Monthly Archive for January, 2005

Well could they have done it to an African American? Could they have done it to a Mexican? Could they have done it to a Jew? And even if they had done so, would the FCC (the regulating body of US media) have allowed them to get away with it ? What I am referring to is the shocking incident of racism that was allowed to air on Power99 , Philly’s premier hip-hop channel. I quote from Rediff where I first read about this.

US RJs threaten Indian BPO worker

Arun Venugopal in New York | January 11, 2005 11:12 IST

An abusive call made by two prominent radio jockeys to a call centre in India has outraged listeners and prompted demands for the duo’s resignation.

The live call, made during the Philadelphia-based morning show of RJs Star and Bucwild, ended with one of the RJ’s repeatedly calling the female call centre employee a ‘bitch’ and a ‘rat eater’ and threatening to choke her.

Star, whose real name is Troi Torain, initiated the call under the pretext of inquiring into an order he had placed for a product known as ‘Quick Beads’, hair beads marketed primarily to girls outside the black community (Star and Bucwild are black). Midway through the call, Star became aggressive with the call centre representative, Steena.

Star: This call has been outsourced to India?

Steena: That’s right.

Star: Well, ma’am, what the eff would you know about an American white girl’s – uh, uh – hair, and quick beads?

Steena: Just to inform you, ma’am, we’re a national chain services company. And we’re just taking calls on the opposite.

Star: Listen, bitch! Don’t get slick with the mouth! Don’t you get slick with me, bitch!

Steena: Now if you continue to speak this language, I will disconnect the call.

Star: Listen to me, you dirty rat eater. I’ll come out there and choke the eff out of you (laughter).

Star: You’re a filthy rat eater. I’m calling about my American six-year-old white girl. How dare you outsource my call? Get off the line, bitch (laughter, applause, end of call).

This is not the first time the RJ’s have provoked listeners. In 2001, after the death of the R&B singer Aaliyah, their show attempted to make light of the tragedy by playing the sound effect of a plane crashing, along with the sound of a woman screaming.

That segment, according to some reports, drew as many as 80,000 signatures to a petition and led to the duo being fired from their station at the time, New York’s Hot 97 FM. Their latest segment has inspired a number of bloggers and online activists to rally against Star and Bucwild, initiating a letter-writing campaign to the station, WUSL-FM (Power 99), as well as to its corporate parent, Clear Channel, and the Federal Communications Commission, which monitors the broadcast media.

Although the station pulled the segment from their website, one blogger posted the audio file on his own website:

Another blogger posted the full transcript: http://www.edrants.com/reluctant/001697.html

In a form letter sent to some protesters, the station’s general manager, Richard Lewis, said the station did not condone the use of offensive language.

‘This situation has been discussed with the people in question and I am confident nothing of this nature will happen again,’ wrote Lewis. ‘I sincerely regret any discomfort this may have caused you or any friends and family.’

However, Lewis hasn’t agreed to either of the demands protesters were looking for: a public apology from the shock jocks or even their suspension.

‘Again I apologise to you personally for this and I understand your point of view,’ he wrote, in closing. ‘I do appreciate your taking the time to let me know your thoughts.’

I need not reiterate the offensiveness conveyed by the RJ’s filthy racism and threat of violence. What was alarming is the whole hearted applause among the studio audience and laughter (audible on the mp3) which shows that there were quite a number of people who found the exchange funny and quite “all right”. Even more alarming was the fact that this Richard Lewis guy brushes the incident off as a case of “offensive language” totally missing the point —-that about racism and the undeniable violence suggested by the RJ which is much more serious than an”on the air” profanity. As pointed out by the article there was no suspension and nothing much more serious than an off-the-cuff apology.

My question is the one posed at the beginning of the posting—could they have dared say that to an African-American bus driver or a Latino janitor without getting FCC and other organizations on their case? No. They would not even try. The reason they do it with Indians is that they know we, as a community in the US , are a group of big wusses. All the NRI’s hot air is reserved for their January attendance at the Pravasi extravaganza in Delhi when one by one these “success stories” regale the natives with their anecdotes of greatness. Yet in their adopted home, these “lawyers, surgeons and IT professionals” cower like sissies and are unable or unwilling to use the “economic and social might” they pompom on the podiums of Delhi.

Let’s look at an example— Vijay Amritraj. He emigrated to USA because like so many others he found more opportunities (financial) here. Which is absolutely fine. What is not fine is when he goes home and tries to convince others of his great patriotism (because he played Davis Cup matches oh wow) and how he raised the self esteem of Indians in US by winning Grand Slam tournaments. Oh wait….he did not win any ! How is that with such prominent people like the Amritraj brothers (who would convince you they are big league Hollywood players) and with so many Tom-Dick-and-Harry (sorry Ramaswamy-Ahmed-Devinder) doctors and IT gurus who claim to have the ears of the powers-that-be do we get racially insulted on radio ?

