Rahul, Varun: Who let the kids out?

Another Gandhi kid has spoken. And it did no good to anyone except, perhaps, to the venom spewing young Gandhi himself in some measure. It helped him grab the headlines that had eluded him for nearly as long as he had been running after them. Not any more. Nobody seemed to be taking note of the chubby boy and he apparently didn’t like it much.

So, the nation that was slumbering on him had to be poured a bucketful of cold water. And, yes, we did sit up to take note. Just that the nation noted those little claws trying to scratch at its secular fabric rather sleepily. No, the water-pouring tactic was not wrong at all. And the nature of it, too, is time tested (it has always worked). Just that it has gotten stale and lost much of its shock value from overuse by the likes of Modi.

The meowing kitten swore to grow into a living, fire-breathing monster once he was voted into power, but the monstrosity he was talking about has already had an heartrendingly splendid display at the hands of his seniors in the ‘lotus’ party not so long back. Of course, it had worked. We love the ’strength’ of our false heroes and for that we would readily accept all projected ‘villains’ manufactured in the fecund imaginations of our political leaders for the specific purpose of producing such saffron wrapped, sword-wielding heroes (there are other varieties too). But in the young, inexperienced hands of this Gandhi the overused, oversized tool was rather unwieldy. Like all kids Gandhi insisted on using it anyway resulting in his political elders’ promptly distancing themselves from the remarks.

“You see, Mrs. Sharma, the kid didn’t mean it at all. He is a good natured, kind kid. He really is, you believe me. He just threw that dirty, old sports shoe at you simply because he thought it was yours…err… I mean he felt you had left it behind the other day. He meant well, believe me.” That’s Mrs. Srivatava (or Mrs. Sharma, Mishra, Rana, Bose, take your pick) explaining her son’s conduct. Lotus leaders looked much the same. Mrs. Lotuses.

The only difference was that Mrs. Lotuses were a little less protective and chose to offer explanations for baby firebrand’s venomous spiel only from a safe distance.

The older Gandhi kid, too, made a questionable remark about India’s role in the division of Pakistan. It was no less serious and elicited unpleasant reactions from across the border. Of course, it was political naivety of that Gandhi at work.

The ‘youth leaders’ (I am not sure who they ‘lead’ or ‘represent’) have no understanding of the finer nuances of politics. They are untrained rookies who know little about the value of words and the significance of public statements. It takes time to be seasoned politicians. So, don’t cry for ‘younger politicians’ and ‘young blood in politics’ because these little princes have a very, very long way to go before they could don the crown of thorns. Beware, political misadventures come with long-drawn consequences and generations pay the price.

Writing, Writers and Perseverance

There are times when a writer does not have much to write but must not stop the process of writing because when he does that the creative juices might stop flowing and any possible writing might just dry up in the pipeline itself. Of course, writing seems to be an easy process of stringing the words together in a manner universally comprehensible to the users of the language used. To many of those who know how to put across a point in a fairly accurate manner, good writing is ‘impressive writing’. Differently put, to them it’s just the art of putting together high-sounding words in good order. To better writers, it’s about a good idea put in words that fit in together in rhythmic harmony and make word-music together.

But I guess a writer is continuously struggling with the language and there is always a certain amount of tussle involved. If you are too comfortable with the language and do not share a tense relationship with your words, chances are you are not exactly a great writer. Being too comfortable with one words does not mean superior command of the language but indicates a very trite use of language. In such cases, often there is no novelty of idea or expression or both. Good writing is something of a reinvention of the world, or the creation of an altogether new world. This world could be a parallel literary universe and could also be just another planet of unique ideas or unique amalgam of commonplace ideas.

Any writer would tell you that sometimes it’s not about what you write but about continuing to write. And at times the simple process of writing gets a little too difficult. If you have never come across such a phase, you are yet to fully ripen as a writer because experiencing the block – call it Writer’s Block, if you like – is an important stage in the development of a writer. Not that all those who have experienced it are ‘complete writers’ in any sense because there are many such writers who are more often ‘blocked’ than writing.

Most of the time we want to write something that’s of some importance but the fact is that a writer evolves more through writing things that are of far lesser significance or consequence than he would like. And then without his realizing he produces a work of sheer genius. The genius, therefore, is often born out of the mundane and the mediocre. One walks into brilliance instead of the brilliance striking one like lightening.

