Flickr image by Masanori SANO

After the World War II Japan was devastated on the two most crucial fronts that made it one of the major world powers – economic and military. There was widespread poverty, disdain and depression amongst her people. However, this bleak period did not last long. In fact, within just five years of its destruction another war came as a boon – The Korean War. Japan suddenly found itself in the vantage position to manufacture arms and ammunitions for the United States and the United Nations for the war.

Ironically, this allowed Japan to move out of war economy to ‘civilian’ economy (if it can be termed as such) with focus on consumer electronics, infrastructure and automobiles. It did not take long for Japan to overtake countries like United Kingdom and emerge as the world’s second most powerful economy after the United States, which started manufacturing refrigerators and air-conditioners for its masses much before other countries did.

What then made Japan – a tiny war-ravaged island nation – so successful without having natural resources of its own? The answer can perhaps be found in the inherent qualities of the Japanese people, prominent of which are – ingenuity, hardworking and highly disciplined. Of the three qualities mentioned, the last is the one that makes the Japanese stand head and shoulders above other nations of the world with perhaps the exception of Korea, which Japan ruled from 1910 till it was defeated in the World War II.

While it is common to find people in other countries availing every excuse not to work, the Japanese on the contrary find excuses to be at work. This actually became a problem that prompted Japanese corporations to actually give bonuses and other incentives to people who took leaves!

[Some interesting facts and details about Japanese companies and their relationship with their employees here. Though slightly unrelated, you may also want to read Diversity management and the effects on employees’ organizational commitment: Evidence from Japan and Korea by Emiko Magoshi and Eunmi Chang from Journal of World Business here (PDF file).]

The dictum of their culture is also an overbearing factor how a Japanese lives his life, behaves within his society.

The bonuses of having a disciplined society were in full view of the world recently when the earthquake and tsunami hit Japan last month. Although, Japan was perhaps the best prepared of all the nations for exactly the kind of catastrophe they confronted with, it was still not enough to save the lives of the thousands of people who perished. The radiation leakages in their nuclear power plants only multiplied their woes. It was an attack from every flank including from within.

Yet, the Japanese held on marvelously by keeping things simple. That they did by understanding that everyone’s needs was as urgent as theirs. Even though there were acute water and food shortages, people stood patiently in long queues for hours and hours for their turn to come where these things were available. There was no rushing, no rioting, no chaos. You could also say that there was complete discipline even in the middle of complete chaos around.

It did not stop at that. Even the Yakuza gangs patrolled their areas to prevent people from looting and came to the aid of fellow subjects in distress by distributing relief supplies to the affected people.

These are the qualities that will make Japan come out of the current disaster even more strongly. Perhaps, this will turn the Japanese economy upwards, which is lately termed as to be in eternal recession because a lot has to be rebuilt, re-planned, redesigned and relocated.

Contrast us Indians to them Japanese. That would be another post some other day. But for now, let us pay tribute to Japan and her people, and learn the importance of discipline in nation building.

[Also read Cometh the hour by JP Rangaswamy.]

Whenever the case has been discussed, people have taken extreme sides – for or against Dr Binayak Sen. Emotions ran high and nuances of the case got distorted. India’s extreme Far Right Hindutva groups had an additional incentive to go against Sen for he is also seen as a Christian evangelist on a mission to convert the poor tribals of the Chattisgarh area and/or carry out a political agenda against the ruling NDA state governments in the region by helping the Maoist insurgents.

Those who called for his release based their arguments on the shoddy evidences the Chattisgarh Police presented like an unsigned letter linking him to the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist).

Note: The letter was just one of the many exhibits presented as evidence to prove Dr Sen’s association with the Maoists, which was later withdrawn [sic.]

It is pointless to discuss the case itself point by point as it has been done many times on the internet, on TV and elsewhere. The judgment is out [English] and anyone can access it [PDF and in Hindi] and Dr Sen’s lawyers have the constitutional right to appeal against his conviction in a higher court, which I believe they have already done in the Chattisgarh High Court. The only matter that should really be debated is whether some leniency be shown in the case of Sen.

Dr Binayak Sen, an award winning doctor and a social worker made many friends in his life in the Chattisgarh region. Some of them went on to became Maoist insurgent leaders who are waging a bloody armed insurgency against the country. Here, one must understand that it is not an ideological war as it looks from the surface. It is, but pure banditry and thuggery. The original ideology that started with the Naxalbari Movement has long being obfuscated with the current ‘movement’ (if it can be termed as such). Maybe, the foot soldiers are still motivated by the romanticism of the ideology, but in reality they are cannon fodders for the leaders who have vested interests in running this bloody war for the control of India’s vast mineral resources in those parts, poppy cultivation, influence voters through terror, etc. Supporting illegal miners, poppy planters, political parties during election time always mean windfalls of cash. It is no different from the anti-Maoist government supported armed vigilante groups like the brutal Salwa Judum who protect government interests in leasing huge swaths of lands to big mining companies.

