Now, this in itself is not any news frankly. “Lobbying” is no secret or crime; it’s called “Public Affairs” by most of the Public Relations consultancy companies and they proudly put it up under the “services” section on their websites. Take for example the following paragraph that appears on the website of IPAN, one of the leading PR agencies of India:

“Among our successful campaigns are those on behalf of STAR TV (to beat back a discriminatory cable TV regulation bill), the Soaps and Toiletries Manufacturers Association (to secure reduction in duties on cosmetics), the Express Industry Council of India (to stall a bill designed to protect the monopoly of the post office), the All India Meat and Livestock Exporters Association (to counter militant vegetarian groups seeking the closure of mechanized abattoirs producing meat for exports) and the Tea Packeters Association of India (to secure removal of excise duty on packaged tea).”

From the above paragraph, one can conclude, and (s)he would technically be not wrong, that some corporates paid money (unless IPAN carried out those campaigns out of some goodwill) to “beat back” and “stall” bills (inside or outside the parliament?) and decide excise duties that determine the revenue receipt of the government.

Should we be outraged that this is how policies of our nation are framed?

It depends upon how do you look at this whole public affairs thingy; clearly it’s not “illegal” in the present scheme of things. PR companies indulge in it, and more often than not, they depend upon bureaucrats, politicians and journalists in their “network” to carry out such “campaigns”.

But the problem in the current case is that Niira Radia’s company Vaishnavi doesn’t make a mention of this “achievement” of making A Raja the cabinet minister again on its website (in fact, there is no mention of “successful campaigns” on the website at all). There is an element of “secrecy” that has now suddenly come to light with Open magazine making Radia’s telephonic conversations with industrialists, politicians and journalists public.

Talking in terms of a purely public affairs campaign, it seems that the “deliverable” of the campaign that Niira Radia was heading was to install A Raja as the union cabinet minister. But it’s yet not clear who was the “client” or set of clients who “commissioned” this campaign and what were the clients’ motives (to reward A Raja for having carried out “successful” 2G spectrum allocation a year back?).

Clearly, if it was “just another” public affairs campaign, Niira Radia would have spoken out by now. Only she knows the truth and she is missing in action. We need to know who the “clients” were and what “strategies” were used, and of course, the professional “payments” that took place; we need a full case study and not just disconnected case facts (to use b-school lingo).

Unfortunately all the focus is on Barkha Dutt right now. Not that her involvement should be ignored, as has been blissfully ignored by the electronic media, but she’s not really the kingpin of this whole drama.

To the extent I could understand the transcripts related to both Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi, one thing is quite clear that both of them were acting as a conduit between Niira Radia and Congress leaders (for trading information) over the issue of cabinet formation when UPA came back to power last year.

Now both of them, in their defense, have claimed that this was a “normal” part of their job as a journalist – to talk to all kinds of people in order to glean information. Sounds plausible to me, for I’ve been a journalist myself.

But at the same time, there is a tone of “willingness” to be a messenger between Congress and Radia by both of these reputed journalists, which has cast aspersions on their motives. The tone and content of the discussions (in the leaked telephonic talks) points to the following three possibilities:

1. Smooth-talking by them to win over the confidence of Radia and get more information – a normal part of a journalist’s job and nothing unethical about that (Barkha Dutt claims Radia was a “valid news source” on DMK affairs).
2. They believed and trusted Radia in good faith and were being manipulated and used as pawns by her (to strategize against Congress?) as part of her campaign to install A Raja as cabinet minister again. They had no idea of what Radia was up to.
3. They knew the details of the campaign (lobbying) and were willingly a party to it (party to the campaign of making A Raja minister again, and not any party to the 2G scam; there is nothing in the tapes to suggest that) i.e. they were lobbying for A Raja.

Funnily, or rather tragically, we’d never be able to know the truth unless this issue is raised in a court of law, which means either Barkha Dutt or Vir Sanghvi has to sue one of the publications for defamation. (added on 20 Nov 2010 at 00:30 AM – and of course, Niira Radia can tell the truth, if we can trust her with that) I don’t think any publication has categorically accused these journalists of being hand-in-glove with Radia and being a party to the scam; most of them have uploaded the transcripts and asked people to draw their own conclusions. And no, please don’t sue me; I am not drawing any conclusions here!

In fact, I’d like people to stop drawing conclusions on Barkha and Sanghvi for the moment and not let the focus get away from the scam and the ring-masters of the scam. That’s the bigger issue.

Also, we must know why were the phones being tapped at all? Clearly it couldn’t have been done without the approval by the government and their knowledge, else it is illegal. If it’s legal, the government knew that there was a campaign to install A Raja as minister again. So they knew about the 2G scam, its ring masters, and kept quiet, something even the courts have suggested now.

Some conspiracy theorist can as well claim that these tapes were selectively leaked to shift the public focus on these two journalists and shield the real scamsters and ring masters. Quiet possible.

But that doesn’t mean that we completely ignore the involvement (in whatever capacity) of journalists (yeah, only Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi’s names are not there) and it’s really sad to see a complete blackout of the news by the electronic media and most of the print media except 3-4 publications (Open, Outlook and Mid-Day are the ones I know).

Silence will only make the whole thing appear fishier and erode the creditability of media, especially the electronic media, even further.

Unfortunately, this is not for the first time when media has refused to look inwards. Earlier, Press Council of India had showed some courage and had spoken against the menace of “paid news” but the whole issue was weakened and swept under the carpet.