Harder clampdown on terrorism needed: Neeraj Pandey

Writer-Director Neeraj Pandey talks about his recent release A WEDNESDAY in an e-mail interview conducted by HemRaj Singh

Q.1. Naseer’s character is a way too competent, sophisticated and sharp for his projected setting. A common man does not have the competence to put together a bomb despite all the information available. To design a software program to deal with multiple SIMs to generate multiple-location calls is not a child’s play. And the movie doesn’t put Naseer’s character against a plausible background either. So characterization seems to be a weakness. Your comments?

I beg to differ. A common man does have the competence. we are capable of some very uncommon things.

Q.2. Similarly, Indian police in the movie appears to be as efficient as the Hollywood FBI. And with Hollywood FBI itself being a flattering exaggeration of the real FBI, the police in ‘A Wednesday’ appear thrice removed from their real versions. Portrayal of Naseer’s character and Indian police suggests that you took ’suspension of disbelief’ a little too far. Comment?

It is a movie. The essence of the film lies in Naseer’s monologue.

” ‘Suspension of disbelief’ “- Really ?

Q.3. The movie suggests strong-arm methods to deal with terrorism. Do you think terrorism could not be uprooted because enough force was not applied?

Absolutely.

Q.4. Do you see terrorism as a criminal-justice issue, as the movie seems to suggest?

Yes.

Q.5. Do you feel a harder clampdown on terrorism would help?

Yes.

Q.6. Is eliminating terrorists without holding trials part of your solution?

No.

Q.7. Who is your ‘common man’? Isn’t the ‘common man’ in ‘A Wednesday’ essentially a Hindu?

No. I do not know the man’s religion.

Q.8. Fear is the central theme of the movie. Are terrorists fear or do they themselves fear, which is why they are terrorists?

Won’t know.

Q.9. Do you think we need stricter laws to deal with terrorism?

Yes.

Q.11. Do you think police should be vested with better and wider powers and discretion to deal with terrorists?

Absolutely.

Q.12. Do you think the process of law helps the terrorists get away?

Sometimes.

Q.13. Do you think it’s time for us to enact an anti-terrorism law like TADA and POTA?

Sorry. I dont know these laws in full detail hence it would be wrong to comment.

Q.14. Do you see a marked difference between international terrorism and its Indian version?

I didn’t know they came in two versions.

Published in LAWYERS UPDATE (October 2008 issue) with the review (Legal Scanner ) of the movie in question. Reproduced as published.

This is one of the very few (not more than a couple or so) interviews that Neeraj Pandey gave to the media after the release of ‘A Wednesday’ despite all the hype about the movie.

A Wednesday: Naivety writ large

All style, no substance. That’ what A Wednesday is. It has the captivating speed, taut packaging and a very sleek, elegant look. But scratch the glossy surface, and the veneer of realism gives way to reveal a flimsy fantasy tale much in the league of Harry potter and Lord of the Rings. The only difference is that both of the hugely successful fantasy series have their internal logic intact. A Wednesday asks you to step inside the theatre and have no recollection of the way the world works outside. Not just that; you are also supposed to believe all that the director asks you to believe. In other words, he needs a complete suspension of disbelief, and would still ask rather innocently, “Suspension of disbelief – Really?” (See the interview).

The movie starts with a pensive Police Commissioner sitting by the seaside reflecting back upon his life as the top cop of Mumbai and recalling the most interesting case of his entire career. It’s a case that has no record anywhere except in his memory. The statement underlining the lack of record is hammered home twice – once in the opening sequence and later towards the end. And the case that has no record is the one in which one man holds the whole of Mumbai, the Police Commissioner chooses to call in the Chief Minister, the terrorists belonging to organized such dreaded terror groups like Al-Qaueda and Laskar-E-Taiba are forced to be released and are later blown to bits. And all of this is covered live by a television channel. But still there is no record of the case. The Police Commissioner hands over the transfer orders of the jailed terrorists to the officers entrusted with executing the transfer. But there is no record of the case. The jail authorities hand over the prisoners, and there is still no record of the case. Irrespective of whether the terrorists are undertrial detainees or convicted felons, to release such dangerous elements the jail authorities would demand an express permission in writing from the Home Ministry itself. And nothing less would do because if they settled for anything less, the courts would ensure that none of the jail authorities together with the Police Commissioner actually ‘retired’. They would end up being dismissed without pension. But there is still no record. And director Pandey insists that it’s no ’suspension of disbelief’. Very well.

