There is no tomorrow!

I remember a conversation I had with one of my colleagues who was a staunch Roman Catholic. This was back in the 1990s when I was a journalist. Princess Diana and Mother Teresa had both died within days of each other. First, it was the “People’s Princess”, as the then British prime minister, Tony Blair had branded her, who was killed in a car crash in a Parisian tunnel desperately trying to give the persistent paparazzi the slip. Within a week afterwards, Saint Teresa (known as Mother Teresa back then) breathed her last peacefully at the headquarters of the Missionaries of Charity in Kolkata.

I had apparently irked my well-meaning Catholic friend when I mourned Diana’s death while seeming to be somewhat indifferent to the passing away of the little Albanian nun who had come to be referred to as the Saint of the Gutters. Therefore, for the record, I had to clarify that Diana was young, and therefore, her demise was untimely. Her children were still minors and she had not even turned 50. She had so much of her life ahead of her. On the other hand, the Saint had lived a long and successful life. She had responded to the call of her Lord and lived a life worthy of that calling. When she finally passed away at a ripe old age, it was not for us to grieve but to rejoice for a noble life that impacted many. Finally, the Saint had gone to be with her Lord.

Similarly, the untimeliness of the sudden demise of Sridevi makes it heartbreaking. She was merely 54—hardly the age that would remind one of human mortality. Almost five decades of that brief lifespan, cut short by a cruel quirk of fate, were spent before the camera. From a child actor, through her adolescence, she had gone on to evolve into the megastar she became, while still relatively young. There were other actors before her who had crossed over from the other side of the Vindhyas, but none had attained mega-stardom in south Indian cinema before their Bollywood debut. Sridevi was already a big star in Tamil and Telugu movies when she made the transition.

I shall not look back at her career from the dispassionate and disinterested perspective of a film critic. I would like this to be a personal tribute to the star and the woman. This post may not even be a typical tribute to the deceased, a eulogy with form and structure, laced with anecdotes and statistics. Essentially, this post is just a bunch of thoughts—personal recollections of a diehard fan. To be honest, I had not heard much of Sridevi as I hardly watched Tamil or Telugu movies at that time. 

However, her dramatic debut in Bollywood, opposite ‘the jumping Jack’, Jeetendra, in ‘Himmatwala’ changed all that, even as the film took Bollywood by storm. Incidentally, she passed away just a day before the anniversary of Himmatwala. The film set a new trend with its catchy music and colourful song-and-dance sequences and several other films followed suit, all of which were produced and directed by south Indians. Jeetendra’s flagging career got a huge fillip as he became a favourite of these mostly heroine-oriented movies.

I recall having watched most of these early films during my school and college days, marvelling at the versatility and vivacity of Sridevi. As I became her fan and especially looked forward to new releases featuring the first female superstar of Bollywood, I was held in thrall by her outstanding performances. From the vivacious young journalist chasing an invisible man in Mr India, to the adult child with accident-induced amnesia in Sadma, to the persistent lover of Lamhe, her films fascinated me no end. Her dance moves in Nagina in which she plays the mythical snake-woman were not just eye-catching but mesmerising.

The sheer range of emotions she displayed on screen was breathtaking. Shekhar Kapur, who directed Mr India, revealed in an interview how he did not know what to focus on when he stood behind the camera and watched Sridevi act. He recalled that it became a predicament, particularly during the shooting of the iconic 'Hawa-Hawai' song from Mr India. He lamented that while focusing on something specific such as zooming in on to her face, made him realise that he could miss something she was doing with the rest of her body.

At an awards function, when asked to pick the top three female actors of the time, Subhash Ghai had famously remarked that could not pick the top three but the top five. He clarified to a spellbound audience that while Sridevi was number one, no two of her contemporaries could be slotted into numbers two and three. In other words, he meant to say that Sridevi was by far the best actress of her generation. That I thought was a great tribute to the great artiste.

News of Sridevi’s death was a deja vu moment for me, as several years ago, when I was just a teenager, or probably in my early 20s, I had read in the morning newspapers the heartbreaking news of the passing away of Smita Patil, another great actor, whose diehard fan I was at that time. These untimely deaths of two outstanding actresses of different eras have taught me two vital lessons of life: never take life for granted, and never procrastinate. As my late father used to say, “what you can put off for tomorrow, do it today, and what you can put off for today, do it right now.”