Media organizations have often shown zero tolerance and have responded with threats when someone asks them uncomfortable questions or shows the ugly side of theirs. On many occasions, all of the media organizations have ganged up to suppress and silence criticism. Blogs like warfornews and mediaah were threatened and told to shut up and a website like Bhadaas has received legal notices from media organizations for publishing “news” against them.

If the Indian Army can accept that there were black sheep within their ranks who could be involved in human rights abuse, land grabs and other forms of corruption, why is media running away from the truth?

One can feel sad for Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi, as their credibility and integrity is being questioned based on vague speculations, but if the public, especially on Twitter, is behaving like a lynch mob, somewhere this incestuous and ostrich like behavior by media on the earlier occasions is responsible.

I don’t know how media could redeem itself in this particular situation. Someone could argue that just like politicians are asked to resign due to negative perception in the public, should the journalists not do the same?

But for that, media, especially the electronic media, has to feel itself as being answerable to the public. Unfortunately most of the television journalists don’t feel like that.

I don’t know if you guys recall, but this aspect was shown in the movie Peepli Live, where this “socially conscious” local print journalist named Rakesh (who dies in the movie towards the end) shares his frustration with media sensationalism over Natha’s suicide with Nandita, the hotshot English speaking television journalist. Nandita asks Rakesh not to fret over such issues and reconcile to the “fact” that journalism was just another profession like engineering, banking, etc.

Having been a television journalist myself, I can guarantee that many of the journalists today think the same way, it’s just another profession for them, and maybe there is nothing wrong with that.

But in that case, they’d be treated as just another professional, who must not be given any special privileges and treatment for the “nature” of their job. That’s what the mob is doing right now.

There were comments, again on expected lines, on both the facebook page as well as here on this blog, which were abusive (towards Ms. Arundhati Roy, me, or to fellow readers); that was disgusting, but as a rule, I would ignore them and not comment upon their “merits”.

The other reaction, rather criticism, was that the language I used was unfair, unkind and uncouth (?). Hello! This article was published and categorized in “Rants” to begin with. When I shared it on twitter and facebook i.e. when I “solicited” readership, I put that “rants” and “strong language” disclaimers upfront. If you were not comfortable with “rants”, you should never have bothered to read it. If you click a link with NSFW disclaimer at your workplace, only you are to be blamed if you lose your job.

The third reaction, which was the most important for me and because of which I’m writing this follow up article, was the confusion whether the article was just on Arundhati Roy or about the wider Kashmir issue. I replied to a couple of comments, but I thought I should make that clear to each and every one, and hence this article.

Well, my open letter to Arundhati Roy was “only” about her ubiquitous claims of being a rights activist and NOT at all any commentary on the Kashmir issue. It was a “rant” against her, and not against the Kashmiris, not even against the “separatist” Kashmiris.

But why, you may ask, why this rant?

I would ask you, why does anyone rant? When one is upset, angry, irritated or hurt. I was hurt. And I was hurt by a “truth”.

Yeah, it might appear as if I’m making a U-turn, but of course, the issues that Arundhati Roy regurgitated (not “raised”, mind you) surely has tinges of truth that hurts one’s “national pride”.

And that “truth” is that there are thousands in this country, some would claim millions, living in that state called Jammu & Kashmir, who simply don’t feel like “Indians”, even as rest of us scratch our heads and feel clueless over what so horrible have we done to them to make them feel that way (I know many of you activists types are itching to recite the list of “atrocities” performed by the Indian state over Kashmiri people, but just hold on for a few minutes).

So Arundhati Roy deserved that “rant” for speaking the “truth”? Not really. As she herself wrote in her statement, “I said what I, as well as other commentators, have written and said for years.”

One is inclined to ask, why no rant against those “other commentators”, why pick on Arundhati?

Because Arundhati Roy is a charlatan. She “pretends” to be what she is not. And this is exactly why I don’t like India TV, which pretends to be a “news channel” but is not, or Arindam Chaudhuri, who pretends to be “an educator” but is not; those who had been following Faking News would know that these two have often been at the receiving ends of my “rants”.

And that’s why I don’t “dislike” Chetan Bhagat, because he doesn’t pretend to be a “literary writer”, which he is not, and calls himself an “entertainment writer”. A couple of his interviews that I have read, he has candidly admitted that he writes “for the masses”. And hence I was not being too sarcastic in my open letter, when I said, “Today I’m proud of Chetan Bhagat, seriously.” Yeah, but I hate his ToI editorials; he should stop “pretending” there.

Anyway, coming back to Arundhati, I don’t like her (and ranted against her) because she is intellectually dishonest and an attention seeker. My rant was more an attempt to show the hollowness of her “support” to a cause than the “cause” itself. Maybe if you read it ignoring the swear words, if you are not comfortable with them, you’d come to know what I mean.

e.g. when I ask her why she didn’t care to visit the house of any Kashmiri Pandit in Delhi even as her “statement” makes a claim that she was fighting for their cause, I am attempting to show her “intellectual dishonesty”, and when I say, “Absolutely, you have NEVER said or written anything NEW. You just pick up issues, after reading the morning newspapers, and join the bandwagon”, I am hinting at her “attention seeking” character. I am neither commenting on the plight of Kashmiri Pandits nor am dismissing the “bandwagons” she jumps over as being frivolous ones.

Now some of you may argue that even if she was intellectually dishonest or attention seeking, at least she “raises” some issues and makes people and the establishment take notice of them.

Seriously, you believe that?

What great help has she done to any “movement” or “cause” she has supported till date? In fact, she weakens the arguments and causes of those with whom she sides, thanks to her hyper-exaggerated and ridiculous statements.

