Not too long ago, a certain Indian actress won a reality show on British tv. And many, including me, would like to believe that she won due to the sympathy vote being firmly in her grasp. Now, I'm not taking away anything from her success. She played to her strengths and manipulated the competition as well as the audience to her victory - just what is required to be done in such reality shows. And needless to say, I cheered for her. And not because she's Indian. The fact that she was an Indian did make a difference though - had it not been for that, why would someone like me, sitting in a far off land, be hearing about a run of the mill reality show in the UK? Note that the Indian version of the same show overlapped its counterpart in the UK, but I barely noticed what was going on there. But how could I avoid the daily reports in the newspaper or the systematic analysis of her campaign on news channels on Indian tv? I read the newspaper and watch news on tv too. Anyways, that's besides the point. It just struck my thoughts because of the parallels it draws with another similar case doing the media rounds these days - The case of Sanjaya Malakar.
Sanjaya is another person of Indian origin participating in another reality show on tv far away from India. The Indian media is vociferously following his campaign too. But the parallels dry down there. Neither is Sanjaya a celebrity nor is he doing just what is expected of him on the show. Then why the big hullaboo over him? Is it still a hangover from Celebrity Big Brother in the UK that the media has taken upon itself the responsibility of following all people of Indian origin participating in reality shows? Even if they come out with an excuse of highlighting how mediocrity can shine, I don't see why there has to be a weekly update of how Sanjaya is succeeding on American Idol. A piece highlighting their thoughts at the end of his campaign would have been more than apt for that reason.
I'm sure that if the media wants to look for heroes, they'll find thousands of cases more deserving than Sanjaya. For example, you have children who are presented with bravery awards on Republic Day every year. I don't remember having seen more than a passing mention of them in newspapers. And tv news channels are a different breed altogether. Even the passing mention is too much for them. And I'm sure there are many other myriad stories of heroism they'll find in India and related to Indian diaspora. I also don't have any doubts about the mediaworthiness of such stories. Pains me that the media doesn't show enough effort in unearthing these stories.
Not very long ago, we were being fed a daily diet of Sunita Williams. Apart from having an Indian parent, what's Indian about her? Still, she was depicted as an example of Indian success abroad. Why? Why do we still hanker after the likes of V.S.Naipaul and Nirad Chaudhuri (may his soul rest in peace), trying to establish their Indianness after they have quite overtly disowned India? An Oscar has become the de-facto standard for achievement in movies. Every year, we bemoan the failure of India's "Official" entry to the oscars. Nobody bothers about awards won by other Indian movies at numerous film festivals of repute.
Somehow, a combination of these two factors makes me think of the Indian media as an adolescent in the midst of an identity crisis. They clamour for attention from the west. They want to be like the media of the west. But they forget the relativity factor here. In trying to follow the american media system, they're nothing more than aping it. Would American news channels bother about an underperforming American in some Indian show? I'm sure they won't. They definitely would pick on someone like Sanjaya...because he's a participant in an American show and not because he's an Indian. Somehow, this objectivity is missing from the Indian media. Another cause for this behaviour is the lack of pride in both our glorious past as well as the good side of our present. The Times of India starts a campaign called India Poised. They're trying to highlight the good side of our present day state. Not even 6 months into it, they dump it like a hot potato. Possible reason being that it might have ended up as a branding failure. When the media tries to weigh its national pride against monetary benefits, one can safely assume that it stands in a very poor light in terms of morality.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Yin & Yang! The cricket way.
Wow! Can it get any hotter than that? Its been quite a while since cricket has been hogging top headlines. But yesterday was the motherlode. Two huge developments - one quite promising, the other somewhat disturbing - hit Indian cricket yesterday. And these were not the run of the mill media shockers that sizzle, fizzle and die ten deaths in the matter of a few hours on Indian TV. These were developments that will have a long term effect on Indian cricket, and I sincerely hope, it'll be a good one. My take on both the happenings...
Let's bring on the good news first. Zee's Subhash Chandra, in a Packeresque move, announced the ICL (Indian Cricket League) amongst heavy fanfare. Starting with 6 teams sometime later this year and targetting another 10 in the next three years, ICL will be played in two formats (One dayers and 20-20). Chandra announced that the contracted players will be getting a monthly remuneration as well as performance based incentives. The teams would comprise of 2 India internationals, 4 overseas players & 8 juniors. The league would be aimed at building a competitive spirit and killer instinct among Indian cricketers. The league is to be governed by some well respected names in international cricket, a move that'll definitely add credibility to the final product. Going by the success of PHL on ESPN-Star, it can be safely assumed that ICL will push Zee Sports into the turf of major sports channels on Indian TV. So far so good. But two questions loom large in my mind.
