Whenever a water dispute erupts between two states it often takes very bizarre proportions and in the midst of state pride, regional sentiment, legal complications and political rhetoric the reality gets clouded beyond recovery. Mullaiperiyar is no different.
What’s interesting is that the Mullaiperiyar dispute does not fit the definition of a water dispute at all. A water dispute is between two states or parties over the quantum of water released by the upper riparian state to the lower. Like in the case of Cauvery, Godavari or even the Indo-pak dispute over the Indus. In the case of Mullaiperiyar the dispute is over the existence of a dam. Kerala is a water rich state and does not want water from the Periyar River. It’s willing to give as much as Tamil Nadu wants.
Kerala says ‘safety’ is the key. In the past it had raised the issue of ‘safety’ of the 116 year old dam and had wanted water storage levels reduced. In 2006 the Supreme Court ruled in Tamil Nadu’s favour and after safety audits ordered that the dam is safe to hold 142 feet of water compared to the present 136. Kerala doesn’t need the additional water that Tamil Nadu hold’s in the dam but yet is opposing an increase in storage levels and the reason for that opposition is not water but land.
While Kerala is a water surplus state it’s uncomfortable with the large tracts of land (8000 acres) that are submerged in the Mullaiperiyar’s catchment area. Most of this land is Kerala’s and an increase in water storage would mean more land would be submerged. Instead if a new dam is built down stream then several thousand acres of Kerala’s land would be relieved of water and can be a gold mine for the state. So this dispute from Kerala’s point of view is about land and not water.
From Tamil Nadu’s point of view it needs the water for irrigation and drinking water needs in four southern districts. Building a new dam down stream would mean land in Tamil Nadu would be submerged and the state feels that it is an unnecessary waste of resources and could result in uncertainty over water. It’s also been turned into an issue of political pride over the last decade.
This is pretty much the history of the dispute, it’s not been an emotive war, except in 2006 when the Supreme Court ruled in Tamil Nadu’s favour and Kerala virtually overruled the verdict with a “Dam Safety Act”. What’s interesting is that the issue of the dam’s safety suddenly re-erupted, ostensibly because of tremors in the Idukki region. Kerala suddenly stepped up the political momentum on ‘safety’, Jayalalithaa responded and both states have now taken the issue to the prime minister. But why did the issue erupt suddenly?
A few hundred kilometres away from the dam is the site for the Koodankulam Nuclear power plant. The centre’s been trying to negate anti nuclear protestors there campaigning against the project on the ‘safety’ plank. The centre sought Jayalalithaa’s support in controlling the protests at Koodankulam, but the Tamil Nadu CM, miffed by the centre not treating her ‘special’ refused to help. Remember, without the state government’s help negating the Koodankulam protests will be impossible, and the PM’s dream nuclear power project could face uncertainty.
Some political observers are now seeing a link between the sudden eruption of the Mullaiperiyar issue and the Koodankulam stand off. They may be conspiracy theorists, but their logic seems plausible. They believe Congress led UDF ruled Kerala has systematically raised the Mullaiperiyar issue to counter Jayalalithaa’s non cooperation with the centre in handling the protests in Koodandkulam. The dam dispute has now created a situation where Jaya ruled Tamil Nadu needs the centre’s help in negating the matter. This puts pressure on the Tamil Nadu government to co operate with the centre on the Koodankulam issue. It's virtually given the centre a tough handle on Jayalalithaa when it negotiates with her for help to defeat protestors at the nuclear power plant.
But if this is true it also creates the anvil for a precarious situation. If the two states overplay the issue it could become politically impossible to handle. And if it’s not dealt with tact it could result in creating uncertainty over a 116 year old dam and a state of the art Nuclear power plant. The fear is political egos could result in a large loss for the nation as a whole.
This may be dismissed as ‘paranoia’ by some and ‘conspiracy theory’ by others. But there are some who believe that this reflects the inability of Indian politicians to rise above their political egos and build a consensus. The key with Mullaiperiyar is it’s not a dispute over water. Both states have a case and it’s not like other water disputes where a solution seems impossible, raising the political temperature will only make it one more in our long list of emotive, idiotic and unmanageable inter state disputes. Sadly even the Supreme Court orders and the larger good of the nation have been defeated by regional political rhetoric and egos of our political personalities. The effort should be to ensure that a dam and a nuclear power plant do not fall victim to this self destructive course of our political landscape.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
The child on a street.
The water is pouring from the skies.
their body is wet,
But there's no moistness in their eyes
I try to feel their life of blood and sweat
But my heart must have frozen like ice.
In a day I see them just once twice or thrice.
and then I retreat to my life full of lies.
On my windscreen and my window they knock.
the thougt of my offering makes them flock.
The light turns from red turns to green
And I diassper into life in a fast lane,
But day after day the scene remains the same.
Their life it seems is an unopened lock.
No one to guide them to a key,
No one to help them see.
Their Childhood robbed, their future clogged.
If God was true then why were they born,
to suffer a life of indignity and burn.
If he doesn't exist then who can I blame
Do I question a nation and it's fame
or Do I retreat that it's a shame
Why do I have what I do, why do they live the way they do.
I have a child their same age,
to him the world doesn't seem like a cage.
When they see him will their hearts not fill with rage ?
How can we write their lives on the same page.
In the act of a nation will they remain at the same stage
Why act, why write our history, if we cnnot make their life change.
(inspired by an unknown child begging for alms on a rainy day. Rain or sun I see her everyday. Can I do something to change her life ?. Will I do anything to change her life?. I don't know)
their body is wet,
But there's no moistness in their eyes
I try to feel their life of blood and sweat
But my heart must have frozen like ice.
In a day I see them just once twice or thrice.
and then I retreat to my life full of lies.
