Where's the Story?

After two weeks of hullabaloo in twitter, Barkha Dutt allowed herself to be on the dock and be catechized by 4 senior editors in a special show on NDTV. It was twitter and other social media that kept this story alive and put pressure on NDTV to hold a show on Dutt’s involvement in the Radia tapes controversy. The controversy seems to signal the arrival of the social media as a watchdog of the traditional watchdog, mainstream media.

But one has to admire Dutt’s nerve to come out and face tough question from senior journalists and her newbie-nemesis, Open’s Manu Joseph. Though she took some time to state her defense with the help of some footage of her coverage of cabinet formation, Dutt took on some tough questions in the 48-minute show. Despite being prompted, she did not apologize for her conduct, but admitted that she made an “error of judgment” in dealing with Radia.

But most of the allegations leveled against her by commentators in the social media does not seem to hold true anymore. From being accused of corporate/political lobbying to colluding in the 2G scam, the netizens did not have very kind words for Barkha Dutt. But even though the editors tried, there was hardly any concrete allegation that could be made against Dutt. The closest to an allegation brought against her was that she did not report that a corporate lobbyist representing two big corporations was mediating between Congress and DMK. There was also the question of her being too close with Congress and the ethicality of exchanging information with sources.

That Manu Joseph went on harping about Dutt not doing her journalistic duty to report a particular story clearly shows that Open’s arsenal against her is limited. However, the allegation of killing a story is no small matter for a journalist. It’s common knowledge that the power of the press lies not in its ability to print stories it want but in its ability to not print stories others don’t want. Does Dutt’s supposed killing of the story amount to the press exercising this power? I don’t think so.

I think Dutt never killed the story but failed to detect a possible story. Manu Joseph said twice in the show that the story she failed to cover was the “story of the decade”. I hope he did’nt mean what he said, for if he did, it would mean that he has some peculiar ideas as to what constitutes a major news story. So what was this big story which Dutt failed to report? Its simple, Joseph says- “The source was the story”.

Now I am not aware of any instance where the fact that a source is well-connected is reported let alone become the “story of the decade”. The headline of such a story would have read-“NDTV source and lobbyist of Tata and Ambani also speaking on behalf of DMK”. Sounds hardly like the story of the decade. Doubt anyone would have bothered when it was still unsure as to who’d form the government. But even if Joseph feels it is a story, is it not a journalistic call whether it is to be reported? Yes, as concerned citizens we do not expect the press to act in a biased manner and cover-up major controversies. However, Dutt not making a story out of her source does not appear to be an case of cover-up or biased reporting.

A common misconception as to Dutt’s culpability is that she didn’t report that a PR agent of telecom players like Tata and Ambani was trying to push for A Raja as telecom minister. However, nowhere in the tapped conversations with Dutt did Radia lobby for A Raja or her clients. Radia seemed to be someone close to Kanimozhi speaking on behalf of DMK. She was giving some inside information from the DMK camp and the only message which Dutt was asked to convey to Congress (which she says she did’nt) was that Congress was speaking to the wrong people at DMK and should instead speak directly to Karunanidhi. Sorry, can’t see any story here.

The "gate" that isn't

The latest controversy that seems to be brewing all over India, except where it usually brews (TV media rooms, of course) is quite inappropriately titled "barkhagate". In fact, #barkhagate seems to be the most trending topic in twitter for the last two days. The controversy is of course the one surrounding the tapped phone conversations of corporate PR honcho Niraa Radia. NDTV’s Barkha Dutt, happens to be one of the many people Niraa Radia spoke to, while DMK and its Raja (though some say he is just their pawn) where deciding how to rob lakhs of crores of rupees.

The conversations with Barkha, as even the editor of Open (the magazine which published the phone transcripts) admitted, does not look remarkable. Most of it deal with quite boring information on the technicalities of which DMK MP gets what portfolio in the cabinet. The journalist was clearly eliciting as much information from her source, and her PR friend was in turn asking (as quid pro quo?) what her sources (in Congress) where telling her.

