This blog is moving to Wordpress. The new URL is http://suhaskarnik.co.cc/blog/. There could be some teething issues; would love to hear your suggestions.
Saturday 27 December 2008
Saturday 20 December 2008
God Makes Mistakes, Too
We've had movies where the audience didn't understand what movie they had just seen. For example the Lord of the Rings movies. Well, at least those who didn't read the books didn't understand most of the movies.
Then we've had movies where the music composer didn't understand what movie he was composing (or plagiarising) music for. Example, the historical mujra, Asoka.
Then there have been movies where the actors didn't understand what movie they were acting in, for example the Harry Potter movies.
But rare is the masterpiece where the director himself seems not to understand what movie he is making. And as we know, a director is the boss, and the creator of the movie. He is to the movie what god is to the universe (for those who believe in the god, that is). And sometimes, you know, you really need to say, Rab Ne Bana Di Khichdi.
This is the case of Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi, the latest from the Aditya Chopra (aka Rab) school of loving. No, you dirty mind, it doesn't involve anything that happens on the couch or the bed. So you have Shahrukh "Khan Is King" who for once is not very Kingly - for a princely amount of half an hour - as a Punjab Power employee named Surinder. He bumps into Tani, an attractive bride-to-be, who conveniently happens to be his teacher's daughter, and who equally conveniently loses her bridegroom-to-be just before her marriage.
Now in Aditya Chopra's (aka Rab's) world there is no point to a girl's life except getting married, so the star-struck lass is handed over to Mr Electric who, unfortunately, is anything but electrifying with his soda-bottle glasses, moustache and severely parted hair. On accomplishing this hand-over operation, Tani's old man decides to call it a life as well. However, as any girl in the Rab's world, Tani takes it up, though not with much enthu.
And so life goes on, for half an hour, with Mr Electric secretly doting on his young and pretty wife while the wife dotes on her past and does chores. Rab at this point correctly realised that this script was going nowhere fast, so he had to do something, and he did - enter the dance course plus competition for the best jodi. Tani joins the course, and so does a de-moustached and gelled Mr Electrifying aka Raj. If you've heard the name before, that's the work of Rab. Not that Mr Electrifying is really electrifying - he's a jerk, irritates the viewer and basically is just a little more enjoyable than Himesh Reshammiya singing at full blast with cats sliding down blackboards providing background music. But hey, the script needs to move, the girl needs to have something to do with her time and needs to like someone, so Mr Electrifying it is.
Of course, neither Tani nor any of her fellow dance students notice the curious coincidence that Electric and Electrifying seem to look and sound somewhat similar. Fret not - it's the Will of Rab. And with the exception of one solitary mechanic, no one in the whole town notices or comments upon Mrs Electric roaming more with Electrifying than with her hubby. Truly it must be the divine influence of Rab which makes the town so open-minded.
Rab was right - the entry of Mr Electrifying took the script somewhere. Unfortunately, Rab couldn't for the life of him figure out exactly where it took the script. And so, we are treated to the spectacle of a character who looks like he might, or might not, be suffering from Multiple-Personality Disorder dealing with problems of the heart in the most pointless ways imaginable. Fret not, Rab is still working on it.
One really feels sorry for Anushka Sharma. The girl is cute and fairly competent and you get the feeling she could actually do good acting under guidance from a Nagesh Kukunoor or a Ashotosh Gowariker. Unfortunately, she gets what must be the stupidest non-retarded female character in cinema, a woman who cannot recognise her husband once he shaves his moustache and gels his hair, and a woman who cannot see the loving hand of Punjab Power even when the city selectively blacks out so the that the shaved and gelled guy can give her the "I love you" message. Yet, for all the limitations of the character, Anushka does a fair job. Not her fault Rab screwed her world.
The King is far more bearable, sometimes even endearing, when he's a regular guy than when he's the King. He too makes the most of what he can with such a hopelessly confused character(s).
As for Rab, though, he should be looking for a new line of work. Himesh might be looking for someone to throw the cats on the blackboard, maybe Rab could try his hand at that.
Then we've had movies where the music composer didn't understand what movie he was composing (or plagiarising) music for. Example, the historical mujra, Asoka.