And then there is this projected layman who proudly calls himself ‘a stupid common man’. This fellow has the resources and connections to procure RDX and also the technical competence to use it for remote-controlled bombing. Explaining it, the protagonist, brilliantly played by Naseeruddin Shah, says that there are hundreds of websites on the internet to assist a bomb-maker and that even detergent cake is a potential bomb. Well, every single atom around us is a potential atom bomb. Knowledge is not enough. But then, Neeraj Pandey’s ‘common man’ is so extraordinarily uncommon and his ’stupidity’ dazzlingly well-thought and meticulously executed. But that’s absolutely nothing compared to the far greater liberties the director takes with the reality of our times.

The way the movie treats and looks at terrorism is criminally innocent. Terrorism is certainly not a law and order or criminal justice problem like organized crime or drug trafficking, which is why the solution does not lie in the application of brute force. And using the same methods to deal with terrorism as used against regular crimes and criminals is like subjecting a patient to blind treatment with wrong drugs without proper diagnosis. And A Wednesday prescribes a quack’s medicine for a highly complex and lethal affliction that is in dire need of a systematic and phased treatment.

Terrorism is a multifaceted, multilayered, hydra-headed monster that draws its lifeblood from local socio-political reality viewed against the national and international backdrop. Mindless use of force is not the solution but part of the problem. The movie stubbornly refuses to delve any deeper than the cutting edge of the sword. Its awareness is limited to the damage done by the slashing sword, the open wound and the consequent fear. And it seeks only to deal with the edge of the sword without even looking at the hand that holds it or the motives that drive the hand. Deterrent force is the movie’s answer to terror attacks. Wrong answer. Deterrence works best against those conventional crimes that have money and greed at the core. But when it’s about honour, justice, or religious, political or cultural identity, the use of deterrence force can only add fuel to fire. In such situations a clampdown is likely to be seen as a tyrant’s attempt to stomp out rebellion. When state moves swift and hard using disproportionate force to strike out an uncomfortable uprising, it looks fearful, out of control and weak not only to the enemy but also to its own people. Force, therefore, is certainly not the answer. And we know it from experience.

But writer-director Neeraj Pandey takes no lessons and prescribes poison for a cure. A Wednesday appeared so astonishingly naïve in its understanding of terrorism that I took the unprecedented step of asking Mr. Pandey if he really meant what his movie appeared to convey. And in an e-mail interview, through his very brief responses, he confirmed that he saw terrorism as a criminal-justice problem and to his mind a harder clampdown was needed.

What greater force can there be than that used in Afghanistan? And how much more powerful could one be than the world’s mightiest superpower? Besides, India doesn’t have it as easy as the US had. The US is battling an external enemy while we have our own turned against us. The US is paying the price of its shortsighted foreign policies whereas we have our internal, communal politics to blame. They bred them outside, we did it in-house. And if blowing the enemy is the solution, they’ll have ‘explosions’ and we ‘implosions’. So, if we go after this phantom enemy and kill it, the ‘difference’ would be the same as between ‘murder’ and ’suicide’. Any clearer, Mr. Pandey?

Written for and published in LAWYERS UPDATE as Legal Scanner (October 2008 issue)

Reviewing ‘A Wednesday’

Having decided to do a legal review of A Wednesday, I settled in comfortably with a chicken burger and coke (the dinner that day) at PVR Saket. To my mind Naseeruddin Shah was the high point of the movie, and he was enough reason for me to sit through the movie. I had seen the trailer. Terrorism being the central theme, I decided to do a legal review. I expected a clean, slick packaging and consistently gripping treatment, and I was not disappointed. I never expected a fresh insight into terrorism from a newcomer director, and, again, I wasn’t very wrong.

I had also read the praise-singing reviews from the authorities no lesser than Khalid Mohammad and Nikhat Kazmi. But I still did not have high hopes because I had also read similar reviews of Rang De Basanti.

And the movie began with a Mumbai Police Commissioner cooling his heels by the sea shore remembering a case that has no mention in the police records. Four internationally notoriously terrorists from dreaded terrorist organizations were forced to be released and three of them were blown off and one shot in staged police encounter. The case still has no mention in any official records. Am I supposed to believe it? Is that a made-in-India, unanimated version of Tom and Jerry: Terrorism series? But all that was later.