Don’t’ believe me? Because I call myself “Pagal Patrakar” (and not “pretend” like Madam Arundhati to be sane)? Fine, I’d quote others, who are not “pagal” and make you see the point:

Roy’s early essays were written in a voice that some progressive Americans would call “prophetic,” but like many prophets she tended to overstate her case. There are no small things anymore. This stridency tended to make her writing less agreeable, too. What came next was predictable: September 11, which deranged many things, had the effect of turning her into a zealot.

This is not written by some agent of Brahminical India, this is the opinion of Isaac Chotiner, one of the executive editors of The New Republic, an American magazine of politics and the arts, which is acknowledged to be supporting “liberal social and social democratic economic policies”. Isaac makes these comments while reviewing one of her books/essays, and further notes:

But this book is not a plea for a more humane capitalism (something we urgently need). Instead, it is an attack on many of the good and democratic aspects of modern Indian life. Even worse, it is an assault on democracy itself. Roy’s status as a famous woman of the far left has obscured the fact that she is an outright reactionary.

Precisely! Arundhati Roy doesn’t attack any “capitalist” “corporate” or “Brahminical” establishment through her ridiculous statements, but she attacks “democracy” itself, and that makes her a text-book case of a “reactionary”. You can read the full article here.

That was a “liberal” and “progressive” American calling her a “zealot” and “reactionary”, and that American is not “pagal”, unless Arundhati fans choose to call him that (and they may, for they love her so much and hate America so much!). Fine, if poor Isaac is termed “pagal”, I’d now quote someone who calls himself “great” – The Greatbong.

For the religious fundamentalist the villain is anyone who does not accept his God(s) as their savior(s). For Roy, the principal evil agents are the “oppressors”—— USA, UK, Israel ,India, and corporations (not specifically in that order) with her animus being directed specifically towards upper-class so-called “Brahminical” Hindus.

That’s Arnab Ray, a famous blogger and author, who blogs with a penname Greatbong. Unfortunately he calls his blog as “Random Thoughts of a Demented Mind”, but in this article, he clearly betrays the “demented mind” of Arundhati Roy (before the guardians of good language and civilized behavior pounce on me, I’d like to clarify that I have used “demented” as a synonym for “irrational” or “unreasonable” for Ms. Roy, not “crazy”, which I have kept for myself, not sure what Arnab means for himself).

One of the sermons I received for ranting and using “bad language” against Arundhati from the pro-Arundhati gang was those famous lines by the German anti-Nazi activist, Pastor Martin Niemöller: then they came for me — and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Niemöller talks about Communists, Jews, Unionists and Catholics in his famous statement, but he doesn’t call upon people to speak up for the rights of “zealots”, “reactionaries” or “fundamentalists”.

And seriously, I’m dismayed that people think that Arundhati Roy can make any difference to the Kashmir issue. She raised a stink over the tribal/Naxal issue, and when the government asked her to be a part of the solution, she backed off. That’s her contribution to one of her pet-causes.

Here in Kashmir, more than 100 people were killed in the last couple of months, and the government was forced to appoint “interlocutors” to solve the problem. Geelani might dismiss the appointment of interlocutors as an eyewash, but when did you hear a nation appointing “interlocutors” to talk to its own citizens? This term is usually used to refer to people helping nations talk to each other. Remember Shashi Tharoor had got in some “controversy” over its use?

Was the government pushed to take that step due to the assays or essays of Arundhati Roy? In fact, once she came into the picture, poor Geelani faced the threat of being arrested over sedition charges! That’s her “Midas touch” to a problem she espouses, or “pretends” to espouse.

Nonetheless, Arundhati has EVERY right to say what she told, and NO WAY should sedition charges be initiated against her. She has been “ranting” against the Indian state for long and daring them to arrest her. She shouldn’t be arrested, for “ranting” is no crime.

And fans of Arundhati, please give me some rights to “rant” against her, especially when I don’t “pretend” to be indulging in anything else but in a rant.

And you know, fans of Arundhati, you were not hurt by my “rant” or “bad language”, you were hurt because truth hurts. The truth about your dear Arundhati hurts, I know. I’m sorry to have hurt you.

Now I wonder if I should “clarify” what my take is on the Kashmir issue, because a couple of those who commented on the article asked me to do so. I feel like putting my two cents here, but I won’t do it due to two reasons – it merits a different article in itself, and secondly, unlike Arundhati, I don’t want to poke my nose in something that is poised at a very delicate stage (as if my views would change anything, still, maybe someday later).

PS: (added at 10.40 AM on October 28, 2010) No way this follow up article should be taken as any reversal of points I earlier made in my open letter to Arundhati Roy. I stand by each and every word I wrote, including the swear words! I’d not have normally “clarified”, had some people who matter, e.g. a few good friends, not failed to see the point, and this explanation was more for them than to the fans of Arundhati.

Congrats, you are back in news! You were trending on Twitter and featured in Google trends. And thanks, you made many guys look up dictionary.com to understand what sedition meant. You are really of some use!

