Before we go to a discussion of Time and in general the state of the US media, it is worthwhile to stop a while and read through Joel Stein’s article (if you have not already done so). Anna at Sepia Mutiny has done an admirable job of savaging this bit of bigoted garbage and so I will not go over a deconstruction of this piece. In brief, it is a rant that expresses the author’s anguish at having his New Jersey neighborhood being taken over my cologne-drenched, vulgar, stupid Indians (India, according to Stein, is a poor country because its citizens are half-wits) who worship “gods (that) have multiple arms and an elephant nose”, which according to the author should have been the hatred-ossifying image for his friends rather than the bindi [The "dot busters" being a New Jersey gang in the late 80s who killed and injured people of Hindu origin in New Jersey. I mention the word "Hindu" because in their manifesto they specifically mentioned the word "Hindu" and not Indians]

A defense for Joel Stein will be that he was trying to do racy racial humor of the Borat kind, wherein by perpetuating offensive stereotypes about an ethnic minority he was ,reflexively, making fun of his own bigotry  and that we stupid Indians should be smart enough to get it. Frankly, if that was the intent, most reasonable people missed it totally. Like for example  Jun Choi, who was quoted in the article responded by saying he was “disappointed that the article turned out to be distasteful and offensive to both Indian Americans and my hometown of Edison”.  If indeed, the motivation was humor and nothing else, the entire piece is such a comic misfire that the editors of Time should never have let it pass on the grounds of quality.

But they did. And the reason why they let it pass was not because it slipped through the cracks.

My theory is that they had their reasons.

In the US market, especially in the present Net-dominated landscape where traditional print and television media is hemorrhaging financially, anything that is published is examined through multiple lenses by not only legal departments but also by marketing and advertising in order to properly target the “base”.  Time magazine let this execrable article pass through the net because this is exactly the kind of  copy once-respectable media outlets, where increasingly marketing managers rather than journalists call the shots,  have to carry in order to boost their circulation.

It is universally acknowledged in American media circles that with the popularity of the Internet, people no longer rely on print and television as the source for “primary news”—why wait till 6:30 in the evening for the day’s happenings when you get them live as they happen. All that they care for are opinions, and the more outrageous and polarizing they are—-the better. The world of Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather and staid NYTimes editorials, the world of dispassionate news, is no longer financially viable.

One of the greatest media success stories of recent times has been that of Rush Limbaugh (for those who havent seen him—think of a 200 lb heavier Wayne Rooney), whose insanely successful independent radio show (which has flourished outside the framework of classical big media) has grown in size, influence and revenue because his brand of anti-minority and anti-immigrant hatred has a huge market in the US. The established media has followed the Rush route, hiring polarizing figures to do their prime-time programming —-from Left wing loons like Keith Olbermann [MSNBC] to right wing reactionaries like Hannity, OReilly [Fox News] and the worst of them all, Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs [CNN].

The print media, magazines and newspapers, have suffered the most in this paradigm shift. They are restricted on two axes—–due to the nature of the medium, their content producers are not able to depend on the verbal calisthenics and dramatic voice modulations of a Beck or a Rush to rouse the audience. On the other hand because of the nature of their finances, they have to do with second-rate talent like Joel Stein, occasional face on VH1′s “I love the 80s”,  to write provocative pieces.

Of course when writing attention-grabbing pieces, two things have to be considered.  First of all is there a market in peddling bigotry against the target group? In this case, there is a big market for anti-India rhetoric, comprising of the 25-40 educated elite, many of whom laid-off by the loss of high-tech jobs to India. For these people, any kind of brown-bashing is a lot of fun—from the Elephant Gods to the fact that the country has no flush toilets and that the river Ganga sounds like a disease [Glenn Beck on CNN], from the poor accent of Indian call center operators to the fact that H1B workers pay no income tax [a lie repeated endlessly by Lou Dobbs and also written in his book]. CNN, supposedly a liberal media organization, had the India-bashing segment of the market cornered with its gas-balloon Lou Dobbs till he overstepped the line, going after Barrack OBama  through his espousal of the Birthers, a loony right-wing borderline group who claimed that Obama was not American, a cause so outrageous that CNN had to ease him out. There too, there was commerce——– virulent Obama-baiting  is a place where Rush can go, because his demographic wants it. Not CNN’s however since it has many Democrat voters and African-American and Hispanic viewers.

The second thing to be considered is how much of an influence the target group has. In the US for example, African-Americans cannot be targeted by such “humor”—-they are too big a commercial market and too powerful politically.