On my windscreen and my window they knock.
the thougt of my offering makes them flock.
The light turns from red turns to green
And I diassper into life in a fast lane,
But day after day the scene remains the same.
Their life it seems is an unopened lock.
No one to guide them to a key,
No one to help them see.
Their Childhood robbed, their future clogged.
If God was true then why were they born,
to suffer a life of indignity and burn.
If he doesn't exist then who can I blame
Do I question a nation and it's fame
or Do I retreat that it's a shame
Why do I have what I do, why do they live the way they do.
I have a child their same age,
to him the world doesn't seem like a cage.
When they see him will their hearts not fill with rage ?
How can we write their lives on the same page.
In the act of a nation will they remain at the same stage
Why act, why write our history, if we cnnot make their life change.
(inspired by an unknown child begging for alms on a rainy day. Rain or sun I see her everyday. Can I do something to change her life ?. Will I do anything to change her life?. I don't know)
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
How and Why Money matters in an election?
There's been quite a lot of talk about the distribution of money by the DMK in the Tamil Nadu election. The allegations against the ruling party are largely true and despite the Election Commission's crackdown money did flow to the voter, choked by the crack down, but it did reach the voter. The question really is can the money change the outcome of an election where nearly 80 percent of the nearly five core voters cast their vote. Many analysts feel that focusing on money distribution as the only reason for an electoral victory is an insult to the electorate's sensibilities, yes that's true but that argument cannot discount the fact that cash to the voter is decisively changing the electoral dynamics at least in specific states. If it doesn't help then no politician will distribute tons of stolen money to the voter.
The Congress under the late YSR Reddy managed an election with enormous money in 2009 and won it , The BJP galvanized by the Reddy brothers in Karnataka did it in 2008 and the DMK showed the two national parties how it's done in Tamil Nadu in the 2009 lok sabha polls. Since the focus now is on Tamil Nadu I am going to attempt explaining why the strategic distribution of money can have an impact on the Dravidian electoral outcome. The confidence exhibited by the DMK (every senior leader claims the alliance will get 130 to 150 seats) after polling is largely because of the money they spent. I am not Nira Radia, but, if my phone was tapped then I am confident there would be proof of this straight from the mouth of the several horses that ran the Tamil race!
Tamil Nadu is a highly politicised state driven by strong political leanings and views. The DMK voter (around 27 -28 percent) will vote for the DMK no matter what and same is the case with the AIADMK (around 32-33 percent). Other political forces like the congress, PMK, etc also have a consolidated caste vote that by and large is transferrable and this ranges from (2 or 3 percent to 9 or 10 percent depending on the party). It's the sum total of the vote share of an alliance that is called arithmetic and whichever Dravidian party has managed an alliance with the larger sum total has won an election since 1991. Even in huge wave elections like in 1996 and 2004 against Jayalalithaa, she was able to retain her committed vote and the alliance arithmetic was better with her rival. So the bet is that this committed voter will not change his vote even if he receives money.
Beyond the committed voter lies the silent, non aligned voter whose share was anywhere between five to ten percent and if this section voted in one block then it meant a massive sweep. This section normally voted in one block only when it was incensed and angry with the government that existed. The defining feature of this section is that it is largely unhappy with both sides and yet chooses one over the other. There is no empirical evidence to prove that this section takes money and actually votes for the party which pays them the higher amount, but it is a matter of wide belief in the political class that those who have taken money do vote for the party which "bribed" them. In an election where the electoral arithmetic is close then if two or three percent of the undecided voters go in favour of one formation it can seal the deal. The other section which can change with the money game is the section in the opposition's rank and file that is disgruntled. Disgruntlement is usually over the choice of the candidate and this section can be lured to change its choice with money.
One of the reasons given by grass root party workers for the high turnout (close to 80 percent) this time is that voters have realized that parties pay only those who go out to vote. They also ensure that the promised freebees are delivered to those who have cast their vote and those who don't get ink on their finger fall back on the queue. In the 2009 lok sabha polls when the DMK-Congress combine won the turn out was a high 74 percent and hence a high turnout does not mean an anti establishment vote. It only means that many voters have decided to come out to vote for a range of reasons and one of those could be that there is an immediate gratification for exercising their franchise. I am not accusing people of selling their votes but unfortunately money does become a reason for the decision taken by a section of the electorate and that fact needs to be accepted.
When you walk into a locality at election time the first talk you hear is about who has given how much money has been delivered or promised - not about the state of roads, power or water. Unless the issue is really stark and grave money has taken precedence. The defining moment was when the voter asks you "What's wrong for the next five years I will have to pay but now I will make them pay". The rates are defined and I am told in these elections it ranged from 500 to 2000 rupees per vote depending on the profile of the candidate and at a campaign Jayalalithaa even remarked "take the money from the DMK, it is your money that they are giving back, just remember to vote for us" and one of those campaigning for her director Seeman told a gathering "Take the money from the DMK, put five rupees from it in the temple hundi and then vote for Amma - God will forgive you for cheating the DMK !!!". It may be disgusting to urban, erudite sensibilities but it is the reality. There is a sense of guilt in not voting which has given you money.
In a careful assessment the offer of free bees is an institutional, legal and official example of how an electorate can be made to vote on the basis of material gratification rather than larger ideological and political issues. If the voter can legally and publicly vote on the basis of a free mixer, grinder or colour TV set then why would he or she not vote on the basis of a few thousand rupees illegally and discreetly delivered to him. The Politicians who have fought an election believe that money is proving to be decisive and those who cannot spend money are now left with the hope that it may not be a long term trend.