Then there have been movies where the actors didn't understand what movie they were acting in, for example the Harry Potter movies.
But rare is the masterpiece where the director himself seems not to understand what movie he is making. And as we know, a director is the boss, and the creator of the movie. He is to the movie what god is to the universe (for those who believe in the god, that is). And sometimes, you know, you really need to say, Rab Ne Bana Di Khichdi.
This is the case of Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi, the latest from the Aditya Chopra (aka Rab) school of loving. No, you dirty mind, it doesn't involve anything that happens on the couch or the bed. So you have Shahrukh "Khan Is King" who for once is not very Kingly - for a princely amount of half an hour - as a Punjab Power employee named Surinder. He bumps into Tani, an attractive bride-to-be, who conveniently happens to be his teacher's daughter, and who equally conveniently loses her bridegroom-to-be just before her marriage.
Now in Aditya Chopra's (aka Rab's) world there is no point to a girl's life except getting married, so the star-struck lass is handed over to Mr Electric who, unfortunately, is anything but electrifying with his soda-bottle glasses, moustache and severely parted hair. On accomplishing this hand-over operation, Tani's old man decides to call it a life as well. However, as any girl in the Rab's world, Tani takes it up, though not with much enthu.
And so life goes on, for half an hour, with Mr Electric secretly doting on his young and pretty wife while the wife dotes on her past and does chores. Rab at this point correctly realised that this script was going nowhere fast, so he had to do something, and he did - enter the dance course plus competition for the best jodi. Tani joins the course, and so does a de-moustached and gelled Mr Electrifying aka Raj. If you've heard the name before, that's the work of Rab. Not that Mr Electrifying is really electrifying - he's a jerk, irritates the viewer and basically is just a little more enjoyable than Himesh Reshammiya singing at full blast with cats sliding down blackboards providing background music. But hey, the script needs to move, the girl needs to have something to do with her time and needs to like someone, so Mr Electrifying it is.
Of course, neither Tani nor any of her fellow dance students notice the curious coincidence that Electric and Electrifying seem to look and sound somewhat similar. Fret not - it's the Will of Rab. And with the exception of one solitary mechanic, no one in the whole town notices or comments upon Mrs Electric roaming more with Electrifying than with her hubby. Truly it must be the divine influence of Rab which makes the town so open-minded.
Rab was right - the entry of Mr Electrifying took the script somewhere. Unfortunately, Rab couldn't for the life of him figure out exactly where it took the script. And so, we are treated to the spectacle of a character who looks like he might, or might not, be suffering from Multiple-Personality Disorder dealing with problems of the heart in the most pointless ways imaginable. Fret not, Rab is still working on it.
One really feels sorry for Anushka Sharma. The girl is cute and fairly competent and you get the feeling she could actually do good acting under guidance from a Nagesh Kukunoor or a Ashotosh Gowariker. Unfortunately, she gets what must be the stupidest non-retarded female character in cinema, a woman who cannot recognise her husband once he shaves his moustache and gels his hair, and a woman who cannot see the loving hand of Punjab Power even when the city selectively blacks out so the that the shaved and gelled guy can give her the "I love you" message. Yet, for all the limitations of the character, Anushka does a fair job. Not her fault Rab screwed her world.
The King is far more bearable, sometimes even endearing, when he's a regular guy than when he's the King. He too makes the most of what he can with such a hopelessly confused character(s).
As for Rab, though, he should be looking for a new line of work. Himesh might be looking for someone to throw the cats on the blackboard, maybe Rab could try his hand at that.
Friday 19 December 2008
Car Conferences
Ever since 26/11 happened, it looks like every neta is scrambling to air his views on the catastrophe, for example ex-MH Deputy CM RR Patil with his infamous comments about big cities and small events like 26/11, or Lalu with his views that the role of the opposition was "suspicious".
But Minority Affairs Minister AR Antulay has entered a completely different league by repeating exactly what has been the talking point of Pakistan's conspiracy theorists:
Predictably, this has set the cat among the pigeons with the opposition demanding his head. The political capital that can be made out of this is imaginable, so it's easy to understand what is driving the BJP to ask for his resignation. But what is disheartening is that most common people are also confining themselves to just asking for Antulay to be sacked or disciplined.