Successive governments of these mineral rich states have driven people away from their traditional forest lands often leading to violence. The state came upon them heavy-handedly, picked up vocal members from the tribal communities, tortured and sometimes killed in fake encounters. There had also been many disappearances.

Dr Sen, while working in those areas must have seen such cases first hand, which might be one of the reasons for arranging shelter for the Maoists on the run. One might give him the benefit of doubt that as a human being, he broke the law for protecting his friend from being killed or tortured, the friend being a brigand notwithstanding.

It can also be argued that a person can meet his prisoner friend any number of times if the government has sanctioned such meetings. After all, Dr Sen did not visit the Maoist bandit Narayan Sanyal illegally. Each of his thirty three visits was sanctioned by the administration.

However, what about the other charges as evidenced by the findings, the exhibits and the witness leading to his conviction on charges of sedition? You may keep banned literature for your own study and research as journalists do, but you do not simply keep Maoist propaganda pamphlets, operational plans and other incriminating documents in your house. You also do not act as a conduit passing operational plans.

We must also take into account of the fact that if Dr Sen was a welfare messiah of the tribals, the Maoists (with their proclaimed pro-tribal ideology) would like to distance themselves from him because that could harm his noble mission. On the contrary, the Maoists themselves have not denied his association with them. His name appears several times in Maoist releases. Even the Maoist press release following Dr Sen’s conviction supports him. Rupantar, the well-known Maoist organization in Raipur is run by Binayak Sen’s wife Ilina Sen and his name finds place as the ‘Project Director’ of the organization.

There is no doubt that Dr Binayak Sen has done tremendous work for the welfare of tribals and fought for their rights. His decades of service towards this noble cause has been widely recognized and awarded as well. This, however, is a completely separate matter that must not be mixed with his anti-national and criminal activities with armed insurgents, bandits and thugs who are challenging the Indian state.

He had full knowledge of what he had been doing. He knew that whatever he was doing was illegal, but somehow hoped that the various pseudo-civil liberties groups (some of which he was/is associated with like the PUCL) have enough clout to bail him out of trouble if ever he gets into one. After all, the jholawallah gangs in the cities find it fashionable to do mombatti marches, their voices enabled by default to resonate in the P-Sec TV news channels.

Alas! He missed a small detail though. The judiciary in India is independent. Corruption cases against some judges notwithstanding, it is the most respected and trustworthy institution in our nation, far more credible than any government of the day. Dr Binayak Sen too should have faith in the judiciary if he believes he is innocent of doing something that the law mandates as seditious. Evidence against him will be studied again in the Chattisgarh High Court, and the case may end up in the Supreme Court as well; but for now, he stands as a convicted criminal serving life imprisonment. Having observed that, even if he is guilty, and there is insufficient proof, a human rights respecting true democracy cannot punish a man.

If someone thinks a little, leniency can be shown in this particular case given his age and record of the commendable work he had done in his life for tribal welfare and their rights. For this he must first do the following things:

1. Accept his guilt of having being an activist of a banned outfit
2. Accept that he broke the law knowingly
3. Make an unconditional apology before the nation and seek pardon
4. Stay clear of any kind of activism for the rest of his life and stick to being what he is – a doctor.

Those who really care about him should also convince him to do the above if they really want to see him free any time soon. The nation is always bigger than personal pride. And, such a step would soften the heart of the die-hard opponents too.

In any case, he will never die a martyr in jail because he is no prisoner of conscience.

Coincidentally, completely unrelated to the Anish Trivedi conviction, I had been discussing this with two of my good friends on Twitter – Anand Philip and Ketan Panchal (both young, energetic doctors with interests on myriad of subjects) on the limits of free speech. Should there be any restrictions on free speech, and if so what should be a fair limit?

I strongly believe that freedom of speech, as enshrined in the Preamble of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights charter, is one of the basic human rights. Without the freedom of thought, and to be able to express it, human beings would simply be another species. Also, by allowing ourselves to accept that we have no freedom to question authority, we would only encourage speedier than gradual despotic systems around us just as we saw in the communist regimes in the world as epitomized by George Orwell’s immortal work – Animal Farm. A true democracy isn’t so until it allows its citizens to speak their mind freely, where no attempt to control thought is made.

Someone could suggest that with great freedom comes great responsibility. A slight deviation from the adage – With great power comes great responsibility (an enhancement of the Biblical quote “But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.” Luke 12:48).

Still valid, but what’s the use of a freedom when we can’t use the full extent of it? It is like you have the right to carry a gun and use it for self defense, but if you use it in public, you would be put in jail because of your thoughtlessness for having used it in public endangering lives of others apart from the attacker. Shall discuss what/who an attacker is in the broader sense later in the post.