So no matter what anyone may say money matters. It cannot swing an election across the board but it does swing a percentage of the voter and that percentage does have an impact on the big picture. IF the DMK wins this election then it means money continues to matter and has played a decisive role. Analysts can try but I am not sure if anyone can offer any other practical rational and plausible reason for a victory amidst such resentment ranging from power cuts and price rise to corruption. You may ask what about the election commission's crack down. Yes they did a fantastic job but remember the politician knows how to get to the voter despite the curbs!!!
The Congress under the late YSR Reddy managed an election with enormous money in 2009 and won it , The BJP galvanized by the Reddy brothers in Karnataka did it in 2008 and the DMK showed the two national parties how it's done in Tamil Nadu in the 2009 lok sabha polls. Since the focus now is on Tamil Nadu I am going to attempt explaining why the strategic distribution of money can have an impact on the Dravidian electoral outcome. The confidence exhibited by the DMK (every senior leader claims the alliance will get 130 to 150 seats) after polling is largely because of the money they spent. I am not Nira Radia, but, if my phone was tapped then I am confident there would be proof of this straight from the mouth of the several horses that ran the Tamil race!
Tamil Nadu is a highly politicised state driven by strong political leanings and views. The DMK voter (around 27 -28 percent) will vote for the DMK no matter what and same is the case with the AIADMK (around 32-33 percent). Other political forces like the congress, PMK, etc also have a consolidated caste vote that by and large is transferrable and this ranges from (2 or 3 percent to 9 or 10 percent depending on the party). It's the sum total of the vote share of an alliance that is called arithmetic and whichever Dravidian party has managed an alliance with the larger sum total has won an election since 1991. Even in huge wave elections like in 1996 and 2004 against Jayalalithaa, she was able to retain her committed vote and the alliance arithmetic was better with her rival. So the bet is that this committed voter will not change his vote even if he receives money.
Beyond the committed voter lies the silent, non aligned voter whose share was anywhere between five to ten percent and if this section voted in one block then it meant a massive sweep. This section normally voted in one block only when it was incensed and angry with the government that existed. The defining feature of this section is that it is largely unhappy with both sides and yet chooses one over the other. There is no empirical evidence to prove that this section takes money and actually votes for the party which pays them the higher amount, but it is a matter of wide belief in the political class that those who have taken money do vote for the party which "bribed" them. In an election where the electoral arithmetic is close then if two or three percent of the undecided voters go in favour of one formation it can seal the deal. The other section which can change with the money game is the section in the opposition's rank and file that is disgruntled. Disgruntlement is usually over the choice of the candidate and this section can be lured to change its choice with money.
One of the reasons given by grass root party workers for the high turnout (close to 80 percent) this time is that voters have realized that parties pay only those who go out to vote. They also ensure that the promised freebees are delivered to those who have cast their vote and those who don't get ink on their finger fall back on the queue. In the 2009 lok sabha polls when the DMK-Congress combine won the turn out was a high 74 percent and hence a high turnout does not mean an anti establishment vote. It only means that many voters have decided to come out to vote for a range of reasons and one of those could be that there is an immediate gratification for exercising their franchise. I am not accusing people of selling their votes but unfortunately money does become a reason for the decision taken by a section of the electorate and that fact needs to be accepted.
When you walk into a locality at election time the first talk you hear is about who has given how much money has been delivered or promised - not about the state of roads, power or water. Unless the issue is really stark and grave money has taken precedence. The defining moment was when the voter asks you "What's wrong for the next five years I will have to pay but now I will make them pay". The rates are defined and I am told in these elections it ranged from 500 to 2000 rupees per vote depending on the profile of the candidate and at a campaign Jayalalithaa even remarked "take the money from the DMK, it is your money that they are giving back, just remember to vote for us" and one of those campaigning for her director Seeman told a gathering "Take the money from the DMK, put five rupees from it in the temple hundi and then vote for Amma - God will forgive you for cheating the DMK !!!". It may be disgusting to urban, erudite sensibilities but it is the reality. There is a sense of guilt in not voting which has given you money.
In a careful assessment the offer of free bees is an institutional, legal and official example of how an electorate can be made to vote on the basis of material gratification rather than larger ideological and political issues. If the voter can legally and publicly vote on the basis of a free mixer, grinder or colour TV set then why would he or she not vote on the basis of a few thousand rupees illegally and discreetly delivered to him. The Politicians who have fought an election believe that money is proving to be decisive and those who cannot spend money are now left with the hope that it may not be a long term trend.
So no matter what anyone may say money matters. It cannot swing an election across the board but it does swing a percentage of the voter and that percentage does have an impact on the big picture. IF the DMK wins this election then it means money continues to matter and has played a decisive role. Analysts can try but I am not sure if anyone can offer any other practical rational and plausible reason for a victory amidst such resentment ranging from power cuts and price rise to corruption. You may ask what about the election commission's crack down. Yes they did a fantastic job but remember the politician knows how to get to the voter despite the curbs!!!
Thursday, March 10, 2011
The Dravidian Syndrome (Vijayakanth versus Congress; 2 G versus Free Colour TV)
I can't help point out that the results in the spate of Assembly elections we are about to witness will be on Friday the 13th of May. I am not much of believer in superstition but politicians are. Jayalalithaa especially is. To her this election is no less of an exorcism of DMK rule in Tamil Nadu and I wonder how she feels about the Friday the 13th. I guess we will find out only after the results, but, till then it's all about speculation and analysis - some credible and others incredible. I write mine and hope it's less incredible and more credible!
Since 1991, the side the Congress party has supported has won. Except in 1998 when Moopanar went on his own and the Congress was a non-entity. Enter 2011 and do we have an alternative to the Congress in the form of a third force, the one that tilts the balance in the J versus K battle?
