Think before you tell people you are a journalist

Raju Korti
It is risky these days to tell people that you are a journalist. Knowing that I have banged my head in that profession for more than three decades, my friends and relatives -- and their number seems to only increase -- never fail to rub it in that the credibility of media is at an all time low. (With the probable exception of the Indian Rupee). The small consolation is I left the mainstream media in 2009, around the same time my good friend and colleague Smita Deshmukh left. But reality never hit me hard as it did this morning.
Although she did not specifically mention what provoked that post, I could latch on to the reason. On her Facebook wall Smita wrote she did not regret her decision to leave Journalism. I read the comment and smiled it away but by a strange coincidence, I was witness to an embarrassing situation a little later while on my way to work. I had boarded a local train which was packed at that peak hour with people jostling for space. Suddenly I heard two persons, whose faces I couldn't see, arguing for reasons I couldn't gather. Soon the argument got heated and one of them said "don't mess around with me. I am from the media." The others who were watching the drama with stony faces suddenly sprang to life at the mention of media. I will quote their exact words: "MC media, BC media, saale bikau haraami naalayak humko media ka darr dikhata hai? Jaa kis ko leke aana hai leke aa. Khud dukaandaari karte ho aur duniya ko akal seekhate ho. Bhaad me gayi tumhari media.". I am sure none of us is so innocent that we do not know these expletives and what they mean. By the time I got down a couple of stations later, the public outrage continued and I could just catch the redder-than-beetroot face of the person who thought being in media made him invincible. The seething anger of the people against the media was an eye-opener although in the past, I had heard adverse comments about my profession. I chose not to dwell on them being one of their ilk. A few years back an acquaintance of my in-laws had told me bluntly on my face that :"Journalism and journalists are humbug." For someone who practiced his profession with utmost sincerity, this was ultimate insult. Today, it has reached a stage where even politicians -- people with lowest credibility -- feel free to advise journalists that they must act responsibly and introspect about what ails their profession.
The sad truth most of us journalists refuse to acknowledge is the skepticism about what they see, hear and read in the media. No major news outlet -- whether broadcast or cable, print or online -- stands out as particularly credible. The media agenda is often euphemistically described as "narrative." The television has particularly queered the pitch in manufacturing public opinion and dumbing down news. Opinions, often puerile and silly, are passed off as information. I would like to know how many old-timers like me feel offended that they too have been painted with a black brush because of the growing number of black sheep in the profession. Excuse me, but it is difficult to find sensible, intelligent and conscientious journalists these days. Professional smartness is all about personal and political affiliations and prejudices. In my years of teaching media students, I am witness to the rot setting in. Sample some of their questions: Does the Press card allow you to go anywhere and enjoy free lunches and gifts? Can I get easy access to celebrities and pose with them for pictures? Will politicians do our bidding like paying our phone and petrol bills? As a journalist will I get to talk to gangsters? What do journalists do to make "side income" and such stuff. Its stifling.
I have always felt and realized that journalists and policemen have one thing in common. Both hallucinate that their clout comes from their profession. Aggressive jaws drop to their crotch once they are (thrown) out of it. With social media and the concept of Citizen Journalism, every person is an erudite  journalist now. No one is any less expert than the other on any issue under the Sun. The definition of News Media was never so diluted as it it is today. The unvarnished fact is people's trust in the media began to deteriorate long before the industry's finances began to drop and the Internet hatched a cut-throat competition -- as well as more gossip and speculation.
The great deluge that goes under the heading "News Media" has been poisoned by junk blogs, gossip sheets, shout radio and TV partisans who have confined the word credibility only to the dictionary.
I am waiting for the day when I would die "live" on TV and people spouting condolences while I watch mortified wondering if I would have been better off dead instead.

Of Alan Wilkins, his autograph and biography

Raju Korti

If talking about sport is better than playing it, Alan Wilkins should be its best example. This smiling Welshman has been a very eloquent face on the small screen for over 20 years now. My cricketing instincts brought up and fed on the iconic voices of John Arlott, Brian Johnston, Alan McGilvray, Trevor Bailey, Fred Truman, Christopher Martin Jenkins and Henry Blofeld, could never reconcile with the commentators of the post 90s until Alan took over the mike with his subtle laconic humor.
Composed, relaxed and with a smiling visage, Alan glides the viewer with vividness and a narrative to match. The craft comes to him with a fluency that one rarely sees in those of his ilk now. I was witness to it once when I saw him sitting alongside Harsha Bhogle in the commentator's box. After Harsha was done with his garrulous self with the post-match description at the end of the day, the camera panned on to the Sun going down and Alan, true to his laconic style, latched onto that one like a trice: "The Sun sets on Harsha Bhogle", he said with a mischievous smile that he wears on his face all the time. As I gave him a thumbs up from close by he just smiled in acknowledgement.

Given his articulation as a commentator and his exemplary career as a bowler with Glamorgan and Gloucestershire, I wonder why his book is titled as "Easier Said Than Done: A Life in Sport". I suppose it has something to do with his anguish of a cricketing career cut short by a debilitating shoulder injury he couldn't cope up with. His shift from a prodigious swing bowler to an evocative commentator was seamless. It is no surprise that 35 years since he first stepped into the realm of sport broadcasting, the 64-year-old has now chronicled his journey from cricketer and rugby player to a broadcaster. My gut feeling is that his sense of anguish has now been eclipsed by his proficiency with the microphone and camera rather than with a bat and ball. And when you know he has a degree in Sports Science (Psychology), it is easy to understand why he has been able to forge great friendships with legends of the sporting world and put his finger on the pulse of the game. The "swing" of his life makes for an absorbing reading mainly because Alan keeps the narrative simple and flowing. Yet, Alan is much more than than the man we always see in front of the camera. Maybe that's how he justifies the title of the book.

When I saw the book at Crossword I did not even blink before buying it. The very thought of reading someone who spoke as well was tempting enough. As someone who often covered matches from the Press Box I crossed his path several times and even thought of meeting him for a write up but somehow it never happened.
The small consolation, however, is this book that he specially signed up for me yesterday. I am sure I will catch up with him in flesh and blood to partake of his playful witticism one day. That he continues to be a revelation each time I see him commentating is quite another story.

The politics of American aid to Pakistan

Raju Korti
If the past is anything to go by, the issue of American aid to Pakistan is an unending conundrum. I say this with a certain degree of authority because the US' relationship with Pakistan has always been a transactional one marked by mutual mistrust, marriages of convenience and mood swings.
The American administration has been providing economic and military aid to Pakistan right since 1947 but somehow this roller coaster ride has smoothed out in the end. It is therefore with some trepidation that I wonder about their decision to scrap USD 300 million aid to Pakistan on the assertion that the latter has not shown any intent in support of its strategy in the region. The US aid to Pakistan has a long political history and this is not the first time that money has been withheld.
With Pakistan the Americans have always been confronted with a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. From the days of Reagan and Bush, for reasons justifiable or not, the politics of American aid to Pakistan has made bigger headlines than its nitty gritty. Understandably, the decision to scrap aid comes after President Trump made it clear earlier this year that he would suspend nearly all security aid to Pakistan -- an across-the-board freeze that is the most tangible sign yet of Washington's frustration with the country's refusal to crack down on terrorist networks.
The move underlines how swiftly relations with Pakistan have deteriorated since Trump took office. However, it also echoes several previous rifts between the countries over Pakistan's role as sanctuary for extremist Jihadi groups -- a role that has poisoned Islamabad's relations with Washington since that attack of September 2001. It might be tempting to draw an assertive conclusion at this juncture because there is a catch that dilutes this hard line as it has done for decades. The US administration points out that this freeze is temporary and could be lifted if Pakistan changes its behavior. History has established that Pakistan has neither changed nor does it show any such inclination.
Pakistan receives foreign aid from many countries and international organizations. Since the start of Afghanistan war majority aid has come from now-ally-now enemy United States through the Coalition Support Fund. This fund is justified as reimbursement to Pakistan for counter-terrorism operations. Between 1948 and 2016, the US obligated nearly $ 80 billion to Pakistan. While it has stopped foreign aid this year, it continues to mull the idea of funding its so called anti-terror operations. Pakistan has also taken substantial loans from the International Monetary Fund. What Pakistan does with this aid remains mired in mystery although it is believed that this money is spent on acquiring arms, funding terrorists and institutional corruption.
Pakistan, however, lives in a perpetual denial mode. Given the country's track record there is understandable skepticism whether the new prime minister Imran Khan will be able to change things. In one of my earlier blogs I had written that the euphoria over an elected government in Pakistan evaporates in no time. On a different turf altogether, Khan's talk of building a new Pakistan will end up as another regulation speech. The damage has already been done. Pakistan's continued support for resurgent militant groups hostile to the US, coupled with warming US military and business relations with India is sharply diminishing Islamabad's strategic importance as an ally to Washington.
India has displayed uncharacteristic diplomacy by not jumping the gun on US scrapping aid when it has always accused Pakistan of harboring, training and infiltrating terrorists in Kashmir and elsewhere. There are enough cross currents as it is. The Pakistanis have a totally different perception. They generally believe that this is America's war and not a global or Pakistani war while in some US quarters, it is argued that it would be dangerous to allow relations with Pakistan to deteriorate further. Its Catch 22 situation though. The unvarnished truth is a prosperous Pakistan is as dangerous as a failed Pakistan -- fact Americans know but won't acknowledge. 