Well, I read your statement, and I loved it because it was not a fucking 30,000 words essay! Anyway, I had some reactions, please find them below (in bold and in red, adjectives that you prefer?):

Kashmir, Oct. 26: I write this from Srinagar, Kashmir.  (Wonderful, you are going places woman, wished you had cared to write something from Bihar or UP; people are suffering due to neglect and bad politics there too, but wait, stay where you are.) This morning’s papers say that I may be arrested on charges of sedition for what I have said at recent public meetings on Kashmir.  (LOL! You read and believe newspapers? But I guess that’s what you do when you wake up in the morning – take up a newspaper and find if your name appears anywhere. If not, you plan how it can.) I said what millions of people here say every day. (Millions of people say benc**d in India every day, that doesn’t sanction that term any “social acceptance”) I said what I, as well as other commentators, have written and said for years. (Absolutely, you have NEVER said or written anything NEW. You just pick up issues, after reading the morning newspapers, and join the bandwagon.) Anybody who cares to read the transcripts of my speeches will see that they were fundamentally a call for justice. (Sorry, I didn’t really care to read the transcript of your speeches. Can you make them a bit shorter? I’ve an attention span problem.) I spoke about justice for the people of Kashmir who live under one of the most brutal military occupations in the world; (Oh, Kashmir is an area under military occupation? Thanks, will update my general knowledge and Wikimapia, but wait, how come you were allowed there? Don’t all democratic rights cease to exist in an area under military occupation? Or were you an “embedded activist” like those embedded journalists of CNN in Iraq during the Gulf War?) for Kashmiri Pandits who live out the tragedy of having been driven out of their homeland; (Really? Or are you fucking kidding me?) for Dalit soldiers killed in Kashmir whose graves I visited on garbage heaps in their villages in Cuddalore; (What the fuck is a “Dalit soldier” with a “grave”? I thought Dalits existed only within Hinduism and Sikhism, where there are no graves. Oh okay, next you are writing a 300,000 essay on why Dalits are neither Hindu/Sikh/Christian/Muslim nor Indian, and why the need justice and liberty from the tyrannous Brahminical Indian state?) for the Indian poor who pay the price of this occupation in material ways and who are now learning to live in the terror of what is becoming a police state. (Oh great, so this whole country is under some kind of occupation – police state – what the fuck, you opened my eyes, where is the red flag?)

Yesterday I traveled to Shopian, the apple-town in South Kashmir which had remained closed for 47 days last year in protest against the brutal rape and murder of Asiya and Nilofer, the young women whose bodies were found in a shallow stream near their homes and whose murderers have still not been brought to justice. (Yes, “last year”, and you are visiting the place “now” because your heart bleeds for a common Kashmiri.) I met Shakeel, who is Nilofer’s husband and Asiya’s brother.  (Wait a minute; you were also in Delhi a couple of weeks back. Did you meet any Kashmiri Pandit, for whom you claimed to be seeking justice in the earlier paragraph?) We sat in a circle of people crazed with grief and anger who had lost hope that they would ever get insaf — justice — from India, and now believed that Azadi — freedom — was their only hope.  (Have you seen the Bollywood movie Gulaal? You can sit in such circles almost in each part of this country and listen to cries of Azadi from imagined powers. There are Brahmins in this country, whom you think control everything, who feel “trapped” in the modern state that is implementing reservations for everyone except them.) I met young stone pelters who had been shot through their eyes. (Did you meet that Indian policeman who lost his eye after a 5 kg stone hit his eye?) I traveled with a young man who told me how three of his friends, teenagers in Anantnag district, had been taken into custody and had their finger-nails pulled out as punishment for throwing stones. (I once traveled with a Hindu in Ahmedabad, who told me how Muslims had created an “acid pool” in “their area” and used to throw Hindus in them during riots; there have been many riots in Ahmedabad, not just during 2002, for your kind information. Of course I didn’t believe him and went out to write an essay or even a fake news article. I don’t believe people easily and form opinions. If the state can’t be trusted blindly, that doesn’t mean I’d trust every other non-state actor blindly. Oh, non-state actor!)

In the papers some have accused me of giving ‘hate-speeches’, of wanting India to break up.  (Yes, there are idiots who take you seriously.) On the contrary, what I say comes from love and pride.  (ROFLMAO!) It comes from not wanting people to be killed, raped, imprisoned or have their finger-nails pulled out in order to force them to say they are Indians. (But you are fine and your conscience is not disturbed if someone does the same to people and force them to say that they are NOT Indians?) It comes from wanting to live in a society that is striving to be a just one. (“just” one or “just one”? People like you are surely not going to let this society be “just one”. It would be broken into Dalits, Tribals, Muslims, Brahmins, Christians, Poor, Rich, Women, etc. I want my society and country to be “just one” for god’s sake!) Pity the nation that has to silence its writers for speaking their minds. (Yes, yes, pity the nation that produces such writers. Today I’m proud of Chetan Bhagat, seriously.) Pity the nation that needs to jail those who ask for justice, while communal killers, mass murderers, corporate scamsters, looters, rapists, and those who prey on the poorest of the poor, roam free. (Yes, I’d pity the nation only if you were “actually” jailed, and you won’t be, dear, because this is a country that doesn’t need your pity.)

The television channel was kind enough to provide me a cab for commuting. While coming back home once the recording for the show was over, I decided to get into a chit-chat with the driver of the cab (it was in Hindi, but what follows is a translated version):

“Finally Patna seems to have roads where one can drive cars without much headache, no?” I started the conversation with the driver, who looked like someone in his late 30’s, and I’m ashamed not to be able to recall his name right now.

“Yes sir, a couple of flyovers have also come up, the traveling time has come down hugely, otherwise it would have taken more than an hour to get to your house,” he agreed. It had taken me around 15-20 minutes to reach the NDTV studio earlier.

“So, Nitish government has indeed done some development work?” I jumped to politics straightaway; not an oddity in Bihar for conversations between strangers.

“Well, yeah,” he seemed to agree, but not quite though.

“So what do you think? Nitish will come back to power?” I asked to confirm.