Clearly there was nothing remarkable in this. For how else have we developed a habit of knowing most government decisions beforehand. We expect our journalists to provide us as much information as possible, from their various sources, before it is formally announced. In this process of eliciting information, the journalist apparently promised to communicate to Congress leaders what her source is hearing from the DMK.

Nothing remarkable there either. But it does feel inappropriate if not unethical, that a media person communicates to a political party what a corporate agent representing another political party wants her to tell. Then there is the question of relying too heavily on information from corporate agents (Vir Sanghvi’s conversation underlines this point) and how this could affect the balance in a story.

Questions of impropriety aside, Barkha Dutt’s communication with Niraa Radia does not involve anything else to qualify it as another “Gate”. To say that she was lobbying for Raja is preposterous, to say the least. Also tweeting eye-catching nonsense such as “Barkha Dutt named in 2G scam” is nothing less than a vulgar smear campaign.

Naming a serious scandal Barkhagate, while doing injustice to the journalist, also trivializes the issue. Anyway, the term Barkhagate is quite tasteless and shows how unimaginative one can get. But then again, hasn’t the media been doing the same thing. Whenever they smell any semblance of a controversy, don’t’ they “gate” it. Does not media trivialize larger issues, give eye-catching nonsense as headlines and function under the assumption that everyone except the holier than thou media is corrupt. Isn’t the media now, to put it bluntly, getting a taste of its own medicine.

Why the heck does it attach the gate suffix to all issues and non-issues? How many Indians, if not the media persons who name these stories, are really aware of the facts original gate- “Dick” Nixon’s Watergate. Why was it called Watergate? Did America have one of our classic water crisis during Nixon’s rule? Creating a controversy, “Gating” it and Nixonizing the individuals associated with the Gate has been our classic media story. Our Nixon is always assumed to be guilty by the media. There is little examination into the nuances of the story and Nixon seldom gets to tell his side of the story (though the real Nixon had this opportunity).

And even when it is shown that the person in question has done nothing illegal or immoral, the media asks- Was it proper/ethical/ideal for the person to have talked to/have links with/ have seen together with so and so? If this is the level of scrutiny the media exercises on others, shouldn’t it adhere to similar standards for itself. Why cannot media introspect? Why shy away from asking tough questions about how they themselves work?

It seems quite ironical that the eerie silence on the issue is justified by the media on the ground that “proof” of quid pro quo was absent in this case. When the hell did the media start looking at proof before holding people guilty? And even if it did, why is it that the burden of proof is so much higher for a journalist than any other class of citizen. When it can “gate” anything that appears to be improper, why can‘t it even report- objectively- about the existence of these tapes. Barkhagate doesn’t sound so inappropriate now.

Woes of the Micro-finance Man

Nothing seems to be going right for SKS Microfinance. It wasn’t too long ago when SKS was called the best thing that happened to India and Vikram Akula a messiah. But now the image of the company and its founder-CEO are in tatters. From being considered as the best device to abolish poverty, Micro-Finance Institutions are know seen to cause farmer suicides. Akulia, who did his PhD on microfinance from Chicago, was in the Time Magazine’s list of 100 most influential people in 2006. Now with a messy child custody litigation and the talk of facing arrest, troubles seem to be chasing him.

Lets just see what else is troubling him. Its not just his wife, but Narayana Murthy “the mentor” seems to have also deserted him. His decision to take SKS public had earlier angered the undisputed father of microfinance- Nobel Laureate Mohammed Yunus. The latest issue is regarding the mysterious and unceremonious removal of the new CEO of SKS. In between all this his ex-wife has come out and said that he misappropriated money and forced her to commit illegal acts.

Few months ago, following a new ordinance regulating MFI brought in Andhra Pradesh, the AP Police had said that it would book Vikram Akula if they find any evidence of SKS using any coercive methods of loan recovery. It was the Andhra Pradesh High Court which came to Akula’s help by directing that no arrests were to be presently made under the new ordinance. Following a complaint of harassment by a woman borrower, a few recovery agents from SKS and another MFI were earlier arrested by the police.