Today we are seeing growing intolerance around the world, especially when it comes to expressing views through words or art/illustrations involving religion or religious figures. Blasphemy, hate speech, seditious speech, instigating speech etc have become buzzwords of the day. What’s blasphemy? When religion itself is man-made, why can’t it be questioned, why can’t one disagree with the scriptures? If one disagrees with something, he should be able to express it. There is nothing in the world that is 100 percent correct.

Similarly, what constitutes a hate speech? If speaking against a certain community, race etc amounts to hate speech, almost all of humankind is guilty of having made such a speech in his life, whether be it in public or private.

There are some greater issues involved in criminalizing public expression of thoughts by branding them as racist, hate speech, blasphemous, seditious etc. Let me first take the issue of Anish Trivedi before I mention a couple of international characters. Whatever he wrote in his column was his personal view. It was written in English, for a tabloid that wasn’t as big then as it is today. Despite being an avid netizen, I missed reading the article (if ever it was posted online), or heard any buzz around it then. I didn’t know until now! That being a story in itself apart, whatever he wrote was what many millions in India truly feel. A casual banter in a college or office canteen would tell you the truth.

Let me share with you something that I experienced first hand. I have lived in Patna for over a decade and half. One of my school mates, a Rajput by caste (though I thought Rajputs were only Kshatriyas) went to study in the Bihar Veterinary College, which was close to my home. One day, in the mid-90s he invited me to his hostel where I had lunch with him in the dining mess of the college. I was surprised to see that it was divided along caste lines.

Rajput-Thakurs sat together, Yadavs sat separately and those who got admission through the Reservation Quota sat entirely separately. They were looked down upon and members of the other so-called Upper Castes openly despised them. It was rather embarrassing for me to sit through the lunch when some of whom I was sitting were openly mocking them. It was a shocker. I could imagine the state of affairs in other professional colleges like the numerous medical and engineering colleges in India’s many states that have a caste problem. By that extension, I could also imagine the discrimination they faced in workplaces etc.

This brings to the question why there is so much angst against those who are entitled to the Reservation Quota. It is not inherent. It was simply because Reservation is used for vote bank politics. The Creamy Layer provisions are by and large ignored, manipulated or simply not implemented. The benefits of the Reservation Quota are so great that many agitations were/are fought by members of various communities to include them in the Scheduled Castes or Schedule Tribes category that enjoy automatic Reservation, or merely to extend Reservation to their communities. We saw one very recently.

This has resulted in many mediocre professionals getting inducted in prestigious educational institutions, PSUs etc while meritorious and deserving candidates were left out. Therefore, the buzz is that those who got a job without having to toil that hard and without sufficient merit have brought with them a culture of inefficiency, laziness, unprofessional work ethics etc. This thought has gained currency among a sizeable number of Indians that manifested itself in Anish Trivedi’s article. I, however, find this kind of generalization as incredibly unfair and immoral.

But, we are not talking about morality here. What type of a country would impose restrictions on a fundamental human right based upon morality? A look around would suggest that those countries with the most abysmal of human rights records do that. And, not surprisingly most of these countries are run by tyrants of the worst kind. Imagine a country that executes people for ‘thought crimes’.

So, what happens in those countries where you cannot vent out your frustrations, anger etc in form of words, art or illustrations in public even if they contain profanity? The frustrations, the energy get into underground channels, and they find agreeing whispers. Accumulation of this energy often turns into a bad movement because there are always people with nefarious agenda ready to mislead and brainwash. It is easy then. Ayman al-Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad is an example of this. The Iranian Revolution happened mainly because of the way the Shah dealt with his subjects. Saudi Arabia is too feeling the heat of an underground movement that wishes to overthrow the House of Saud from power.

When Arjun Singh, the human resource development minister in UPA-I increased the quota in educational institutions, young students under the leadership of what looked like teachers protested in the Delhi Metro trains. They were chanting slogans like – Arjun Singh ka bhai kaisa ho? Praveen Mahajan jaisa ho! [Roughly translated – How should Arjun Singh’s brother be? He should be like Praveen Mahajan (who shot dead his brother Promod)]. This happened right in the heart of the capital and yours truly was witness to it. Why wasn’t anyone arrested or tried for this? Given the implications, they were calling for the death of man who tried to extend the Reservation Quota, and by extension against the people who enjoy it as their birth right without having to do as much to earn it as the ‘General’ category members do.

The ‘attacker’ as I mentioned earlier in the article could be one who demands and gets reservation just as he could be the one who uses slur against them to drive a point. An attacker could be the buccaneers of a faith, an authority, the government etc. It all depends on how you perceive an attacker from a victim. And, since it is a subject to perception of an individual, one doesn’t have the right to infringe upon the right of an individual of free speech.

Unlike India, most Western societies understand this broadly. Therefore, we see tolerance for people like Pastor Terry Jones, Glen Spicer, Louis Farrakhan, Kurt Westergaard etc. Having said that, we must not lose the perspective that freedom of speech is not entitlement to be heard.