Many of the apologists (Indian) would claim that this is too small an issue for the Indian community to agitate against—-that by doing so we are giving respectability to the original insult–this is a standard publicity stunt of shock jocks–oh yeah right. All excuses to do nada. Despite being a major world religion and India being a major world power (or so we like to believe), the White House has only of late ( for 2 years) been celebrating Diwali and there too the adminstration sends very low ranking officials to the celebration while President Bush personally participates in Hanukkah, Id parties. This is the kind of clout our NRI superheroes exert on Capitol Hill.

It is very important not to consider the “rat eater” incident as too small an issue to agitate against. Its precisely these small things and our inability to react to them that make us easy prey to racist scum like the one in question. There are so many things we can do—-we all know that we, as a community, do have financial power . So let’s exercise it. Only writing letters wont help —we should collectively boycott the sponsors of that program and tell them why we are doing so. Howard Stern’s downfall came when sponsors pulled out support for his program…….that was the only language the studio execs understand. Cutting the purse strings is the only thing that gets them down to their knees. When the said RJ had once previously offended African-Americans with a skit on Aliyah’s death, he was suspended by the radio station. That time they took action and this time they did not because I am sure the head-honchos at the show have figured out that the advertising brownie points they would gain from people who actually like this shit far overshadows the few South-Asian (who in any case don’t buy anything…or so they think) they would lose. Let’s unbalance that equation.

Indians in US are a powerful community economically. India as a country is becoming more powerful with every passing year. All I am saying that it’s time we behaved in a manner befitting our position in American society. And that we can only do once we start winning these small battles. Or at the very least fighting them.

The word “charity” has inherent in it the absence of ulterior motives or hope of benefit. ( I am of course speaking of an ideal situation, Christian missionaries by and large have always performed charity with a motive–conversion) Yet as we have seen in the aftermath of the Tsunami catastrophe, charity is being increasingly used as a means of publicity–it is not enough to be merely doing something but more important to be able to be seen doing so.

The charge leveled at the US by Jan Egeland, undersecretary general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief for the UN, of being “stingy with aid” may be a bit harsh especially if one looks at the real figures. But if the objective was to stir the US administration to action, it succeeded in its intent. In an ideal world the US should not even have reacted to this statement and gone on doing what it intended to do with respect to Tsunami relief. But it did retort–Colin Powell and George Bush repeated “we are not stingy—we gave xyz dollars”, the US press touted figures showing how much more the US gives “effectively” (as a government and as individuals) than France and Germany (the conservative Press’s favorite whipping boys nowadays), Jeb Bush trooped off to the affected areas in a blaze of publicity (with an eye on Decision 08) —-humanitarian help became one more ring in the media and PR circus.

Sandra Bullock donates 1 million dollars (the same as for the 9/11 victims), Leonardo De Caprio gives blah amount….the list goes on. Now these are admirable gestures and the dollars are very welcome but what happened to silent charity and anonymous donations ? Why is everyone, people and governments alike, so struck up on using charity as a media exercise with the amount being donated directly proportional to popularity brownie points ?

One way to look at the issue positively is that many people or governments who otherwise would not have engaged in it or to a lesser extent go the full hog because of the PR brownie points . After all to many people what matters is the ends not the means. Or the motivations in this case. But the politics of charity work both ways: while it exalts the giver it somehow reduces the receiver. Case in point: the Indian government’s stance of not taking foreign aid even though we desperately need it. In its endeavor of not to be considered as a “victim” and a receiver, the Government of India seeks to disburse monetary and military help to other countries ignoring its own citizens in dire need.

The flip side of the politicization of charity is that those who contribute less are considered in poor light. Charity is not even “I gave. Ergo I am great”. It is now “I gave more than you. Ergo I am greater than you ” with the “you” continuously trying to up the ante in the game of “who gave the most”. (Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front –the dreaded JKLF–the grand daddy of terrorist organizations in Kashmir gave 100,000 ruppees as donation–which begs the question if their cohorts kill Indians by the dozen every month why are they even concerned for Indian Tsunami victims?The answer is tokenism.) The result is that people and government are not doing charity out of their own convictions but out of the fear of being considered “stingy”. If the means and the end are both important (that may be argued ), then this very public way of giving becomes a subversion of what lies at the heart of charity.