....and you call them "machchars"!

Raju Korti

Mosquito is a mosquito from any angle.

I have lost count, and therefore interest, on the number of "Days" that people observe or celebrate. By sheer accident and idle meandering on the net, I discovered that today (August 21) is World Mosquito Day. A quick research told me that this day is celebrated to commemorate British doctor Sir Ronald Ross who did mankind a huge favor by establishing that the female parasite is primarily responsible for causing malaria and its more dreadful variants.
Ross is himself believed to have issued an appeal to observe the day as World Mosquito Day. I guess somewhere at the back of his mind, Ross was conscious that while he had made a great discovery, he was also duty-bound to propose a vote of thanks to the little creatures who made it happen. The fact that they are belittled as "machchars" -- now a derogatory term for trivial and inconsequential people --  has not taken any of the the sting out of their bite. I remember a decade back having read a World Health Organization report singling out Malaria as the most rampant prospect ahead of AIDS, Ebola, Bird Flu and other modern-day afflictions. The s(t)ing-and-bite brutes have belied their size to make short work of other parasites by multiplying themselves at the rate that even humans have found it impossible to match.
I have also noted with awe that observing World Mosquito Day has been a decades old tradition with the famed London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine -- proof, if it is needed, that mosquitoes have shown themselves worthy of the tradition and honor while fighting for that exalted position. All this at a time when a number of repellents are "all out" to eliminate them and ensure humans have a "good night". If some of my doctor friends are to be believed, mosquitoes have mutated into new and potentially more dangerous avtaars capable of surviving even the until-now-time-tested Quinine. There cannot a better example of truth being bitter than this.
The man who gave mosquitoes the dignity and stature they deserve is Nana Patekar through that  immortal dialogue :"Saala ek machchar bhi aadmi ko hijda bana deta hai" (Just one mosquito can reduce a person to a transgender) although it is patently disparaging for the transgenders. The creatures for all seasons sing choruses as humans provide background music with clapping.
The superiority of mosquitoes over other fleas is evident in the profound quote I stumbled upon the internet this morning. "Mosquito control is the currently the most effective measure to reduce the spread of malaria.". In simple words it means the mankind is still as clueless to deal with them as it was a number of decades ago.
A few years ago someone had come out with a brilliant idea that mosquitoes be trained to suck the cellulite/fat from the human body than the blood they feast on - a win win situation for both but mosquitoes have proved time and again they are not dumb. Anyway not as much as the victims they predate on. Ask those who try to slap them off and end up leaving a mark on their own face.
An apocryphal story about mosquitoes. Of course, it is from my own imagination. Two people sat in a bar drinking. They kept swatting mosquitoes in the humidity of the bar and got drunk enough to challenge the mosquitoes. One of them pointed to a table in the corner where a mosquito was relaxing after his own binge. "Let's see if we can kill it", he challenged. Both decided to give it their best shot. One of them drew a revolver, aimed at the mosquito and fired. The plate on which the mosquito sat broke into pieces and the mosquito fled to sit on another plate nearby. His friend jeered at him for missing the target and took the revolver to shoot the mosquito again. He fired with the same result. Now it was the turn of the first to jeer but his friend dismissed him with a swat of his hand. "That mosquito will never have children. I have shot off its testicles.".
Moral of the story: Time to find such brave-harts.
Until then, let's concede their superiority by declaring the mosquito as an International Bird. 

Narsinh Mehta documentary and the strain of Gandhi's song

Raju Korti

Narsinh Mehta, a file grab

I have always carried the burden of my conviction that Faith is to believe what you do not see and its reward is to see what you believe. If I feel vindicated today it is thanks to the compelling documentary " Gandhi's Song" made by my US-based fellow journalist and dear friend Mayank Chhaya. It is remarkable how Mayank has been able to embroider the divine spirit of poet-saint Narsinh Mehta's work with the Gandhian ethos. The 15th century poet's mystique comes to the fore from a number of brilliant expositions, notable among them being "Vaishnav jan to tene kahiye peed parayi jaane re.." Venerated as Adi Kavi (pioneering poet) and occupying a pride of place in the thriving Gujarati literature, Mehta is widely regarded as a pre-eminent exponent of Vaishnav poetry. But first things first!
My first appointment with this Gandhian intonation came way back in 1974 while grappling with my Engineering studies. Each morning, we hostel residents woke up to the strains of this song which was followed by other bhajans. Without allowing the curiosity to get the better of us, we concluded in our misplaced wisdom that the song was written by Gandhi himself until the hostel rector chastised us for our ignorance and told us that it was the work of Gujarati saint-composer Narsinh Mehta. The key element of this small anecdote is the rector was a Maharashtrian. If anything, I learnt that here was a poet-devotee whose appeal had far transcended the Krishnaland of Gujarat. Proof, if any was required, came from the ubiquitous presence of the collection of his devotional songs published by the famous Geeta Press of Gorakhpur. The publishers have since faded into oblivion but Mehta remains an integral part of the psyche of those to whom devotion is the very essence of life.
Mayank's documentary flows like a stream with an idyllic beauty. Foraying into a territory that is devoid of any populism and allows no scope for playing to the gallery, Mayank gives it the character, chastity and temperance it calls for. The result is over 70 minutes of spell-binding narrative characterized by an articulation you don't get to hear in these times of frivolous.
Mayank's recountal is like a recital, a commentary that has a lyrical composition and visual appeal to it -- the words stitched more like notations. That in itself is a robust tribute to the saint who breezed into history with his extraordinary devotion through an array of resonating bhajans.
Given the guilelessness of the subject, it has been handled with the restraint it deserves. The documentary has class written all over in terms of production values, directorial effort and editing. Such features happen when the maker doesn't approach the subject with stars in his eyes. Mayank has chosen just the right people to punctuate his narrative. Dr Tridip Suhrud an acknowledged authority in Gandhian literature, Tushar Gandhi (Mahatma's great grandson) and Jawahar Baxi, well known Gujarati poet. A quick word of praise for Bill Russell for the fluent narration.
Says Mayank: "Narsinh Mehta and his work have been a lifelong passion for me. However, in so much as one needs a hook for a documentary, I could not have considered anything other than his most enduring creation 'Vaishnav jan to..' Quite apart from the fact that it became Mohandas Gandhi's moral compass and hence by implication informed his leadership of India's freedom movement, it is also one of world's most widely sung songs. There is a great story to tell. "A particular peeve for me was that a surprising number, I would say eight or nine out of ten, would say it was written by Gandhi not knowing that it is over 550 years old. The documentary tries to correct that wrong."
To follow one's instincts and choose such a theme always comes with its attendant risks. For Mayank, it was a tough slog in terms of finances but help came from three individuals, two in US and one in Bahrain, all Gujaratis who bankrolled the project. Will finally found its way to become love's labor. " It was a deeply satisfying venture for me at an intellectual level but harrowing financially. In a sense it is quite like Mehta's own life that was always penurious, he points out." The reimbursement came from the scholastic pursuit of something that was always close to his heart. A significant characteristic of the documentary is Mayank has ensured that the weight of his words does not incommode the simplicity of the theme. The words have been woven into theme seamlessly and that is not as easy as it sounds.