I have been guilty of procrastination, putting off creative endeavours for later. I have allowed a couple of stories that could potentially form the plot and storyline of novels incubate in my mind for almost a decade. I have been guilty of indolence. Not putting pen to paper, or in the modern context, hitting the computer keyboard, feels like having committed a crime now. As Osho said in his characteristic style, “There is no tomorrow”. 

If only Sridevi would have had a premonition of her short lifespan, I doubt she would have taken a 15-year break from acting. But then, that is something we would never know for sure, would we?

Reflections -- Where are you, O God?

When life begins in the mother’s womb
But, it ends up becoming the unborn’s tomb
When casualness meets convenience
And, fledgling life taken without repentance
Where are you, O God?

When an infant is exposed to the elements to die
And, the perpetrator doesn’t even so much as sigh
When patriarchal society degenerates into insanity
And, the girl child suffers such brazen inhumanity
Where are you, O God?

When the male offspring is the privileged one
And, the female just for chores to get done
When his stomach is full and he goes to school
And, she is left to cook and wash by the pool
Where are you, O God!

When the innocence of a little girl is violated
And, the perverse pair of pupils not dilated
When supposed guardians become exploiters
And, supposed protectors become assaulters
Where are you, O God?

When a spinster is paraded like cattle
And, the bachelor’s family makes it a battle
When she’s only worthy of what she brings
Even in this day, behold how true it rings
Where are you, O God?

When dowry becomes a lingering issue
And, she feels pain in every tissue
When blamed for her husband’s impotence
And, his lineage gets all the importance
Where are you, O God?

When bruised and battered by violence and taunts
And, the ghost of impending death still haunts
When not killed for dowry but dumped for another
And, she’s the scapegoat for she’s the other
Where are you, O God?

When she’s unwanted by her own parents
And, siblings become social norms’ adherents
When people on both sides strip her of dignity
And, she’s expected to show them magnanimity
Where are you, O God?

When it’s back again to being in vision’s range
And, perverts who never think it strange
When to them it’s all her deliberate fault
And, the self-righteous feel she’s not worth her salt
Where are you, O God?

When interaction with unrelated men raises suspicion
And, her character held to ransom by public opinion
When making a new beginning seems a distant dream
And, much like scaling a mountain it begins to seem
Where are you, O God?

When rejected by in-laws, unwelcome among her own
And, the seeds of her future ruin are truly sown
When despised by society and open to exploitation
And, it’s as if life’s genome has undergone mutation
Where are you, O God?

When this is all there is to a woman’s fate
And, she’s treated similarly by father and mate
When even the men she bore respect her no more
And, society becomes rotten to its core
Where are you, O God?

When she’s ever so desperate but has nowhere to go
And, she wonders whether she can turn to you or no
Will you rescue your own creation—half of humanity?
Or, leave them helpless and crying in unanimity
Where are you, O God?

Progressive Pontiff’s Efforts Stymied by Conservative Bishops

When Pope Francis ascended the throne of Saint Peter, to perpetuate the institutionalised succession to the office of pontiff, to preside over the destinies of about 1.2 billion faithful, spread across the globe, both believers and non-believers alike were full of hope and optimism. A Jesuit from Latin America, obviously, made him an interesting choice. That it was not a straightforward one was obvious from the time it took for the final proclamation of the new pope’s election. Speculation has been rife in some sections of the print media, that cardinals had tenaciously jostled with one another for leverage, to install a man of their choice to the highest ecclesiastical office in the Roman Catholic Church. Conservative elements among them, speculated ardent church watchers, must certainly have left no stone unturned to scuttle any move made by ‘progressives’ to elect somebody like Pope Francis to the high office of the ‘Vicar of Christ’.

Historically, the highest echelons of ecclesiastical power in Rome have viewed Jesuits with a degree of consternation. The radical and man-centered theology formulated and tested in the crucible of the volatile Latin American social milieu, which came to be known, somewhat controversially, as ‘liberation theology’, disconcerted a predominantly conservative and orthodox clergy all the way up to presiding popes themselves. That is why the Society of Jesus, to which Jesuits belonged, was sought to be suppressed and their activities circumscribed from time to time. It was in this context that most people found the elevation of the current pope nothing short of historic. That his immediate predecessor, who chose to retire to a quiet life of contemplation, after an uninspiring stint in the top job, meant that the new pontiff had his task cut out.