“If you ask me sir, I will say that he might win, but people would not give him so much power (majority) that he can do whatever he want,” his answer puzzled me further.

“But you just said that he has done development work, won’t you like him to win?” I prodded him further to know his opinion, a common man’s opinion.

“Yes sir, but these things – roads, water, electricity, security – are our basic needs. It is his duty to provide these things. If a government won’t even provide these things, what will it do?” he said.

“But Lalu Yadav’s government failed to provide even these basic things, no?” like a shrewd journalist, I was looking for a ‘sound-bite’ to get his approval for Nitish government.

“No doubt, Nitish has done far better than Lalu,” he obliged me, but quickly added, “but you people shouldn’t think that it will help Nitish Kumar sweep the elections, as many of my bosses think.”

By “you people” he meant NRBs (Non Resident Biharis), and by “bosses” he meant the journalists, or the so-called intelligentsia I guess.

So Nitish had done good work, in fact “far better” than what Lalu Yadav did, but that might not be enough for him to win the elections?

What the ‘common man’ is thinking, I wondered.

Then I recalled a story my father had told me when I was in Bihar during my school days. I guess it was late 1995 or so when either Lalu Yadav was seeking his first re-election or when he had already got back to power.

That period is supposed to be a dark chapter in the history of Bihar with the state witnessing high crime rate, economic collapse and migration of Biharis outside the state in pursuit of better opportunities.

At that time my father was working as a college reader in a suburban city called Bihar Sharif in the Nalanda district and used to commute almost daily from Patna, where we were staying so that we (me and my brother) could study in ‘better’ schools. So even within the state, there was migration; we had shifted to Patna sometime in 1991 for ‘better’ avenues.

The story I earlier referred to as having recalled by me after my discussion with the NDTV driver is a personal experience of my father in one of such trips to his college from Patna. He used to travel by buses and would usually read a book, but on that occasion he decided to join a discussion that was taking place in the bus. And not surprisingly, the topic of the discussion was politics.

People were discussing if Lalu’s government was good or not and the issue of law and order came up. My father happened to witness this dialogue (again, it was in Hindi and a translated version follows):

“Have you seen the crime level in the state? Each day there is some murder, kidnapping, dacoity. What is the government doing?” argued a person in the bus.

“What crap!” retorted another guy, who incidentally was sitting next to my father in the bus, arguing, “Arey tell me, you are going somewhere and some gunda comes, slaps you and takes away money from you. What can the government do in this?”

There should have been a stunned silence in the bus or an unbridled laughter at this point of time, but neither of these happened. The discussion was ‘normal’.

The guy looked towards my father to extract a supporting nod after he thought he made a valiant point in defense of the government. My father and others tried in vain to convince him that it indeed was the duty of the government to ensure the safety of each and every person on the road. He, along with some of ‘like-minded’ debaters, remained unconvinced.

That was how a ‘common man’, whom my father encountered, was thinking in those days.

I told you how the NDTV driver, the common man I encountered, is thinking nowadays.

And this is the change that has taken place in Bihar in span of just one generation.

The common man today is aware of what “development” really means and what the duties of a government are. There has been a sea-change in the awareness, aspirations, and expectations of the people of Bihar. They don’t see roads, water, electricity or security as any “luxury”, but as their “rights”, rather as their “birthrights”.

This change in mindset of the common man could be attributed to various factors, but I would, rightly or wrongly, credit Nitish Kumar’s government too for this. A Bihari that I know appreciates work done by Nitish government, but he wants “more”.

So, Congratulations Mr. Kumar for bringing this change, but you may lose the elections.

Earlier, another journalist, Priya Ramani, in one of her articles had termed Lord Rama as “loser” for making Sita go through agni pariksha, and again it caused considerable outrage, though the article is still there (and I’m NOT asking it to be removed or deleted).

These are not only two instances, in fact these are very minor instances and perhaps didn’t warrant any outrage given that Lord Rama has gone through much more with people calling him male chauvinist, anti-dalit, anti-dravidian, an aggressor, and Ramayanas being burnt down south on so many occasions.

Even though I fancy myself as an atheist in terms of religious beliefs, there are some cultural “Hindu” elements within me (which I can’t escape), because of which, maybe, I don’t find these comments quite charitable.

But it’s not just the Hindu cultural elements, I find such comments equally uncharitable when made about gods or prophets of other religions, say, finding fault with the personality or “morality” of Prophet Muhammad.

And no, it’s NOT because it hurt sentiments. Yes, it does hurt sentiments of many for sure, but as was pointed out in my earlier post, I don’t believe any act should be stopped just because it hurts sentiments.

I believe that finding faults with the “morality” of historical figures is technically flawed. It’s flawed, maybe even illogical, to judge the morality of someone (whether an imaginary god or a real historical figure) based on the accepted moral standards of the modern society.

It’s similar to making a retrospective law or an ex post facto law, which seeks to punish someone for actions performed at a time when they were legal. Almost all modern democracies consider enactment of such a law as a violation of rights of freedom and human rights. In USA, a country that boasts of its freedom of speech and liberty, ex post facto laws are completely forbidden. It’s also forbidden in Iran.

Take a very simple example. Smoking in public places was prohibited in India around 2 years back and now it’s ‘criminal’ to smoke in a public transport bus. But can we paint all those people, who had smoked in public buses more than 2 years back, as ‘criminals’ and make them pay fines now?

Passive smoking was equally unpleasant even then, but there was no ‘accepted social law’ to ban it in public places, so those guys, who are ‘criminals’ by today’s standards, were well within their right to indulge in that act. It’s unfair to brand them ‘criminals’ today for an act committed 2 years back. And it’s just a 2 years old story.