Therefore, are all types of speeches non-criminal in nature then? The answer is NO. Some definitely fall under the category of criminal use of speech. However, they are extremely few in my opinion.  Two possibilities come to my mind at this moment that can be categorized as criminal, though I yield that they can be challenged as well.

1. To instigate an emotionally charged and volatile mob that has gathered in order to protest against a gruesome crime to kill or riot
2. To demoralize soldiers in the battlefield by telling them they face sure defeat and/or this isn’t a just enough cause to fight

As I stated in my opening paragraph, I would try to reach the end of this never ending debate. Well, the nature of the subject is such that debates on this will continue till the time bigotry is completely defeated and eradicated from this world.

Many TV debates followed involving representatives from the Christian community who just could not accept the pro-life verdict. This is despite Graham Staines’ wife and the mother of his two murdered children Gladys Staines forgave Dara Singh and the other killers.

There was a lot of buzz in the twitterati too, some in favour of the verdict and others against. Two of those who were against the verdict and with whom I engaged into conversations on the subject were Harini Calamur and Aashish Laghate, both of whom I consider as my friends. And, those two conversations actually prompted me to write this post after such a long interval. So, thanks to both of them.

I have always been anti-death penalty since I started understanding issues regarding crime and punishment from a young age. Apart from the immorality of death penalty, the questions that seek answers are:

1. What justifies the quantum of punishment?
2. Is the punishment an effective deterrent to the members of the society to commit a similar crime?
3. What should be the idea behind punishing a criminal?
4. Is the law fair to all?

In the medieval times, petty crimes such as stealing could have meant execution of the criminal. Today, in some societies, a convicted thief’s hands are amputated. While a blasphemer awaits the hangman’s noose in Pakistan, blasphemy is a non-issue in an overwhelming number of countries in the world.

A Taliban follower would be able to endlessly justify death to a blasphemer or amputation of a thief’s hand. Would the educated and modern in India able to condone such punishment for a blasphemer or a thief or stoning to death of an adulteress? I don’t, and believe the educated and modern members of the society would not either.

This brings to my argument that by the same yardstick, say, a Dutch or a Swede would find those members of the Indian intelligentsia akin to the Taliban as they find them. What is not even worth a court case for some is a death sentence elsewhere. Therefore, the question is what justifies the quantum of punishment? For me, it boils down to one’s personal level of sadism.

Does that mean that the concept of crime and punishment be done away with? The answer is NO. Punishment serves two purposes – deterrent and reform. No freedom loving individual would like to be in jail. The fear of having to serve a prison term is enough for an overwhelming majority of the population to stay as approximately close to the right side of law as possible. Repeated offenders get longer sentences. The idea behind jailing is to reform. Then, what about those who are beyond reforms? The answer is – incarcerate them for the rest of their lives, strip the abominable criminals like child rapists and murderers of their share of sunshine, the sound of birds chirping.

One may ask the question here, then why not just kill the criminal and get done away with the business? This is because in India (as in many other countries with death penalty) there is an abysmal lack of equality and fairness in criminal jurisprudence. This is also a matter that boils down to the judge of the day’s personal convictions. What is sauce for the goose isn’t sauce for the gander in this country. Here is a glaring example of what I am trying to say. Also, look at the reasons given by the Supreme Court for commuting Santosh Singh’s death sentence to life imprisonment. He deserved to live because he got married! What about Dhananjoy Chatterjee, a poor man who was already married? Ah! More on him later.

Some might still argue that the fault is in with the system and not the punishment itself. Just for the sake of argument, let us take the example of Indira Gandhi’s killers. Three men – Satwant Singh, Kehar Singh and Balbir Singh were sentenced to death by the trial court. Apart from Satwant Singh who was one of the killers, Kehar Singh and Balbir Singh were sentenced to death for the conspiracy to assassinate Indira Gandhi. They appealed to the High Court, which after studying the evidences against the men upheld the trial court’s order of the death sentence. (It must be noted that all death sentences are reviewed by the High Court of the state in India now.) Then they moved the Supreme Court. No one had any doubt over the fate of the three men even there. The country was seething, the government was in no mood to forgive. However, the Supreme Court, to the surprise of many not only overturned the death sentence on Balbir Singh, but acquitted him and he walked free! Imagine what was happening in the country pre-Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab landmark case.

In India, the window period to find new evidence to prove a condemned man innocent is very short. There had been many, many cases, especially the US where life imprisonments [example] and death sentences were overturned after new evidences surfaced after the prisoner spend decades in prison [a list], and at times pardoned after the execution was carried out [example]. Forget about the barbarity of the punishment for a second, this is reason enough to do away with death penalty. Once a person is put to death, there is no way you can bring the life back. It is forever.

There is no proof that the provision of death sentence in a country’s law is a deterring factor to criminals who are motivated enough to kill. Worldwide, thousands of people are executed for homicide each year. Yet, there are no stats that prove that homicide cases have dropped in those countries. On the contrary, they appear to have only increased. Contrast this with countries that do not carry out judicial executions such as European Union countries. Violent crimes are the lowest in the world in those countries.