Pope Francis did not disappoint. He made all the right noises as soon as he assumed office. His open condemnation of pomp evidenced in extravagant lifestyles of clergymen brought cheer to the underprivileged relegated to the back pews of church congregations. His Christ-like tolerance of children even while celebrating mass or make important pronouncements in ecclesiastical assemblies warmed the cockles of the hearts of the faithful. Catholics, the world over, waited for major announcements, signalling reform in church organisation and revision of its doctrinal positions. If the statements of intent, which were made in the beginning of the two-week synod of some 200 Roman Catholic bishops from around the world was anything to go by, it seemed like the hopes of millions was not going be belied after all.

The preliminary 12-page report signalled flexibility on homosexuality, marriage and divorce. It explicitly stated that homosexuals had “gifts to offer to the Christian community”. It suggested that pastors recognise “positive aspects of civil unions and cohabitation”. The landmark report also conceded that “situations like divorce were often imposed and not chosen”. Pope Francis himself was quoted as having said, way back in July 2013, “If a person is gay and seeks God and His good will, who am I to judge?” The tone seemed to have been set for robust debate on burning topics of today. The liberal pope seemed to have come out of the closet (no pun intended). Sadly, those who got swept off their feet by the initial euphoria failed to comprehend the constricting stranglehold conservatives had on the Catholic Church. Alas, subsequent events proved this beyond a doubt. The two-week secret synod of bishops failed to reach a consensus on the two most divisive issues: on welcoming gays and, divorced and civilly remarried couples.

Perhaps it best exemplified the age-old antithetical adage: ‘the more things change, the more they remain the same’. While the Roman Catholic Church can potentially blaze a new trail and change overnight, given the overarching authority it reposes in the office of pope, in practical terms, it is easier said than done, given the sizeable presence of powerful lobbies with vested interests that would not allow a liberally inclined pope with a radical agenda to rock the boat easily. Sadly, this is precisely the reason why the Roman Catholic Church has had to battle increasing irrelevance in the modern age. Dwindling church attendance in predominantly Catholic countries, especially in Europe and America, coupled with a serious dearth of talent available for priesthood has failed to shake ‘no-changers’ out of their complacency.

Is it any wonder that even practising Catholics seem to have conveniently compartmentalised their lives into the religious and the secular. While they may attend mass regularly and say their prayers at home, whenever the situation demands it, their faith seems to have an ever-diminishing influence on the choices their make in their personal lives—from being in a live-in relationship to divorcing their spouse, and from pre-marital sex to the use of contraception for birth control, are all clearly not in conformity with church doctrine. This may well have resolved the dilemma faced by thinking adherents of the Catholic creed in this day and age. However, it has pushed others with unresolved self-conflict over the precipice of disbelief, as some of them have failed to come unscathed from such a protracted crisis of faith.

The choice before the Catholic Church is clear. It can either change with the times or become totally irrelevant. First and foremost, it needs to set its house in order. Allegations of sexual abuse levelled against priests, some of whom have gone on to become bishops, have tainted the church. Its treatment of gays despite overwhelming medical evidence, which suggests homosexuality is inborn and not adopted as a way of life, exposes the inhuman underbelly of the Catholic Church. Its stubborn refusal to recognise the spiritual potential of women, by ordaining them to priesthood, relegates half of the community to the sidelines lending gender discrimination religious sanction.

The Church’s views on family planning and contraception are so out of touch with current realities, not to mention their inherently anti-women orientation, that they are justifiably observed more in their breach. Let alone modern-day challenges, sadly, the Catholic Church has not even been able to resolve an age-old concern—priestly celibacy. Ironically, the Bible makes a mention of the apostle Peter’s mother-in-law, which clearly indicates that the disciple of Christ whom the Catholic Church considers its first pope was not a bachelor or celibate! Isn’t it time that the Roman Catholic Church came to grips with modern trends and did itself and its adherents a favour by examining its own practices and ushering in reform? Otherwise, it stands the risk of being fossilised into a relic of the religious history of mankind, irrespective of its contribution to the spiritual evolution of human beings through the ages.