The first scene had actually managed to engage my attention, as a case that was not significant enough for police records but still lingered in the memory of the top cop had to be a moving human story about how the state power engages with the common man, or something close to that. Anything of that sort could be a wonderful story. I sat up and took note. And from there on my disappointment began. The movie took huge liberties with reality. Not only with the way things worked in the real world but also with the mindset of the people. The central character, brilliantly essayed by Naseer, is a family man who tries to teach the system a lesson so as to convey the desperation of the common man.

The problem is that the common is not so naïve as to think that the government lacks motivation to launch a crackdown on terrorism. Moreover, the director also ignores the fact that there has been a much larger crackdown in operation for years now with little gain so far. The US attacked Afghanistan and also Iraq, and it was as far as a country in terms of crackdown.

Did director Neeraj Pandey really intend to say that the reason for the spread of terrorism was that enough force was no applied? Did the director miss the point so completely? I thought of clearing it with the director himself and asked for an interview.

Neeraj, who has so far given very few interviews (if any at all), agreed to an e-mail interview. To my utter astonishment, he confirmed that he actually thought the pressure exerted was no enough. Terrorism, in his opinion, needed to be dealt with a firmer hand.

Of course, I did the Legal Scanner and the interview was part of it. I’ll very soon be publishing both on the blog.

Mumbai attack: What did it change?

The heat generated by Mumbai attack seems to be settling down. Not that we are forgetting it so soon. No, we will not. It was indeed India’s 9/11 for a simple reason that the nation was hit where it hurts the most. This time the highest echelon of Indian society took the hit. No place remained beyond reach, none ever was. But the myth has now been decisively trashed.

Therefore, India is now trying to build a safe sanctuary for its elite and commoners alike because the attack has washed the distinction away. We now know better than ever that in the eyes of the terrorists, one man is as good as the other, one body as good as the other and the more the bodies, the better. Finally, there is someone who sees humanity through a single prism. It’s bad news on the face of it because the entire humanity seems to be under attack. But the flipside of the same is not all that bad. In their attempt to have a go at all, they just might have united ‘all’ against them.

The problem with ‘all’ is that they tend to unite under threat, but as the threat subsides, the unity withers nearly as quickly, whereas the huddle on the other side remains intact. In this clash, the side that holds up longer against the other will finally win the war. Clearly then, the war is going to be a long drawn one, and the victorious will take all.

News and the biased truth

News informs the masses and assists them in making better decisions for the collective good. However, there have always been questions about all theories pertaining to collectivism. Some would argue that man is basically good by nature and being a social animal thinks in terms of the welfare of all while others would argue the opposite. Regardless of the view one subscribes to, it is inescapable that man is selfish either by choice or by default. And why he is selfish makes no real difference.

So, once we have concluded the inescapability of human selfishness, the only way to manage things and make the world a better place is to balance the interests. Human beings, being as reasonable as they are, understand that a clash of interest serves none. Thus, they tend to make peace and not war. But when war is in their interest, they wouldn’t shirk either.

This basic human nature does not leave any area of human endeavour untouched, be it politics or newsroom. In politics the collective interest is pressed hard and may culminate in a full-blown war and in the newsroom the same collective interest is pursued by not objecting to the war irrespective of the human cost it might involve. The press as shapers of public opinion would allow one kind of news and disallow the other side from showing up. Not that news is tampered with, just that some of it is not allowed. So, there is no tampering, only ‘selection’. And by virtue of this ‘selection’, news remains intact but the truth is tampered with. The wars are thus defended.

The impartiality of each piece of news stands above doubt, but our collective truth formed on the basis of such news eventually becomes questionable. And we become biased inadvertently.

Mumbai attack: Don’t blame Pakistan, not yet

The Mumbai nightmare is over, but the horror lingers on, and it will for quite some time. Our collective memory is not that short; how short, we’ll soon know. But for the time being we would cry hoarse asking for some serious action, and the journalists on television would go crazy declaring in thumping voices and emphatic, jerk-nods ‘enough is enough’. But the question that would grimly hang in the air thick with the stench of a freshly served tragedy is what do you do when ‘enough is enough’?