They are simply not seeing the real problem. The real problem, the real question we need to be asking is, what authority does the Minister for Minority Affairs have to speak on a terror attack while the investigations are going on? What authority does this Minister have to comment on a situation in which we are on a diplomatic offensive with Pakistan? This would hardly have been acceptable from a newbie politician, but Antulay is a veteran and should have known when not to comment. What made him and Lalu believe they had the right to comment on this issue?
This is not, I believe, a problem with the people alone. It is a problem with the process. This is the first thing I felt when I heard of Antulay's comments but couldn't put a finger on exactly where the problem in the process lay. Until yesterday, when I watched Times Now.
Apparently, Lalu Yadav had just arrived at Parliament and as usual, his car was beseiged by journos asking him for his comments on Antulay. Lalu gave no answer and silently walked into the building. The journos were gushing, in that now-commonplace high-pitched Sunny Deol-esque shouting voice, that it was very uncharacteristic of Lalu to do so. If true, then it would be one of the few rare occassions that Lalu kept mum when he should have.
A few moments later, there appeared footage of Foreign Minister Pranabda, again apparently in front of a car, with cameras thrust in his face. Now Pranabda in my opinion, is a poor choice for a Foreign Minister, a job that is as much PR as it is strategy. These days he looks positively uncomfortable, if not scared, when facing the camera. This isn't helped least by his relatively short height, which only increases the impression of his discomfort.
But coming back, that's when it hit me. It is perhaps these comments at the car which are the reason why Antulay and co believe entitled to comment on issues like 26/11.
Why? To answer that, let's go back to Times Now's reaction at Lalu's silence. The reporter kept asking why Lalu remained silent. Not once did it dawn on him or the studio anchor that the correct question should have been, why shouldn't Lalu have remained silent? Lalu is not the PM or the HM, he is not responsible for the investigation into the terror attacks or Karkare's death, so why should he comment upon another Minister's statements anyway?
The rot begins at the reporters. Car conferences are easy - you need to ambush a neta for barely 15 seconds before he disappears into the building. Once you do that you have footage that can be played on endless loop (Times Now displayed Lalu's silence thrice as I watched). They play on the egotistical nature of our netas who cannot resist the temptation of seeing themselves on TV and making statements.
The trouble is that car conferences are not a mode of information dissemination. Think about it, how measured a response can be given at a car conference within those 15 seconds? None, of course. All that can be done at a car conference is a sound-bite. Which is good for the TRPs but is utterly useless when it comes to information dissemination.
If the rot begins at the reporters, it continues with the politicians. Now that they have been brought up on a diet of car conferences where any and every Minister can be ambushed at his car, Ministers start making comments about any and every issue, whether under their purview or not.
The worst part of all this is that there is no accountability involved from the Minister's end. Unlike a formal press conference which is called by the relevant Ministry and demands accountability, a car conference is ad-hoc, it is done not at the Minister's choice but at the whims of the media. This would be a fine thing if the media were mature enough to ask the right people, but they aren't. What they want is sound-bites and the car conference is a medium which serves only that purpose.
The same attitude of no accountability carries on into the Parliament. Antulay gave his unsubstantiated and unstudied opinions on a subject he does not handle and had no business to be handling, because this culture of asking a Minister his view on any and every issue encourages it. The car interview encourages this mindset and this culture, and it encourages the sound-bite. When this happens, Ministers like Antulay want their share of publicity, so they say any and everything that comes to their mind. Obviously there are bound to be conflicting signals coming from the govt.
On the other hand, real information dissemination like a press conference called by a Ministry is rarer, and lesser covered in the media. If you get it, you mostly get snatches - again, soundbites. A press conference is where a detailed, and most importantly "official" (which means there is some accountability to go with it) response is given. Why are these not covered much? One, because car interviews are easier to get (you don't need to sit through a conference) and because the chances of getting juicy stuff (would Antulay be invited to press conference by the Home Ministry?) reduce. Unfortunately, the atmosphere of informality surrounding them directly encourages loose comments. It looks like the same culture is being carried over into the Parliament.
Times Now gleefully showed the number of embarrassing U-turns Zardari took, but Antulay might just have given India's answer to that.
As I said, this is a problem of the process, not of the people. Loose comments will continue to be made as long as the process is screwed up.