Mayank Chhaya

In an interview, Mayank answered some of my questions relating to the documentary. Here they go:

Q: India is known to be a land of saints. In the galaxy of such greats who wrote poetry and ballads in their total surrender to what is believed as the ultimate force in the Universe, why did you choose Narsinh Mehta for your documentary? What distinguished his "bhakti" from others who also claimed to have communion with the God?
A: Having been born in Gujarat -- Ahmedabad specifically -- Narsinh Mehta had always been intrinsic to my life. Apart from his most celebrated work "Vaishnav jan to" I grew up listening to an astonishing range of his songs and ballads. For as long as I remember, I was always struck by his profound philosophical undercurrent. That Mehta straddled both the Saguna and Nirguna worlds with such remarkable ease as a poet was for me irresistible. His "bhakti" were secondary to me since I am personally bereft of a devotional instinct. My draw to Mehta has been the brilliant imagery of his poetry and its lustrous wonderment about the Universe.
Q: How did you negotiate a subject where there are varying impressions about his pedigree and the chronology of his compositions?
A: It is true that his period has been a subject of scholarly debate but I chose to depend on the great Gujarati litterateur Uma Shankar Joshi's perspective in terms of his era, However, in which era Mehta might have lived was of far less consequence to me than the quality and range of what he constructed in terms of his philosophical poetry.
Q: How relevant do you think is Mehta's ethos on Equality in today's context when you see the society fragmenting on various counts? Is that what influenced Gandhi to adopt his song?
A: I consider "Vaishnav jan to" as the perfect global secular standard whose relevance is irrespective of the times we live in. It is carefully shorn of the dogmatic or the doctrinaire. It offers a refreshingly uncomplicated way to conduct one's life which when you reflect on it should be obvious to anyone without being told. Gandhi's engagement with Mehta was almost entirely via this one song even though he ought to have been aware of his other works. It is my case that Gandhi did indeed construct a significant part of his personal and political philosophy with this song as the basis.He made it one of the songs to be sung at his ashram in South Africa in 1907 and continued until his death.
Q: Mehta's devotion to his Beloved as so pure that he had no qualms in singing bhajans in areas where the towns lower classes resided. It is said that "Vaishnav jan to" was born out of his wish to see an egalitarian society. Did it stem from his conviction that unless one is in tune with his soul, no human endeavor would ever succeed?
A: Absolutely. His poetry was in defiance of the oppressive societal norms of the times then and the times even now. He was treated with contempt by his own community and cast off as a pariah. He did not reach out to the grotesquely discriminated against sections of the society of his time out of a sense of condescending  to them but out of a genuine conviction about the universality of human race. His sense of egalitarianism was extraordinary and informed by his deep realization about the singular force animating us all. You are right to point out that his philosophy of being one with one;s Soul was the key definer of his life and work.
Q: Mehta's work underscores his profound understanding of the ephemeral nature of life. Was that one of the driving factors behind your documentary? Or was it because of the cosmic romanticism that he visualized through his divine vision?
A: As a student of Physics generally and Quantum Physics particularly, like you are, I was struck by his keen grasp of how evanescent existence is. His songs "Jaginejoun  to jagatdeeseynahin" (When I wake up the world vanishes) and "Hun kharey tun kharo" ( You exist because I do) are to my mind the essence of Mehta's life which capture the quintessence of Quantum Physics so unwittingly and so brilliantly.
Q: Mehta's compositions, generally categorized as Vaishnav compositions, are full of lyricism based on pastimes of conjugal love between the Supreme Creator and his most intimate devotees (the Gopis). They are not without allegorical dimensions and are devoid of the erotic element so vivid in contemporary European works. Your comment.
A: You are spot on. His communion with that singular force, as manifest in his mind as Krishna, was so deep and yet so transient that he chose to express it without much eroticism. Of course, there are some works where he does touch upon the erotic on passing. That he constructed his songs and ballads in a way that could be composed and sung shows that he was conscious of their propagation. Reputedly illiterate, it is striking that his language was so fine-tuned to address rather deep themes.
Q: From a family understood to have been steeped in Shaivism, the poet is said to have become a Vaishnava. Your documentary makes a fleeting mention of Dwaita and Adwaita (Dual and Non-dual). Viewed in that context what was your finding about how smooth was this transition?
A: As you say, the transition was so seamless as to be indistinguishable. I am not sure whether the transition from Dwaita to Adwaita came early or later in life but the traditional view is that he graduated from one to the other as he became older. I am not so sure. In terms of his so called move from Shaivism to Vaishnavism, I think he did not necessarily make a distinction in his mind because he was driven by the primordial. In any case, legend has it that it was Shiv who took him to witness Krishna Leela. Carrying a torch in his hand, Mehta was said to have been so enraptured by the spectacle that he accidentally burned part of his arm.
Q: Mehta is known as a pioneer poet of Gujarati literature. One of the important features of Mehta's work is in the language he composed them. They have been largely preserved orally. Despite this his work has found a universal appeal. How do you explain this?
A: One primary reason could be the inherent musicality of his songs and the fact that he sang them himself. As in many parts of medieval India, particularly swept by the "Bhakti" movement, the propagation was oral because that was the easiest way to remember. I suppose the levels of literacy generally were not high and people were naturally good at remembering. Shruti (Hearing) and Smruti (Memory) have always been the defining elements of Indian literature.
Q: Your documentary dwells more on his perceptions and enlightenments than the miracles attributed to him. Was that your focus when it would have been too much of a temptation to dwell on those?
A: My natural attraction has always been the philosophical even though the miraculous might seem more dramatic. I find that the miraculous tends to take away from the sheer poetic and philosophical brilliance of Mehta's works. As a documentary my objective of it was to bring those elements out for the world beyond  Gujarat and India.
Q: At least two films, both named Narsi Bhagat, have been made on the life of the saint-poet. One in 1940 by well known Gujarati director Vijay Bhat and the other in 1957 by Devendra Goel. Have you seen them for cinematic reference?
A: No.     
 
Here is the link to his documentary. It is password enabled and pay-per-view. Please do watch.