 

Time to Make the Fourth Estate More Accountable

We pride ourselves in being the world’s largest democracy. Indeed, democratic institutions in India are more deeply entrenched than they are elsewhere in the subcontinent. The executive can survive and continue to function unhindered only for so long as it continues to enjoy the confidence of the lower house of our bicameral legislature. The legislature itself is accountable to the citizens of India whose vote lends it the legitimacy to legislate. The judiciary has a clearly defined constitutional role and responsibility with inherent checks and balances to ensure that it does not supersede the executive and the legislature in matters of legislation and governance. However, what about the so-called “fourth estate”? Where does it stand?

In light of the News of the World scandal and the Leveson Inquiry, subsequently, the culture and practices of the British press have been undergoing a great deal of scrutiny and criticism. Apart from involving government officials and policymakers, celebrities such as Hugh Grant have become prominently involved, bringing transparency into sharper focus. Arguments regarding the need for transparency in the UK have been especially prevalent since governments in the European Union have started to follow in American footsteps by issuing access regulation, sharing many features with the US Freedom of Information Act. What about us? Where do we stand? What about the Indian media, especially its TRPs-obsessed electronic variant? Has the time finally come to make the Indian media more accountable?

As it is, the print media has been tainted, recently, by allegations and insinuations of paid news. This has eroded the credibility of many a media house. Amid such a crisis of confidence in the veracity of news and views disseminated in the traditional format, the electronic media seems to have emerged as a quick-fix alternative for overworked professionals and multi-tasking homemakers, with ever-diminishing attention spans. More than the question of whether or not the switch has been worthwhile, we ought to ponder over the conduct of the fourth estate overall and decide once and for all whether or not we need to put in place a system that would make it more accountable. After all, our media moguls enjoy as much name and fame as a Bollywood star or sports celebrity these days. They are, in a manner of speaking, as much public figures as are the politicians they like to grill over television for cheap thrills.

After watching ‘News Hour’ on Times Now last night, I am more convinced than ever before that the media—especially the electronic media—ought to be made more accountable. Prevailing self-regulating mechanisms have lacked teeth, and have, therefore, scarcely been able to bark, leave alone bite. Vested interests hold sway and powerful lobbies dictate the content and slant of news presentation. The aforementioned news show discussed the supposed faux pas made by former Pakistan president, Parvez Musharraf, during an interview to a Pakistani TV journalist in which he is supposed to have openly suggested that Kashmiri insurgents needed to be “incited” by Pakistan. When Arnab Goswami played the tape of the interview though, which was in Urdu, it was clear that he had said: “...unhein incite karne ki der hai”. This could well have been interpreted differently given the context of the interview and the statements that preceded the one in question. Perhaps, a more fair interpretation of it could be: “…all it would take is inciting the people of Jammu and Kashmir”. He did not explicitly and unequivocally state that Pakistan ought to incite the people of J&K.

However, Arnab Goswami, who got all hot under the collar, would have us believe that Musharraf had in fact said, “we must incite the people of Jammu and Kashmir” to rise up in mutiny against in the Indian state. No wonder his Pakistani guests, three of them, refused to oblige him by apologising for what Musharraf had supposedly said, as Goswami understood it, despite the latter's crude insistence on it. That Goswami’s knowledge of Urdu inter alia is severely limited was embarrassingly obvious even to a casual observer. Two of the three Pakistani participants in the debate were ex-servicemen of the Pakistani armed forces and they were not amused by the insinuations of Goswami, who went over the top in his characteristically strident style. That Goswami often comes across as a self-opinionated pompous ass who is too full of himself and whose sole concern is his own self-aggrandizement is clearly evident from the way ‘News Hour’ in general and his own persona is advertised on Times Now. Personally, I find it quite nauseating.

