Jack without the European Union!

Raju Korti
In a historic decision the people of Britain have voted for an exit from the European Union. There seems to be much belly-dancing over a decision which is being seen as having major ramifications for the nation, but no one seems to have a clear word on the political course in store after this referendum.

A file grab from Encyclopaedia

As expected the decision has warmed the hearts of Euro-sceptics around the country. On the flip side it has also sent the European economy into a tizzy with the Pound hitting an all time low since the last thirty years. Prime Minister David Cameron who resigned after the referendum outcome was known, has dropped hints that it will take at least a couple of years for the divorce to come about. This road-map, however, is fraught with uncertainties and poses a formidable challenge to his successor. In a carefully cultivated language that is patently British, Cameron has sought to outline his limited role in near future. "I will try everything within my means to steady the rocking ship but I think it would not be right for me to captain a ship that should steer the country to its next destination." Considering the upheaval it has caused in economic terms, two years are not much for Cameron's successor to reflect on the future course of action.The Euro-sceptics are already rejoicing. They believe the Brexit is a great opportunity for the country to find its voice again even as global markets have become nervous like never before. The biggest question is the uncertainty after Britain formally exits from the EU because one would expect the country to draft its trade agreements all over again. At the moment, given the flux, it is not clear how the country is equipped to tackle the market and economic volatility. There are pluses and minuses on both sides.On the one hand, the European countries have every reason to keep trading with UK since it happens to be a large importer of goods and services. On the other, foreign companies will be less inclined to invest in the country. The bigger worry is they may be forced to relocate their headquarters if Britain loses access to EU's single market. However, one thing is absolutely clear: With the country voting to exit EU, it will not have to pump in billions of Pounds every year to the Union's budget. Little wonder many are convinced that this would serve as a major shock absorber for the present economic turmoil that won't last much longer.There are other question marks. For instance, what happens to the British expats in other European countries and issues relating to immigration. Likewise, one also cannot put a finger on how the Brexit compromises on Britain's ability to fight terrorism. It is also not without reason to argue that the UK will now be much less influential on the international stage because it won't be in a position to get involved when crucial decisions are made. Even bigger is the question will the Brexit rip EU apart?

A similar but possibly more niggling echo might be heard in Ireland long divided between a protestant North that's part of the UK and an independent Irish republic in the South. If the tensions today are are minimum it is because EU rules guarantee the right to move across the border. There is every likelihood that the UK withdrawal from the EU might lead to border tensions. One outcome could be Northern Ireland could unify with the rest of the Ireland.
There is a lighter side to this drama as well. If reports are to be believed post-Brexit, Britishers are said to be going on an overdrive Googling "What is the EU?". Imagine, of all the people, the British starting to wonder about the implications of their choice. That is so un-British!

Jack without the European Union!

Raju Korti
In a historic decision the people of Britain have voted for an exit from the European Union. There seems to be much belly-dancing over a decision which is being seen as having major ramifications for the nation, but no one seems to have a clear word on the political course in store after this referendum.

A file grab from Encyclopaedia

As expected the decision has warmed the hearts of Euro-sceptics around the country. On the flip side it has also sent the European economy into a tizzy with the Pound hitting an all time low since the last thirty years. Prime Minister David Cameron who resigned after the referendum outcome was known, has dropped hints that it will take at least a couple of years for the divorce to come about. This road-map, however, is fraught with uncertainties and poses a formidable challenge to his successor. In a carefully cultivated language that is patently British, Cameron has sought to outline his limited role in near future. "I will try everything within my means to steady the rocking ship but I think it would not be right for me to captain a ship that should steer the country to its next destination." Considering the upheaval it has caused in economic terms, two years are not much for Cameron's successor to reflect on the future course of action.The Euro-sceptics are already rejoicing. They believe the Brexit is a great opportunity for the country to find its voice again even as global markets have become nervous like never before. The biggest question is the uncertainty after Britain formally exits from the EU because one would expect the country to draft its trade agreements all over again. At the moment, given the flux, it is not clear how the country is equipped to tackle the market and economic volatility. There are pluses and minuses on both sides.On the one hand, the European countries have every reason to keep trading with UK since it happens to be a large importer of goods and services. On the other, foreign companies will be less inclined to invest in the country. The bigger worry is they may be forced to relocate their headquarters if Britain loses access to EU's single market. However, one thing is absolutely clear: With the country voting to exit EU, it will not have to pump in billions of Pounds every year to the Union's budget. Little wonder many are convinced that this would serve as a major shock absorber for the present economic turmoil that won't last much longer.There are other question marks. For instance, what happens to the British expats in other European countries and issues relating to immigration. Likewise, one also cannot put a finger on how the Brexit compromises on Britain's ability to fight terrorism. It is also not without reason to argue that the UK will now be much less influential on the international stage because it won't be in a position to get involved when crucial decisions are made. Even bigger is the question will the Brexit rip EU apart?