Vijayakanth was a popular actor when I was in school, he is called captain after a super-hit film Captain Prabhakaran (not about the dead LTTE chief). He was never a superstar like a Rajinikanth or a Chiranjeevi, but someone who had a very strong rural connect and he has now proven that he can sustain himself in politics. His party got 8.3 per cent in the 2006 assembly elections, 11 per cent in 2009 Lok Sabha polls. His political plank was being the alternative to J and K and even if he seemed like not a great option he still got the votes but not enough to win seats. Jayalalithaa tried to break the Congress DMK alliance and failed, now she hopes Vijayakanth can negate a traditionally strong Cong, DMK, PMK alliance. The coming election will be as much about answering the Vijayakanth strength question as it is about other issues.
Amongst the other issues, the one that's dominated the media mind space is the 2G scam. All assessments from the ground reveal that 2G and corruption will be an issue, but only in urban centers. It's so much of an issue in urban centers that the DMK may not want to contest in many seats in its traditional stronghold Chennai. Karunanidhi may be contesting from rural Thiruvarur. In 2006 the AIADMK had started winning Chennai and in 2011 it may reassert its position in the metropolis. But in rural Tamil Nadu, it's the DMK's scheme like the free colour TV that's working in the party's favour. There is a feeling that the DMK will do well in the rural areas because of a populist government which delivered the goods it promised to a large extent.
The joke going around though is that Karunanidhi gave people free colour TV on which they got to see the full colour of the 2G scam! But jokes apart, the shift in the rural versus urban strongholds is extremely interesting. It was MGR who was always strong in rural areas and Karunanidhi's DMK in urban centers. But that's now gone for a complete toss. One DMK MP put it jocularly that in 2011 "Karunanidhi has become the populist MGR and Jayalalithaa has become the urban Karunanidhi!"
In terms of electoral arithmetic, it is a North Tamil Nadu versus South Tamil Nadu battle. The DMK has been traditionally strong in the northern parts of the state. Its alliance with the PMK and VCK augments that strength; both Thirumavalavan and Ramadass have their strength only in Northern parts of the state. And the alliance is expected to work in the elections. On the other hand, the AIADMK has always been strong in the south, and has finalised an alliance with smaller parties which will give it an edge in the south. In the deep south areas near Kanyakumari, the Congress has a hold and should retain its own if the DMK alliance has any hopes of winning. At the end the DMK has to win rural seats in North Tamil Nadu and the AIADMK has to do very well in the South (Madurai belt) along with fishing areas like Nagapattinam and also the communist areas in the state. Even then it will be a very close contest at the end.
Western Tamil Nadu (Coimbatore) may be the battle that could determine the winner. AIADMK has been traditionally strong, but the DMK hopes its alliance with a caste-based Kongu Nadu Munnetra Kazhagam can make the difference. The party polled over 5 lakh votes in 12 constituencies in the 2009 parliamentary elections and if it carries those votes for the DMK alliance it could be the decider. It was launched only ahead of the 2009 elections and the caste vote is transferable. Observers say that the DMK's generosity in accommodating the KMK with 7 seats may be a good decision at the end of the day. But even with the alliance it will be a very close fight in the western regions.
I guess if you leave the western parts of the state and the micro issues out, the two large questions that will determine the verdict are: can giving free colour TV and populist governance defeat the tag of corruption, and can having Vijayakanth as an ally change the arithmetic against a time-tested Congress-PMK-DMK alliance? At the moment I would only say your guess is as good as mine. The game for Tamil Nadu is still wide open.
Since 1991, the side the Congress party has supported has won. Except in 1998 when Moopanar went on his own and the Congress was a non-entity. Enter 2011 and do we have an alternative to the Congress in the form of a third force, the one that tilts the balance in the J versus K battle?
Vijayakanth was a popular actor when I was in school, he is called captain after a super-hit film Captain Prabhakaran (not about the dead LTTE chief). He was never a superstar like a Rajinikanth or a Chiranjeevi, but someone who had a very strong rural connect and he has now proven that he can sustain himself in politics. His party got 8.3 per cent in the 2006 assembly elections, 11 per cent in 2009 Lok Sabha polls. His political plank was being the alternative to J and K and even if he seemed like not a great option he still got the votes but not enough to win seats. Jayalalithaa tried to break the Congress DMK alliance and failed, now she hopes Vijayakanth can negate a traditionally strong Cong, DMK, PMK alliance. The coming election will be as much about answering the Vijayakanth strength question as it is about other issues.
Amongst the other issues, the one that's dominated the media mind space is the 2G scam. All assessments from the ground reveal that 2G and corruption will be an issue, but only in urban centers. It's so much of an issue in urban centers that the DMK may not want to contest in many seats in its traditional stronghold Chennai. Karunanidhi may be contesting from rural Thiruvarur. In 2006 the AIADMK had started winning Chennai and in 2011 it may reassert its position in the metropolis. But in rural Tamil Nadu, it's the DMK's scheme like the free colour TV that's working in the party's favour. There is a feeling that the DMK will do well in the rural areas because of a populist government which delivered the goods it promised to a large extent.
The joke going around though is that Karunanidhi gave people free colour TV on which they got to see the full colour of the 2G scam! But jokes apart, the shift in the rural versus urban strongholds is extremely interesting. It was MGR who was always strong in rural areas and Karunanidhi's DMK in urban centers. But that's now gone for a complete toss. One DMK MP put it jocularly that in 2011 "Karunanidhi has become the populist MGR and Jayalalithaa has become the urban Karunanidhi!"