A few years ago, Seinfield favorite Michael Richards had his career ruined after some similarly racist anti-African-American “edgy” stand-up routine of his was captured on camera-phone and uploaded on the Net[ No one as far as I remember used the "It's a joke. Get over it" in his defense] As yet another example, there was a huge outcry in the US media when KFC advertisements for cricket matches in Australia had West Indians being pacified by fried chicken—-because of an American “racist” assumption that African-Americans like friend chicken. To illustrate the point further, if Joel Stein had just replaced Indians with African-American in his piece, ruing over the fact that his white neighborhood  had been taken over by Blacks, then Time would never ever, not in a thousand years, let that get to print.

Like African-Americans, Hispanics have their powerful backers. So do Jews. Muslims also have the very well-funded Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) who would give hell if such stuff were written about their co-religionists. And if Stein so far as got a bit off the line with his edgy humor and veered onto areas Muslims hold very dear, then not only Joel Stein but also Ben Stein would need police protection, just because they share a last name.

Indians/Hindus (I use Indians/Hindus since Stein is targeting people who worship Elephant Gods and Stein in his ignorance does not know that Indians arent just Hindus) are of course easy targets. They do not have political might nor a big organization behind them. Nor are they united —since sections will pat Klein and Time perhaps because they want to “fit in” into US society and they think that acting like Uncle Tom will help them assimilate into the mainstream and make them look “exalted” and “intellectual”.

The fact that this is packaged as humor will make it easy to say “Oh come on don’t be defensive. It’s just a joke”. That’s unfortunately the cover for bigotry. What is most important to remember is that the people who are coming to read this piece (this crock of a piece is now the most read page on the Time website), and Liking it on Facebook are not doing it because they understand the “reflexive” humor but because they are going “Yeah that’s the way to tell it to the piss-drinkers” [A note to Joel Stein: Poor research sir. You forgot that part where we drink urine and charm the snakes by blowing].

In other words, the reason this piece is appealing to most of its audience is not that they get the humor but because they do not.

And in an interesting sidelight, Time International (which has to sell to Indians in India and where the curry-hating demographic does not exist) did not carry this article—-if this was pure and simple humor of the intelligent sort, why was it kept out I wonder.

I am of course not suggesting that Hindus should treat bigotry with threats of violence or aggression or anything of the sort. But it also does no good to shut one’s eyes and mouth when a flagship media outlet like Time, an institution our generation grew up idolizing,  carries something as repulsive as this, at the best out of lack of oversight and worst out of a desire to pander to the worst in its readership.

Immensely disappointing.

I am sure all of us, at some time or the other, have sat contemplating why so-and-so, possessing such moderate talent have achieved so much in life. While we , infinitely superior in all respects have been able to achieve little in comparison. After much envious sadness and introspection, we have come to the conclusion that when opportunity came knocking so-and-so went for the ball in a fashion we felt was shameless–blowing their horn, elbowing the rest—something which even we could have done if we were as desperate. Not that occupying the dubious moral high ground has caused us any satisfaction over the years. Far from it.

However what whiners call shamelessness, winners call aggressiveness. It is a trait possessed by few. To make the most of opportunities. No matter if that makes them look opportunistic. After all, they are too busy being successful  to notice the hushed whispers and the roll of eyes.

Shahrukh Khan, the Badshah of Bollywood, is one such superman. Not that I would ever dream of ever calling him a moderate talent, after all as argued beautifully he very well may be God. [Read this comment thread, one of the most awesome at RTDM which proves, in the manner of a mathematical proof, His godliness] No I am just saying that SRK has that trait of taking that one step many of us would balk at. Stopped at an US airport for two hours (according to authorities it was sixty five minutes) supposedly based on his religion, he came out with guns blazing repeating that he had been detained because “My Name is Khan“, incidentally the name of his next blockbuster with a theme of, surprise surprise, the racial stereotyping of minorities.

Was SRK stopped because of his religion, this once out of the hundreds of times has been to US since 9/11? [I presume he has not been stopped before else we would have heard him saying in press conferences: "They stopped me because they felt gum at my khushi" or They stopped me chalte chalte" or "They made me take off my shirt and reveal my six packs. I was discriminated everywhere--- New York, Paris, San Francisco. Dil mein mere hai dard-e-disco." or "They "chaked" me out because I was Indian". ]? Was there something about his papers or something else about the visit this time around which may have set off an alert? Or did he encounter Captain Kirk at the checkpoint who recognizing his old nemesis had a Khannnnnnnnn [Must watch video] meltdown? Or was the officer just a lover of good acting, a part of  the “aesthetic police”? Or was he a Sourav Ganguly fan eager to get his back for IPL 2.0?

