The Two Indias

Its often been said that there are two Indias. Its taken to mean that there is an India of the cities and an India of the villages, of prosperity and poverty, of mall goers and cattle grazers. But in a different sense, there are, in fact, two Indias. For the term India has come to mean two things. One is the Indian nation, comprising of all its people and the government. The other is the Indian cricket team or Team India as its fondly called.

While the two Indias in the traditional sense co-exist despite being in continuous conflict, the two Indias in this sense is supportive of each other. This is because Team India has, over the years, come to represent and symbolize the Indian nation. And nothing and nobody symbolizes Indian cricket like Sachin Tendulkar. Cricket and hence Tendulkar (or is it the other way around?) has had a significant role to play in the formation of the idea of India, at least in the last couple of decades.

The very mention of the word India is often assumed to mean the Indian cricket team. I still remember the days when as I young boy I used to listen to Doordarshan news to check whether India had won a particular match. Whenever the newsreader mentioned the word India, I would get excited for I assumed she was speaking of India;s match. It was confusing and disappointing to realize that she was in fact speaking of some agreement India had entered with another country or how India was planning to eradicate polio.

The pre-match show in Times Now had the headline “India for India”. It might appear confusing for others but every Indian knew what the two Indias meant. It simply meant that India (the nation) was rooting for India (the cricket team).

After the world cup victory, LK Advani was on the phone line in CNN IBN speaking of how the match would help Indian nationalism and patriotism and develop respect for the national anthem and national flag. (And perhaps convert such passionate nationalism into Hindu nationalism)

That Indian cricket has contributed to national unity and integrity is a fact that no one would contend. War would perhaps come a close second to cricket when we list out the things that unite India. Most cricket fans hope that IPL will not join the politics of religion, region, caste and class as the things that divide India.

Its ironic that despite inherent connections between Team India and the Indian nation, the Indian cricket team is by law not playing for India. Its playing for a charitable society registered in Tamil Nadu under a colonial legislation. BCCI has no affiliation to the Sports Ministry or the Government of India in any way and hence the Supreme Court also felt that it cannot be held to be part of the Indian state.

But what the Supreme Court says or Government thinks hardly matters to the public as there is nothing more representative of India than its cricket team. Saturday was one of those rare moments in which the Indian team was not merely representative of India but came to define the will of an entire nation. The two Indias had become one. And many other competing ideas of India had also become one. India had become India.

The Lives of Others

Kiran Rao’s Dhobi Ghat is everything that Bollywood isn’t. It’s slow, largely silent, nuanced and indeterminate. Its also not a classy Hollywood-like picture one always wished Indians made. Even those who enjoyed off-beat Bollywood movies like Peepli Live and Taare Zameen Par coming form the same production house many not like this film. There is no clear plot to speak of let alone the classic three acts of a movie. Its not entertaining, exciting or even very engaging. Yet it is beautiful.

That the masses, fed with the regular masala flicks, will not like the film is now a truism. Call it what you want- an art film, avant-garde cinema or parallel cinema- but any person who wishes to watch cinema beyond its entertainment quotient will be interested in the movie even if the person may not completely enjoy it.

What strikes you most about Dhobi Ghat is the realism involved in the film. All the characters and their attributes seem completely real. The characters aren’t filmy nor is the story. In fact, almost throughout the movie, the viewer may forget that they are in fact watching a movie and not merely the actual lives of four people.

The movie is not fast paced. Awkward silences and acts of character that have no real effect on the story are not edited out. Towards the end however, the movie becomes more engrossing as it gets more dramatic. Whether one laps up the unexpected drama or not, it is the ending of the film that will linger in your minds long after you leave the cinema. However, what takes away the realism of the film is that its chief protagonists keeps bumping into each other all through the movie.

The movie is perphaps an ode to Mumbai born out of the director’s love for the city. But its much different from other romanticized, exoticized, impoverishized or gangsterized takes on the city. Its almost a nonchalant and platonic ode. For it shows that life in Mumbai need not be as lively and vibrant as its said to be. It can be very lonely- like any other big city in the world. It may be the city of dreams, but many of these dreams and aspirations remain unrealized.

It captures the life of 4 individuals from 4 different social backgrounds living in the city. A rich NRI on a sabbatical (Shai) or a swanky but lonely artist (Arun) may not represent Mumbai as much as a housewife (Yasmin) or a dhobi (Munna) does. But through the story of the intermingling lives of the different protagonists, the story of Mumbai is told.

At least, the story of different people who come to Mumbai with different aspirations is told. Mumbai being the 5th character in the movie wasn’t mere publicity hype. At many instances, especially through the camera of Shai and camcorder of Yasmin, Mumbai becomes the focus rather than the backdrop of the movie.

There are multiple themes running in the movie. A prime concern is how people from different classes interact. The unlikely bonding between Shai and Munna is hence mocked by Shai’s friends while her maid‘s reaction is worse. It also shows how the various attributes of the city touches the life of the characters in different ways. While from his plush balcony, Arun stretches his arm to capture the rainwater in his whiskey, the same rain causes Munna to climb up his tentament and fix the leak it caused.

Another aspect of the film is how each character is an object of obsession or desire for another. Yasmin for Arun, Arun for Shai and Shai for Munna. There is hence a sense of voyeurism in the movie. Yasmin’s interest in the life of others forms an object of interest for Arun who apparently is in object of Shai‘s interest- all of which is watched by the ultimate voyeur- the audience. The audience watches how Shai, through her camera watches how Arun is capturing in his art what Yasmin captures in her video.

The movie’s strength lies in the portrayal of the four diverse characters by the actors. Prateik (as Munna) delivers the most memorable performance of the film as the guileless yet ambitious dhobi. Monica Dogra (as Shai) delivers a convincing and appealing portrayal of an NRI on a break. Kriti Malhotra (as Yasmin) appears most comfortable in her role as a housewife turning disillusioned with her life. Aamir Khan (Arun) though appeared to be miscast in the beginning, delivers the role of a sombre artist to near perfection.

The background music is sparingly used in the film. But wherever its used, Gustavo Santaolalla score adds more intensity to the film. Tushar Kanti Ray’s cinematography captures the lives and moments in Mumbai in a real yet captivating way. What makes Dhobi Ghat so beautiful is of course the screenplay and direction of Kiran Rao. Whether you love it or not, Dhobi Ghat is a cinematic experience which one rarely gets to witness.

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.