Some weeks ago, SKS Microfinance terminated the appointment of its CEO- Suresh Gurumani, without giving any specific reason. SEBI has asked the SKS board to justify the reason behind dismissing the CEO. Since Gurumani was sacked, SKS shares plunged about 29 per cent. The bigger worry is why SKS has not come out and explained to the various stakeholders why the CEO was removed.

Infosys mentor Narayana Murthy recently said that SKS management must be open, honest and fair in all matters dealing with every stakeholder. Murthy’s venture capital fund- Cataraman had invested Rs. 28 crore for 1.3 per cent stake in SKS. Among rumors that Murthy has plans to exit from the investment, he said that Cataraman’s shares in SKS Microfinance would be locked in for a period of 2 years. Murthy however clarified that Cataraman had only decided to support SKS by the belief that transparent micro finance business would help the poor.

The biggest threat for Akula now comes from his ex-wife with whom he is fighting a child custody battle in US courts. She alleged that, as the head of the SKS Foundation, she was required to do illegal and unethical things by her husband. She made a serious allegation when she said that grants acquired by the SKS foundation for education programmes, sometimes made up for the deficit in the SKS Microfinance programme.

The genesis of the major debates surrounding MFIs, SKS in paritcular, was with SKS's decision to issue shares to the public. On July 28, 2010, among a lot of debate and distrust, SKS Microfinance made its IPO (Initial Public Offering) on the Bombay Stock Exchange. Akula and his supporters claimed that larger funds could enable SKS to reach out to a larger number of poor people. However, others questions whether SKS will be able to fullfill its social mission using the traditional profit-maximizing model of business.

People awaited to see how a successful MFI would change once it was under the control of the market forces. The main concern which Grameen bank founder Mohammed Yunus had with the IPO was the that it would be difficult for SKS to balance shareholders' interests with that of the people it was originally supposed to serve- the poor. Younis felt that by going public, MFIs would also start behaving like other private lenders- a loan shark.

Akula’s trying times may not be all his fault. CEO Gurumani, appointed soon after SKF’s IPO, was seen as a person who wanted to follow the retail banking model rather than an MFI model. So the inner squabble could well have been on principles. His ex-wife’s claims, surely has to be taken with at least with a pinch of salt as the divorce and child battle had really turned ugly. But here is the thing- SKS, and hence the future of MFIs in India, is in deep trouble. People had doubts over whether going public would really mess things up. It seems that SKS has managed to escalate these doubts.

Just a Place to Stay

Mukesh Ambani and his family will be moving into their new home later this month. Yeah, its no breaking news. Its just that the at a cost estimated anywhere between 1 and 2 Billion dollars, it’s the most expensive home in the world. In fact, it has no competition for the record was last time, as per Forbes, held by Candy Spelling’s Beverly Hills mansion- The Manor which is estimated to be worth 150 million dollars.

The humble home of Ambani, named the Antillia, is a 27-storey 570-foot high skyscraper on Mumbai’s Altamount Road. Each floor is twice as high as a normal building, else at 570 feet, one could have built a 60 storey tower with double the floor space. Even then, the interior space of the home is 400,000 square feet. Sorry, can’t think of any analogy for this.

The parking lot of the home, with a capacity of 168 mercs, occupies the first six floors. 600 servants will attend to the Ambanis- Mukesh, Nita, the three kids and Mukesh’s mother. The family will be residing on the top 4 floors, with its fine view of the city and the Arabian Sea. On Nita’s insistence, the building is made in such a way that no two floors will have the same plan or use the same materials. Mounted on the roof are three separate Helipads. Don’t ask my why three.

The main attractions of the “home” is a ballroom with 80% of its ceiling covered in crystal chandeliers and a 50 seat private movie theater. Antillia also houses a health club, dance studio, wine room, 9 elevators, lounges, guestrooms and elevated gardens. And yes, to discontinue the family trait of obesity, each family member has a separate gym.

The contrast is extreme. Mumbai, with the world’s largest slum, will have the most expensive home in the world. But we are quite used to such extremes for India, with the worlds largest number of poor people, is only behind USA when it comes to the number of billionaires. Sceptics would point out that just because millions are poor and hungry does not mean others can’t make money and flaunt it. We have learned to live with our contradictions, but should we celebrate it?