In terms of electoral arithmetic, it is a North Tamil Nadu versus South Tamil Nadu battle. The DMK has been traditionally strong in the northern parts of the state. Its alliance with the PMK and VCK augments that strength; both Thirumavalavan and Ramadass have their strength only in Northern parts of the state. And the alliance is expected to work in the elections. On the other hand, the AIADMK has always been strong in the south, and has finalised an alliance with smaller parties which will give it an edge in the south. In the deep south areas near Kanyakumari, the Congress has a hold and should retain its own if the DMK alliance has any hopes of winning. At the end the DMK has to win rural seats in North Tamil Nadu and the AIADMK has to do very well in the South (Madurai belt) along with fishing areas like Nagapattinam and also the communist areas in the state. Even then it will be a very close contest at the end.
Western Tamil Nadu (Coimbatore) may be the battle that could determine the winner. AIADMK has been traditionally strong, but the DMK hopes its alliance with a caste-based Kongu Nadu Munnetra Kazhagam can make the difference. The party polled over 5 lakh votes in 12 constituencies in the 2009 parliamentary elections and if it carries those votes for the DMK alliance it could be the decider. It was launched only ahead of the 2009 elections and the caste vote is transferable. Observers say that the DMK's generosity in accommodating the KMK with 7 seats may be a good decision at the end of the day. But even with the alliance it will be a very close fight in the western regions.
I guess if you leave the western parts of the state and the micro issues out, the two large questions that will determine the verdict are: can giving free colour TV and populist governance defeat the tag of corruption, and can having Vijayakanth as an ally change the arithmetic against a time-tested Congress-PMK-DMK alliance? At the moment I would only say your guess is as good as mine. The game for Tamil Nadu is still wide open.
Monday, December 20, 2010
The Newsroom - Part 1
An afternoon can often be boring, an afternoon without a crisis is worse. Everyone stares at a computer terminal, vigorously typing and deleting what need not have been typed in the first place. The Boss is often away, in the guise of meetings, he must be snoring after a good meal. But then only one in a hundred can be the Boss, the rest of us have to act as if we are awake and busy.
Crisis in the world is time for each newsroom to feel very important. They are part of the crisis, their commentary is required and their analysis will be forced down on the rest of society. And a lazy afternoon can turn into a desperate quest for space. All that happens when there's a crisis.
But there's one crisis that has hit newsrooms, a crisis that the scribe tribe cannot comment or react to, and that's the crisis when there's no crisis in the world. What can they write about, what can they comment upon, what can they analyze and throw at the world outside. In short how do they justify their existence?
There are different types of crisis. A large crisis is when the boss is very busy and doesn't care for what you are doing. A small crisis is when the boss feels relaxed and has delegated the responsibility for it to be made to appear like a large crisis. But then a no crisis is when it means crisis is going to hit you.
You can often know a no crisis day the moment you walk into office, the man in charge ambles in with a very pleasant smile, suddenly he realizes your existence and says "Hello". What comes next is something that requires a good deal of imagination to answer. "What's happening today"? The honest answer should be “Nothing”, but honesty can often be at one's own peril and so you need say many things before you say “nothing”.
And so it starts "Well... this was supposed to be happening but it hasn't and that was supposed to be happening, but it happened yesterday and since it's not happening today we cannot report it today...And yes you remember that was also supposed to happen but it's been cancelled"
You stop there without saying that the long and short of it is that nothing's happening today or at least you cannot make anything happen today.
The boss smiles and walks away, he searches for his next victim. Can't blame him, can you? He needs to make something happen. Then something happens and something else gets reported and then we have something, which means nothing to the world but a big thing to those who were pondering over nothing.
But if nothing happens for a continuing period of time say 3 days, then it means the crisis is getting worse. That's when the Boss walks in with a grumpy face and the regular "What's happening today" is replaced with a grouchy and angry "You did nothing yesterday, are you going to do something today?" He does not wait for an answer he's asked the same question to the next, and then the next, and then the next victims. And you'd better think of the right answer before the other victims come up with theirs. When you bail the boss out on a no crisis day, it's often remembered for a long time. Hopefully long enough till he decides on your raise.
And so you say you will do it. Someone told you something a few days back and you decided that you would spin it around and make it into something. It needs to have a bit of everything. It needs to touch the rest of the society, it needs to have a semblance of truth, it should be something that cannot be completely contradicted, it should be something the boss wouldn't get angry about, it should appear to be true and most importantly it should make you look a like a damn good reporter.
And so we begin making our choices. The soft targets include terrorism, national security, politics etc. Politics can be easy, especially because the politician enjoys lesser credibility than the journalist, whatever you say will be construed as true and for the politician it simply does not matter. He's just happy his face is splashed all over the newspaper or the television channel as long as it’s not too controversial.
The particular advantage with a politician is he can say anything but we will make out what we want of it. For instance if you ask a politician
"Are you going to ally with such and such a party" and the answer is
"At the moment we will not and there are no such plans".
You could make it look like either he's ruled out an alliance or you could say he used the phrase "At the moment" so it means he's not ruled out an alliance in the future. Then if it suits you better you could say that for the record he's said what he did, but we know the truth and the truth is what I say.
The problem with politics is that it doesn't always sell; the other problem is if the particular politician knows your boss very well and can tell your boss that you’re an idiot. The boss knows it already, after all you’re working for him and he's no better, but when someone rubs it in it could become trouble. So it's better to avoid the politician till you’re sure. The world outside also has a particular disinterest in political nuances and so it's not spicy enough.
Terrorism and National Security are super soft targets. We've got so many of those e-mails floating around; we've got as many idiots with guns coming in from everywhere. And the world is forced to be afraid of it.
So how do we use terror to fight the terror of the boss and make it into the terror of news. I just realized that this piece that I am writing out of “Nothing” is getting a little extra long for someone with something in his head and hence for the “terror” research I shall write a separate piece. It will be released shortly on this blog and we will call it the Newsroom – Part 2 – “Terror for the News”.