Bring the culprits to justice? Most of them are already dead. So, there are no living villains in the league of Osama. Hit back at the organization that masterminded the attack? It doesn’t matter because it’s just another ‘mujahideen’ name. Tomorrow there would be another ‘x’ Mujahideen wreaking havoc no less tragic. Toughen up with Pakistan? Despite its being our favourite whipping boy and despite our having mastered the use of ‘foreign hand’ theory, blaming our disturbed neighbour this time would yield nothing.

Certain ‘elements’ in Pakistan may have some involvement in the attack, but to blame it on the country would just not be right because blaming a nation is blaming its people, and that must not be done lightly. Even if, for argument’s sake, the involvement of ISI is conceded, the involvement of Pakistan does not naturally follow because anybody who has any understanding of today’s ISI knows that it is not fully controlled by Pakistan.

With time and political backing ISI became a virtually autonomous organization and gradually turned into a headache for Pakistan, which is why Pakistan went ahead and disbanded the political wing of ISI. So, ISI is not essentially Pakistan. Before one trains one’s guns on Pakistan with respect to Mumbai attack, one must understand that it could well be the reason or one of the reasons for the attack.

Improvement in Indo-Pak relations does not help the interests of many groups within Pakistan. A faction of ISI itself may find such an attack quite useful and the blame on Pakistan even more so. All it has to do is carry out a thinly veiled operation of this kind and let the Services be blamed. What happens? Indo-Pak relations turn cold again and a certain faction of the ISI gains relevance. When a weapon assumes an identity of its own, it starts thinking of its own survival. And a weapon is relevant and important only so long as the war lasts. Therefore, the interest of the weapon lies in the prolongation of war.

So, blaming Pakistan in such circumstances may not only be premature and hasty but also counterproductive.

No ban, please

Democracy promotes and revels in disorderly chaos, and thrives on the order that emerges out of this ruckus. However, every now and then things spin out of control, and it is then that the state intervenes. And if it’s an organised outfit to blame, the first thing we seem to seek is a blanket ban on the activities of such organisation. But what exactly do such bans do? Fundamentally, they seek to choke the banned organisation into submission. And this runs counter to the principles on which democracy – any democracy – is founded upon.

The violation of peace and order must be seen as a law and order problem and should necessarily be dealt with accordingly. To assume that the very existence of an organisation is against public interest is like saying that only ‘meaningful and productive’ talk is allowed and one should remain gagged till the time he or she comes up with something that makes sense. It’s after lots of nonsensical thoughts and words back and forth that something seminal emerges. To muffle the stupid is to kill the genius.

Therefore, banning an organisation – be it SIMI or Bajrang Dal – is a completely undemocratic exercise. And irrespective of the justification tendered such bans gnaw at the very foundation of the democracies across the world. After all, as Martin Luther puts it, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Let’s not do a disservice to the plurality of opinion innate in the very concept of democracy. In the long run, tolerance to unpalatable opinions would pay well.

The article was originally written for Merinews

Raj, The Puppeteer

I am not sure if my forefathers liked the Raj or not (my father surely didn’t), but it seems that bypassing my father the genes of ‘Raj love’ managed to sneak into my system. I like all things ‘Raj’, including its Thackeray version. This bespectacled, boyish man looks like a hardboiled, nicely-fried and thoroughly cooked politician who has taken upon himself to give the new generation a taste of ‘Divide and Rule’.

And he is doing it by administering a political injection of pride and identity to the people, who like him for the perceived sweetness of the medicine. So, if he stopped saying what he says, nobody would listen to the poor guy. He just wants to be heard, and is doing all that it takes to have willing ears. He is no Mahatma Gandhi who would come with a nearly-unique political ideology and instill a sense of purpose into the masses who, for the most part, behave like a herd of goats.

But then, why single out Raj? Who, among the politicians today, has a fraction of Gandhi’s strength and conviction? Who has the moral courage to take on the high, mighty and unreasonable solely with the intangible force of truth and virtue? Who would die for the ‘greater common good’, if there is such a thing?

Raj represents our loss of identity as one nation. Thus, to regain it, is the most effective remedy against such cheap. Let’s cease to be puppets and kill the puppeteer, once and for all. That’s what we did during the Raj; let’s do it to the likes of Raj, too.

PS: Don’t take the first sentence too seriously. I don’t like Raj at all, any of the varieties.