How fair is it to pass judgments on actions that happened centuries, rather millenniums, ago and brand someone as a loser, encroacher, aggressor, male chauvinist, etc.?

No, there are no universal or constant moral standards, as a rationalist one should be able to appreciate that and make that difference. Just like evolution of species, there has been evolution of morality too. And yeah, no matter what the believers and the faithfuls say, today’s moral standards are “more evolved” than those of the times of Lord Rama or Prophet Muhammad.

Now I can understand if there are a set of Ram Bhakts today who insist on making their wives go through agni pariksha for having spent a night out. They clearly are “losers”, criminals in fact.

(at this point of time, I must add, before someone else points it out, that as per some versions of Ramayana, agni pariksha never happened with the ‘real’ Sita, and it was only her ‘shadow’ that went through it and the ‘real’ Sita came out as a result; similar justifications could exist in other religions too for their oft-criticized “immoral” acts, but I won’t go into such aspects in this article)

And we all know that such people exist, but they are not necessarily Ram Bhakts, in fact some claim to be modern, secular and progressive. But if someone justifies his male-chauvinism (a modern thought that came much later in the process of evolution of morality) based on the deeds of Lord Rama, then his Ramayana needs to be corrected.

But otherwise, no one has any business going on correcting Ramayana and other religious text and figures just because they look outlandish or immoral by the scientific and moral standards of today’s world.

I know it’s easier said than done, because many believers are now increasingly being encouraged by some elements to believe in the literal interpretation of the religious texts, which are in direct conflict with the findings of the modern science as well as the modern morality. Such situation will no doubt push the rationalists and the atheists to point out the presence of “unscience” and “immorality” in their religious texts and beliefs.

But without such a trigger, I guess such comments can surely be avoided, unless you just want to make news and attract attention.

I thought of writing this article after I was approached by a national news channel to participate in a chat show on “freedom of speech”, where I was supposed to represent a party whose freedom of speech (the fake news reports) had the potential of “hurting sentiments” of others. Unfortunately the shooting for the show was to happen in Mumbai and I was not in a position to travel out of Delhi at that time and hence I missed the debate, but it surely made me think aloud over the issue.

The trigger of the debate (chat show) was Pakistan banning facebook, primarily due to a page titled “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day”, which they thought was offensive to Muslims and should have been deleted by facebook administrators. Even I had received a couple of nasty mails/tweets/comments after I made a joke on Pakistan’s knee-jerk reaction of banning facebook, and I knew that the issue of freedom of speech and expression was pretty relevant to me.

Recently, the issue of freedom of speech was again in center after an article published in TIME magazine was deemed offensive by many Indians, following which the magazine and the author appended their responses at the end of the article, both expressing ‘regret’ at having hurt people’s sentiments.

That has led some people to ask if TIME or any other western media outlet would have done the same (express regret) if the aggrieved parties were Muslims?

First let’s not confuse the situation and draw wrong parallels. TIME’s article was deemed to be offensive to the Indians and not to the Hindus as such and many non-Hindu Indians and NRIs had expressed their outrage over it.

It was made a case of racism rather than of religious bigotry, and more often than not, issues of racism are dealt with much more delicacy and sensibility in the western society than those of religious feelings.

Nonetheless, whether related to races or religions, can we really have an answer to “how far should freedom of speech and expression go?” Should freedom of speech be curbed if it hurts sentiments? Or should there be a freedom to hurt sentiments as well?

Perhaps the obvious answer would be a “no”, but if we think about it, there would be almost no freedom of speech and expression left in that case.

When a film critic trashes a movie in the most acerbic language in a review, undoubtedly he or she is hurting the sentiments of many people directly and indirectly involved with the production of the film. Why should a critic have the freedom to hurt the sentiments of these people?

If Hrithik Roshan approaches the courts to get all the negative and hateful reviews of Kites removed because they hurt his sentiments as well as those of millions of others who are his die-hard fans, won’t we find his assertion ridiculous?

Yet, let’s ask ourselves, why don’t we want to respect the sentiments of Hrithik and millions of his fans? If we don’t like Kites, can’t we just shut up and go home?

But we speak up and say loudly why we didn’t like a movie. Maybe because there is no “absolute truth” about how good or bad a movie can be, for the same movie could be loved and hated by different people. It is a matter of choice and opinion and differences are bound to exist.

In case of film reviews, we have agreed on an unwritten rule that these differences should be respected even if it hurts the sentiments of some people (and I’m damn sure it hurts the sentiments of Roshans when they read those reviews of Kites). So Bollywood gives the freedom to hurt the sentiments, two cheers to that!

Somehow when it comes to religious sentiments, we fail to follow this unwritten rule, maybe because many of us see and claim to experience the “absolute truth” in our respective religions?

As a skeptic, who is not convinced about “absolute truth” of any religion, why should I have not the freedom to hurt the sentiments of followers of any religion?

If I don’t like any religious practice or belief, why should I not speak up against it just like a movie critic or any of us speak up as soon as we don’t like a movie?

Although the TIME magazine article was supposed to be comic and satirical, for a moment let’s assume the author sincerely didn’t like some of the community traits of the immigrant Indians, why should he not have the freedom to speak up and hurt the sentiments of Indians? After all there is no “absolute truth” about what constitutes a good or bad community trait.

