Some thoughts on writing a book

Raju Korti
As a tenderfoot writer, I have been advised by many in the past on how to write. The best one that I have learnt is to ignore them and start writing. That little piece of realization helped me glide through my first book which is set to see the light of the day soon. I was also told the hardest part of the exercise was putting one word after another but in another brilliant stroke of enlightenment I found a book writes itself. You are just the hand that puts everything on paper.
As a youngster I often dreamt and yearned to write a book but never followed the passion with the perseverance it called for. I had any number of subjects to choose from. The only hitch was how to lend substantivity and depth to the pledge that I had taken with a commitment that I never failed to flaunt at my friends. They never took me seriously and thought I was speaking through my hat which was justified given my habitual laidback attitude. So it was nothing short of a battle won when I steeled myself to write one although I was overtaken with a series of self-doubts. To make matters worse I chose to write the biography of a man considered a legend in his lifetime.
I was warned by naysayers and cynics. If they felt I was incompetent to handle a personality as titanic as the late Mohammed Rafi given his four-decade career, they weren't off mark. But in the end, like all well meaning friends they kept egging me. I soon found out that writing a book is at once tough and easy. Tough because you need to be assiduous in putting together what are accepted as genuine facts and minute details with no margin for error. Easy because you can visualize it in black and white once they are at your disposal.
There are many biographies on Rafi, all eminently forgettable. That was a rallying point. It propelled me to write faster and piece together a book in three months -- something my friends well conversant with my procrastination were hugely surprised with. More than them I surprised myself. Finding a good publisher to me was more of a fluke than judgment. Talk of dame luck! Since the last month, I am trying to grapple with the idea of having turned an author. So are my friends.
The royalty cheque paid to me by the publisher was more than a lottery to my gloating mind. It spurred my pen with a compelling sense of urgency. The making of the book went through its usual list of travails but finally it was a story of all-is-well-that-ends-well.
More than the sense of achievement what it has done to my limited writing abilities is to plan more books. Why not ride on your luck when kismet is more than willing to take you the distance? So there I am planning two more projects one of which is ready to take off in a few days from now. I hope the same sense of urgency will manifest when I pen down those.
In the early stages of my career, some of my colleagues, better writers than me, never made secret of their ambition to write a book. It is just that my frittering has turned out to be better than theirs. To all those who want to write a book, I have an unsolicited piece of advice.
People are afraid to write books because they fear people will read them and find them worthless. Write as if nobody is going to read and throw your work into the public dustbin. Somebody may find it and consider it a treasure.

Sheen lost? Return the awards!

Raju Korti
To refuse or return awards is another way of accepting them with more noise than is normal. This seems to have been the guiding philosophy of those who returned their Sahitya Akademi Awards protesting the "silence" of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the Dadri lynching incident.
For most liberals or conservatives, wake up calls come at the politically opportune times. So you can't really fault the likes of Nayantara Sehgal or Ashok Vajpeyi whose otherwise nagging conscience was in deep slumber when the country's political landscape was smeared with black ink right from the days of partition scripted with bloodshed. Thereafter, riots became just another reason in the long list of sharp divides in the country's polity.
I didn't get into writing to win Akademi Awards. Nor is there even a remote possibility of me winning one in future. Award winners are made of different mettle (or metal?). However, as someone who never won any award, I must make it known that an award would be welcome enough never to be returned. In any case, the main purpose of my writing is to seek a conversation with the audience.
If I ever win a Sahitya Akademi Award the thought of returning it will not be entertained whatever the provocation. It is stupid and disgraceful to return an award that was once supposed to have been accepted with all "humility". If you had a conscience in place, you would actually never accept it in the first place because sooner or later -- to your skewed political thinking -- the award would prick you enough to recompense it. That makes for poor reflection and introspection for those who loudly proclaim their political credentials. To my credit, as I have bore time and again, I do not subscribe to a set agenda or any particular theory. When you embrace a particular line of thought without any consideration for the other, you become a slave to it. They are slaves who dare not be in the right with two or three, least of all liberals.
I believe that those who have returned their awards must not only return the mementoes, they should also return the cash amount with interest. At least that will show some righteousness if not a thinker's conscience. The chest beating media seems to have forgotten to ask this question to Sehgal and Vajpeyi. On their part, they too have cleverly kept mum. That is selective conscience.
I have recently authored a magnum opus which I hope is considered for the Sahitya Akademi Award. There are more in the pipeline. Even before the committee considers me worthy of it, I am prepared to give an undertaking to them that "award once accepted will not be returned under any circumstances".
The Sahitya Akademi is an apolitical organization devoted to the cause of Literature. Both Sehgal, Vajpeyi and their ilk forget that they are not given because someone is pro or anti-establishment. But publicity is far better than an award when the time is convenient. More so when the award had already gathered dust in your drawing rooms for years. Awards don't pay a mortgage.
Having said that I earnestly believe that awards are not the only markers of success. My judgments are not based on them. As a writer, I have my own mental trophies.
For me, it’s not about winning an award. It’s also about not even being nominated. But if and when an award comes, it will be a keepsake and not a weapon.