So how do you fix the process? One, for every major security issue, within hours if not minutes, the govt must decide which department(s) are authorised to comment on the issue in the media. In this case, it would be the Foreign, Home and PMO. Each of these could further subdivide which aspects each would handle. There are bound to be internal disagreements with other departments, but these should be brought out at the Cabinet, especially when heated negotiations with Pakistan are involved. There had better be an extremely good reason for them to air their differences in public. Two, innuendo by Ministers on ongoing investigations by other departments must be prohibited. What Antulay said, or Lalu's comment about the "suspicious" role of the opposition were innuendos, and they smack of utter irresponsbility and unaccountability. Three, car conferences need to be done away with. They serve absolutely no purpose other than TRPs. They do not spread information. They are more sound than light. To do away with them is not difficult - all Ministers need to do is keep quiet from the car to the building and ignore the reporters' questions, unless they refer to their own departments or are personal questions, in which case it is their choice. If information needs to be spread, let it be done by the concerned relevant departments at a press conference where they give it with reliability and most important, accountability.
This might have an additional positive side effect. Pranabda communicating exclusively through a press conference might look far less uncomfortable and initimidated than when he has a hundred mikes staring him in the face.
But Minority Affairs Minister AR Antulay has entered a completely different league by repeating exactly what has been the talking point of Pakistan's conspiracy theorists:
“There is more than what meet the eyes... Karkare was investigating some cases in which non-Muslims were involved,” he said. The minister then went on to explain why he is not in agreement with the view that Karkare was killed by terrorists. “Superficially speaking, they (terrorists) had no reason to kill Karkare. Whether he (Karkare) was victim of terrorism or terrorism plus something. I do not know,” he said.[link]
Predictably, this has set the cat among the pigeons with the opposition demanding his head. The political capital that can be made out of this is imaginable, so it's easy to understand what is driving the BJP to ask for his resignation. But what is disheartening is that most common people are also confining themselves to just asking for Antulay to be sacked or disciplined.
They are simply not seeing the real problem. The real problem, the real question we need to be asking is, what authority does the Minister for Minority Affairs have to speak on a terror attack while the investigations are going on? What authority does this Minister have to comment on a situation in which we are on a diplomatic offensive with Pakistan? This would hardly have been acceptable from a newbie politician, but Antulay is a veteran and should have known when not to comment. What made him and Lalu believe they had the right to comment on this issue?
This is not, I believe, a problem with the people alone. It is a problem with the process. This is the first thing I felt when I heard of Antulay's comments but couldn't put a finger on exactly where the problem in the process lay. Until yesterday, when I watched Times Now.
Apparently, Lalu Yadav had just arrived at Parliament and as usual, his car was beseiged by journos asking him for his comments on Antulay. Lalu gave no answer and silently walked into the building. The journos were gushing, in that now-commonplace high-pitched Sunny Deol-esque shouting voice, that it was very uncharacteristic of Lalu to do so. If true, then it would be one of the few rare occassions that Lalu kept mum when he should have.
A few moments later, there appeared footage of Foreign Minister Pranabda, again apparently in front of a car, with cameras thrust in his face. Now Pranabda in my opinion, is a poor choice for a Foreign Minister, a job that is as much PR as it is strategy. These days he looks positively uncomfortable, if not scared, when facing the camera. This isn't helped least by his relatively short height, which only increases the impression of his discomfort.
But coming back, that's when it hit me. It is perhaps these comments at the car which are the reason why Antulay and co believe entitled to comment on issues like 26/11.
Why? To answer that, let's go back to Times Now's reaction at Lalu's silence. The reporter kept asking why Lalu remained silent. Not once did it dawn on him or the studio anchor that the correct question should have been, why shouldn't Lalu have remained silent? Lalu is not the PM or the HM, he is not responsible for the investigation into the terror attacks or Karkare's death, so why should he comment upon another Minister's statements anyway?
The rot begins at the reporters. Car conferences are easy - you need to ambush a neta for barely 15 seconds before he disappears into the building. Once you do that you have footage that can be played on endless loop (Times Now displayed Lalu's silence thrice as I watched). They play on the egotistical nature of our netas who cannot resist the temptation of seeing themselves on TV and making statements.