Clearly it’s not just about “hurting the sentiments”, we have to go beyond it and find out when there could be genuine reasons to question or curb a freedom of speech or expression that hurts sentiments. I can find three reasons:

1. It uses outright obscene or hateful language or modes of expression
2. It furthers fabrications and stereotypes to defame a group or individual
3. It encourages thoughts or actions that are anti-social or anti-democratic

(with reference to the point number one above, what constitutes obscenity or vulgarity is again debatable and a matter choice and opinion, but I’d leave that out of the scope of this article)

Clearly Hrithik Roshan can’t claim the negative film reviews to be falling under any of the above three categories, and hence critics have all the rights to hurt his sentiments while exercising their freedom of speech. But Indians accused the TIME article of having shades of all of these.

In fact, most of the countries have legal recourses to address grievances arising out any action that follows in any of the above three categories. Therefore, instead of getting outraged and go rampaging in the streets, it’s better to find a solution within the legal framework of that country. I guess in case of the TIME article, outraged Indians did neither.

In India, we have an added reason to curb freedom of speech – It threatens to disrupt public life and order – almost inviting people to go rampaging in the streets and hence bolster one’s legal case?

So, if tomorrow Hrithik can somehow prove that negative reviews of his films can disrupt public order, say his fans could start burning buses, he might get the negative reviews removed? I leave that upon legal eagles to comment if that clause in the Indian law against freedom of speech makes any sense.

Now let’s come back to drawing images of Prophet Muhammad or any other act of freedom of speech that hurts religious sentiments, do they fall into any of the above three categories?

Say, if I draw an image of Prophet Muhammad, which is a favorable depiction showing him as a compassionate human being, how can it fall into any of the above category? Maybe drawing images of prophet is an anti-social act in an Islamic society, but how can it be so in a secular society? The only argument against such an act could be that it ‘hurts the sentiments’. Should we then discard such arguments and continue to draw images?

That’s the most tricky aspect of religious sentiments that it only offers the logic of ‘sentiments being hurt’ in defense and demands respect for itself.

Even in case of individuals, we can find numerous instances where personal sentiments can be hurt with an action or speech that doesn’t fall into any of the three categories listed above. For example, calling a person with amputated legs as ‘lame’ might not fall into any of the three categories, and might even be the “absolute truth”, but most of us would not like to exercise this freedom of speech and hurt somebody’s sentiments.

Should we show the same kind of restraint in case of religious sentiments?

Desirable, but not feasible.

Not feasible, because many times it becomes necessary to question religious beliefs to uphold modern democratic and scientific values.

Someone like Richard Dawkins argues that religions were institutions proposing the ‘hypothesis’ of a supernatural creator God in the same way as any scientist would propose a scientific hypothesis for an observed phenomenon. In his book “The God Delusion”, Dawkins argues that like any other hypothesis, the God hypothesis should also be open for evaluation and even falsification.

So we would need to make that distinction when evaluating an act, which may not fall into the aforementioned three categories, but yet ends up hurting religious sentiments.

In fact one can distinguish such acts of hurting religious sentiments into further three categories (inspired from from an article that Noam Chomsky wrote, where he distinguishes three categories of murder):

1. Hurting sentiments on purpose with the sole intent to ‘hurt’ them
2. Hurting sentiments inadvertently or accidentally
3. Hurting sentiments with foreknowledge but without specific intent

Most of the images or cartoons of Prophet Muhammad that have been drawn recently fall into the first category, which I believe can’t be justified in the name of freedom of speech and expression, even if they (the images) might not have explicitly fallen into any of the three categories mentioned earlier (obscene, defamatory, or anti-democratic).

The TIME article, I believe, fell into the second category. Indians protested and the author as well as the publisher agreed that their original intentions were not to hurt the sentiments. Chapter closed, I hope.

But the third category is where I believe ‘hurting sentiments’ have to be allowed or condoned.

I was not a great fan of the campaign, but the original idea of “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day”, where it was requested not to draw obscene and abusive images of the prophet, but yet draw the images to drive home the point that threats of violence can’t curb the freedom of speech, fell in the third category, and that’s why I chose to make jokes on Pakistan banning facebook.

The organizer(s), who later dumped the campaign, surely knew that it would offend many Muslims, but they didn’t start the page just to offend them.

One can claim that the organizer(s) could have chosen another mean to drive home their point; but we can claim so in almost all other such cases that fall into this category, and what about those occasions when religious beliefs are conflicting with the modern democratic values? The only mean then left is to hurt the beliefs, sorry. Perhaps it also depends on how strongly you believe in “the ends justify the means”.

I don’t necessarily believe strongly in the above saying, also known as “consequentialism”, but I do analyze my thoughts and actions through the two sets of three categories mentioned above if someone accuses me of hurting their sentiments.

Now what do you do after having a satisfying session of sex? If you are selfish, you straightaway go to sleep. If you are sensual, you hold on and talk to your partner. So let’s talk how it was.

Let’s go back to the foreplay.

Foreplay has the elements of mystery and imagination in it. You might have known your partner for years, but you tend to touch him/her as if you are trying to explore something that was hitherto unknown to you. You might have kissed those lips a thousand times, but you have to feel a new taste every time. You have to use your imagination to make it happen. IPL auctions provided this element of mystery and imagination.

IPL auctions took place for cricketers to be sold (such a dignified achievement for a modern cricketer; apparently, as per the IPL rules, a player can’t negotiate his own contract amount, the franchisees must arrive at it among themselves. This was never deemed as ‘snub’ by any player). No Pakistani cricketer was sold. It was called IPL snub (sounds like snug – an ingredient of foreplay – okay; that was a PJ).