We will never know why. But what we do know and must applaud is how SRK immediately after this most distressing experience of being made to wait in a line with mere mortals  used the trauma to create a gigantic buzz about his upcoming movie. Totally free of cost. In the same way he did when he turned up for the T20 World Cup, distributed CDs and promoted “Om Shanti Om”. This is precisely what defines a champion and an achiever, the ability to turn anything into a positive. And of course the ability to be big-hearted. Like his insistence that he did not want an apology from the US government, which is even more remarkable considering that until now no one has shown the slightest intention of giving him any. And like his declaring that though he would prefer to stay in India during Independence Day and not step on US soil, it is the love of his fans in the US (not to speak of their dollars) that brings him to the country.

I know there are some people who feel that if he was really so humiliated then his protest should have been had more teeth. But then again what do you expect him to do? Abandon his career and start a new method of political struggle that would change the world, in the way that another Indian ejected from a Whites-only train once did?

Surely not. No Ki-Ki-Kripp’s Mission for him certainly.

This incident has been instructive for me personally. Like many South Asian origin men with a brown skin coloring (non-Muslim though) who travel internationally, I have endured similar experiences. I for one was pulled out of a line in Copenhagen and then made to empty my purse, show my credit card in front of a Customs officials, smiling in what I felt a very mocking fashion, who then asked me then to explain to them what research I did—-not in a private booth but in front of the entire airport. In Barcelona, I was singled out of a whole 747 (the only thing that distinguished me was I was brown) and made to endure about an hour of a through search of my luggage. I took it in my stride just like everyone else, accepting it as the reality of a post 9-11 world where everybody with my skin color is always a suspect. (As a matter of fact, I would say that the US is the country where I have by and large encountered the most professional and the most courterous of officials—and I have traveled a bit in the ten years I have been here.)

This time of course, inspired by the Khan, if something similar happens, I shall rapidly call a press conference telling one and all how an official pulled me out of the line and kept on telling me:  “May I Hebb Your Attention Pliss” (psst the title of my new book).

Of course I know that no one will care. Not the press. And certainly not the Government of India.  Because I am not what Hon. Minister P Chidambaram would call a “high profile” Indian citizen, the kind who if detained would lead  the Home Minister, the Minister of Civil Aviation and Tourism Minister to react as if Jallianwalah Bagh had just been repeated.

Which brings me to a somber truth.

In India, despite what the constitution says everyone is not equal. The filmstars, the politicians, the cricketers, the bureaucrats, their relatives and their transitive closure are considered to be a class apart for whom everyone has to stand aside, give up their seats and kiss the ground. This is not something that is dictated from above but something we feel from inside. Maybe it is a remnant of colonialism or of having had royal dynasties but we ourselves, the low profile Indians accept that “high profile” Indian citizens deserve special privileges. Of course we extend this special privilege to foreign bigwigs too  (after all they too are VIPs) and as Chidambaram says have “joint secretaries escorting them from the tarmac”.

The problem starts when we expect other countries, like the US for example, to have the same kind of deferential attitude towards our celebrities. Sunil Gavaskar wrote once how when Indian players tour Austalia they are made to stand in airport lines like everyone else whereas when foreign players arrive in India, they are whisked away and officials do all the “menial” work for them. Now in an ideal world, people all over the world would share the Indian’s reverence for foreign people and famous people and most importantly for “famous foreign” people and make exceptions for them.  But alas that is not the case.

And therein lies the crux of the problem. Therein lies the reason for the wrath of Khan.

{picture courtesy here}

Give me a break mite.

I mean if there is one society that is sensitive to racism it has to be the Australian. Remember all that outrage in the Aussie Press when Harbhajan (whose cousin’s death in Australia was passed off as “suicide” apparently without a post-mortem) supposedly called Symonds a “monkey” and sections of the crowd made simian gestures at that same man. At that point of time, I remember the Australian press telling us how sensitive the country is about issues of race, sensitive in a way that us Indians, with a history and continuing tradition of caste, cannot even comprehend.

When some Indians, jingoistic as they are, tried to make the argument that noone in India saw Symonds as black (since he is whiter than most Indians) and that Symonds with his tough abusive shoulder-charging playing philosophy was raising the bogey of racism to hide the fact that he couldn’t take on-field abuse it half as good as he gave , we were told that we were justifying the most vicious form of racism. They were right of course. Having had a “White Australia policy” as recent as 1973, they sure are better qualified to understand the concept of racism and identify it than us casteists.

Which is why I totally believed the police head dude when he said that the recent spate of attacks on Indians in Australia were not racist in nature but merely opportunist since Indians are perceived as weak,an impression that may have been strengthened after watching Venkatapathy Raju bowl. Now again a case may be made that the perception of vulnerability follows directly from the color of skin making this classic racism. It could also be argued that since the motivations behind the acts were primarily hate and not just simple “crime” for the sake of pecuniary benefit, calling the whole thing “non-racial” sounds like, to paraphrase the famous Fosters commercial,  “Australian for hogwash”. But of course the police are right. This is Australia you see.