The trouble is that car conferences are not a mode of information dissemination. Think about it, how measured a response can be given at a car conference within those 15 seconds? None, of course. All that can be done at a car conference is a sound-bite. Which is good for the TRPs but is utterly useless when it comes to information dissemination.
If the rot begins at the reporters, it continues with the politicians. Now that they have been brought up on a diet of car conferences where any and every Minister can be ambushed at his car, Ministers start making comments about any and every issue, whether under their purview or not.
The worst part of all this is that there is no accountability involved from the Minister's end. Unlike a formal press conference which is called by the relevant Ministry and demands accountability, a car conference is ad-hoc, it is done not at the Minister's choice but at the whims of the media. This would be a fine thing if the media were mature enough to ask the right people, but they aren't. What they want is sound-bites and the car conference is a medium which serves only that purpose.
The same attitude of no accountability carries on into the Parliament. Antulay gave his unsubstantiated and unstudied opinions on a subject he does not handle and had no business to be handling, because this culture of asking a Minister his view on any and every issue encourages it. The car interview encourages this mindset and this culture, and it encourages the sound-bite. When this happens, Ministers like Antulay want their share of publicity, so they say any and everything that comes to their mind. Obviously there are bound to be conflicting signals coming from the govt.
On the other hand, real information dissemination like a press conference called by a Ministry is rarer, and lesser covered in the media. If you get it, you mostly get snatches - again, soundbites. A press conference is where a detailed, and most importantly "official" (which means there is some accountability to go with it) response is given. Why are these not covered much? One, because car interviews are easier to get (you don't need to sit through a conference) and because the chances of getting juicy stuff (would Antulay be invited to press conference by the Home Ministry?) reduce. Unfortunately, the atmosphere of informality surrounding them directly encourages loose comments. It looks like the same culture is being carried over into the Parliament.
Times Now gleefully showed the number of embarrassing U-turns Zardari took, but Antulay might just have given India's answer to that.
As I said, this is a problem of the process, not of the people. Loose comments will continue to be made as long as the process is screwed up.
So how do you fix the process? One, for every major security issue, within hours if not minutes, the govt must decide which department(s) are authorised to comment on the issue in the media. In this case, it would be the Foreign, Home and PMO. Each of these could further subdivide which aspects each would handle. There are bound to be internal disagreements with other departments, but these should be brought out at the Cabinet, especially when heated negotiations with Pakistan are involved. There had better be an extremely good reason for them to air their differences in public. Two, innuendo by Ministers on ongoing investigations by other departments must be prohibited. What Antulay said, or Lalu's comment about the "suspicious" role of the opposition were innuendos, and they smack of utter irresponsbility and unaccountability. Three, car conferences need to be done away with. They serve absolutely no purpose other than TRPs. They do not spread information. They are more sound than light. To do away with them is not difficult - all Ministers need to do is keep quiet from the car to the building and ignore the reporters' questions, unless they refer to their own departments or are personal questions, in which case it is their choice. If information needs to be spread, let it be done by the concerned relevant departments at a press conference where they give it with reliability and most important, accountability.
This might have an additional positive side effect. Pranabda communicating exclusively through a press conference might look far less uncomfortable and initimidated than when he has a hundred mikes staring him in the face.
Monday 15 December 2008
Insaniyat
Scenario 1: A gangster and extortionist is killed in a fake encounter in the great state of Gujarat. Human rights organizations and other such bleeding hearts go on a rampage likening the Chief Minister to Hitler.
Scenario 2: The great state of Maharashtra, famous for its encounter specialists (one of whom died in the recent Mumbai attacks) does not have any of its Chief Ministers in the last 10 years called a Hitler.
Scenario 3: The great state of Andhra Pradesh refuses an enquiry into the murder in police custody of the three accused in the acid attacks case. Something tells me YSR isn't going to be painted in Hitlerian garb either.
Now while the rule of law needs to be maintained and fake encounters are entirely condemnable, it is an open question as to why the human rights of Sohrabuddin trump the human rights of the victims of MH's encounter specialists or the acid attack perpetrators.