When Dhananjoy Chatterjee was hanged for the rape and murder of 16-yr-old Hetal Parekh, I opposed it. One of my arguments was if we were hanging the same man who committed the crime almost 15 years back. A man changes a lot awaiting execution for 15 years. His motive was to avenge the insult and subsequent loss of job as watchman in the housing society due to Hetal’s complaints against him. It wasn’t just a senseless random rape and murder. Yet, I was attacked due to whatever I wrote and discussed on forums (like this one). I received over 500 emails a day from a Yahoo! Forums group, 90 percent of which were hatemails, some even calling for my death. Some suggested (surprisingly, including many females) that Dhananjoy be made to drink acid and put to death in the most gruesome way. Buddhadeb Bhattacharya’s wife said in public that he be thrown to hungry tigers.

Those made me wonder if sometimes punishment should act as retribution sought by society. Many years later, Mahesh Jethmalani said exactly the same thing on TV in favour of the death penalty on Kasab. I strongly disagree. First, retribution is retribution, not punishment. We don’t live in an eye-for-an-eye world. If anything, we are trying to get out of such mindset. Today, will the law allow us to kill those who embezzled billions of dollars of public money, and yet stashed over one and half trillion dollars in overseas accounts? Don’t many in our country want to hang Kalmadi and Raja? Why the disparity then? Don’t those astronomical figures of embezzled public money fall into the category of rarest of rare crimes?

Well, we are no China or Iran, and don’t want to be like them. Then, why can’t we think better and be like one of those European countries?

I want Kasab to be spared, Afzal Guru to be spared. A solitary life behind bars leaving them to introspect for their whole lives is good enough retribution and punishment for me.

Volga Bar and Restaurant

The opportunity came six years later in the spring of 2004 when I came here ‘on my way to’ Bangalore from Patna on a business trip. Not the shortest of routes between the two cities, but I had a kind of meeting here that later pushed me to set up base here in Delhi in January 2005. During my brief stay here then, I had to travel to the British Council at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, very close to CP and while returning, the compulsive ornithologist in me used to drag me to the Inner Circle. That was when I had my first entry inside Volga.

Volga Bar and Restaurant

The first thing that struck me in the bar was the simplicity of the place that was large, well lit (at least much brighter than the usual bars) and the light music that made the ambience much to my liking. It was brimming with people of all hues, from all over the world. There were jholawallahs, the university students, the pressmen, the love struck couples and of course random guys like me. It seemed the Volga is the egalitarian utopia that had its doors open for everyone (though I was to find out months later that table cloths were spread for a selected few customers unless you specifically asked for one). Looking at the wine card made my heart fill with delight as beers cost almost half of what you would probably expect in other bars and the fresh cheese cutlet that you would travel miles for didn’t burn holes in your pocket. And mind you, those days I was almost always just over broken.

That was when I made up my mind to make this my beer adda as long as I was in Delhi.

Over the years, Volga became the place where I made plans with partners, chatted endlessly with fellow journalists, heard people’s heartbreak stories and narrated my own. There were occasions where an occasional glass would slip out of hands and break (it never happened with me though) and the friendly waiters would look the other way.

We had made friends with our regular waiters, one of whom we used to call Uncle ji, a portly bespectacled man pushing middle-age. He used to come over our table, which was almost always the same, the corner of the sofa on the left wall, even if he was not waiting for us to shake hands. His presence insured that even if the regular waiters were not waiting for us on a particular day, we would be well-served. And yes, with the passing of time, the size of our tips too got bigger, so that was an added incentive for them. Of course, no matter whether Uncle ji served us on a particular evening or not, we always tipped him as well saying – just have a smoke with this (or something to that effect).

Outside Volga Restaurant

There are so many memories of that place that would be etched in my memory for ever. Like the beer meetings with my ex-colleagues, former team members, the friend for 22 years who is no longer alive, the book readings, the planning of ventures that never really took off, the heartbreak stories (everybody had one in different times including yours truly), the disgust over banning of smoking in Delhi pubs, the other regulars whom we saw often and almost seemed that we knew each other but never spoke to like the elderly foreigner with a dusky young Indian companion, the man with a camera (he seemed to me like a press photographer) and the south Indian gentleman who was a sucker for the cream of corn soup there etc., etc.

That's my brand of beer and the green chutney

The Volga in CP had a reputation for serving the chilliest beer in the whole of Delhi/NCR region. Its green chutney and peanut masala combo was legendary. I hear that the Volga was also the favoured meeting point of middle class families looking for matrimonial alliances. The first floor was reserved for guests with families or at least a female companion to qualify. However, that was waived for us bachelors (then) and the top waiter there who happened to serve us once on the ground floor always pleaded (in vain) to come upstairs. Though, I saw many families coming in the Volga for a nice time out, I don’t think I saw any families of prospective brides and grooms meeting (or I might have missed it).