Crisis in the world is time for each newsroom to feel very important. They are part of the crisis, their commentary is required and their analysis will be forced down on the rest of society. And a lazy afternoon can turn into a desperate quest for space. All that happens when there's a crisis.
But there's one crisis that has hit newsrooms, a crisis that the scribe tribe cannot comment or react to, and that's the crisis when there's no crisis in the world. What can they write about, what can they comment upon, what can they analyze and throw at the world outside. In short how do they justify their existence?
There are different types of crisis. A large crisis is when the boss is very busy and doesn't care for what you are doing. A small crisis is when the boss feels relaxed and has delegated the responsibility for it to be made to appear like a large crisis. But then a no crisis is when it means crisis is going to hit you.
You can often know a no crisis day the moment you walk into office, the man in charge ambles in with a very pleasant smile, suddenly he realizes your existence and says "Hello". What comes next is something that requires a good deal of imagination to answer. "What's happening today"? The honest answer should be “Nothing”, but honesty can often be at one's own peril and so you need say many things before you say “nothing”.
And so it starts "Well... this was supposed to be happening but it hasn't and that was supposed to be happening, but it happened yesterday and since it's not happening today we cannot report it today...And yes you remember that was also supposed to happen but it's been cancelled"
You stop there without saying that the long and short of it is that nothing's happening today or at least you cannot make anything happen today.
The boss smiles and walks away, he searches for his next victim. Can't blame him, can you? He needs to make something happen. Then something happens and something else gets reported and then we have something, which means nothing to the world but a big thing to those who were pondering over nothing.
But if nothing happens for a continuing period of time say 3 days, then it means the crisis is getting worse. That's when the Boss walks in with a grumpy face and the regular "What's happening today" is replaced with a grouchy and angry "You did nothing yesterday, are you going to do something today?" He does not wait for an answer he's asked the same question to the next, and then the next, and then the next victims. And you'd better think of the right answer before the other victims come up with theirs. When you bail the boss out on a no crisis day, it's often remembered for a long time. Hopefully long enough till he decides on your raise.
And so you say you will do it. Someone told you something a few days back and you decided that you would spin it around and make it into something. It needs to have a bit of everything. It needs to touch the rest of the society, it needs to have a semblance of truth, it should be something that cannot be completely contradicted, it should be something the boss wouldn't get angry about, it should appear to be true and most importantly it should make you look a like a damn good reporter.
And so we begin making our choices. The soft targets include terrorism, national security, politics etc. Politics can be easy, especially because the politician enjoys lesser credibility than the journalist, whatever you say will be construed as true and for the politician it simply does not matter. He's just happy his face is splashed all over the newspaper or the television channel as long as it’s not too controversial.
The particular advantage with a politician is he can say anything but we will make out what we want of it. For instance if you ask a politician
"Are you going to ally with such and such a party" and the answer is
"At the moment we will not and there are no such plans".
You could make it look like either he's ruled out an alliance or you could say he used the phrase "At the moment" so it means he's not ruled out an alliance in the future. Then if it suits you better you could say that for the record he's said what he did, but we know the truth and the truth is what I say.
The problem with politics is that it doesn't always sell; the other problem is if the particular politician knows your boss very well and can tell your boss that you’re an idiot. The boss knows it already, after all you’re working for him and he's no better, but when someone rubs it in it could become trouble. So it's better to avoid the politician till you’re sure. The world outside also has a particular disinterest in political nuances and so it's not spicy enough.
Terrorism and National Security are super soft targets. We've got so many of those e-mails floating around; we've got as many idiots with guns coming in from everywhere. And the world is forced to be afraid of it.
So how do we use terror to fight the terror of the boss and make it into the terror of news. I just realized that this piece that I am writing out of “Nothing” is getting a little extra long for someone with something in his head and hence for the “terror” research I shall write a separate piece. It will be released shortly on this blog and we will call it the Newsroom – Part 2 – “Terror for the News”.
Monday, July 5, 2010
CAPITAL DREAM OR NIGHTMARE!!
It’s now been a year since we as a family moved north of the Vindhyas to the National Capital. On the economy class ( Sashi Tharoor famously called it Cattle Class) of a low cost airline it cost us a little over three thousand rupees per head to transcend the Vindhyas and arrive at the city, which in first impression never ends. Three thousand rupees per head is the cost of travel, it does not include the taxes, duties and penalties or in Toto the cost that one pays for having a capital dream. That cost is something like the CTC in corporate parlance, only it’s not cost to company but is cost to CONSCIENCE. CTC cannot be calculated in rupees, it comes out from time to time in the form of frustration, which in my case results in long frustrated writings on a blog that no one reads (barring of course a few jobless friend who in the name of courtesy endure it).
Some of you would know and for the rest if I may inform, I once lived in a city called Chennai. Home was five minutes from office, the idli was soft, smooth and five rupees or ten at the most, the filter coffee was excellent, much better than the exorbitant concoctions delivered by Costa and Coffee Day. Born with most of those things I did not realize how integral these were to my soul, till after I had lost them.
We all move and so I did, as a TV journalist got my mug shot more often on TV, much less work but much more on air. Also, went through a fantastic and rapid tutorial on the claim of knowing a bit of everything, learning how to speak with confidence the something that you don’t know and claiming to be whatever we all claim to be. Little bit or a lot like (depending on how frustrated you are) a parasite attaching itself to every bit of news coming in from every part of the country. Initially I thought it was the beast of television journalism that made being in the capital depressing and then I searched outside.
The swanky malls, the enormous roads that seem never ending, the endless list of people you cross through and trample upon each passing day, the inimitable promises you make and then don’t keep, the aggressive nature which creeps into you unnoticed, the killer instinct that kills the soul without evidence, these are all part of living in the National Capital (the same in Noida or any neighbour). And that’s when I recognized the headiness of being in the capital. It doesn’t matter which profession you are in the capital will get to you.