First is the BCCI. How would they react to this? So far, there's been no comment, official or otherwise, from them except that they've recieved a communication from Chandra regarding the issue and they'll respond to it. I wonder whether they'll try throwing some spanner in Chandra's works by not releasing their contracted players for the league even when not on national team duty. This could take the initial sheen out of the product and could kill the marketing momentum. This is not a vague and random thought. Usually the official line in such development would always be guarded - the sit back...watch the waters kind. In Packer's case, Cricket Australia went to the extent of a confrontation with WSC, though I expect the BCCI to be wiser. Second is the composition of the teams. With the kind of money Chandra is throwing up, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to get some top grade overseas talent. The India players issue would be in BCCI's hands and if they decide not to relent, ICL would have to settle for some also-ran ex-India players - neither a very healthy sign in terms of the quality of the product nor in terms of viewership. The 8 junior players would be the most crucial, as this is going to form the bulwark of the league and grooming them into international grade cricketers is one of the league's visions. We still don't have any clarity as to the selection criterea for this pool. Answers to these questions would make the future direction of ICL much clearer.
Now comes the tough part. The bad news. Senior players from the side are up in arms against coach Greg Chappell. Sachin Tendulkar, probably the most graceful and humble of the current lot came out in the open with a scathing statement on the the coach's tactics. Along with him, other senior players too, have openly criticised the coach for being a divisive force within the team. Good that the players have come out openly against the coach in full defiance of the BCCI gag. Now we have both sides of the story. Its now upto the fans to choose who they want to believe - the players who till not very recently were being looked up as heroes for having achieved things not many had done in the past or a coach whose reputation as a tenacious terrier with no aversion to hitting below the belt to gain an upper hand goes hand in hand with his much tomtommed reputation of a batting great. Those who feel Team India bashing to be the in-thing will accuse me of a bias here. Maybe many ex-aussie cricketers including Steve Waugh were biased when they warned Ganguly not to support Greg's candidature for coach. Maybe australian cricket in general was biased too not to have given Greg a decent coaching run in their own country. I'd always been against appointing him as the coach and still hold strong on the same view.
However, every cloud, as they say, has a silver lining. Some heads are bound to roll in the aftermath of the WC debacle. This could be a good chance for Zee to rope in some really nice talent who can be the torchbearers for the ICL atleast for the first 2-3 years. Talking of heads rolling, the BCCI is all set to appoint a committee of ex-players to look into the current and the future of Indian cricket. Something they should keep in mind, but I know they won't, is to avoid any cricketer with any kind of media involvement in the recent past. This might bring in vested interests of the individual or the organisation he represents. Well...they say that I keep dreaming. Why not? As an eternal optimist, don't I have the right to?
Let's bring on the good news first. Zee's Subhash Chandra, in a Packeresque move, announced the ICL (Indian Cricket League) amongst heavy fanfare. Starting with 6 teams sometime later this year and targetting another 10 in the next three years, ICL will be played in two formats (One dayers and 20-20). Chandra announced that the contracted players will be getting a monthly remuneration as well as performance based incentives. The teams would comprise of 2 India internationals, 4 overseas players & 8 juniors. The league would be aimed at building a competitive spirit and killer instinct among Indian cricketers. The league is to be governed by some well respected names in international cricket, a move that'll definitely add credibility to the final product. Going by the success of PHL on ESPN-Star, it can be safely assumed that ICL will push Zee Sports into the turf of major sports channels on Indian TV. So far so good. But two questions loom large in my mind.
First is the BCCI. How would they react to this? So far, there's been no comment, official or otherwise, from them except that they've recieved a communication from Chandra regarding the issue and they'll respond to it. I wonder whether they'll try throwing some spanner in Chandra's works by not releasing their contracted players for the league even when not on national team duty. This could take the initial sheen out of the product and could kill the marketing momentum. This is not a vague and random thought. Usually the official line in such development would always be guarded - the sit back...watch the waters kind. In Packer's case, Cricket Australia went to the extent of a confrontation with WSC, though I expect the BCCI to be wiser. Second is the composition of the teams. With the kind of money Chandra is throwing up, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to get some top grade overseas talent. The India players issue would be in BCCI's hands and if they decide not to relent, ICL would have to settle for some also-ran ex-India players - neither a very healthy sign in terms of the quality of the product nor in terms of viewership. The 8 junior players would be the most crucial, as this is going to form the bulwark of the league and grooming them into international grade cricketers is one of the league's visions. We still don't have any clarity as to the selection criterea for this pool. Answers to these questions would make the future direction of ICL much clearer.