A few weeks back, I and some of the old timers planned to meet at the Volga for we haven’t gone through the exercise for some time now. I was quite excited to go there again like a thousand times before on Saturday, Feb 27. The plan was canceled in the last moment due to some unforeseen developments. We agreed to meet the next Saturday.

Alas! It was not to be.

The Feb 28 paper carried the news of the closure of Volga much to my shock and dismay. It jolted me out of my Sunday morning trance and I immediately dialed a few old timers. All of them were in shock as if there had been a family bereavement. It began to get worse when my thoughts went to the friendly waiters. I couldn’t believe that I may never see them again. They way the management shut the joint seemed arbitrary. I wish them, who have planned to contest their sudden termination, the very best.

I went to CP on March 07, Sunday. I passed by the place and saw the door open. Only, the restaurant was ripped off its furniture and a few people, one with a salt and pepper hajji beard instructing a group of labourers something.

I left the place immediately. I knew it was a love affair that has sadly ended, as with real love affairs, the memories would always remain.

[If you have any Volga stories, do share with my readers and me here]

Images: ProxyIndian

Illustration Shyam Jagota

However, what happens to those media men forming public opinion and cry for justice for the common citizen who suddenly develop cold feet when it comes to matching their words, err… tweets/blog posts/forum discussions with what they actually carry out on TV?

Quite a few media personalities are on Twitter these days incessantly tweeting about their programmes and thoughts on current issues. Nothing wrong with that except when TV news channel editors do that, say something and then cannot match their thoughts up through their actions, like skirting a pertinent question that is different yet related to a current issue, things start getting shameful.

Unlike an instant messenger (IM) message or a mobile text sent under a fit of emotion, or an email that you sent when you are drunk and later regretted, tweeting under emotion or tweeting something that you are not is far more dangerous. Popular and well-known personalities have numerous followers.

And, those numerous followers have the power of retweet to their followers and the followers have theirs. This makes the bad or self-flogging tweet reach a fantastic number of people in the twitterati.  And, as a result damage control becomes impossible.

In the last three weeks or so, I had been following the tweets of some prominent newsmen, some not even in the list of those who I follow on Twitter. I did that because I always had a feeling that these people are prone to ‘accidents’ that may come in the way of having tweeted something that they cannot match up with the content their channels dish on the particular subject/topic.

I did not have to wait much longer to get the first such tweet, rather tweets from a very well known, former face of good journalism and now a very loud speaking editor of a very well-known English news channel with a semi-diabolic agenda. That was when the Shah Rukh Khan (SRK)-Shiv Sena (Sena) drama started just before the release of SRK’s latest flick My Name Is Khan (MNIK) turning the so-called news channels into movie channels playing the drama (where SRK was of course the hero and the SS a bunch of goons SRK had the role to vanquish) in loop ad nauseum.

This particular newsman not only kept tweeting on the issue and the programmes his channel was going to dish out on that, but kept skirting the bombardment of questions, especially from the active Kashmiri Pundits (KPs) living in exile as refugees in Delhi and some from other quarters whom he can conveniently term as right wingers (and thus evade the issue). However, there was a question and a very pertinent one because it was on ‘national unity’ and ‘nation for all’ issue.

The bias of this man or his helplessness for the lack of control over expressing the content of his thoughts reached its nadir when he even kept questions on the issue ‘under moderation/consideration’ (whatever) in his much self-publicized (on his channel and Twitter) net meeting on his website till it was over. And, he is a much-liked journalist!

That was when I really began to feel sorry for him.

I must take this opportunity to applaud Vikram Chandra of NDTV of having the conscience to tweet his thoughts on the KP issue on the 20^th anniversary of the KP exodus from the Valley when the media, including his own seemed to have imposed a self-censor on the event. NDTV later carried a programme on the issue, but it was too little, too late and looked as if it was a face-saving exercise for them. Vikram’s active role in the NDTV Greenathon initiative made me watch the gig at Central Park at Connaught Place this evening because he is one of the few journalists I hold in high esteem.

Then there is this so-called journalist who had the naivety to send a legal notice to an individual who had exercised his right to express his opinions thus hitting the proverbial fan with shit. However, that’s not what I want to discuss here. This particular newsperson in concern had the audacity (or stupidity) to start a discussion on Facebook on the incident. Hundred of comments followed; after all, it involved a well-known TV face.

Given this person’s bias (some don’t hesitate to call this person a downright bigot), and the way this person has conducted on TV, it was almost predictable that those comments that did not subscribe to this person’s views were summarily deleted. This coming from a self-styled journo is unacceptable. When journos start behaving like tools of despots where dissenting voices are stifled, especially when it is on a public forum and not a Letter to the Editor, they are really prostituting themselves and in turn the business that they are in.

I have no doubts in my mind that a Dan Rather moment is waiting to happen in India and one (or more) of these newsmen (who don’t even come close to the stature of Dan Rather) will find themselves running to find a place to hide with the tail tucked between legs.