This is simply not a case where a hard-working man heading a company with an impeccable past has built his home in a legitimate way using his hard-earned money. The home is built on a land sold to Ambani to be used as an orphanage by the Waqf Board. And boy, what a wonderful orphanage has Ambani built.

The one acre land was bought by Antillia Commercial, a subsidiary of Reliance, for Rs. 21 crores, 20 times lower than its market rate. Waqf property can only be used for religious and charitable purposes. The property was to be used for looking after the destitute and orphan children of the Khoja Mohammedan community.

So much for Nita Ambani’s public display of love for poor children in the IPL circus. So much for CSR. Its all a sham. “Educate every child” campaign, et all. Next time you hear about a company’s commitment to social issues, don’t believe it. At least doubt the sincerity and never forget the possibility of harm they cause to others. At the end what matters is how much money you make, not how you make them. Looks like the Ambani legacy is still intact.

For a New Dynasty

The wait is finally over. For millions of Indians waiting for the entrance of another son-of-politician into politics, its party time. The new dynasty in the making will be in the name of none other than the hero of the urban folk- Shri. Laloo Prasad Yadav. The very statesman-like conduct of Laloo in the Parliament had already won the hearts of educated Indians spread all across the country.

Now, its expected that his son, Tejaswi, continue the suave and sophisticated style of politics carried on by the father. Many wish that scholastically, he matches with his much erudite mother, Smti. Rabri Devi CM (ex).The only contender to Tejaswi Yadav in this brand of politics could be one Akhilesh Yadav from UP. All progressive Indians are hoping that Akhilesh would successfully built an India of our dreams- an India, like how his father envisioned, without computers or English.

On September 24, a few weeks before the upcoming state assembly elections, Laloo formally introduced his 21 year old son to the nation. Apparently, Tejaswi was not the first-choice successor, perhaps due to a possible carrier in cricket following his stint for Jharkhand and Delhi Daredevils. Tejaswi’s elder brother, Tej Pratap, was the heir apparent until he realized that his destiny lies elsewhere- that of being an aviator cum spiritual guru.

In the media covered launch event of sonny Yadav, daddy Yadav said, "I think his political background will make him shine". No one had really imagined that that in a democratic country like India, the political background of a family mattered in any manner. It was indeed an ingenious revelation to all. Now that daddy Yadav enlightened us about the possibility of political background having some effect over the success or failure of a rookie in politics, it occurs to us that this phenomenon, is not restricted to Bihar or UP.

In most states, the dominant and emerging leaders of the ruling or opposition party, for some unkown reason come from political families. Be it Tamil Nadu or Kashmir, Orrisa or Haryana, Andhra or Rajasthan, Maharashtra or Karnataka. Even in the list of Yahoo’s top 10 young politicians of India, it is quite inexplicable that all the ten, with such unknown surnames like Gandhi, Abdullah, Pilot, Scindia, Sangma and Deora, had/have parents in active politics.

Of course all the "Young Turks" who made their mark in politics, did it by their individual efforts alone. We believe it when they say that their family name made it more difficult for them. The fact that all prominent leaders below 40 in India’s national and state politics come from political dynasties is of course, a mere coincidence.

The Buccaneer of Bombay

The contraband empire of the infamous icon, Haji Mastan is back in focus with the recently released Bollywood movie Once Upon a Time in Mumbaai. The main protagonist of the movie so closely resembles the smuggler of the 70’s that there was a court ordered disclaimer which declared that the character of the movie (Sultan Mirza) is not based upon Haji Mastan Mirza.


In the movie, Sultan (played by Ajay Devgn) like Mastan always wears white designer clothes, drives a white Mercedes, smokes imported cigarettes and with the trademark mustache, bears uncanny resemblance to Mastan. The life of Sultan also has many similarities with that of Mastan. Sultan arrives from Madras to Bombay as a kid, learns the tricks of smuggling young, sets up a contraband network, romances and finances films of a bollywood actress, becomes one of the most powerful men in Bombay and towards the end decides to stop illegal business and enters politics.