Scenario 2: The great state of Maharashtra, famous for its encounter specialists (one of whom died in the recent Mumbai attacks) does not have any of its Chief Ministers in the last 10 years called a Hitler.
Scenario 3: The great state of Andhra Pradesh refuses an enquiry into the murder in police custody of the three accused in the acid attacks case. Something tells me YSR isn't going to be painted in Hitlerian garb either.
Now while the rule of law needs to be maintained and fake encounters are entirely condemnable, it is an open question as to why the human rights of Sohrabuddin trump the human rights of the victims of MH's encounter specialists or the acid attack perpetrators.
Wednesday 10 December 2008
Picking up the pieces
It's now two weeks since 26/11 and now, things are coming back to what we would term "normal". The hysteria whipped up by the media seems to be dying down as the much-famed "resilience" of the nation kicks into action, and nothing indicates this more than the elections in Delhi and Rajasthan, which happened after the Mumbai attacks and yet gave thumping victories to the Congress.
In less dark times, the US would have given us the standard song-and-dance about "restraint" while "strongly condemning" the "vicious" acts of terror. But these are not less dark times, and so between the escalating tension in this region and the impending change of guard in DC, the US needs to put up a better item number. Rakhi Sawant and Bipasha won't do; what's needed is Angelina Jolie dancing to the tune of Beedi Jalaile.
Pakistan, too has been giving us more. Instead of showing India the finger, they've coated the finger with honey hoping we'll lick it. The US at this moment is doing little more than pacifying matters, knowing fully well that once the hot-headed Indians cool down, the government will be more than willing to emulate a drunk Kumbhakarna. Pakistan, on the other hand, is doing the most it can to look like it's doing a lot, while actually doing zilch.
Pakistan's prompt arrest of Maulana Masood Azhar and Lakhvi, though, does suggest one thing - the theory that the LeT is out of the control of the Army and ISI, is bogus. Lakhvi and Azhar were not at all difficult to find and catch when Pakistan needed to do it for the sake of the cameras. What this proves, in case someone was still in doubt, that Pakistan is very much in bed with the holy warriors. It may be a rocky marriage, but they're not headed for a divorce any time soon.
A lot of very interesting things have emerged in the last few weeks.
For instance, Mr Dus Pratishat's piece in NYT echoing his now oft-repeated claim about non-state actors, about Pakistan being a victim of terror and other such standard fare. Credit where it is due, Mr. Z has written very well; his piece is one of the finest examples of spin doctoring, claiming that the attacks in Mumbai were directed at his country as well. This view has received the blessings of Condi, though of course it has nothing to do with the fact that the soon-to-be Obama-nation needs Pakistan's help in Afghanistan. However, Indians would do well not to buy the snake-oil and start pining with love for our peace-loving neighboring country. There are victims and then there are victims. A country which made terrorism a cottage industry was going down on its knees and begging for trouble. A country which invested in Jihadis and Mujahideens instead of doctors and engineers is bound to get what it deserved. If someone bangs your head on a hard rock, you could legitimately be called a victim. If you bang your own head on a hard rock, then you can hardly call yourself a victim.
So let's not get into pangs of heartbreak over the fact that Pakistan is now at the receiving end too - that is a monster of their own creation. At the moment, the interest of India is indeed in working with Pakistan (if they are ready to work in a meaningful manner) and bringing down the terrorists, but for our sake, not for Pakistan's sake.
Then there is this one Gnani Sankaran who advances the scholarly thesis that the Taj is not an icon of India because most Indians cannot go there. Perhaps Gnani Sankaran therefore does not believe that the Rashtrapati Bhavan is an icon of India, since most people don't go there either.
The paradoxically-named author also goes on to expand his thesis to suggest that the coverage of the Taj was because it was the "elites" who were for the first time targeted, and that the other icon of India, CST, was ignored because the elites were not involved there. I wonder which version of the attacks coverage Mr Sankaran saw, because the countless email forwards and photos shown on tv in endless loops included grainy pictures of an area that looked suspiciously like CST, and featured one Ajmal Amir. Times Now, headed by Arnab Goswami, was repeating ad nauseam the few seconds of footage from CST with the terrorists helpfully circled in red. I personally saw this footage no less than 50 times, and I wasn't even watching it continuously.
