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.

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.

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?