Of Modi and dictatorship

Raju Korti
Three decades after she received the Sahitya Akademi Award, it has occurred to writer Nayantara Sehgal's perceptive wisdom that the country's plural fabric is getting torn apart. That in all probability is a red herring when you know she makes no bones for Prime Minister Narendra Modi's studied silence on the Dadri lynching incident. Having made her anguish vocal on Modi's "fascist dictatorship" she has decided to return the award.
Whether out of selective amnesia or political expediency, as part of the Nehru family, Sehgal has chosen to overlook that the pluralistic nature of Indian polity was torn apart repeatedly right from the country's partition days to the anti-Sikh riots and the Gujarat riots if you discount the countless fractures it has suffered from time to time. But of course, this blog is not about Sehgal per se. It is how Modi routinely lends himself to extreme worship and extreme revulsion for the same reasons -- whether it is his 56-inch chest or his sartorial sense.
I do not see much change in Modi beyond certain cosmetic protocols since he continues to be obstinate enough not to change from the days I met him as a state leader in the mid-eighties. Calling him stubborn and inflexible might amount to dictatorship if we indulge in semantics. And yet, Modi is not in the same league as Pol Pot of Cambodia, General Pinochet of Chile or the more despotic Idi Amin of Uganda all of whom presided over military juntas. Modi is just a speck in comparison if you make concession for his unbending leanings. But he never hides his self-righteousness anywhichway.
In his spate of tours abroad in recent times, Modi has thrown all protocol to the winds and poked ridicule at his political rivals which of course has been countered in similar measure. Whether a prime minister's foreign visits should be aimed at creating international goodwill and bring investments to the country or use it as a platform to spew venom against his rivals back home is a debate that will never end. Modi is not known to be a protocol fetishist. We all know the protocol. But more powerful than our protocol is our grooming to believe in something more. The Indian Prime Minister seems to have more conviction in the latter, take it or leave it.
Years ago, Shiv Sena patriarch Bal Thackeray had stirred a hornet's nest by making out a case for a "benevolent dictatorship." Having officiated over a monolith party for well over four decades, Thackeray sought to create a Teflon-coated dictator who had a vibrant democracy and people's welfare at heart. Thackeray, like many others of his ilk, had little to do with the fact that the difference between democracy and dictatorship is in the former you vote first and take orders later. In the other, you don't have to stand in serpentine queues for voting. Modi's case appears to be that of "I believe in benevolent dictatorship provided I am the dictator."
Without sounding fair or unfair to Modi, let me say this: When Liberty becomes a license, there is a dictatorship at your doorstep. All leaders from Gandhi to Modi have been licentious if you realize what I mean. The gullible have a Hobson's choice.

Butt yours truly!

Raju Korti
Its time singer-actress Jenifer Lopez surrendered all the accolades she has earned for her famed derriere to a man she probably may not know. He has actually stolen it right from under her butt with an impunity that is now so uniquely associated with him.
The former president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) who has just been replaced by Shashank Manohar, an astute administrator with clean record, refuses to bow out. He even makes clear through his actions that he has more grit and determination than any Indian cricketer in recent times. If only they could take a leaf out of his voluminous book! There cannot be a better mascot for his own company India Cements the way he stuck to his position when allegations about his "conflict of interest" flew so thick and fast that even the Supreme Court could not ignore.
Srinivasan is being investigated in multiple scams, including the notorious IPL cricket betting where his son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan has been severely indicted for hobnobbing with bookies. Gurunath is cooling his heels behind the bars while Srinivasan celebrates himself as the Chairman of International Cricket Council (ICC) and Managing Director of India Cements. He is also being investigated as a in the corruption involving politician Jagan Mohan Reddy. In March 2014, the apex court ordered him to quit as BCCI president to facilitate investigations into the IPL betting scam.
He did that but not before making light of the court order. It is difficult to believe that as the President of Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, Srinivasan wasn't aware of the "conflict of interest" arising out his franchise the Chennai Super Kings. It is funny how wheels of justice catch up. Srinivasan in all probability will be hounded Manohar whom he replaced in 2011. His long stints with the industry ensured that he remained unruffled in the wake of the media and national outrage that sought his resignation. To his credit or discredit he hung on to his post although various courts asked him step down. Surprisingly, he also got away from being hauled up for contempt of court.
To some people even notoriety is an effective substitute to public fame.
In tune with his characteristic, Srinivasan gave away the Cricket World Cup trophy to the winning Australian team -- which should have been the prerogative of ICC President Mustafa Kamal. Prior to the final, Kamal had stirred a hornet's nest with his statements regarding umpiring in the India-Bangladesh quarterfinals. ICC reportedly had a meeting and decided that Kamal would not be allowed to hand over the trophy. Srinivasan had also expressed his extreme unhappiness over Kamal's comments in the same meeting, causing an embarrassed Kamal to walk out of the final before the match even finished. He later quit his position as the President, and vowed to expose the people behind the "mischievousness".
The Board of Cricket Control in India (BCCI), under its new president Shashank Manohar, told the Supreme Court on Monday that it considered divestiture of Chennai Super Kings' shares by former BCCI president and ICC Chairman N. Srinivasan a "sham".

