtrapati Bhavan? Well, the unprecedented happened on January 27 when King Mohammad VI of Morocco held a function to honour Indians who had contributed in promoting bilateral ties. Apparently the high-profile Ministry of External Affairs made it possible and the mandarins in Rashtrapati Bhavan just acquiesed thereby throwing to the winds certain accepted norms and protocol associated with the country’s Head of State. Discriminating Rashtrapati Bhavan watchers stress that this serious breach of protocol holds the dangerous portends of the erstwhile Viceregal Lodge being thrown open to private functions thus lowering the dignity of the high office of the President. King Mohammad VI presented the honours in the chandeliered South Drawing Room in Rashtrapati Bhavan under the aegis of the embassy of Morocco in the national capital. Sources point out that in 1983 during the late Indira Gandhi’s stewardship of the country, a piquant situation had arisen connected with the official visit of Queen Elizabeth to this country. On behalf of the British government, the Queen wanted to confer an award on Mother Teresa. After intense celebral exercise, the Queen honoured Mother Teresa in the Mughal Garden under the open skies. None of the hallowed halls or drawing rooms of Rashtrapati Bhavan were thrown open to Queen Elizabeth for her private function. It would not have been too much for someone in the President’s secretariat or the MEA to upcheck if there was any precedent of foreign dignitaries holding private functions in Rashtrapati Bhavan. Alas, that was not considered important. Fire fighting
Shourie style The ruckus over the Balco deal had the Minister for Disinvestment working overtime rebutting point by point every allegation levelled by the Opposition parties. The Minister was stretched to his limit the other day when Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Ajit Jogi alleged that the Prime Minister’s Office was involved in the controversial deal and money had changed hands. Wasting no time, the Disinvestment Minister sprung into action to contain the damage. However, since it was late in the evening, he had to think of a novel idea to reach his version to the press across the country. A former editor himself, the Minister used his personal charm to walk into a leading news agency office in the night and requested that his statement be run on the wires. Not willing to take any chances, the Minister insisted that he himself would type out the statement. For this he wanted a typewriter. This was indeed a tall order in the news agency which takes pride in being a forerunner in installing state-of-the-art technology. With great difficulty Shourie managed to type out his statement on the computer. Chandrika’s date
with the stars Sri Lankan President Chandrika Bandarnaike Kumaratunga came here on a four-day official-cum-private visit last week and was welcomed with warmth sans any cumbersome protocol as requested by her. She also requested that her security arrangements be kept at a low key. The reason for her unusual request it appears was guided by her desire to have some private time during the visit. A little bird from diplomatic circles tells us that Ms Kumaratunga not only went on a shopping binge but also met an astrologer, who has been foretelling the fortune of the Bandarnaike family for decades now. This particular astrologer was flown from south India to New Delhi. The astrologer, who is known for his accurate predictions, is believed to have told her that her political future was bright and her efforts to solve the long-standing ethnic crisis in the island state would bear fruits. Probing deeper Officially, the BJP only reacts to the verbal diatribes unleashed by Congress President Sonia Gandhi but unofficially it tries to probe deeper, specially if some word or sentence in Mrs Gandhi’s speech is found to be unusually aggressive. For example, during the recent farmers’ rally organised by the Congress, the BJP was quite rattled with Mrs Gandhi’s remark that the NDA did not have “tameez” (etiquette) to run a government and blamed the Congress for all its alleged failures. Guessing that the word could not have originated from Mrs Gandhi, the BJP men started recalling persons who would have written her speech. The answer was nearly unanimous — Mani Shanker Aiyar. Remember those words “Nani yad dela denge” in a Rajiv Gandhi speech, they pointed out. Cellphone nuisance Though cellphones are not allowed to be used inside Parliament, members of Parliament are often seen violating this norm. The violation came to light when the President’s Address to the two Houses of Parliament was on and several mobile phones kept ringing disturbing his speech. Again on Budget day, one saw a lady MP from the Opposition borrowing a cellphone from her colleague and talking on it inside the Lok Sabha. Law makers obviously don’t believe in living up to their role. Graceful Chandra Shekhar Former Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar, whose family is believed to own many petrol pumps, has a fan in Petroleum Minister Ram Naik. Naik is all praise for the former Prime Minister for readily agreeing to the cancellation of a petrol bunk owned by one of his relatives. The other day Naik was seen appreciating Chandra Shekhar’s gesture before some scribes. Scribes being scribes, they readily jumped at the opportunity to point out that another relative of the former Prime Minister, who owned a petrol pump in East Delhi, was adulterating diesel and petrol and action should be taken against him. (Contributed by TRR, Satish Misra, T.V. Lakshminarayan, Prashant Sood and P.N. Andley) |