Due to the larger than life persona the don evoked, Mastan has occupied a unique space in popular imagination, thanks to Bollywood movies like Deewaar and Mukkadar Ka Sikandar which were also partially based on his life. But Mastan was more than a flamboyant-yet-benevolent Don who romanced Bollywood heroines. Mastan was a person with powerful contacts in the political, business and film world. Whether it be Sanjay Gandhi or Karim Lala or Bollywood heavyweights like Dilip Kumar and Dharmendra, Mastan had connections with the who’s who of that celebrated era.


With the crackdown on smugglers during the emergency period, he was arrested and spent a year and a half in prison. However, after meeting Jayapraksh Narayan, Mastan decided to quit his smuggling activities, went on a pilgrimage to Haj and undertook major efforts in helping the poor of his locality financially. He even flouted his own political party- the Dalit Muslim Suraksha Mahasang, with Dalit leader Jogendra Kawade. So much intriguing and multifarious was his life that Bollywood could have had a good film on his actual life.


The story of Mastan brings into picture some larger aspects about Indian society. Mastan’s life showcased the importance of having the right connections, man’s fascination with Bollywood divas and the ultimate quest for power. Mastan made his fortunes by smuggling transistor radios and watches- both were a rage in India at that time but its import was highly taxed. So in that way, Mastan’s prominence could be attributed to state policies in a protected economy. Perhaps, Mastan’s efforts to help the downtrodden also portrays the inherent goodness in man.


Moreover, Mastan’s popularity among the people represents, to a certain extent, the disconnect of mainstream politicians with people and people’s reliance on alternative centres of power. In this way Mastan evokes sentiments resembling those received by the Anti-heroes of Godfather and Sarkar. As an outlaw receiving public support, there can be analogies drawn to Robin Hood and many angry young man roles of Amitabh Bacchan. In real life too, from Maoists to Veerappan to Bal Thackeray, local support for state enemies are not strange in India.


Most importantly, the story of Mastan showcases people’s vulnerability in trusting such leaders. Why do we admire men who do not follow the rightful means to power? Is it because the men who occupy the legitimate seats of power are unworthy? Or are we just people who will support anybody who gives us what we want- regardless of how it is done? Perhaps Mastan’s life and the popular support represents, simultaneously, the selfishness and altruism present in all men.

How Caste is Cast Away

The debate regarding caste-based discrimination and reservation has dominated the political life our nation for long. Though everyone seems to agree that caste discrimination is undesirable, there has been a lot of opposition to the idea of caste-based reservation. This opposition became more vocal among the urban upper/middle class after Mandal Commission extended reservation to the OBC along with SC and ST.

Caste blindness is in vogue among the educated elite of modern India. The “My Caste is Indian” tag seems to be the in thing. It is the progressive step which every patriotic Indian who wishes the nation to be a more developed country is expected to take. Though caste blindness, as an idea, seems to be very noble, its implications could be negative.

Caste blindness leads us to say- all Indians are equal, should be treated equally. Why reservations? Why special treatment?- Constitution guarantees equality- caste based reservations violate equality. All this is said by the new educated Indian who does not realize that his views are contrary to that of the Constitution of India, in letter and in spirit.

The idea of equality, at least according to Indian Constitutional thought, means that equals must be treated equally and unequals, unequally. Our is nation that has practiced and propagated inequality, with religious sanction, for centuries. Lets not forget that India is the only state with a full-fledged caste system. We have shamelessly practiced a system where the social status is unchangeable and is purely determined by birth.

It is ironic, that the people from the upper-caste/class now allege that the government is practicing caste based reservation against them. But who are the people who have been denied positions due to their caste for centuries? Who are the people who have suffered due to the lack of opportunity, due to the absence of access to the resources? The question is never answered.

However hard we try to deny it, the fact remains that caste discrimination has always existed and continues to exist and almost always, it is the lower castes who constitute the lower classes. Pointing out a few exceptions where there is no convergence of caste and class will not make caste irrelevant.

It is due to these exceptions, the "creamy layer" principle exists- to make sure that the socially and economically advanced people among the lower castes are excluded from the quota. The caste based census by collecting the caste data from these groups can give solid evidence to the fact that we simply try to ignore- that caste and class converge.