But, that will happen (the hiding part) only if there is still any shame left in them.

My advice to the newsmen, especially TV newsmen whom people see live every day is not to stay away from social media, but to show some guts and match your programmes with your thoughts that you so freely tweet or blog about. Unless that happens, you will never gain the kind of respect from India’s large youth community who know you and are more active on online social media than you or perhaps even  me.

And, social media is for those who have the guts, guts to take criticism and even to apologize. And, for those media men with hidden agendas, stay away from social media. You will expose your bigotry even more.

Cartoon: Published with express consent of my friend Shyam Jagota, the cartoonist.

With the advent of private news channels post liberalization, we hoped that we can at least see unbiased news reports, analysis and daring journalism; channels that do not follow the government-of-the-day’s political correctness, channels that cannot be bullied by those in power. We hoped to see more of the likes of Brahma Chellaney, who was the face of fearless journalism during the Operation Blue Star. Maybe, for a brief period that happened till the late 90s with NDTV leading the way.

However, that wasn’t what we – stupid Indians – had in store for. Today, we are being dished day in and day with unimaginable amounts of scum-rotten ‘news and analysis’ content, meaningless discussions and debates that are usually full of rhetoric and boring verbosity.

With the exception of perhaps one mainstream TV news channel (that I may name some day in future if it continues to be the way it is), all channels thrive on plain yellow journalism to score over the other.  And, we deserve every bit of the shit we are being dished out by them, simply because we hog every bit of the shit called news content shamelessly.

This post here is not about or on how Hindi ‘newstertainment’ channels like Aaj Tak or India TV or IBN7 dish content to compete with each other, because I don’t watch them no more. The post is on those channels whose editors were once the face of Indian journalism, inspiring many a youth to take up TV journalism in the last decade or so.

There are these self-proclaimed ‘faces of fearless journalism’ and ‘journalist-driven’ channel founders who have not only shamed, but raped the very fundamentals of ethical journalism in India causing it the indignity that I am afraid, might take decades to wipe off if not a rich (and not necessarily a bald) guy with a truckload of cash and conscience comes seeking motivated young people to start a fearless, journalist-driven, unbiased and ethical TV news channel today.

Without delving into the past to discuss which well known TV journalist’s actions compromised how many soldiers’ security and plans fighting terrorists savaging a city,  or whose unashamedly biased ‘reportage’ fanned communal tensions let’s look into what happened in the last few weeks.

The channels suddenly found a whipping boy in the Shiv Sena (Sena). Of course, like most sane, proud and even nationalistic Indians, I think the Sena and its splinter party the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) are parties of buffoons, by buffoons and for buffoons. They have been able to flog themselves with embarrassing regularity making them the butt of jokes throughout the country including Maharashtra itself.

However, I would like to point out to the fact that the editors of these channels have made themselves look like bigger buffoons by the way they covered the Sena vs. Rest of India fiasco. First they tried to raise the issue of the Sena howl against Sachin, then Ambani etc. However, since they didn’t give much importance to the channels and ignored them, the editors of the channels were left high and dry. They wanted the sensation that they couldn’t get from ‘raising’ such ‘profound’ issues of ‘national importance’.

Then they finally got it!

Shah Rukh Khan (SRK) is one of those beyond the curve marketers of his own brand in general and films in particular. Many other Bollywood actors would do well in business emulating him. He had his upcoming movie – My Name is Khan (MNIK) to promote. What better way to promote the movie in India than create a controversy around it. Yes, the promos are on, but nothing beats prime time news publicity especially when you don’t have to pay for it (the programme sponsors would foot the bill).

So he did what best could be done; he ‘hurt’ the ultra-sensitive gonad region of the Sena by placing the weight of the country over it. As expected, the bellicose Sena buffoons wasted no time to put on their baboon gears and go on to threaten the actor and vandalize the theatres that were to screen the film on its release.

Suddenly, protecting a Muslim superstar and his right to business (read business interests) from the communal baboons of the Sena becomes the cause that the ‘secular’ news channels they had to ‘fight’ for without second thoughts. They came in herds and joined hands in their crusade against communal-cum-regionalist forces dividing the nation.

The ruling ‘secular’ coalition government of Maharashtra also joined in to fight their political opponents. The channels devoted 1000s of hours collectively to SRK’s cause vilifying the Sena as monsters of modern India, the evil that India can be killed by…

For the last ten days or so, MNIK ran successfully even before its release in the news TV channels, and continues to run so till today.

And, everyone except the Sena was a winner in the end.

The channels raked in more than average ad money because of high TRP the SRK-Sena coverage got them, a seemingly forgetful movie got houseful openings across the country and the ruling coalition in Maharashtra successfully scored a brownie point over its political opponent.

What more can one ask for?

Two questions though for these fearless faces of journalism and journalist-driven channels.

1. Where were you with your secular/national cause when Kamal R. Khan’s (KRK) Deshdrohi was banned by the state government for 60 days under the Bombay Cinema Regulation Act?