A similar but possibly more niggling echo might be heard in Ireland long divided between a protestant North that's part of the UK and an independent Irish republic in the South. If the tensions today are are minimum it is because EU rules guarantee the right to move across the border. There is every likelihood that the UK withdrawal from the EU might lead to border tensions. One outcome could be Northern Ireland could unify with the rest of the Ireland.
There is a lighter side to this drama as well. If reports are to be believed post-Brexit, Britishers are said to be going on an overdrive Googling "What is the EU?". Imagine, of all the people, the British starting to wonder about the implications of their choice. That is so un-British!

For the love of bike!

Raju Korti

Friend-colleague Sharad Rotkar on a Bullet.

I do not recollect how and when my love for bikes turned into an Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. I suspect the transition had something to do with driving four-wheelers. When I started driving cars some thirty years back, I realised that there was not enough stirring in it to send my adrenaline soaring. I found -- and still feel -- driving four wheelers was no fun, no adventure simply because there was no balancing involved. What's the fun when the car is brought to a halt without those last minutes of anxious wobble? The bike assured a breath-taking and screeching halt almost as effectively as you see in advertisements. Riding a motor-cycle, unlike driving a car, was like wearing a badge of masculinity on the sleeves.  If you wonder what provokes this blog, it is a picture posted by an old friend and Indian Express colleague Sharad Rotkar astride a bike with an expression Arnold Schwarzenegger would have envied. But knowing him, I know it was more of an advertisement for Jawa which we all dreamt of having under our butts. Our limited finances, however, made us do peace with the toy Lunas and mopeds. Riding a Jawa or a Bullet happened occasionally when a friend was magnanimous enough to lend it for a short while.Discussions on the technical advantages and disadvantages of different brands were dissected threadbare with each one of us holding forth on which motor-cycle was the best and why. By and large, we were all hooked onto Bullet and Jawa, which to us, were ultimate symbols of macho. A few of our friends never hid their pride at owning a BSA American which was far beyond our hopelessly limited finances. But dreams don't cost a dime and our imagination never failed us on what it would be like to ride a BSA American or a Harley Davidson.
Our obsession ensured we were exceptionally good drivers which was much before the government decided in its limited wisdom that driving without helmet was unsafe. Whenever friends loaned a Bullet or a Jawa, we would go for long rides out of the city as if we were the real owners. The bike was loaned but our prides were not. They were our very own. We were good even if the machines were uncharitably dubbed as mean. The smell of an engine stirring to life and its strokes was music to our perennially pricked ears. If nothing else, we would park ourselves in front of a bike showroom and soak in those brand new machines wondering when would the good day dawn when we would own one.
While driving, however, our heads would be firm on our shoulders. Rash driving was out of question. Rather we thought there was a greater sense of fulfilment in driving at cruising speeds. Driving was a pleasure we wanted to cherish. Only on one occasion I remember the two of us had gone to a place some 70 kms away to meet a friend. That visit turned out to be more exciting than we had thought. We ran into some bootleggers there who were considerate enough to offer their lethal concoctions to us in rusted pan masala tin boxes. It was only when they started climbing on us in their drunken stupor that we realised it was time to take a quick exit. That was the only time when we drove so fast, we were practically standing on the accelerator. If we didn't met with an accident it was more by fluke than judgement.The one thing we were unanimous about big bikes was there was no need to tonk horn. The mere look and the engine sound was enough to scare people out of the way. The big bikes usually called for wearing shoes because for a vehicle like Jawa the kick-start was hard and tough. The bike was mostly used by hefty "doodhwala bhayyas" carrying large milk cans on either sides. The Bullet was a slightly more polished variety because of its regal appearance and the quality of drive it offered although a kick backlash spelt a potential disaster.
As it happened in other spheres of life, the bike world underwent a cosmetic transformation from early eighties when the 300 cc machines were replaced by the 100 cc and 150 cc varieties like Yamahas and Hondas. For us, hard-boiled for years on heavy machines, these were poor variants -- the same difference between gold and rolled gold. We drove the newer, leaner machines but that sense of satisfaction always eluded. Sadly, the heavier ones were almost edged out of the competition. Jawa stopped production after mid-nineties while Bullet has become a no-no because in terms of fuel it is not as cost effective. In our estimate, however, the gratification took precedence over the cost.
The Bullet also known as Royal Enfield is now only a few owners' pride and many others' envy. I have often seen 100 cc bikers casting jealous glances at an occasional Bullet driver whizzing past them. A Harley Davidson or other such brands can be found with only the rich and enthusiasts like Dhoni and John Abraham to whom money is not an inhibiting factor. Bahut naainsaafi hai.
Today, these motor cycles are pages almost lost in history. After all, we live in times when life itself is a crazy ride and nothing is guaranteed.