https://vimeo.com/155155514

Vajpayee: Knight in the shining armor

Raju Korti

The Vajpayee as I saw him in my school days

My first look at the charismatic Atal Behari Vajpayee was some time in 1965-66 during my schooling days in Nagpur. I would often see him ambling along on the streets arm-in-arm with Lal Krishna Advani and a few other local leaders. While Advani would just smile warmly, Vajpayee would keep chuckling. In hindsight, I feel that these chuckles came out out at times from his innate sarcasm and wit and at times from the genial nature that made him immensely popular with the masses. Even in those days, I could see that Vajpayee's humor pinched but never offended anyone although both him and Advani along with other veterans like Nanaji Deshmukh were sworn and committed members of the much reviled erstwhile Jan Sangh. Too young to understand the intricacies of politics, most of us school kids followed political processions simply to collect poll pamphlets and party badges thrown at people. Advani was not too demonstrative but Vajpayee would often pause to pat our cheeks with a smile to die for.
At a time when the political reins were firmly in the hands of the Congress (not Indira's Congress then), the Jan Sangh stood no chance. It was was considered a political pariah ever since Godse pumped bullets into the frail Gandhi in 1948. It was generally accepted that the Rashtriya Swayam Sewak and the Jan Sangh were two sides of the same coin, an issue which later came to boil when the Janata Party -- of which the Jan Sangh was a constituent member -- went into a ferment because Socialist leaders Madhu Limaye and Raj Narain took it upon themselves to squander away the laboriously earned power on the duality of RSS and Jan Sangh membership. But the Vajpayee trick here was to shift seamlessly from a Sangh activist to a BJP functionary.
Two and half years later, the Janata Party government suffered multiple fractures and the Jan Sangh decided to shed its old skin to appear in a new avtaar called Bharatiya Janata Party. In all this turmoil, Vajpayee never lost his sardonic wit. If any, it got sharper. I clearly recall, the Congress, never used to be out of power, was finding it tough to reconcile to the new dispensation. So much so that fissures started appearing in its ranks. This was in 1978. I was about to become a media professional and trying to come to grips with the nitty gritty of politics. In those days of run up to my career, Vajpayee told me with that mischievous glint in his eyes: "Hum se kehte the toot jaayenge, toot jaayenge. Hum se pehle khood hi toot gaye." (They taunted us we would eventually break but themselves broke first.).
With the emergence of the BJP on the political firmament, the perceptions were becoming clearer. Advani, who catapulted the party from an inconsequential to a dominant force, made no bones about his hawkish ways while Vajpayee came across as a moderate face of the party. It prompted many to comment that Vajpayee was a right man in the wrong party.
I make this observation in the light of one major political development that could have been a game-changer in the country's political history. While pushing for a full-scale diplomatic initiative to resolve the Kashmir issue, Vajpayee, then PM, met up with President Pervez Musharraf at a summit meeting in Agra in 2001 and almost came close to being there. The summit, however, ended abruptly with Musharraf returning to Pakistan in a huff. There was no clear word on what went wrong but the general impression was it was Advani who punctured the peace process by putting his foot down and refusing to budge even an inch. Neither Vajpayee nor Advani came clean on what happened and till today the issue remains shrouded in mystery. In a way it could have been interpreted that Advani held a bigger sway over the party being the architect of BJP's revival at the national level although Vajpayee was a more popular draw. I feel it was this particular irony and dichotomy that made them an ideal pair in politics. Together, both played defining roles in steering the country and juggling their party politics.
The dhoti-jacket clad poet statesman drew wide appeal from even his arch rivals. I remember a local Congress leader once telling me that listening to Vajpayee speak was an education. "He was so good that we laughed even when he mocked us. It was laced with quaint but decent humor and we never felt slighted when he poked fun at us. Vajpayee was not one of those politicians who took pride in running rivals down. While his other partymen chose to maintain a studied silence, Vajpayee was vocal enough to have a word of praise for even his worst rivals, notable among them being Indira Gandhi whom he called "Durga" during the Bangla Desh war. It was never opposition for the sake of opposition for Vajpayee, a quality that endeared him across the political landscape. He was essentially a forward looking man. At a time when other political leaders prided themselves on the country's ethos of Jai Jawan Jai Kisan, Vajpayee added Jai Vigyan to it to rid the slogan of its cliche.
The finesse he brought to the prime minister's chair was evident in the manner in which he resigned after losing the trust motion by just one vote and walked up to the Speaker to tell him that he was headed to the Rashtrapati Bhavan right away. No claims, no headcounts no horse-trading and no attempts to wean MPs from other parties. Compare this body language with that of latter prime minister Deve Gowda who after losing the no confidence motion looked so crestfallen as if it was the end of the world.
I will not labor over how he stunned the world by ending decades-old moratorium on nuclear weapons test but nevertheless managed to ease tensions with Pakistan. Nor do I want to make out a case that he became a prime minister in a pink sandstone palace that once housed the British viceroys. It is also not my case to dwell on the steps he took to solve the boundary dispute with expansionist China or how he effected an economic overhaul by privatizing state-owned industries, encouraged foreign investments, eased trade restrictions and fostered a technological revolution. Enough has been written on his stature as a politician, statesman and a poet to elicit a repeat with just play of words..
Simply put, he was the face of the world's most populous democracy of one billion whose ethnic, religious and regional conflicts fomented massacres, three wars with Pakistan and internal strife for half a century after independence. To me, his death is a gentle nudge that this country needs Vajpayees, not politicians.

Captain Royale Ajit Wadekar

Raju Korti

In many ways the onset of 70s was responsible for the renaissance of Indian cricket. The man who brought about this resurgence was Ajit Wadekar who passed into eternity yesterday late night after a protracted illness.
Captaincy came to him in quite an unusual manner. In the clamor for change of guard, Wadekar pipped his predecessor Nawab of Pataudi to the post through the casting vote of then Chairman of Selectors Vijay Merchant.
There were quite a few eyebrows raised at the way he was elevated but Wadekar took the new responsibility with stoicism and composure. He was well aware that it was going to be baptism by fire since he was to lead the Indian side against the mighty West Indies led by the super mighty Gary Sobers.As expected a barrage of questions were thrown at him during his first press conference as the skipper. Asked how his team with a known weakness against the short-pitched stuff was going to face the prospect of negotiating Windies pace battery, an unruffled Wadekar said "good batsmen are never afraid of good bowlers." Wadekar was not letting off verbal steam. He made it happen through newbie Sunil Gavaskar who amassed 774 in his first series, veteran Dilip Sardesai making 642 runs at the fag end of his career and another rookie Eknath Solkar excelling in all departments of the game. Wadekar moulded the team into a fighting outfit as it unfolded later in that series.
Somewhat reticent, Wadekar opened up after I met him thrice at his residence. Unspooling memories of that epoch-making series, Wadekar recalled how there was a hushed silence in the West Indian dressing room when India asked the host team to follow on. "Winning was not on my mind then but there was enough gratification in asking them to follow on. Imagine asking West Indies to follow on with Sobers, Kanhai, Fredericks, Llyod in their team".
Wadekar led from the front and India won that series. That was no flash in the pan. Wadekar crowned himself with glory by winning the next series against the much stronger Englishmen who had the likes of Boycott, Edrich, Luckhurst and Illingworth. His main weapon was polio-affected Chandrashekhar, who if I remember correctly, was practically turning the ball at right angles at a pace that a traditional spinner rarely bowls. Wadekar brought in a revolution of sorts by throwing the ball at spinners to open the bowling with an occasional over to Solkar or Abid Ali merely as formality. That tactics worked wonders and the Englishmen didn't know what had hit them. Wadekar's popularity had reached such dizzy heights then that people believed he was Ajit (invincible) in the real sense of the word.
In 1972, Wadekar toyed with the Tony Lewis-led England team. Not only did he score heavily, he led the team exceptionally well. His record as a Test batsman belies the grandeur he brought on to the field. Stylish and elegant, his cover drives were sheer caresses and a sight for sore eyes. I think there were few fielders who were as good as he was in the slips. For someone whose body language was so languid Wadekar made slip catching look ridiculously easy. The only other slip catcher I can think of of that caliber at the time was Phil Sharpe of England.
He had this strange style of speaking through clenched teeth. So at times his team-mates did not quite get what he wanted to say. He remembered his contemporary, wicket-keeper Farrokh Engineer as a garrulous cricketer. "He would chat continuously behind the stumps and that would disturb me. At times I opted to field elsewhere just to escape his banter."
There was however other side to his serious personality that I discovered. Perhaps the only time he chuckled heartily was when he told me how in 1971 he had make a mickey out of English commentator Brian Johnston. "Brian was doing live on-field interviews for TV and as I got out and walked back to the pavilion, he came to me and asked me 'Wadders (as he called me while I called him Johnners) what went wrong?"
"Sorry Johnners, me no speak. I no give interview you." Brian's face turned red at this and the camera quickly panned on elsewhere to hide his embarrassment. Later, I told him it was a leg pull returned in kind since Brian himself was notorious for pulling leg.
Wadekar chose not to mince words at his rather unceremonious retirement. After that whistewash in England during the 1974 series, the same people who idolized him sky high, blackened the bat the Indian cricket Board had erected in honor of his achievements. "It was sad. It was proof that public memory is short. After that ignominious series dubbed as Summer of 42, I realized it was time to go. (In the last of the three Test series, India capitulated with mere 42. The previous two tests were also lost by a huge margin.) There was another blot on the team of which he was part against the New Zealanders led by Graham Dowling in 1969. Pataudi was the captain them and in the Nagpur Test, almost the entire team took to the field in a sozzled state. Wadekar himself dropped a skier from Dowling and the entire crowd saw his hands shaking while trying to catch. He dropped it and there was a big boo from the crowd. "We were not as fiercely competitive those days. We played more for the fun of the game because the money was peanuts compared to what cricketers get today," he told me. This was the same Wadekar who also told me that cricket should be made professional in India like it is in England. No one took him seriously including the BCCI always flush with funds.

Wadekar, however, owed much more to the Indian cricket. As coach he instilled confidence in each player. His very presence commanded respect. The first time I met him was in Mahabaleshwar in 1988 where he had come with his family for an outing. "Aala ki mala phone kar aani bhet (Call me once you come back), he told me and kept his promise. We met three times after that and each time he got nostalgic after a couple of pegs. While helping himself, he would also insist I accompany him which of course, I never did.
As Probationary Officer with the State Bank of India, the Ruia College alumni went out of the way to get new accounts. He would personally accept application forms and gift them plastic bats with his signature on them. He was a huge draw.
Essentially a front foot player, my enduring memory of his is the way he just tapped the ball to the cover boundary and taking blinders in the slip before anyone realized he had caught the ball. That was the signature grace he left on Indian cricket. Tall and handsome, he truly epitomized handsome is what the handsome does.