Even when a normally sober and civilized individual like Seshadri Chari, the one-time editor of the RSS mouthpiece, Organiser, and a former member of the National Executive of the BJP, lost his cool and openly called the Pakistani participants “jokers”, Goswami was totally unable to control him and bring about an element of sobriety in the discourse. That Chari should have dubbed Pakistan’s leaders “thugs” and “criminals”, and openly called for the dismemberment and destruction of Pakistan, did not help matters as it raised the hackles of the Pakistanis on ‘News Hour’, one of whom went berserk, and boasted that Pakistan was capable of making Indians “shit in their dhotis!”  Is this how TV debates ought to be conducted? Can one find fault with Mani Shankar Aiyar who branded Goswami “the most shallow television journalist” in India?

Anyway, I would like to pose a few questions for the readers of this article to ponder over? Should we allow news channels to get away with just about anything? What if the content of their programmes, the topics of discussion on their shows, the statements that are made by irresponsible participants on national television, would convey the wrong signals about India to the big wide world? If the likes of Chari, who is known to be a Hindutva ideologue, openly call for the dismemberment and destruction of Pakistan, would the Modi government be able to make any headway in bringing the likes of Hafiz Saeed to justice? Would not such jingoism beamed into homes abroad, including, perhaps, in Pakistan itself, cast a shadow on the peace process with that country by strengthening the hands of hawks in the Pakistani establishment? Who then is responsible for what happened during ‘News Hour’ on Times Now on the evening of 16^th October 2014? Should the anchor not bear the brunt of the brickbats he may well receive, and justifiably so, for his unwillingness or inability to control and streamline the direction of the debate to ensure that it remained within the bounds of decency and propriety? You tell me…

From Sangh Pracharak to World Statesman

Much has already been said and written about Prime Minister Modi’s US visit. Therefore, I would not like to dwell on the specifics of his sojourn there. I would prefer instead to broaden the scope of this article, to highlight the man’s evolution from an RSS pracharak, of whom nobody had heard, to a world statesman, with whom most world leaders wish to engage. By any stretch of the imagination, it has been a remarkable journey. Who would have imagined that a young lad—a humble chaiwala’s son—who had left home to serve his country, would someday rise to the position of the prime minister of his vast and diverse nation? Clearly, to borrow a Churchillian phrase, he was “destiny’s man”.

What makes the Modi story so special is that it could well be construed to be the stuff of folklore by future generations. The man was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He did not belong to any of India’s premier political dynasties. He did not go to Doon School or attend St. Stephen’s College, leave alone pursue his higher studies at Oxford, Cambridge or Harvard. He grew up going to a Gujarati-medium school and assisting his tea-vendor father after school hours. Yoked to a girl he never knew, in what was obviously a child marriage, which he did not even consummate, young Modi left the comfort of home to “serve his country”. That is what his family recalls him having told them.

For many years as an RSS pracharak, Modi operated out of a single-room, rented house and led a simple and frugal life. Hardly anybody outside the RSS had heard of the young man. He was nobody’s blue-eyed boy, not even in the BJP, a party that is supposed to have always been supported and nurtured by the RSS. In fact, often, he seemed to be out of favour with state-level politicians, many of whom used to accuse him of promoting factionalism. That was why, at one stage, he took a sabbatical and travelled to the US where he spent a few months reflecting on his life.

As pointed out by a famous TV anchor covering his US visit, interestingly, it was Vajpayee who asked him to return to India when he had visited the US as the prime minister. Little did Vajpayee know that the man who had very few friends, leave alone benefactors, would someday become the prime minister of India himself. In fact, even Vajpayee was soon to bay for his blood in the wake of the post-Godhra riots in Gujarat. Even the great Atal Behari Vajpayee must not have imagined in his wildest dream that this same Narendra Modi who win the BJP a majority on its own in the Lok Sabha. That was something even Vajpayee was unable to do despite his long innings in politics and his obvious gifts.

Narendra Modi had held no political office previously, leave alone contest elections at any level, and was only seen occasionally in TV studios defending the BJP. And suddenly, he was catapulted to the position of the chief minister of Gujarat, at a time when the state unit of the BJP was battling factionalism, defections, and low morale. While he had to contend with Shankar Sinh Vaghela on the one hand, he had Keshubhai Patel to deal with on the other. Barely had he managed to calm the storm and get a grip over the administration of the state that the post-Godhra riots broke out. With almost the entire Indian media turning hostile towards him and even Prime Minister Vajpayee publicly reprimanding him, many would have thought his days were numbered. Had the then home minister, L.K. Advani not stood by him, Modi’s political career may well have ended there and then. And, in retrospect, perhaps, L.K. Advani rues that decision… No prizes for guessing why!