Well, of course I should have known the answer. SRK is a superstar (who sells) whereas KRK was a rookie (hence, an unsafe bet). But then, you might have a different answer.

2. If regionalism is such a bad thing, if Mumbai is for all Indians, where is your voice against Article 370 in Kashmir? After all, following the Hindu exodus from the Valley under the threat of guns from the Islamic terrorist, there was no Kashmiriyat to protect under the temporary provisions of Article 370. Isn’t Srinagar too for all Indians then?

Ah! Maybe Kashmir is an international issue for you.

If the TV news channels really wanted to snub the Sena, they could have reported the threats made to the actor, pointed out what they did in the past and what they are doing now (like bringing in an Western icon Michael Jackson to perform in Mumbai in the past and now targeting ‘Western culture’ by smashing shops selling Valentine’s Day cards and cakes); and moved ahead with it. Instead, the way they carried the diatribe for days was despicable, dishonourable and vulgar to say the least.

Journalism, my friends, is not just a word. Break news, show facts, analyze, but never try to put words in your guest’s or interviewee’s mouth, and don’t ever try to create opinions. And, yes, don’t shout too much while anchoring a programme. Keep your voice low, we can still hear you.

Present news and facts as it is and let the public form their opinion. It is not your job. In fact, it is a cardinal sin for a journalist to show bias and/or try to form opinions in public mind.

In my next post, I shall be discussing why prominent newsmen from these channels shouldn’t play the social media game like Twitter and Facebook.

I had my first blogging experience way back in April 2003 and wrote a few posts here and there but somehow blogging took a back seat as I was into so many other things like journalism, software consultancy & development, and a myriad of causes that I felt very strongly about. Those days blogging wasn’t very popular especially in India, and I was mainly into online forums discussing and commenting on anything from software to sex.

That was when I was in Patna before fate brought me to New Delhi in the winter of 2004-05.

For eight months I did nothing but worked as freelance programmer developing software for small enterprises while my brother, seven years younger than me, was running the operations of my firm in Bihar. Most of the projects we handled were governmental then, and due to lack of vision and fierce idealism where I tried to defy the system by refusing to bribe babus back there, we never got the due payments. That was when I decided to find a permanent job for a short period of time with the hope things will improve.

I found a job, but things never improved. I was to retain the status of just over broken for the next four three years.

However, the job that I landed was a dream job. A young entrepreneur having misinterpreted my resume in TimesJobs.com called me for an interview. Actually, I wanted a cozy job as an instructional designer while saving my software programming talents to my firm and myself. Also, I believed that the job would be a short-term affair and I need not take up something that would require me to commit for a long time. Since instructional designing falls in the ‘Content’ category, the champ-in-making Ankit Maheshwari, co-founder of the Instablogs Network (Citizen Media Pvt. Ltd.), called me for an interview as he was seeking some ‘content’ guys for his new venture.

It had been the most enriching experience during my association with Instablogs. I had been associated with it since its very inception till it has become what it is now. Ankit’s business foresight had been remarkable. The way he handled his resources, the way he carried it through till this date has been nothing short of fantastic.

Today, I am proud to be with SMCI Media, a division of SMCI India Ltd., ACN Group. The top leadership of the group headed by its Chairman Mr. RA Chaudhary along with his 2-i-C (my CEO) Mr. Anil Goyal entrusted me to start their media venture. It had to be a combination of new media and old media. As the Chief Operating Officer & Editor in Chief, I had my responsibilities cut out. It is now almost a year since then. Today, we have been successful in launching perhaps India’s only English fortnightly – Education Master, covering the education sector from a 360° angle – both national and international with experts in the field chipping in with insightful articles and comments. Up on the anvil are some more niche magazines and portals that will cover tech, healthcare, business etc. Let’s see what we manage to do, or for that matter fail to do in the future. All the startup ventures I took up in my life, I considered them to be my very own.

However, I had to blog, I had to write. I just can’t say goodbye to writing my thoughts. I have very strong opinions. I had to write, I wrote for others, but that is now period. I shall write for you, and I shall be me. No damn editor can take this right away from me, no damn regimental control.

The Golden Archer is going to be there, even if I am associated with any business concern or not. I made this resolution this New Year that I shall be myself, I shall be fearless.

Today, in front of you guys, I resolve that come what may, this is going to be the voice of my conscience, the one driven by principles. However, that will not be all. This isn’t going to be a critical blog. In fact, this would be the platform to disseminate information, and ask questions from the public at large. Therefore, you may not be surprised if media is the theme here, more often than not.

There are many people who know me, yet there are many, many more who do not. I invite you to interact with me, I invite you to be my brother. I need your support.

If there is an issue that needs to be taken up, highlighted, you have this platform. If the cause is fair, and genuine, I shall take matters in my own hands. I shall take it to the public.

At the end of the day the public is god. Janata Janardhan.