Assam and its discord over NRC

Raju Korti
Looking back in time can be of great academic interest especially when they have their roots in the present. The much trumpeted Assam accord is another in the line of festering political issues that has traveled 33 years with no tangible result in sight. The country has a history of issues that have opened a bigger Pandora's box after they were believed to have been amicably resolved.

Rajiv Gandhi signing the Assam accord

On 14th August, 1985, I was Shift In-charge of Page One of the Indian Express. The air was thick with anticipation not for the customary and regulation speeches of the prime minister and the president but for the much awaited holiday from the routine skulduggery that journalists are condemned to every day. Even in that glee, all my colleagues with me were having an animated discussion about the possible accord that then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was likely to sign with the All Assam Students Union (AASU) on the issue of illegal migrants infiltrating Assam. Hailed as a great visionary who held the promise of transforming the political ethos of the country, Rajiv was actually cornered by outfits to shoo out the infiltrators back to Bangladesh and Myanmar. The agitation was spearheaded by Prafulla Kumar Mahanta of Assam Gana Parishad , a 35 plus youth leader who became the chief minister on that plank.
The accord was signed the next day to a rousing welcome across all political parties, but some of us were not fooled given Congress' ecosystem of keeping sensitive political issues alive in public memory. The story was carried as a banner by the print media and it didn't occur to many to assess the ramifications of the agreement before letting their verdicts out. In all the glee, Kashmir, Punjab and Sri Lanka faded out of scene for a while.
The parties to the accord had agreed on 1st January 1966 as the cut off date for detecting and deleting foreigners coming to Assam from a "specified territory" (read Bangladesh and Myanmar) who had been staying in India without legal citizenship. The Assamese anguish stemmed from their rights being eaten up by the infiltrators. The Foreigners Act, 1946 was invoked to carry out the process which among other things sought to delete those whose names had made it to the electoral rolls.
For all the credit he got, Rajiv had actually carried forward Indira's style of handling internal conflicts like Kashmir, Khalistan and Tamils. Rajiv signed the accord but never chose to implement it. This was a no brainer in a country where political expediencies are guided by vote bank politics. His successors P V Narasinha Rao was too busy with his pet theme of liberalization and Manmohan Singh didn't have the gumption to defy the Gandhis. For reasons that are not far to seek, the Left-centric Congress never broached the issue with Bangladesh. The problem was compounded by the Assamese tribals who felt slighted because they were convinced they were the original inhabitants and didn't want to be even considered in the exercise.
On the gas for long, the issue of National Register of Citizens (NRC) has now come to a boil. Mamata Banerjee is understandably peeved at losing a potential vote bank and is opposing tooth and nail. The perception that the NRC aims at driving Bengalis out is misplaced since there are also Assamese who do not figure in it. If the draft list is causing such heart-burn, one can only imagine what will happen when the NRC goes on the hammer. Little wonder, the threat of bloodshed and civil war.
What needs to be understood is these foreigners are stateless people who have no right to use the resources and opportunities that belong to the indigenous Assamese. The remarkable rise in the population of that state is testimony to the degree of infiltration. Very few countries are receptive to the idea of accepting refugees and illegal population for obvious reasons but India has a heart of gold. In 1971, India welcomed with open arms refugees from the strife-torn Bangladesh. There is no clear word how many went back and how many made India their permanent abode. The country was magnanimous enough to pay Refugee Tax for their sake.
There is also an issue beyond the NRC. Even if the population of Assam cuts to size, what happens to the filtered 20 lakh people. New Delhi should engage with Bangladesh government to ensure that Assam does not take a leaf out of Kashmir with illegal migrants becoming majority population. It suits Bangladesh to see their population dwindling when that country is grappling with problems of plenty.
The resource-deficit Assam does not have economies of scale to match and its extremely porous borders is adding insult to injury, but successive governments have never shown the spunk to tackle the problem head on. The country could well be sitting on another Nellie-type massacre.

Inside the mind of a bandh agitator

Pic for representational purpose.

Raju Korti
As I retraced my steps to back home this morning stymied by the agitators seeking reservation for the Marathas, I exercised my mind on what goes into the minds of agent provocateurs during a bandh.
A bandh and the violence that follows are not a new phenomenon in this country. They are forced on people who do not subscribe to it, whatever the justification.
This blog is not about bandh per se, nor is it meant to sit in judgement on the politics of bandh. Enough has been written about bandhs and the way they paralyze public life. That is discounting the loss to life and property. I have done a bit of research on the agitator's psychology and these are the highest common factors that emerge out of it.
The bandhs usually get going after 9 in the morning. That is because agitators prefer to treat themselves to a sumptuous brunch before they set out for their purported objective. Sloganeering, throwing stones, looting, violence and arson require energy. The agitators cannot do that on an empty stomach.
The agitator satiates his hunger on two other fronts. One, violence being an effective way of ventilating grievance and two, the free run to vandalize and loot. Both are facilitated by the absence of law and order machinery because it is hopelessly outclassed by the sheer number of hooligans. The Police know that discretion is better than valor and prefer to be bystanders. The uniform is just no match and deterrent to mob fury.
Bigger the city, better the scope for the agitator's to showcase their histrionics. There are innovative ways of playing the "Victim Card". Tonsuring heads, standing in knee-deep waters, carrying earthen pots on heads, throwing away essential supplies like milk and vegetables, cornering officials in their cabins and abusing whoever comes in their path are some of these. I am inclined to believe the agitators hold brain-storming sessions on coming out with off beat ideas in disruption.
It is not just about coercing people to shut shops and close schools and colleges. Morning time is the best to stop people from commuting. So first target trains, buses, autos and cabs. The names are as potent as they can get: Rail Roko, Raasta Roko, Bus Roko and what have you. Once office-goers and students are prevented with all means of rampaging, half the battle is won. The other half can be used to proclaim that it was a peaceful bandh.
If you wonder why life limps back to normalcy by 4 pm, that's a no-brainer. The purpose of the bandh has been met with. Inadvertent blessings come from people allowed the pleasure of a holiday. They cannot be faulted if the situation was forced on them. Most important, the agitators are tired after a hard day's work. They need to go home, rest and exult over a job well done. No fear of being caught or punished. Better still if you are supported by a political party. So don't call it bandh. Say "Show of Strength" instead. For an agitator, it is a win-win situation.
What the bandh pirates conveniently ignore is if people owe allegiance to their point of view, they (the people) will consensually abide by that call. For the bandh protagonist, the argument that extra-constitutional and illegal methods are necessary in democracy for pressure groups and political parties to achieve political rights stand no ground.
Ask any agitator and he will give you this skewed and specious argument about bandh being a spontaneous expression of protest based on the fundamental freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. That's fine but what about the  freedom and fundamental rights of the people who don't sign up to it?