Gender-bending James Bond

Raju Korti
There is a great sense of achievement, testosterone and fun being able to live out your masculinity when you play an action role or an action-adventure or a real tough guy. If the latest ferment on the internet and western media is to be believed, the patented machismo of 007 James Bond is seriously threatened by an aggressive brand feminism that one has come to see in the last couple of decades.

A file grab of the trailer on female Bond.

Having read almost all of Ian Fleming in my impressionable school days and left awestruck by Bond's on-screen stunts peppered with technology advances scientists would fantasize, there was this unshakeable but utopian image of his character in my head. From time to time -- or so I felt -- this image took a little beating when the Bond switched his skin from Sir Sean Connery to Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan to Daniel Craig with assorted hunks like David Nigen, George Lazenby and a Timothy Dalton thrown in. So hooked we were as youngsters on Connery that it took sometime for us to reconcile that anyone else could also be licensed to kill. We had animated discussions on who was the real Bond until a few movies later we began to placate ourselves that Moore wasn't a bad choice either. I recollect as having read that Moore and his son were once sitting in a restaurant when in walked Connery. Seeing him, Moore's son said not-so-charitably "here comes the real Bond". Moore just smiled but there is no means to know whether it was genuine or forced. In all probability Moore Junior was also brought up on From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and You Only Live Twice. The Bond image was assiduously built up on a masculinity that no male -- of for that matter female -- could resist. This masculinity now is confronted by a pushy feminism even if that sounds like a feminist remark. However, a female Bond could redefine the James Bond franchise in the best possible way if it hasn't already escaped your attention that the women in Bond movies are no less enterprising, adventurous and have as many tricks up their sleeve.
Bond, Jane Bond, sounds as much interesting if you are prepared to accept Bond's change of gender. From what I have read, it is now a race between Emilia Clarke and Gillian Anderson (with our own Priyanka Chopra no less interested) and Leonardo Di Capri as their Bond boy. There is also a long list of men who are rumoured to be the one who will drink his Martini, shaken not stirred. Speculations are also rife that if cast, Idris Alba would be first Black Bond. So it is not just the gender but also the colour of his skin.
In her pitch, Clarke is convinced about this role reversal as a defining moment. Casting a woman is not merely about change of name and looks. A Jane Bond may not be shown as grappling with gender equality or issues that stand up as metaphors for the obstacles real women fight every day but It would be interesting if she does that in her movies as a sidebar. The battle begins with clinching the role in the first place and convincing that a female Bond could work well when the male protagonist is so firmly entrenched in people's psyche.
Bond films often portray sex as a weapon in and against 007's favour but if it comes to a female Bond, the idea would seem diluted. So her image would have to be suitably de-constructed, a challenge for the likes of Albert Broccolis and Guy Hamiltons. Jane Bond cannot afford to be just a bewitching woman in a male fantasy but a well rounded character who sticks to the core idea of being a secret agent compatible with a women's empowerment story. This is a chance for Bond makers for a gender correction to create a strong female hero. Still, that acceptance could be tough because there is this majority conviction that the swap won't work. The idea of woman taking the position of a man when you know James Bond has been an unwavering and accepted convention. It would be a tough call for Bond makers to reboot a 53-year-old franchise and package it for an audience for whom the very concept can be jarring.
A female Bond may or may not materialise but there is also this radical proposal that it was time the Bond was politicised. So far the Bond's raison d'etre was to safeguard the postwar order in the West. A case is being made out that the new 007 should go political and take on the real-life politicians who want to plunge the world into war and climate chaos -- issues like violent Jihadism, Russian intransigence, Chinese expansionism and refugee crisis. That would alter the Bond that Fleming had conceived in the fifties and make the hero more contemporary although I cannot resist wisecracking that it would be a case of Bond with the worst.
The concept of a female Bond may appears misogynist at the moment but why not experiment with misandry for a change? If James Bond can womanise, Jane Bond can have her share of men too. After all, to err is not always woman.

Bach ke rehna baba, hum patrakar hain!