The Tsunami victims need money. But what they need even more is grassroots help and a long term plan. Many of the aid organizations (at least those working in India) have come up with long term rehabilitation and community building plans—not only with respect to financial allocation but with respect to how to actually do it. It would be interesting to see how many of the entities who are now falling over themselves to donate money are going to be there for the long haul where there will be no glamour or PR but only hard work and new ideas. I am afraid not many.

Unbelievable ! I am not only referring to the Tsunami and its consequent devastation but to the totally inept, politically headstrong, misguided (I am running out of adjectives here) policy of the Indian government to refuse foreign aid for dealing with the aftermath of the Tsunami in coastal India.

Here’s what we wanted to tell the world :” Look at us Ma no hands. We don’t need no help—-we are a superpower now . Not only don’t we need any help we will be giving out millions of rupees to Maldives, Sri Lanka and other small dominions in our sphere of influence—that’s how tough we are. Remember that when you expand the permanent members of the Security Council……….”

Our brave (quixotic?) stance made the headlines in the Western media which incidentally is all that the Indian government really cared for. ( Of course this will have no effect on our membership at the Security Council or on our perceived position in the brotherhood of nations—-but that is a different issue altogether.) But at what cost has the GOI attained its objective? Read on.

Scene 1: A coastal village in Tamil Nadu a day or two after the tsunami. A victim tells Rediff that the district administration gave 4 sacks of rice (yes 4) to feed 20,000 displaced people ! And then it bribed some of the affected to lie to the visiting chief minister of the state as to the efficiency of the district administration.

Scene 2: In his blog India Uncut (also on Rediff) Amit Varma quotes Dr Narasimhan, one of the numerous volunteers at the scene of devastation who gives us the real picture of our government’s might.

All that the government has been doing is lining the streets outside with bleaching powder. They are not interested in coming here, they left this to the NGOs……………….Mani Shankar Aiyar, India’s petroleum minister, had announced on TV four days ago that such equipment was at the top of his wishlist of aid. Then why did it not materialise? Could the government not mobilise its resources even that much?………..
What we need now,” he (Dr Narasimhan) says, “is kerosene. We need to burn bodies as we come along them on this stretch, before they decompose further. And we have no kerosene.
“We’ve been calling aid agencies and so on asking for fuel to burn the bodies with,” he continues, “but we got none. We managed to file some cans of kerosene lying around some of the devastated houses, but there’s no more of even that?”
“But can’t the government give you kerosene?” I (Amit Varma) ask astonished.
“The government does nothing,” he says. “I thought differently till I came here, but now I’ve seen it for myself. Everything is left to the junior IAS officers, who are in meetings all day. Ministers come, and all they want to know is how many people are dead. They don’t care about relief work at all. In an unprecedented situation you need an unprecedented response. But that has not happened.”
Dr Narsimhan gets back to his work, and I look up, where a helicopter moves languidly across the sky. “That’s the fifth one today,” says a lady who is part of the doctor’s team.
“They come and ‘survey’ the area, which is so pointless, because you cannot actually see the dead bodies from here amid this debris. It is just a show, to reassure themselves that they’re on top of things. The army officers who come here, they refuse to even touch the bodies. They just hang around aimlessly.”

Very illuminating. And damning. Army officers do not touch dead bodies of Indians—and yet troop off to other countries to offer assistance. As Dr Narasimhan says: ” it’s all a show” with an eye to tell the world “Look we got everything under control.” When the real situation is exactly the opposite. So the logical question: why aren’t we hearing tales of government ineptitude in the Press ? Another volunteer (who herself is a journalist) throws light on this (from the same above article):

So why haven’t the press written about this, I ask her. “The press,” she snorts. “The journalists from the Hindu are all flying around with dignitaries. That is the kind of reporting they do.”

It’s time we faced the truth: we are not equipped to deal with this catastrophe on our own. A hundred call centers, a shopping mall, a Barista coffee shop do not constitute “development”— we are still very much a developing nation and do not have the infrastructure to deal with catastrophes on this scale. We are neither rich enough as a country to absorb quietly the shock of the financial consequences nor do we have the administrative muscle to do anything (except of course hover round in copters). Someone who has lost everything and everyone to the ocean does not really care for a permanent seat in the Security Council—-all he wants is relief. The least the government can do is to not prevent anyone from helping them. And even that the wise mandarins at Delhi have not managed to accomplish.

There are very few developed countries in the world which when faced with catastrophe on this scale could have performed effective disaster-recovery without external help. In that sense there would have been no shame as a nation in asking for help. Whether the world press thinks we are a regional superpower or a leaking hot-air balloon is irrelevant: the truth is that the government has let down its own people at a time when they needed the country the most. There can be no bigger shame than that.