Pakistan polls, another copy-paste story

Raju Korti
Elections and referendums in Pakistan are a watershed for traditionally wrong reasons. As India's estranged progeny goes to another election tomorrow, there are rising apprehensions whether power will be transferred from one civilian government to another. I say that because this is a freak scenario for the country in its 70 years of turbulent existence. Between and behind successive governments, the Army has played the ventriloquist with its proven flourish.
For a country with more than 200 million people, Pakistan continues to grapple with its animation in a land constantly trapped in war compass. Having sacrificed every bearing of national progress in a frenzy to acquire nuclear weapons out of its India-phobia, Pakistan seems mired in perennial confusion about safety at home or security from perceived external threats. There have been enough indications in the past that the country's incompatibility towards itself is much less than its antipathy towards the US and India.
The pro-democracy euphoria that precedes every election in Pakistan evaporates with suppression of information, maneuverings by the military and rise in religious fundamentalism. That is bizarre when you consider that it is a nation without any pluralism. I have been making out a case that Pakistan will get crushed under the weight of its own problems. The war drums that the country keeps beating periodically is a silly but time-tested rhetoric to divert its own attention from issues at home towards those that they claim from their perceived enemies. The killing of more than 150 civilians in the run up to tomorrow's elections is ample testimony.
Eking out a desperate subsistence from the mess it has created for itself in all these years, its politics has routinely toggled between elected governments and army dictatorships. It is not my case to tell you that none of the prime ministers has ever completed his or her tenure, but this time round the Army has bent backwards to nudge out the earlier party -- Nawaz Shari's Pakistan Muslim League (PML) and to pack its patriarch to political oblivion. For cricketer-turned politician and thrice married Imran Khan, it is now or never. Although his latest ex-wife has been using every possible brush to paint her husband as a compulsive philanderer, Khan's political fortunes have been rising steadily since he petitioned the country's supreme court to disqualify Sharif on corruption charges.
Some of the methods that Khan has used to promote himself are not exactly honorable even if you concede that politics is a game of scoundrels. He has been polarizing people with a poisoned-tongue campaign. In an earlier blog, I had written how Khan balances between religious dogma and liberal economy to pander to contrasting audiences. The Oxford-educated cricketer has transitioned from a compulsive playboy past when he partied with the likes of Mick Jagger to now denouncing the Westoxified Pakistani liberals. It is fairly evident that he has so far successfully manipulated the military in his ambitious quest to ascend the prime ministerial throne.
In political terms, Khan has a number of incentives to seek out shortcuts. The black out of supportive media and the defections engineered from PML with the help of the Army are a case in point. Sharif, who has had a roller coaster in Pakistan stands the risk of being eliminated the same way as some of his predecessors. Political turf in Pakistan was never prepared for fair matches.
It is amazing how hope springs up from the most desperate and hopeless situations in Pakistan. In all the manipulative politics, there seems to be a reasonable sense of optimism that the elections would serve as some kind of referendum on the most crucial issues facing the country. That optimism turns into a joke when you finger-count those crucial issues. Pakistan's economy faces the tricky predicament of which way it should be inclined: Western or Chinese. Will the so called democracy under Khan, presuming he become the PM, be robust enough to include or discard extremists, and can the military and the courts be trusted to be impartial and objective? Both have their pitfalls and the answers can be only guessed in a country where instability and conflagration are the only stable factors. So if Pakistan has served as a strategic base for the American forces in Afghanistan, it has also been an obstacle to the same troops  in secretly offering aid and safe harbor to militant groups like Taliban and Al Qaeda.
It would be naive to think that Pakistan's complications are just about regional security. They are more about misgovernance, corruption and environmental stress. The reluctant US ally has done little in curbing Afghan Taliban and other sundry militant groups. It may have turned to China for aid and support but it must realize this will happen with the Chinese extracting their pound of flesh. Already, Pakistan has debts that they look in no position to repay. And that makes both dangerous customers for India and US. All parties contesting the election have grandiose manifestos promising voters the moon but political bottom line is the running feud between PML and the Army. Sharif's future seems fairly predictable at this stage but Khan would be deluding himself that the field is clear for him. His problems will start when he is voted to power.
That Pakistan has always lent itself to status quo is loud and clear from its history. Either its politicians don't understand or love to play suicidal games.

Of hugs and winks

Raju Korti

If hug changes the metabolism of a person, I do not know what happened to Rahul Gandhi's when he walked up to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to give him one during the no-confidence motion on Friday. But for someone who should make it to the record books for hugging as a symbol of  international diplomacy, I am sure it did something to Modi, having been at the receiving end himself. Rahul took the craft to the next level by following it with a wink at his party men.
While that looked like running with the hare and hunting with the hound, I have always believed that a hugs and winks are double-edged weapons. Having lived in a city where people, especially youngsters, hug each other at the drop of a hat; whatever the provocation, I am inclined to believe that hugs and winks have been shafted in society and people either tend to under-estimate or over-estimate them. And that makes them dicey gestures because the chemical reaction that results from both can be unpredictable.
In my 62 years of nothing-to-rave-about existence, I have realized that for many, hugging is a mere figure of speech. People who claim to love being hugged are often found to squirm when they get one. Winking is even more unpredictable. It can invite a genuine chuckle or a tight slap. Since discretion is better part of valor, I prefer the old-fashioned "Namaste" which is as safe as it can get. That sense of wisdom dawned on me when I was barely 14. I had hugged my aunt and she gave me such a scandalized look that thereafter I never summoned the courage to hug even those of my own gender. The safest thing to do is to allow yourself to be hugged than taking the liberty of doing it yourself.
I have never winked at anyone even in jest. In my college days, I had once blinked because a pebble had hit my eye and a pretty young thing around thought I was winking at her. Mercifully, it just ended with the lady giving me a dirty look and walking away. Once bitten always shy. Since then, my world of winking has remained restricted to sleeping. I often wonder if people winked in real life as much as they do in text messages this world would be really a creepy place. But I am prepared to make concession for a hug being better than a message.
Rahul proved that peace is only available to those who want it, and only possible to those who will hug their enemy to enjoy it. Little wonder then that Modi was stumped by Rahul's googly and could respond with an embarrassed smile and a pat on the latter's back. The lesson for Modi here is hug others before they hug you and wrest a diplomatic initiative. To be fair to Modi, he has done well for himself with all those bear hugs. The winks should come for free. The debate about the propriety of what Rahul did in the august house therefore should become redundant.
With due apologies to my lyricist friend Amit Khanna's song from Dev Anand's 1978 film:
"Hug to har dum, khushiyan ya gham".
There was Raj Kapoor who made "Jaagte Raho" in 1956. Some day in future I propose to make "Hug-te Raho". If you think the word has been used in dirty sense, you have a soiled mind.

Some thoughts about the Trump-Kim summit

Raju Korti

The shape of the good byes to come?

While "neutral" Singapore hosts two of the most quixotic leaders of our times in what can be mildly described as facetious, the optimism exuded by US President Donald Trump and North Korean Kim Jong-un is a remarkable red herring.
That the high stakes one-on-one has been preceded by some tricky negotiations comes as no surprise. I am not too sure how the under-chandelier dinner Trump had with Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong can contribute to the easing of stand off between the the two traditional foes.
Not just Trump and Kim, the world knows that entente is next to impossible. Both are not known to climb off their high horse.The issue of denuclearisation and security guarantee, and the measures to be taken by both the countries are in the realms of utopia given the insecurity they face from each other. A nuclear armament is both a safeguard and a threat depending on one's perception. There is little to be optimistic for both Trump and Kim since it is not clear -- at least at this stage -- whether the Americans can succeed in extracting a more comprehensive commitment to disarming than North Korea has already offered.
Note that the White House has chosen to speak the same couched Pyongyang language of "seeking complete verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation on the Korean Peninsula. The North Koreans are not fools to be taken in by those apparently pompous words. They know it as potentially requiring the US to scale back troop deployment there or to shrink its nuclear umbrella over two East Asian allies South Korea and Japan. Little wonder, the meet is so terse that Trump doesn't feel the need to stay around longer, although that is also being interpreted as the US dropping subtle hints of pressure on Kim. The fact is there is little for them to talk.
Make no mistake. Kim's move to announce moratorium on testing nuclear weapons and tear down some of the infrastructure related to those programmes may well turn out to be a hogwash. For those who think that this is a sign of goodwill, it must be told that this doesn't impact in any way the huge weapons complex the country has assembled in the last decades.
The American administration knows that debilitating Pyongyang's sprawling missile and nuclear arsenal will take one hell of an effort and years. There is simply no precedent in the history that any nation that has amassed such a huge stockpile of nukes has ever given it up. The logistics and economics just don't reconcile to the very idea of denuclearisation. Trump's avowed goal of a "verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation" is at best flimsy and fractured. The Americans got to live with North Korea's ability to target the US with nuclear weapons just as India has got to with Pakistan.
Any deal would most certainly call for inspection of nuke sites by international inspectors who may have to look at the herculean prospect of visiting an unspecified number if compliance is to be ensured. That is a tall order for any country with the honorable exception of Iraq. North Korea is a different league not just because of its dangerous acquisitions by an unpredictable and dangerous dictator but also because the country is so isolated from the rest of the mankind.
The Kim dispensation -- if it can be called that -- has relentlessly pursued its military goal to unleash a nuclear strike on US and its allies South Korea and Japan with an array of missiles and bombs. A series of Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile programmes has had the Americans and its East Asian allies in jitters for, the threat perception is too high for even their capabilities.
The Americans would be making a cardinal error if they perceive the North Korean moratorium as a parameter of their optimism. Any attempt to legitimize the North Korean capability by accepting the status quo as a situation to proceed for normalization of relations, knowing the country's track record of pursuing nuclear weapons program, would be fatuous.
The only indication that Americans are aware of this reality is Trump booking his return ticket the same day.   