Now comes the tough part. The bad news. Senior players from the side are up in arms against coach Greg Chappell. Sachin Tendulkar, probably the most graceful and humble of the current lot came out in the open with a scathing statement on the the coach's tactics. Along with him, other senior players too, have openly criticised the coach for being a divisive force within the team. Good that the players have come out openly against the coach in full defiance of the BCCI gag. Now we have both sides of the story. Its now upto the fans to choose who they want to believe - the players who till not very recently were being looked up as heroes for having achieved things not many had done in the past or a coach whose reputation as a tenacious terrier with no aversion to hitting below the belt to gain an upper hand goes hand in hand with his much tomtommed reputation of a batting great. Those who feel Team India bashing to be the in-thing will accuse me of a bias here. Maybe many ex-aussie cricketers including Steve Waugh were biased when they warned Ganguly not to support Greg's candidature for coach. Maybe australian cricket in general was biased too not to have given Greg a decent coaching run in their own country. I'd always been against appointing him as the coach and still hold strong on the same view.
However, every cloud, as they say, has a silver lining. Some heads are bound to roll in the aftermath of the WC debacle. This could be a good chance for Zee to rope in some really nice talent who can be the torchbearers for the ICL atleast for the first 2-3 years. Talking of heads rolling, the BCCI is all set to appoint a committee of ex-players to look into the current and the future of Indian cricket. Something they should keep in mind, but I know they won't, is to avoid any cricketer with any kind of media involvement in the recent past. This might bring in vested interests of the individual or the organisation he represents. Well...they say that I keep dreaming. Why not? As an eternal optimist, don't I have the right to?
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
The Spiritual Store
Spirituality is in vogue again. One sees astrologers and soothsayers having a field day. No property ad is deemed complete without the mention of Vaastu. Lifestyle stores are filled to the brim with Feng Shui articles. Alternative therapy like Reiki and Pranic healing have reached every nook and corner imaginable. And the less said about numerology, gemstones etc., the better. Lovely, isn't it? Life's so easy. Change your name, wear a dozen rings, shift to a new house that faces east, keep a few objects here and there, do a 8 hour course on Reiki that gives you immense spiritual powers and you're all set to face the world. The bunch of money you lose in the process is worth it...isn't it? Nothing...no one...can even dream of harming you ever and you're safe - insulated from all the karma you've accumulated.
They say astrologers base their deductions on planetary positions. Since all heavenly bodies follow certain basic rules of physics, this seems very much plausible. But one thing conveniently missing out of this workabout is the involvement of Karma. How does an astrologer factor in the past Karma of a person he hardly knows? And without such a crucial input, are their predictions really that believable? Vaastu specialists are another set that's making hay while the sun shines at its cruellest. Vaastu is a science that works entirely on the principle of air and light circulation. It was written at a time when there were no multistoreyed apartment complexes; when there was a lot of greenery around; when there were no artificial sources of light and when people didn't know a bit about fans or airconditioning. Is the science still just as relevant in its original form? We haven't heard about any research being done on Vaastu in recent times. And then there are name changes and gemstones. Not even worth commenting on.
The general line here is that these things actually bring you prosperity. People tend to forget that its finally only your Karma that brings out results in your life. They tend to ignore the effort they've put in to attain the prosperity. All credit is given to whatever hogwash they went through. I've heard people saying they bore children due to a visit to some temple. Wrong! You bore children because you fornicated buddy! Success is attributed to changes in names. As if the name change changes the person himself. My wife was talking about how a few changes prescribed by a Feng Shui expert (hanging a few objects here and there in the office; changing the size of their letter head from Letter to A4 etc.) brought a sea change to the fortunes of the company she used to work for. Conveniently forgetting that the business they got was something they'd been working on long before the Feng Shui expert stepped in. And as if their prospects noticed the change in their letter head size and immediately changed their opinion about the company. Its true that these things set in motion a reverse psychology. This actually adds on to one's efforts after they've undergone a process like this. But how far is this helpful? Wouldn't a simple realisation that one needs to increase the quantum of their efforts do the same trick? I guess its a matter of choice and people still prefer to be gullible about such facts.
Alternative healing is a slightly different proposition. I don't doubt its authenticity or relevance. Since its all based on the power of the human mind (which borders on the infinite), it sure can be very powerful. But what disturbs me is the crass commercialisation of an ancient science. You have single day Reiki & Pranic Healing courses which proclaim to make you good enough to practice the science at a basic level. These courses are open for anyone who can shell out the required fees for the course, which is "nominal" (I love the lovely positioning at work here). Pay a couple of hundred rupees and become a doctor in a day. There's no qualification procedure in place to judge whether one really has the aptitude for the stuff or not. There's no evaluation done at the end of it. A bunch of people are taken through a day long ritual of some sweet sounding but complex theorising interspersed with some feel-good exercises and presto! They are healers now...with powers to heal the world. And thus is set loose a highly motivated team of sales reps to bring in more of the "nominal" fees.