If we takes a casual look at the surnames of all the "successful" people- deans, CEOs, doctors, lawyers, it would reveal how skewed our social system is. It has been the same upper-class/class section of the society that has continued to hold and control the social system. In fact a lot of what we are today are because we were born where we were.

With a self christened title of middle class Indians, the upper-class/caste Indians display their aversion to caste and all other identities that “divide India”. In this process, the existence of caste based discrimination is also denied. Though it looks ironic, its natural that the very people who have created and benefited out of this caste system oppose any caste based actions. After all the status-quo will always be better for the oppressor.

But caste based discrimination is now seen at an individualistic level which leads one to think that his/her "meritorious" rights have been denied. Caste is hence seen merely as a tool the politician adopts to exploit this patriotic middle class Indian. How much more myopic can one get. The caste of a person is hence considerd only when one is denied a seat in a government institution.

No one bothers to of what caste the domestic workers, the manual scavengers, the street sweepers or the beggars belong to. Caste is only observed when it affects a person at an individual level. Otherwise we are blind. How convenient. Unless one gets out of this urban, upper-caste, upper-class mindset, we will never be able to fathom the historic truths and social realities of India.

The Rupee Symbol- What it means?

The Indian Rupee symbol is out (as in its in). It’s perhaps the sign of a new era of the great Indian growth story. Maybe it isn’t. Or maybe it’s a sign of all the struggles, successes and contradictions that make this nation. Maybe its just a brazen attempt to get world publicity.

From a design angle it seems to be a winner. It looks fine and is easy to use. Perhaps it could have been more beautiful, but how difficult would it have been to inscribe the symbol in our daily use if it were so. Hence it wouldn't be wrong to say that it has found the right balance between looks and practicality. A sure shot winner of 'beauty with brains' pageant.

The symbol is more than just a combination of lucidity and charm. It is a combination of the Devangri script ra and the Roman R. Sign of the confluence of traditionalism and modernity, culture and urbanity, nationalism and internationalism. In other words, a sign of what independent India has come to mean, especially in the post-liberalisation era. Or so we believe.

Also we have the tricolour mounted on the top, flying high in the form of the two lines. The white portion in the middle (white?) is supposed to stand for the white of the flag with the bulge of the R/ra in its middle symbolizing the Ashoka Chakra. We have to imagine that the two lines are in the hue of saffron and orange, just to keep the Hindus and Muslims happy. An arithmetician would see the flag as the equals to sign, while the egalitarian living in him would see it as a sign of equality.

Beyond an analysis of the symbol, India joining the elite superpower club of Americans, Europeans, Japanese and Britons as the uninvited 5th member might symbolize something more. The uninvited brown entrant wants to end the exclusive party of the whites (and a yellow). The Rupee has entered the elite club and wants everyone, those in the club and outside it, to recognize her within one-and-a-half years, or else….

The adoption of a Rupee symbol seems not to be merely for the practical purpose of affixing a symbolic designation. In a more political and philosophical vein, it symbolizes the aspiration of a developing nation to challenge the existing world hegemony. It can stand to represent India’s desire to be recognized and a desire to alter the balance of power. Or at least, an attempt to make India’s soft power not limited to the mostly excruciating Bollywood movies.

But can the Rupee symbol emerge to be the sign of the awaiting superpowerdom that the nation believes itself to posses? Or have we got our aspirations wrong? Does the desire to be an economic magnate run contrary to the foundations of this nation? India’s freedom movement represented more than her desire to be an independent nation-state. It was an effort to break away from the burdens of the past, from the clutches of imperialism and for realization of her many dreams.

Freedom hence was a means to an end, the end being raising of the people to a level which gives every Indian the opportunity to develop himself to his fullest capacity. The rise of India should then mean the rise of Indians, if this does not happen, it is no rise at all. While “India” has developed at a fast rate in the recent past, can we say that “Indians” have developed in the same manner? The answer is sadly in the negative. Hence there must be every effort to translate India’s advancement to be the advancement Indians. And if at all the Rupee Symbol symbolizes anything, it must symbolize the reemergence of a nation whose people posses the capacity to lead a life in all its fullness.