Some musings about Bill Clinton and MeToo

Raju Korti

The "other woman" in his life.

It has been 23 years since former US President first unzipped his pants in what many voyeuristically describe as Sexgate. It is not altogether surprising that former US President Bill Clinton has gone on the defensive about his affair with the then 21-year-old White House intern in the wake of the MeToo movement. Clinton, then 49, escaped charges of perjury and was almost impeached, leaving behind an outraged nation and a wife who made light of her mental bruises.
I have little doubt that Harold Robbins would have delighted to author the Clinton-Lewinsky affair given its lurid and pulpy trappings. Such was the heat generated by the scandal that in 1998 I recall it had become a chewing gum for even school-going children. I am not sure between Clinton and Lewinsky who was hounded more at the time but after seeing the pictures of the chubby-ish intern, a lot many people were envious with Clinton than being offended by his sexual misdemeanors that lasted three years.
Clinton initially was all bravado, denying sexual relations with Lewinsky but his bluff was called by Linda Tripp, the whistle-blower civil servant who tripped him with all those damning audiotapes. Finding that kind of publicity too hot to handle, Lewinsky largely kept to herself until she wrote the tell-all story. She is now believed to be an ardent votary of cyberbullying and how to make the internet more compassionate. While Clinton has chosen not to make much of that sordid past, Lewinsky's response has been a terse MeToo after Tripp chose to describe her as one lacking the moral compass. When her husband broke her confidence, wife Hillary did what even Indian women with utmost orthodox conditioning would not have done -- she went into an overdrive discrediting all the women who came forward and calling the intern a loony narcissist. Her argument that her marriage with Bill had seen more happy days than sad ones euphemistically meant that she had taken her husband's flings in her stride but the pain in her eyes said everything.
That Clinton used the perks of his political office to lure women was evident. He was also involved with Paula Jones, a state worker who unsuccessfully sued him but the intriguing part of this chapter was the American President paid her a huge amount of money in an out-of-court settlement but never apologized as he did with Lewinsky. The White House intern took his pants off in every sense.
As the editor-in-charge of the Indian Express that night, I recall my colleagues breathing down my neck to know more about the scandal that involved the world's most powerful man. Analyses and conjectures flew thick and fast as the story broke but the full implications started sinking in when our (then) Washington correspondent Chidanand Rajghatta (earlier the resident editor of Mumbai edition of the Indian Express) sent in a series of stories in what could be described as consolation for Harold Robbins. It was a cud irresistible to chew. As expected the discussion centered more on voyeuristic than the political implications the issue entailed. People in the newsroom seemed more envious than being scandalized.
Imagine if the Clinton-Lewinsky affair had taken place, say thirty years before. His infidelity may have squired out anyhow but the case would have ended up differently. There would have been no internet or blogosphere to keep the topic raging, no forensic team in place to conduct a DNA test, maybe Tripp would not have had the access to then relatively new idea of using voice recordings as evidence and Saturday Night Live hadn't got around to making comedy out of political events.
History made it sure that the Bill Clinton scandal was poised at the perfect confluence of moments for technology, science, the press and popular culture to build a case against a bluffing politician that would change national precedents forever.
There is nothing wrong in America that cannot be cured with is right in America, Bill Clinton once said. Unwittingly, he became its own mascot.   

Monumental absurdity

Raju Korti

The Indian political mind seems besieged with conspiracy theories. To such absurd and incongruous levels this discourse has gone that we have become experts in creating a controversy where none exists.The agitation and heart-burn on the historic Red Fort taken up for adoption by a private sector group is yet another in that long and apparently unending list. One doesn't have to scour modern history books to know that the Red Fort is an emblem of the country's pride and honor. Successive prime ministers have been addressing the country -- for whatever worth their salt -- on the Independence Day each year. Ritual though it may be, it still is part of the national consciousness. The wrangling over this monument being "sold out" is stupid and deserves to be dismissed with the disdain it deserves.With time, this red bastion has suffered degeneration and merited a face-lift but as is our wont, yet another non-issue has succumbed to public trial that is completely misplaced. To begin with, it is not a sell-out as the chest beating from some quarters shows. The question of selling this national heritage site cannot come to the most puerile of minds.
Criticism on the issue, if any, should relate to the unwitting and tacit admission of the government in failing to upkeep , maintain and preserve this Gothic structure. The place also calls for better crowd management system.
Right when the corporate sector was accused of bleeding public money, it was awakened to what is understood as Corporate Social Responsibility. Ever since the rise of private sector in the post-1991 liberalization and reforms era, we have been educated on the private sector efficiency in boosting economy, job generation and project execution better than their public sector counterparts. Conceding that there are exceptions to public sector inertia, it is still worthwhile to give the "Adopt a Heritage" scheme due thought. The refurbishing of the Red Fort costing Rs 25 crores over the next five years can be a model beginning.
Considering that the Red Fort is the badge of independence struggle the nation wears on its sleeves, one hopes that the government does not mess up this exemplary move by commercializing it and holds the company to the promises it has made. The redevelopment blueprint envisages better public amenities, illumination, sound shows and tourist services and this brief should not be exceeded to deflower its maidenhood.
While companies complain that the Corporate Social Responsibility obligations mandated in the Companies Act are hidden tax and outsources government's social sector responsibilities, projects around such monuments are also brand building opportunities because of prominent visibility and large footfalls. Unlike governments in India that have been by and large indifferent to civic failures, Corporates will hopefully do better if only to stave off adverse publicity for the brand.
If private investment can strengthen national heritage conservation, create a sensible pool of conservationists and increased tourism, the decision is worth going ahead.
Senseless to crib and complain if this antiquated piece of architecture is getting a make-over in tune with its royal existence. But what can you expect when controversy sells more than wisdom? 