Shortly after the assurance by Manohar to clean up BCCI's image in the next two months, the BCCI did not mince words about its former chief when it told the Supreme Court that Srinivasan is still in a position of conflict and continues to hold commercial interests.
 Having left it to the BCCI this may be the first time the Board has openly distanced itself from  Srinivasan following the severe dent its image suffered during the IPL betting and match-fixing controversy. The other cricket associations are none too enthused about Srinivasan's continued defiance. This time round the battle seems to have reached a decisive phase. But Srinivasan has hung on in a brazen display of intractability. I have words that make for an excellent  quote for him: "I have worked too hard to conquer power. I will not allow anyone to take her away from me."

I am just a journalist. That's it!

The operative word is "bias".

Raju Korti
Having banged my head in the thankless profession of Journalism for almost 35 years I can assure you that many of my ilk consider themselves as superior than thou in their infinite wisdom. That overwhelming feeling never overtook me because I was too inconsequential and much too detached to take sides as is the wont of my professional colleagues. As a struggling rookie I realized pretty soon that there is more enjoyment that comes from being unattached and balanced. In any case I didn't have the gall to be slanted in my writing though I have my personal views.
The immediate provocation for writing this blog is my fellow journalist and friend Mayank Chhaya who I have been reading more than I do myself. In his blog "Of being abused and praised as a journalist" he says how amused he is when people attach motives to his views and writings. Having   gone through this situation any number of times before, I can relate to his blog.
Writes Mayank: "As an independent and politically detached journalist for 33 years, I have been frequently called names. Somehow readers think name-calling is an effective substitute for intelligence and substance. My most intense reaction to name-calling is very mild amusement for about three seconds. I never engage the abusers because it is futile to do so. More often than not they come from a place of deep intellectual dysfunction. They are also on an incompatible level of literacy.
During the pre-internet days, when the distance between the journalist and the reader was fairly wide and often unbridgeable, name-calling existed but not with the kind of crass ferocity that you encounter these days. The internet, propelled by social media, has made abuse and invective convenient, cheap and instant."
I can summon all my professional integrity and vouch that I have never subscribed to any particular "...ism" or "...sophy." It is just not me to be bogged down with ideological baggage that is politically driven or motivated. But try hard as I might, it is virtually impossible to shrug naysayers who will impute motives to whatever you write. Time was when I took such abusers to heart. These days I take them as "hits" much like TV channels who rate themselves on TRPs. It is one great way to retain your sanity or whatever little is left of it.
I have been called a Leftist, Rightist and a Centrist from time to time. There have been times when I wonder whether I have been a "liberal" or "intolerant" whatever those terms mean. I once made a fleeting remark about Modi cutting bureaucrats to size. The knives were out in no time. I became a saffronist and a right winger out to promote BJP agenda. I had made an off the cuff remark about how Sonia Gandhi and Bal Thackeray made for an interesting comparison given that both had shunned political posts. My learned friends on Facebook labeled me as a "Khangressi" and a Congress stooge. The only consolation I could draw from the epithets I received was I had ben catapulted into the league of Kumar Ketkars.
A few years before while dwelling on the Crimean crisis, I attempted an objective study of Russian President Vladimir Putin. In a matter of 30 minutes I was an "avowed Commie" in the eyes of the same people who saw the saffron in me. To cut the long story short, they will take swipes at you anyhow -- Right, Left and Centre.
Many of my pro-Kejriwal friends were thrilled to pieces when I wrote that the AAP was welcome phenomenon in the vitiated political scenario that obtains in the country. They clammed all ends up when I called him a "fascist buffoon" after his experiments with Delhi. I have been a "liberal" and "conservative" every now and then that makes me believe that I must be a versatile man of many colors and parts.
Yet, I have managed to have more than a thousand friends in my fold. I am waiting for the day when some "liberal" or "conservative" will actually reward me by unfriending and/or blocking me.
Sometime back, for sheer fun, I wrote : "When someone claims to be a "liberal" or a "conservative", rest assured it is a load of bunkum. They are just masks that fall off at the drop of a hat. We are all "liberals and conservatives" to the extent it suits us." I was slammed by Liberals and Conservatives alike.
Any more name calling? More "hits" are welcome.