Raju Korti
Many of my colleagues who have banged their heads in this thankless profession for decades like I have done; are going to pan me for this but truth be told. Unvarnished and unadulterated truth though some of them will sweat themselves dry on the semantics of what is truth. More so when truth gets meshed in a tangle of lies, half lies and half truth.
I went into Journalism to learn the craft of writing and to get as close to the world as possible. Its not for me to sit on judgement on how much of that has been achieved but being ingrained that objective journalism and opinion columns are about as similar as Bible and Playboy magazine, I am condemned to hear a journalist being dubbed as a presstitute in the social media.
When I entered the profession sometime in 1979, it was not as if the profession wasn't without its taints but not as rabid as it is today. There was still a semblance of professional ethic. As rookies we were all led and guided by men of mettle. Seniors would routinely throw shoddily written reports into the dustbin unlike today where even as rewritten press handout get a byline. I still recall the expression of my first news editor when I felt that an interview I had done deserved a byline. He looked at me as if I had committed a sacrilege. "Byline aur isko?" he retorted like the heroine of a Hindi film telling the villain "Shaadi aur tum se?" As it happened with most of us, my first byline came well after three years and that too as if my boss was doing me a great favour. We all thought that getting a byline was as good as conquering Mount Everest. Most of us youngsters at that time didn't realize that this was the foundational regimen to make us do better and better.
I am saying this because most newspapers even then had their own affiliations and leanings. They were and are still owned by businessmen and politicians as mouthpieces. Vested interests were restricted to mostly the owners while the journalists did their bidding not as blatantly as it obtains today. But professional ethics always take a back seat when commercialisation takes over. Today, journalists are no longer pawns in the hands of unscrupulous owners running their media shops, they have become power brokers unto themselves. The advent of TV news channels in the eighties and their proliferation in the nineties changed all that and took away whatever piety was left in it. Faced with stiff competition and a question mark hanging over their survival, the newspapers too started falling into line. One media house criticising another was by and large alien and unethical but it is common these days to see newspapers and channels taking swipes at each other out of professional rivalry.
Until the late eighties, jobs in journalism weren't hard to come by. A nominal interview clinched the aspirant a job and although rewards were a pittance, people stuck around for the satisfaction of it. It was something you went to college for. Many came and polished their skills to become excellent writers. From that point it has come to a stage where the job avenues are many and returns far exceed the professional's calibre. On the other hand, journalism colleges are producing graduates like a factory. Little wonder many end up as "content writers" with neither content nor writing. Not everyone realizes that to write a really good piece of journalism can be intellectually demanding.
As a neophyte I remember having been asked to cover a meet-the-press and I was confused like hell how it differed from a press conference. My seniors told me that you could grill people holding the press conference but at a meet-the-press, you must treat the person as guest and therefore no awkward questions were to be asked. Interestingly, even the journalist unions endorsed this view. Compare this with what you see on the TV channels day in and day out. People, most of the times politicians and bureaucrats, are "invited" to the studios only to be made to look like first class idiots and treated with disdain. Worse still, the invitees take all this in their stride because they still have to depend on the media to get their point across. The TV anchors, often judgemental and opinionated, have a verdict even before the hearing has begun. These are the know alls either goofing up on "facts" or cooking them up to sex up their stories. Media houses are brazenly run like shops with no pretensions of any serious journalism. Journalists have outdone owners in this exercise. Opinions have made short work of information and people are none the wiser as "facts" vary from one media house to another. Attempts to regulate the media have been met with stiff resistance. Sad as it is when the media on its own should be fair and balanced. What do you do when newspaper pages from first to last read like editorial pages? The critical importance of honest journalism -- though agreed that hundred per cent objectivity is humanly impossible -- needs to be dispassionately debated but who will bell the cat(s)?
Its a damned shame that a field as potentially dynamic and vital as Journalism should be overrun with dullards, bums, hacks, hag-ridden with myopia, apathy and complacence and generally stuck in stagnant mediocrity. Journalism as a recipe has now an added ingredient called arrogance. Broadcast licences are given to political philosophies and personal opinions instead of people. It has reached a stage where people -- and in most cases journalists themselves -- think there is no difference between news and entertainment. The more celebrity-driven it is, the better. Lack of information, misinformation, disinformation and a general contempt for truth have killed the very spirit of the profession. In the era of TRPs, ratings don't last, good journalism does. Good journalism was happening even when there was no Twitter. The social media has become a breeding ground for people who masquerade as writers throwing up bile through personal prejudices. There is less truth in journalism than fiction even though it is famously said that journalism is literature in hurry. I have deliberately avoided giving examples because we all know them. The social media is doing that job perfectly.
The tragedy is journalists have not made peace with the fact that the world is inured to the power of journalism which at best only serves to outrage people. Money, eyeballs and software brands don't have much shelf life. Journalism has taken all hues except black and white.
We watch and carry on.