|
Learning from PR guru of Labour Party THE Congress wants to make itself attractive to the new generation of voters and yet achieve the objective without bidding goodbye to its basic ideology. Tony Blair's Labour Party has done it and ended the long rule of the Tories. Blair may repeat the performance in yet another poll. Sonia Gandhi's Congress too wants to draw a few lessons from Blair's ‘‘new’’ Labour to refurbish its image and end the reign of the BJP dispensation at the Centre. With this objective in view, the Congress President has reportedly deputed a two-member team, headed by the chief of the party's Foreign Affairs Cell, Natwar Singh, to seek a few tips from the Labour Party in PR. Natwar Singh was quoted by a leading national daily as saying: ‘‘The new Labour made itself attractive to a new generation of voters in the 21st century without giving up its basic ideas and positions. We want to know how because we are also looking to attract a younger generation of voters within the framework of our ideology.’’ Labour's PR ‘‘Guru’’, Peter Mandelson, known as the chief architect of the Labour Party's landslide victory is currently in disgrace, having resigned from the Blair Government because of his connections with the Hinduja brothers. This was his second resignation; he had to quit in 1998 when he failed to declare a secret £ 273,000 loan from the then Treasury Minister to buy a house for himself in fashionable Notting Hill. There was a time when Mandelson was thought to be behind every move that ‘‘new’’ Labour made. Since the mid-1980s he fought to turn the party from ‘‘a traditional, cloth-cap socialist organisation into a centre-left, middle-class,
business friendly, anti-labour’’, according to reports in the British press. He masterminded the election campaigns of 1987 and 1992. His modernising approach infuriated the Labour traditionalists. Working discreetly, in the background, he made many enemies too who contemptuously called him ‘‘Mandy’’. Years of hard work yielded him rich dividends; Mandelson emerged on the political scene as MP, became ‘‘Minister Without Portfolio’’ but, subsequently, his short tenure as the Trade Secretary responsible for the government's links with business and industry ended in disgrace. He had, however, not to remain in the wilderness for a long time and was reinducted by his good friend, the Prime Minister, as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Mandelson's success as the Labour Party's campaign manager is attributed to his believable control over the media. Reports in the British press say that he was viewed as ‘‘the possessor of near-mystical gifts; intoxicated journalists wrote whatever he told them; awkward stories disappeared when he clicked his fingers; unpopular policies would become vote-winning measures...’’ At the same time, he could be mischievous, devious, cunning, funny, strategically astute, smart and could be intimidating and bullying too. But his achievements came due to his capacity to work for long hours and administer effectively too. Peter, as a colleague of his had put, was always available to advise Tony — late in the night, early in the morning. He worked damned hard. Mandelson understood the media more than anybody else and could win over the conservative newspaper editor. He also taught the Labour MPs how to dress, appear and pose before TV cameras. This is one lesson Congress MPs and leaders in India can learn from him without any loss of time. Peter's spell on the media gradually waned and, paradoxically, he has been virtually destroyed by such a bad image of his created by the press. Once Mandelson jockingly told his media friends: ‘‘If I have all these powers over the media, why do I suffer from such a bad image of myself in the press’’. The fact, however, remains that he even obtained an injunction against the BBC which temporarily prevented reference to his homosexuality and private life. His struggle to get Labour a decent showing in the press began in the mid-1980s and bore ripe fruits as the last election approached. In his mid-forties, Peter is unmarried; his sexual escapades are justified by many. The Labour Party's 1992 manifesto promises of ‘‘gay rights commitments’’, including the promise to outlaw discrimination against lesbians and gay men in house employment, were said to be made at his behest. In the 1997 manifesto the Labour backtracked on the commitment. In his book, ‘‘The Blair Revolution’’, he proposed the idea of a state dowry to young newly-weds, and subsequently rejected the suggestion that this dowry might be extended to same-sex couples. Mandelson was born in aristocracy but, despite his left-wing leanings, he craved the life of high society. The ambition to be around ‘‘the beautiful people’’ led him to the house in Notting Hill which destroyed everything around him. He was educated at Oxford, was a television producer for Weekend World from 1982 to 1985 and then appointed Labour Party's Director for Campaigns and Communications. One wonders what Natwar Singh and his two teammates — Salman Khurshid and Anand Sharma — can learn from the Labour Party's successful campaigns in two elections and its PR ‘‘guru’’. The Congress Party has to first produce a Peter Mandelson; the likes of Mani Shanker Aiyer and Jaya Ram Ramesh, who claim to be media specialists, have been unmitigated disaster. Aping Peter runs the risk of being counter-productive. |
 |
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | In Spotlight | Chandigarh Tribune | Ludhiana Tribune 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 121 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