A few thoughts about Impeachment

Raju Korti

The bubbling cauldron of Indian politics has thrown up many dirty tricks over the years. Few moves, however, can match the diabolical nature of the attempt to remove the Supreme Court Chief Justice from office. You do not have to be aligned with any party ideology to understand that it is a bid to politicize the highest seat of Indian judiciary and a cynical ploy to influence the outcome of a few politically sensitive cases.
Now that the Vice President Venkaiah Naidu has pulled the plug on the impeachment motion against CJI Dipak Misra, this political discourse may extend to the Congress-led motion challenging the Rajya Sabha Chair in the Supreme Court. In that case, the CJI will have to recuse himself being the bone of contention himself unless political prudence prevails.
That the entire move is politically orchestrated is evident given the manner in which events have unfolded since that duplicitous move by four senior Supreme Court judges who more or less complained the CJI was being partisan in allocating the cases to the bench. In simpler words, they have accused the CJI of arbitrary functioning that they interpret as “misdemeanor”.
For all the transparency that is spoken about in healthy democracies, the functioning of the apex court judges has never gone beyond the clichéd “wrongdoings”. Post the Ramaswamy fiasco in 1992, the Supreme Court revisited the issue of what constituted impeachable conduct on the part of the Judiciary. However, it offered no further light on the matter in that, it only elucidated that mere abrasive conduct on the part of a judge could not be construed to be misbehavior. It discussed the possible implications of the term and alluded it to be similar to the conditions for solicitors. In other words, it talked vaguely of misbehavior as being actions that would make them unworthy of the profession.
The Constitution has provided for the impeachment of judges on the grounds of proven misbehavior.  However, the Constitution has acted in bravado while doing so as there is no mandate till date even by statute as to what constitutes ‘misbehavior’. In other words, the framers had risked the independence of Judiciary subject to any interpretation of ‘proven misbehavior’ by the Legislature. This extremely vague conditionality could have prompted a response which set the limit for judicial impropriety very low and thus, subverted judicial independence. While it could even be argued that keeping an indeterminate meaning did more for the protection of the judiciary, I believe the same approach was counter-productive to the aim of this area of Law as the ambiguous interpretation subjected the judiciary to even more frivolous complaints as there was no clear identification of the conditions to initiate impeachment.
Technically, the Chief Justice of India, like the President of India or for that matter any senior Judge, can be impeached. Article 124 of the Constitution gives the Legislature the power to act as a watchdog and a restraining agency on the Judiciary. But the process is sufficiently complex to ensure that this cannot be done frivolously, and is one of the reasons that impeachment proceedings in the past have failed each time. Not a single Judge has been impeached in India so far.
The complexity of the process is the result why the power has been exercised judiciously by Parliament in the past. It has also, thus, made it sufficiently exclusive to act as a major moral comment against the concerned Judge, even if defeated within Parliament.
There is also the argument that the very move to impeach amounts to major censure as it has been the first such move against a CJI. It will also register a deficit of trust in the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India. The failure to resolve the issue of the roster and the constitution of the benches is the major reason behind the move. However, The CJI is the 'master of roster'. Undoubtedly, the CJI has this power. The CJI has the authority to constitute the benches but under constitutional system every power is coupled with certain responsibilities. The power is required to be exercised not because it exists but for the purpose of achieving public good. You don't exercise the power merely because you have it.
Even if the last, seemingly improbable step in the impeachment motion is cleared, a committee will have to be constituted of one Supreme Court Judge, Chief Justice of a High Court and a distinguished jurist. This committee will then frame definite charges against the judge, in this case the CJI, in question. The Committee will function like a bench and cross examine witnesses if it so wishes.
After it completes the exercise it will submit a report to Parliament. At this stage the Committee can exonerate the Chief Justice as in this case, and the proceedings will be dropped entirely. In case the committee upholds the motion, this will have to be adopted by both Houses of Parliament with a two thirds majority. Even a joint Opposition does not enjoy this majority currently. Besides Parliament can choose not to act even if the committee finds the judge guilty. If this stage is cleared, which it has not been in earlier cases, the President is approached to dismiss the Judge. He can do so only after both the Houses pass the motion in favor of removal. This is improbable, if not impossible.
There is a not very long list of Judges who have faced such action. And a quick look shows that the impeachment proceedings have never really been completed, but at the same time have triggered resignations regardless.
Since there is no precedent in the matter, I wonder if a sitting judge of the Supreme Court can file a defamation case against the MPs should the impeachment motion fail and if he is exonerated from the charges levelled against him.
Parliamentary immunity, also known as legislative immunity, is a system in which members of the Parliament or Legislature are granted partial immunity from prosecution. Before prosecuting, it is necessary that the immunity be removed, usually by a superior court of justice or by the Parliament itself.
Too many ifs and buts but I am inclined to believe that the Constitution is not very clear on this unless there is an impending scenario of a clash between Legislature and Judiciary. A Constitutional deadlock is all that can result.

Fake news: Imagine, convince and sell

Raju Korti

Just as one fretted about how to identify what is termed as fake news, comes the report that fraudsters are out to take the craft to the next higher level with the help of Artificial Intelligence. I have always believed that news is and cannot be fake. It is the people who fabricate it for their vested (political) interests who are fake. The phenomenon has reached such alarming proportions now that even a self-proclaimed veteran like me with 38 years of donkey's experience behind finds it difficult to distinguish between what is real and what is fake.
The ability to make out fake news from the genuine one has created a bigger human conflict than for any other reason in recent times what with the social media queering the pitch in an era of information overkill.
A slow or a slack news day? No interesting stories coming in? Then make up or cook up a story.
That’s exactly what many journalists to do. In recent times, the agenda has been usurped by the common man from professional journalists. Citizen Journalism is a handy licence and the social media being free-for-all playground.
Fakery or fabrication of news is a situation where a journalist cooks up a non-existent story or spices up an otherwise drab or dull story just to create reader interest or for some easy fame or play to his master's tune. It is considered unethical because it compromises with the basic principles of journalism like Truth, Objectivity; and Fairness and Credibility. The disturbing fact is more and more journalists have started resorting to this unfair practice in these commercial times. With social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter becoming huge platforms of public interaction, the trend to misinform and fabricate has only increased.
Part and parcel with that access to technology comes the access to anonymity. All it takes is a basic Word Press URL, some HTML and anyone can have a credible-looking news site ready to post whatever they want. This same anonymity can grant journalists in the business the ability to push fake stories under a pseudonym. The majority of the fake news comes from people who are only too happy to slap their byline on the story for all to see. In fact there seems to be an effort to institutionalize fakery of news with imaginary and cooked up news stories circulated on fakingnews.com and such similar sites.
What prompts some journalists to fabricate news stories? Why are once considered credible news sources spreading stories that are clearly, after two seconds of Googling, untrue?
It’s not always intentional. There is a fabricator out there somewhere -- a ‘hits’ junkie who sits at his screen and watches the view meter tick up as the gullible fall for it. Usually, he is an  enterprising journalist who thinks no one will find out, but often the fake stories that end up circulated go around far beyond the fabricator. At times there are journalists who are loathe to do leg work to get an authentic good story and find an easy way out by fabricating stories conceived by their fertile imagination.
Social media is a huge chunk of technology. Any savvy news website has social media bookmarks hooked directly into their articles pages, so they can be shared instantly. The danger of this is the instant-sharing itself. News can spread instantly. Minutes after a story is posted, it has the ability to be everywhere: Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and Whatsapp -- a case of rapidly spreading cancer.
Remember that the curse that brings us instant-sharing and fake news stories that look real, also brings you access to Google anywhere you walk. A little research goes a long way in protecting credibility, but research? What's that?
Fake news headlines, stories, articles and posts are everywhere on the World Wide Web and at times, even the most rational thinkers find it difficult to determine what is genuine and what is fabrication. Internet cannot be Gospel Truth. Seeing a story written down in black and white on a web page may give it an air of authenticity, but that is not always the case.
The fact is that the Internet is overflowing with misinformation, likes, inaccurate speculation and utter nonsense. And this hasn’t been helped with a surge of websites designed purely to start rumors and print lies. Did you hear it on a Facebook post? A Tweet on Twitter? Or perhaps on some website you’ve never heard of?

The circulation of fake news depends very much on the readers not verifying what they have heard before they pass it on, or assuming that the source was legitimate and thus verification was not required.
A large number of websites that present their material in a typical news format have surfaced online but will routinely print false stories. These stories may be satirical or entertainment-based, or they may pretend to be satirical. Of course these sites are not reputable sources, much in the same way a Facebook post or Tweet is not a reputable source either. The business of misinformation flourishes with ignorance and failure of rationale.

In the age of information, ignorance is a choice. What do you do when you see a person, friend or family members share a fake news? Confronting them will only push them further away from the truth. I have discovered that the only solution is to join them and share stories, quotes or news that are so fake it’s actually insulting. This can be a test too, if they agree, chances are you are dealing with an unmitigated idiot. Ignorant people will remain ignorant, made worse by today’s social media. Unlike the good old days, people today have too many choices. They only subscribe to Facebook news feed geared towards their political views, further reinforcing their narrow point of views with no alternative source. They will skip videos that they dislike on YouTube and listen to those that agree with their social agenda, shutting out all possible reasoning.
That is what we get for having too much freedom. Too little is as bad as too much, Left wing nuts will only listen to Left wing news, while Right wing nuts will only tune into whatever suits their interests. Both extremes are bad. A case in point is the 2016 US presidential election where so many fake news were created on either sides. Recently, the ministry of information and broadcasting issued and then withdrew guidelines on fake news. It was a well meant but ill-thought-out gambit. In the debate, the real issue got skirted. Fake news is manufactured in factories to revile, debase and smear some person, party or company. Just discussing the damage it does to democracy or the violence it sparks doesn't help. The Indian news industry should be putting its heads together to tackle it. And this is where the profession runs into a wall. Forget whether the government is trying to control the Media, what has the industry think-tank done to extricate the profession from this morass? There is no restraint, no self-control. And there are good journalists who have to compromise to pander to their owners who are mostly politicians and businessmen.
The word freedom loses its sanctity and becomes a specious excuse when it is misused. If Media literacy has become merely academic without any sensible application, the less said about people who believe that news and views are the same. I say this with some responsibility as a professional journalist and a Mass Media professor. If the news industry cannot get together to ensure that audiences stay with credible, fact-checked news, then it cannot blame anyone but itself for losing the same audience to fake news.

Albert Einstein said that his biggest fear was people will attribute fake quotes to him and millions of morons on the internet will believe it. I am sure Dr APJ Abdul Kalam realized this after he died. But wait. Did Einstein really say that?