I may sound arrogant and frustrated about the city I describe, so be it, after all it’s a city which never sleeps, never wakes up, claims to live but can’t find a trace of life, has people but remains empty, and most importantly couldn’t care less about what any one else thinks and yet tries to live in an ostentatious show of wealth and power. What has amazed me in the last one year is the political class that thrives in this city. Smartly and comfortably perched in the comfort of the grandeur left behind by the British. Occupying every bit of what the Mughals and Lutens created and ruling over a vast, diverse, distinct and difficult country called India.
The capital does not forget that it’s great source of power emerges from the vast expanses that lie beyond its boundaries. We hail ourselves as a democracy, Oh yes we are, the power and authority for New Delhi to rule comes from the people – but the people’s role ends there. The MP’s we elect are governed by a coterie that lives and plagues the capital. That coterie consists of journalists, industrialists, dealmakers and sophisticated-socialites (who call their fake appearance the art of networking). It’s a careful blend of the most manipulated, manipulating and gullible. They feed into the power center that governs the country; they are the ones who use the power that is delivered by the people.
The disconnect between the source and the use of power is stark and is perhaps embodied in our system of parliamentary democracy, why else would we have then instituted a route for the erudite and governing elite to become parliamentarians without facing the people (I mean the Rajya Sabha). The idea is while the rest of India will do the dirty work and get its hands soiled for political representation and hence power the capital will bask in the glory and enjoy much of the fruit. Much like a parasite that not just rides but controls the beast that it rides on.
Now is this a fare assessment or am I being arrogant and dismissive of the capital’s abilities. Must give in here, it does have the ability to compromise, manage and gel different aspirations together. It’s important because elsewhere in the country we cannot understand and accept each other. Ghettoisation began in the name of language in the 1950’s and was cemented by the linguistic barriers we drew in the name of states. Since then if a regional power had to play a national role it had to be played out in the national capital. One region could not have any influence or acceptance on another as a political force and we depend on the capital to keep us together.
But then we should have evolved and the capital must have been made a manager and unifier, not the exploiter of our differences and have the sole propriety over power to rule the nation. Delhi’s politics today revolves in the drawing room, the negotiation skills, the perception managers and the claiming to be intellectuals with their great talent in capture of power without making genuine grass root effort is the first lesson in political school. And over the years this has permeated into the culture of the city and the DNA of the populace.
One of the first impressions made on me of Delhi was that if you do not aggressively fight back people would trample over you. It could be at the airport when you pick up a trolley or at a red light, the aggression hits you on the face. There are those who explain this aggression as a Punjabi trait and those who define it as the way things are done in the North. I have traveled to Punjab and other parts of North India. Yes the rules are thrown to the wind and the law is broken at will, but the arrogance of power is not the feeling I get. Feudal power play exists, but not the complete arrogance, the heart still remains palpable.
This has permeated to those who live and survive the capital and is now the culture that follows in every sphere of activity, the defining character of the populace. Mumbai because of financial strength has challenged that power, but it lacks the manipulation and heart-less aggression that Delhi has learnt, the city despite finesse and finances holds on to life and professionalism.
Capital’s around the world have a heady feeling, but do not ignore the nations expanses. Real democracy is where the capital is respected and the capital respects the rest. Where power is shared between those who provide it and those who manage it. My point of contention, after this long, bitter and frustrated attack on the capital, is that the rest of India should learn to be part of the governing process and the capital should lead the way with a change of attitude towards recognizing and respecting that the corners of India should be encouraged to think national and not be relegated to governing just their corners.
Some of you would know and for the rest if I may inform, I once lived in a city called Chennai. Home was five minutes from office, the idli was soft, smooth and five rupees or ten at the most, the filter coffee was excellent, much better than the exorbitant concoctions delivered by Costa and Coffee Day. Born with most of those things I did not realize how integral these were to my soul, till after I had lost them.
We all move and so I did, as a TV journalist got my mug shot more often on TV, much less work but much more on air. Also, went through a fantastic and rapid tutorial on the claim of knowing a bit of everything, learning how to speak with confidence the something that you don’t know and claiming to be whatever we all claim to be. Little bit or a lot like (depending on how frustrated you are) a parasite attaching itself to every bit of news coming in from every part of the country. Initially I thought it was the beast of television journalism that made being in the capital depressing and then I searched outside.
The swanky malls, the enormous roads that seem never ending, the endless list of people you cross through and trample upon each passing day, the inimitable promises you make and then don’t keep, the aggressive nature which creeps into you unnoticed, the killer instinct that kills the soul without evidence, these are all part of living in the National Capital (the same in Noida or any neighbour). And that’s when I recognized the headiness of being in the capital. It doesn’t matter which profession you are in the capital will get to you.
I may sound arrogant and frustrated about the city I describe, so be it, after all it’s a city which never sleeps, never wakes up, claims to live but can’t find a trace of life, has people but remains empty, and most importantly couldn’t care less about what any one else thinks and yet tries to live in an ostentatious show of wealth and power. What has amazed me in the last one year is the political class that thrives in this city. Smartly and comfortably perched in the comfort of the grandeur left behind by the British. Occupying every bit of what the Mughals and Lutens created and ruling over a vast, diverse, distinct and difficult country called India.
The capital does not forget that it’s great source of power emerges from the vast expanses that lie beyond its boundaries. We hail ourselves as a democracy, Oh yes we are, the power and authority for New Delhi to rule comes from the people – but the people’s role ends there. The MP’s we elect are governed by a coterie that lives and plagues the capital. That coterie consists of journalists, industrialists, dealmakers and sophisticated-socialites (who call their fake appearance the art of networking). It’s a careful blend of the most manipulated, manipulating and gullible. They feed into the power center that governs the country; they are the ones who use the power that is delivered by the people.