Also, in his enthusiasm to vent his class warfare bile, the author seems to have forgotten that we just witnessed 60 hours of a live hostage situation involving (as Shivraj Patil helpfully told everyone) 200 commandos. Anywhere in the world this would have attracted media attention. The elite factor may have played a role, especially when it came to the over-coverage of the food critic who died in the Taj. but it is undeniable that what was seen in Mumbai was unprecedented and arresting. Though of course, it is hard for class warriors to appreciate that.
One of the good things to have emerged out of this entire affair has been the extremely responsible response of the Muslim community. It has always been a pet complaint of many (including yours truly) that they never condemned the evil acts of their co-religionists with the fervor reserved for Hindu fundamentalists. Though to be fair, the same can also be said of the Hindu leaders.
What stands out this time though, has been the strong anti-terrorist signal being sent across by the Muslim community against these attacks. First it was the refusal to bury the terrorists, which is about as strong a response as can be given. Then it was the suggestion from the Deobandi Ulema to avoid cow slaughter keeping in mind the sentiments of the Hindus. Then it was the decision not to have the Babri Masjid protests this year as a sign of solidarity. Though there is nothing wrong with protesting per se, the Masjid-Mandir issue is a surefire bet to inflame passions, and the act of exercising restraint at this juncture speaks volumes. And it continued up to Id yesterday - many Id congregations in Bangalore prominently displayed at the entrance signs condemning the acts in Mumbai.
The gesture was reciprocated too. Though the media did everything they could to whip up anti-Muslim voices, including getting some "intellectuals" on a stage to repeat the same "why do we have to prove our patriotism" arguments, they didn't succeed much. There was little attempt, if any, to link ordinary Muslims with terror this time. Even the BJP stayed away from taking an overt anti-Muslim line. There is of course a lunatic fringe which will continue to exist, but that fringe has been marginalized more than ever before.
If the aim of terrorists was to humiliate and embarrass India, they did succeed. They exposed the chinks in our armor and made it look like child's play.
Yet India did prove resilient, in a completely different way. The almost complete absence of communal tones in the aftermath of 26/11 suggests an evolving, maturing society that seems to be learning from history. So do the election results in RJ and DL, which show that we are not voting on knee-jerk sentiments. It seems Indians see through the fake claims of the BJP on terrorism, having remembered that it was a BJP Minister who escorted terrorists to Kandahar.
So if the aim of terrorists was to destroy religious harmony, they have made a major miscalculation. It seems 26/11 has just brought India closer. The only question now is how long this newfound maturity will last.
In less dark times, the US would have given us the standard song-and-dance about "restraint" while "strongly condemning" the "vicious" acts of terror. But these are not less dark times, and so between the escalating tension in this region and the impending change of guard in DC, the US needs to put up a better item number. Rakhi Sawant and Bipasha won't do; what's needed is Angelina Jolie dancing to the tune of Beedi Jalaile.
Pakistan, too has been giving us more. Instead of showing India the finger, they've coated the finger with honey hoping we'll lick it. The US at this moment is doing little more than pacifying matters, knowing fully well that once the hot-headed Indians cool down, the government will be more than willing to emulate a drunk Kumbhakarna. Pakistan, on the other hand, is doing the most it can to look like it's doing a lot, while actually doing zilch.
Pakistan's prompt arrest of Maulana Masood Azhar and Lakhvi, though, does suggest one thing - the theory that the LeT is out of the control of the Army and ISI, is bogus. Lakhvi and Azhar were not at all difficult to find and catch when Pakistan needed to do it for the sake of the cameras. What this proves, in case someone was still in doubt, that Pakistan is very much in bed with the holy warriors. It may be a rocky marriage, but they're not headed for a divorce any time soon.
A lot of very interesting things have emerged in the last few weeks.
For instance, Mr Dus Pratishat's piece in NYT echoing his now oft-repeated claim about non-state actors, about Pakistan being a victim of terror and other such standard fare. Credit where it is due, Mr. Z has written very well; his piece is one of the finest examples of spin doctoring, claiming that the attacks in Mumbai were directed at his country as well. This view has received the blessings of Condi, though of course it has nothing to do with the fact that the soon-to-be Obama-nation needs Pakistan's help in Afghanistan. However, Indians would do well not to buy the snake-oil and start pining with love for our peace-loving neighboring country. There are victims and then there are victims. A country which made terrorism a cottage industry was going down on its knees and begging for trouble. A country which invested in Jihadis and Mujahideens instead of doctors and engineers is bound to get what it deserved. If someone bangs your head on a hard rock, you could legitimately be called a victim. If you bang your own head on a hard rock, then you can hardly call yourself a victim.