Once he had weathered the storm of constant media scrutiny and criticism, not to mention judicial activism and international slurs, all stacked against him, there was no turning back for Narendra Modi. By now he had honed his skills as a shrewd tactician. He unobtrusively shifted the discourse of the political class in his state to development and assiduously cultivated the image of a chief minister who had a liberal outlook on life. His sartorial elegance also began to get noticed in his home state, so much so that he even lent his name to a popular brand of half-sleeved kurtas. The workaholic chief minister, who gradually consolidated his position in the party and the government at the state level, was eventually able the deliver the miracle of three successive election victories for the BJP. Clearly, he had begun to position himself for a bigger role in national politics.

That he should have eventually been officially declared to be the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate, despite stiff opposition from party stalwarts like Advani, was not entirely surprising. Atal Behari Vajpayee had gracefully retired from active politics owing to ill-health and Murli Manohar Joshi was never in the reckoning for the top job. Jaswant Singh did not enjoy the confidence of the RSS. And, Advani himself was too old. Besides, he had failed to deliver results for the BJP during the general elections in 2009, when the UPA was re-elected with a stronger mandate, so much so that they did not need the Left to prop them up by extending outside support to them in the Lok Sabha any more. Surely, the ‘Lauh Purush’, as Venkaiah Naidu had branded him, had become rusty with age!

The election campaign of the BJP in the run-up to the 2014 general elections, spearheaded by Modi himself, would make for an interesting case study for psephologists across the globe. The first-of-its kind presidential-style campaign with deft use of social media was truly remarkable. Modi’s emphasis on development with catchy slogans such as, “Sabka saath, sabka vikas”, succeeded in touching a personal chord among an ever-eager electorate desperate for change. That is why his promise of “achhe din” resonated with the masses who gave him a massive mandate, the first in 30 years at the Centre. Modi crisscrossed the length and breadth of India, living largely on dhal soup and lemon juice during his hectic electioneering, during which time, he sometimes addressed up to five rallies in a single day. His message was clear to Indians all over: if they cast their vote for a BJP candidate, they would be voting directly for him. In the ultimate analysis, that won Modi the elections. In any case, with the Aam Aadmi Party in self-destruct mode and the Congress bent double under the weight of anti-incumbency, the BJP emerged as the clear choice of the people of India.

The first 100 days of Modi’s government have definitely shown much promise. The prime minister has repeatedly emphasized that he has been elected for five years and has insisted that he be judged for his performance at the end of that period. Time will tell whether Modi is able to deliver on all his promises, and go back to the people with a good report card, just before the next general elections. However, a job well begun is a job half done. If one were to use that maxim as the yardstick to evaluate Modi’s first 100 days in office, he has certainly done a reasonable job.

Narendra Modi symbolizes the hope of ordinary Indians who aspire for a better life. Even NRIs and PIOs have been enthused by his assuming power in New Delhi. The rock-star receptions he received in the US clearly indicate his popularity among the Indian diaspora abroad. That he holds no grudge against the US, despite having been shunned for close to a decade and treated like a pariah on account of the Gujarat riots, exhibits his ability to rise above petty personal grievances. The very same country that withdrew his visa for close to a decade rolled out the red carpet to him. The manner in which Modi conducted himself throughout his US visit warmed the cockles of the heart of many a patriotic Indian. His understanding of global geo-politics, his grasp of current economic realities, and his deft diplomatic footwork, have won him the admiration of his counterparts abroad.

His speech at the United Nations General Assembly, in Hindi, was that of a world statesman. His call for constituting a “G-All” as against constituting smaller groups for economic gains will be specially remembered. His refusal to get drawn into a bilateral spat with Pakistan over Kashmir should have convinced the US and other major world powers that the time had come to de-hyphenate India and Pakistan, and deal with the former as an emerging world power that was positioning itself to do business with the rest of the world as an equal. Surely, the metamorphosis of Modi is complete. The humble RSS pracharak has come a long way. He has evolved into a world statesman. Who cares if Delhi’s elite still turn their noses up at the humble chaiwala’s son? Well, I for one don’t! Do you?