The disconnect between the source and the use of power is stark and is perhaps embodied in our system of parliamentary democracy, why else would we have then instituted a route for the erudite and governing elite to become parliamentarians without facing the people (I mean the Rajya Sabha). The idea is while the rest of India will do the dirty work and get its hands soiled for political representation and hence power the capital will bask in the glory and enjoy much of the fruit. Much like a parasite that not just rides but controls the beast that it rides on.
Now is this a fare assessment or am I being arrogant and dismissive of the capital’s abilities. Must give in here, it does have the ability to compromise, manage and gel different aspirations together. It’s important because elsewhere in the country we cannot understand and accept each other. Ghettoisation began in the name of language in the 1950’s and was cemented by the linguistic barriers we drew in the name of states. Since then if a regional power had to play a national role it had to be played out in the national capital. One region could not have any influence or acceptance on another as a political force and we depend on the capital to keep us together.
But then we should have evolved and the capital must have been made a manager and unifier, not the exploiter of our differences and have the sole propriety over power to rule the nation. Delhi’s politics today revolves in the drawing room, the negotiation skills, the perception managers and the claiming to be intellectuals with their great talent in capture of power without making genuine grass root effort is the first lesson in political school. And over the years this has permeated into the culture of the city and the DNA of the populace.
One of the first impressions made on me of Delhi was that if you do not aggressively fight back people would trample over you. It could be at the airport when you pick up a trolley or at a red light, the aggression hits you on the face. There are those who explain this aggression as a Punjabi trait and those who define it as the way things are done in the North. I have traveled to Punjab and other parts of North India. Yes the rules are thrown to the wind and the law is broken at will, but the arrogance of power is not the feeling I get. Feudal power play exists, but not the complete arrogance, the heart still remains palpable.
This has permeated to those who live and survive the capital and is now the culture that follows in every sphere of activity, the defining character of the populace. Mumbai because of financial strength has challenged that power, but it lacks the manipulation and heart-less aggression that Delhi has learnt, the city despite finesse and finances holds on to life and professionalism.
Capital’s around the world have a heady feeling, but do not ignore the nations expanses. Real democracy is where the capital is respected and the capital respects the rest. Where power is shared between those who provide it and those who manage it. My point of contention, after this long, bitter and frustrated attack on the capital, is that the rest of India should learn to be part of the governing process and the capital should lead the way with a change of attitude towards recognizing and respecting that the corners of India should be encouraged to think national and not be relegated to governing just their corners.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
The Air that leaves India
What follows is a letter written by a friend of mine to the Air India Chairman. To some it may sound a little snob, first class international frequent traveller's frustration, to others it's an incredible, funny and well written insight into why Air India is not worth paying for. Can assure you that Mr. Jadhav has read it and hopefully did not just chuckle and ignore it. Read on.
Dear Mr. Jhadav,
I am a frequent traveler of Air India vide FF no 331489. Recently I had undertaken a trip to New York and returned to Chennai last night. I travelled by first class and I had fully paid for it.
I presume you must also be using Air India and should you undertake a similar trip. Here are a few points to help your travel be more comfortable.
1. If you take AI 101 to New York (as I did on 19/03/2010) you may want to carry your own night wear as the cabin has only medium size. I needed a large one and then I had to sleep in my lounge suit which I had to wear, going into the aircraft straight from a meeting.
2. If you had to fly from Newark to Frankfurt ( as I did on 27/03/2010 by AI 144) you may again like to carry your own night wear as you don’t have large size.
3. And if you land in Frankfurt by AI 144 you may like to have a meeting of your staff in the luggage retrieving area, as otherwise, you will find no assistance and you will trek between belt 10 and belt 16 over 100 times because the outsourced staff are utterly unhelpful. Since it takes an hour it may be a good idea to finish all your work at the airport. Just a thought Mr. Chairman.
4. I hope you do not have the misfortune of taking AI120 from Frankfurt (as I did on 30/03/2010). When I brought to the notice of the Ground Engineer, part of your outsourced ground staff, the call button was not working, he said he could fix it provided I could be grounded for 4 hours. A Great Ambassador for your airline indeed. As if that was not enough, Mr. Chairman, when I checked in the first class counter at Frankfurt, and when I asked if someone could escort us to the lounge, a normal courtesy extended to first class passengers, the girl at the counter encouraged me helpfully that I should travel Lufthansa for such courtesy!
I am told call buttons failure is common and therefore I strongly suggest that you provide for manual call bells, to first class passengers to enhance their comfort!
Another thing you need to plan ahead Mr. Chairman, is that a sex change may be necessary as on this sector, you have only ladies night wear.
Also Mr. Chairman from Frankfurt to Delhi the reading light did not work and if you want to read on work you may have to request the cabin crew to vacate their seats near the exit door (exhibit 1).
The acme Mr. Chairman was on IC 801 of 1/04/2010, on arrival in Chennai. After two union ministers got into the coach along with a few other business class passengers, the ground staff said that the coach was full in a bus which is normally packed like sardines. When I insisted, I would also get in the coach with my wife and forced my way in, the bus took off with my wife perched dangerously on the footboard. I have known Government trying to reserve for women, but you must be the only airline reserving space for women on the footboard! A unique airline indeed, a union minister and a former chief secretary were witness to this.
All in all Mr. Chairman thank you for the third class treatment for first class fare.
I am taking the liberty of calculating this experience to many to encourage people to contribute ideas to you for making air travel by your airlines memorable.
Thanking you
Yours Sincerely
R. Ganapathi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