Karma is all about cause and effect. And this furious spate in the incidence of alternative therapy is actually disturbing the balance of cause and effect. Notice how great prophets were extremely selective in healing people from their maladies. The reason for this is simple. The people who were healed by them had it coming. The healing was actually a part of their Karmic cycle. The prophets were just a medium for them to get through the part in question. How many alternative healers of today actually understand that they might be harming their subjects in the spiritual long-term by giving them an immediate relief? For if the healing is not supposed to be a part of their Karmic cycle, they'll have to go through the balance at some other point in their life. Moreover, the healer adds an extra Karmic debt to the subject in this case. And we'll all agree that the earlier a debt is paid off, the better.
Human civilisation is in an advanced stage of scientific evolution. And as a result of this, is regaining a lot of its old glories - ancient sciences that are extremely powerful. But the scientific evolution should be accompanied by an equal level of intellectual and spiritual evolution too - otherwise these very ancient glories would become dangerous tools in an infant's hands. May The Almighty give us all the strength to achieve the intellectual and spiritual evolution needed.
They say astrologers base their deductions on planetary positions. Since all heavenly bodies follow certain basic rules of physics, this seems very much plausible. But one thing conveniently missing out of this workabout is the involvement of Karma. How does an astrologer factor in the past Karma of a person he hardly knows? And without such a crucial input, are their predictions really that believable? Vaastu specialists are another set that's making hay while the sun shines at its cruellest. Vaastu is a science that works entirely on the principle of air and light circulation. It was written at a time when there were no multistoreyed apartment complexes; when there was a lot of greenery around; when there were no artificial sources of light and when people didn't know a bit about fans or airconditioning. Is the science still just as relevant in its original form? We haven't heard about any research being done on Vaastu in recent times. And then there are name changes and gemstones. Not even worth commenting on.
The general line here is that these things actually bring you prosperity. People tend to forget that its finally only your Karma that brings out results in your life. They tend to ignore the effort they've put in to attain the prosperity. All credit is given to whatever hogwash they went through. I've heard people saying they bore children due to a visit to some temple. Wrong! You bore children because you fornicated buddy! Success is attributed to changes in names. As if the name change changes the person himself. My wife was talking about how a few changes prescribed by a Feng Shui expert (hanging a few objects here and there in the office; changing the size of their letter head from Letter to A4 etc.) brought a sea change to the fortunes of the company she used to work for. Conveniently forgetting that the business they got was something they'd been working on long before the Feng Shui expert stepped in. And as if their prospects noticed the change in their letter head size and immediately changed their opinion about the company. Its true that these things set in motion a reverse psychology. This actually adds on to one's efforts after they've undergone a process like this. But how far is this helpful? Wouldn't a simple realisation that one needs to increase the quantum of their efforts do the same trick? I guess its a matter of choice and people still prefer to be gullible about such facts.
Alternative healing is a slightly different proposition. I don't doubt its authenticity or relevance. Since its all based on the power of the human mind (which borders on the infinite), it sure can be very powerful. But what disturbs me is the crass commercialisation of an ancient science. You have single day Reiki & Pranic Healing courses which proclaim to make you good enough to practice the science at a basic level. These courses are open for anyone who can shell out the required fees for the course, which is "nominal" (I love the lovely positioning at work here). Pay a couple of hundred rupees and become a doctor in a day. There's no qualification procedure in place to judge whether one really has the aptitude for the stuff or not. There's no evaluation done at the end of it. A bunch of people are taken through a day long ritual of some sweet sounding but complex theorising interspersed with some feel-good exercises and presto! They are healers now...with powers to heal the world. And thus is set loose a highly motivated team of sales reps to bring in more of the "nominal" fees.
Karma is all about cause and effect. And this furious spate in the incidence of alternative therapy is actually disturbing the balance of cause and effect. Notice how great prophets were extremely selective in healing people from their maladies. The reason for this is simple. The people who were healed by them had it coming. The healing was actually a part of their Karmic cycle. The prophets were just a medium for them to get through the part in question. How many alternative healers of today actually understand that they might be harming their subjects in the spiritual long-term by giving them an immediate relief? For if the healing is not supposed to be a part of their Karmic cycle, they'll have to go through the balance at some other point in their life. Moreover, the healer adds an extra Karmic debt to the subject in this case. And we'll all agree that the earlier a debt is paid off, the better.
Human civilisation is in an advanced stage of scientific evolution. And as a result of this, is regaining a lot of its old glories - ancient sciences that are extremely powerful. But the scientific evolution should be accompanied by an equal level of intellectual and spiritual evolution too - otherwise these very ancient glories would become dangerous tools in an infant's hands. May The Almighty give us all the strength to achieve the intellectual and spiritual evolution needed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