So let's not get into pangs of heartbreak over the fact that Pakistan is now at the receiving end too - that is a monster of their own creation. At the moment, the interest of India is indeed in working with Pakistan (if they are ready to work in a meaningful manner) and bringing down the terrorists, but for our sake, not for Pakistan's sake.
Then there is this one Gnani Sankaran who advances the scholarly thesis that the Taj is not an icon of India because most Indians cannot go there. Perhaps Gnani Sankaran therefore does not believe that the Rashtrapati Bhavan is an icon of India, since most people don't go there either.
The paradoxically-named author also goes on to expand his thesis to suggest that the coverage of the Taj was because it was the "elites" who were for the first time targeted, and that the other icon of India, CST, was ignored because the elites were not involved there. I wonder which version of the attacks coverage Mr Sankaran saw, because the countless email forwards and photos shown on tv in endless loops included grainy pictures of an area that looked suspiciously like CST, and featured one Ajmal Amir. Times Now, headed by Arnab Goswami, was repeating ad nauseam the few seconds of footage from CST with the terrorists helpfully circled in red. I personally saw this footage no less than 50 times, and I wasn't even watching it continuously.
Also, in his enthusiasm to vent his class warfare bile, the author seems to have forgotten that we just witnessed 60 hours of a live hostage situation involving (as Shivraj Patil helpfully told everyone) 200 commandos. Anywhere in the world this would have attracted media attention. The elite factor may have played a role, especially when it came to the over-coverage of the food critic who died in the Taj. but it is undeniable that what was seen in Mumbai was unprecedented and arresting. Though of course, it is hard for class warriors to appreciate that.
"This city just showed you, that it is still full of people ready to believe in good"
- Batman, in The Dark Knight
One of the good things to have emerged out of this entire affair has been the extremely responsible response of the Muslim community. It has always been a pet complaint of many (including yours truly) that they never condemned the evil acts of their co-religionists with the fervor reserved for Hindu fundamentalists. Though to be fair, the same can also be said of the Hindu leaders.
What stands out this time though, has been the strong anti-terrorist signal being sent across by the Muslim community against these attacks. First it was the refusal to bury the terrorists, which is about as strong a response as can be given. Then it was the suggestion from the Deobandi Ulema to avoid cow slaughter keeping in mind the sentiments of the Hindus. Then it was the decision not to have the Babri Masjid protests this year as a sign of solidarity. Though there is nothing wrong with protesting per se, the Masjid-Mandir issue is a surefire bet to inflame passions, and the act of exercising restraint at this juncture speaks volumes. And it continued up to Id yesterday - many Id congregations in Bangalore prominently displayed at the entrance signs condemning the acts in Mumbai.
The gesture was reciprocated too. Though the media did everything they could to whip up anti-Muslim voices, including getting some "intellectuals" on a stage to repeat the same "why do we have to prove our patriotism" arguments, they didn't succeed much. There was little attempt, if any, to link ordinary Muslims with terror this time. Even the BJP stayed away from taking an overt anti-Muslim line. There is of course a lunatic fringe which will continue to exist, but that fringe has been marginalized more than ever before.
If the aim of terrorists was to humiliate and embarrass India, they did succeed. They exposed the chinks in our armor and made it look like child's play.
Yet India did prove resilient, in a completely different way. The almost complete absence of communal tones in the aftermath of 26/11 suggests an evolving, maturing society that seems to be learning from history. So do the election results in RJ and DL, which show that we are not voting on knee-jerk sentiments. It seems Indians see through the fake claims of the BJP on terrorism, having remembered that it was a BJP Minister who escorted terrorists to Kandahar.
So if the aim of terrorists was to destroy religious harmony, they have made a major miscalculation. It seems 26/11 has just brought India closer. The only question now is how long this newfound maturity will last.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)