And it remains a mystery why it happened. Was it a pure business decision by the franchisees? Was there any Government pressure to do so? Was there any conspiracy by Lalit Modi against Pakistanis? Was there any conspiracy against Lalit Modi by Congress? Unanswered questions adding to the mystery.

And this mystery gave birth to vivid imaginations. Sohail Tanvir imagined that Hinduon ki zeheniyat hi aisi hoti hai (Hindus are deceitful and disrespectful by character). Our Home Minister imagined that Indian fans were the greatest lovers of Pakistani cricketers. Pakistani Home Minister imagined a planned revenge snub. Shah Rukh Khan imagined that Pakistan was a great neighbor to have. India was turned on.

Personally, I have no idea what was this whole IPL snub all about. All the unanswered questions listed above seem distinct possibilities to me. Seems like this whole IPL episode, which I am calling foreplay, was so good that I just enjoyed it with my eyes closed.

But Shiv Sena had their eyes open.

They had been looking for a partner for a long time. They courted Sachin Tendulkar. No response. They courted Mukesh Ambani. Again no response. They would have been heartbroken and hollering like this little kid seen here in this video, whose advances were blatantly ignored by a little girl just the same way as Tendulkar and Ambani ignored Sena’s feelers. But they decided to test the ‘third time lucky’ theory.

They decided to court Rahul Gandhi. And voila! Rahul responded, although he snubbed them. But we have just seen that how a snub had turned on a whole nation, rather a whole subcontinent just a few days back. Rahul’s snub turned Shiv Sena on. Last time they had to break office of a news channel to turn themselves on. Hungry and horny, now they needed a partner for intercourse. They courted Shah Rukh Khan.

If Shah Rukh Khan would have joined the rank of Tendulkar and Ambani and proved to be the third idiot in Shiv Sena’s eyes, he’d have rendered Shiv Sena as the Chatur Ramalingam (selfish, conservative, and revengeful) in the rest of the India’s eyes. But Shah Rukh Khan was not out there to promote 3 Idiots. His agenda was My Name Is Khan.

SRK had the demand, Shiv Sena had the supply. The twain met.

(At this point, let me make it clear – I’m not hinting at any pre-planned conspiracy hatched by SRK and Shiv Sena. I believe that SRK’s sentence on Pakistani players’ inclusion in the IPL was not aimed at garnering publicity for his movie. But once Shiv Sena gave him an opportunity to do so, he didn’t let it go.

That’s why Karan Johar, who had sprinted to Raj Thackeray to apologize for mentioning Mumbai as Bombay in Wake Up Sid, thought that freedom of speech was of paramount importance. And Shah Rukh Khan, who had, without much ado, changed the title of his movie Billu Barber after protests by some hairdressers, insisted that he didn’t need to change even a single word of his original statement.)

After foreplay, India was progressing towards intercourse.

Intercourse has the elements of dominion and passion. It’s best enjoyed when both the partners take turn to dominate, with the other one playing the submissive role at that moment. Whatever role you play, there has to be a passion in the act. India saw both of these elements in SRK-Shiv Sena standoff.

Shiv Sena took the dominant role in this political intercourse; they love being on top, don’t they? Shah Rukh Khan played along with passion; not submissive, yet not dominant. But to make this intercourse enjoyable and perfect, Shiv Sena needed to be dominated. And hence media and self-styled pro-democracy activists joined in, while voyeurs like me looked on.

The intercourse was just perfect. There was mass moaning and groaning on twitter. There were love bites with Shiv Sena biting off movie posters. And the media discovered the G-spot – cinema halls, which must be reached to achieve orgasm.

Going to a cinema hall to buy and brandish a movie ticket became the symbol of democracy and free speech. It was surely better than joining a facebook community to feed a hungry child or forwarding a chain mail to help a cancer patient. But not any better than buying a Durex condom on Valentine’s Day to oppose moral police (a campaign that has not yet taken off, but if it happens, Durex guys had better pay me for this idea).

But who cares about strictness and exactness of a kamasutra position while sweating with a partner in the bed. We were so busy with the intercourse that we couldn’t even hear a gunshot fired to kill a lawyer defending a Mumbai terror attack accused.

(Before the patriotic types point out that the lawyer himself had a dubious past and was once detained for anti-national activities and hence deserved to be killed, let me tell them to Shut Up – just like SRK had told those ‘sickos’ who hinted at him being hand in glove with Shiv Sena, and like Asif Ali Zardari had told an inattentive student during a public rally.

Anyone, who doesn’t violate the constitution of India, and in fact makes it the basis of his or her arguments (which a lawyer is supposed to do), must be protected (more than release of a movie) for the sake of democracy. If a lawyer is able to release a terrorist, the solution is not to shoot dead the lawyer, but to create stricter laws. Yes, the patriotic types can now point out that Gujarat’s stricter anti-terror law was shot down by the UPA government.)

Not only the gunshot, we went deaf and blind to various other stuffs going outside our bedroom as we twisted and twirled during the intercourse. Rising prices, crores of cash in IAS officers’ houses (by the way, where is Madhu Koda these days?), alleged political protection to an arrested terrorist, and many other things that a fake journalist like me might not even know – they became irrelevant as we tried to achieve a perfect orgasm.

Stimulated by media, the moment of orgasm did arrive.

I won’t try to enlist the elements of orgasm. You can’t define it, you have to experience it. I thought the nation experienced it when the first lot of movie goers came (out), and declared to the waiting reporters outside, “it was awesome”.

My Name Is Khan was superhit, the battle for democracy was won, and the orgy had ended.

So, thanks for holding on and talking. It was nice, but it could have been much better, much sensual, and much more meaningful. Next time, maybe?