So what are these assaults if not racism or as it is known “curry-bashing” ?  I would say that these are isolated lapses in security on the part of the Australian administration, a minor stain of chicken masala on their spotless whites. After all, this is a country which takes security very seriously. If someone even passes a noisy fart in the brown swamps of the subcontinent, they call off cricket tours on the grounds of threats to their well-being (unless of course they are being paid some hundred thousands in dollars). Surely being so paranoid about safety especially that of guests, the police would make sure that a group of foreigners who were in hospital after being brutalized (one fighting for his life) would not have their rooms burgled (actually cleaned out, not even a scrap of their belonging reportedly remain) by the same set of “opportunist” Aussies a few days after they had been attacked. Of course they would. Which is why it never happened. Opportunists who beat up four people and then come back to rob their houses a few days later, all of course without the police lifting a finger, could only happen in “third world countries” (quote: Monsieur Hayden). Right?

Police inaction. In Australia. Never? See the protesting Indians being dragged off the streets for peaceful protest. See police brutality on Indians. Number of Indians arrested for protesting= 18. Number of opportunists brought to book so far. Emm. Okay.

A few comments on messageboards, probably from some locals, have also been pretty convincing in their line of reasoning. In essence what they say is that if things in Australia are so bad, why dont the reeking of curry Indians go back to their little hell-hole and stop taking Australian jobs (like they do when they play local Australian tournaments like IPL) ? The argument is pretty logical when one considers that the students who had been attacked were “contributors” to the Australian economy through their tuition dollars, the potential loss of which has apparently led to widespread concern  among educators and may or may not be the reason why the Australian government is “mulling” hate-crime legislation.

Finally the fundamental fact remains, as many Indian commentators are quick to point out,  Indians are the most racist people in the world.  Do not we make racist comments at students from the North East and the exchange student from Nigeria? We should put our own house in order before we can point fingers at people pointing sharp objects and chucking firebombs at us.

So honestly people.  Go easy on the whining. Geez.

A screwdriver please bartender.

Yada Yada Hi Dharmasya
Glanirva Bhavathi Bharatha,
Abhyuthanam Adharmaysya
Tadatmanam Srijami Aham.

Indeed. These are “yada yada” times. With terrorist, corrupt politicians and chauvinists everywhere trying to tear the country into “tukda tukda”, the nation, especially those appearing for railway exams out-of-state, look for a messiah, an avatar of mythic proportions.

The good news is that he has arrived. His name is Kamal R Khan (KRK). Director and hero of “Desdrohi” releasing this week in a theater close to you.

A common man. a graduate from a center of learning in the Hindi heartland, comes to Mumbai to earn his living.  But there he is exposed to the blatant chauvinism of the local population who hold his poverty and his migrantness against him. After some “locals” attempt to beat him up (but end up on their backs instead) he thunders the following lines, lines that beautifully reflect the difference in mentality between people in different parts of the country.

Jitne nafrat humhare liye tumhare  dil main  hain , usse zyada pyar tumhare liye humare  seene main hain. Kabhi UP Bihar aake dekhna, mehman ko bhagwan samajhte hain hum [Video]

In other words, the amount of hatred that the Manoos have for the Bhaiyyas is surpassed by the love that the Bhaiyyas have for the Manoos. That is evidenced by the fact that Bhaiyyas come to Mumbai out of their love for the locals and not the other way round. It is also true that genuine, incorporeal love for “mehmaans” (guests in your household like the sister of your wife) can only be found in the heartland, a fact attested to by Lucky Ishtaar Radheshyam Rasia as he tells his guest-loving mates in a private music video (not associated with the film of course) that blends desire, relationships and nuclear weaponry in a way that is truly unique—”Humre saali ke choli main bhaiyya do tho “aitom” bomb wa [Video]”

As our hero is framed for being a terrorist and a campaign of violent hatred [led by a politician (played by Aman Varma) whose resemblance to a real-life character is purely coincidental] is initiated, the essential question behind the headlines is framed simply.

Aaj tumhare dar se Mumbai choroon. Kal kisi aur ke dar se Dilli chorun. Phir ek din kahoge Hindustan chor do

Not just with earth-hilwa bakchodi like “Aye inspector, mera naam Raj Kumar Singh Yadav hain aur Yadav sirf raja hota hain, bhikari kabhi naheen banta” our hero also strikes back with flying fists, thundering kicks, shooting pistols and most importantly with the patent-pending “Chapra Chop” wherein he gets down on his knees thus lulling his opponents into thinking he is surrendering, then slides forwards, delivering a bunker-busting to the adversary’s “vada pavs”. [Video see from 1:21 to 1:23]

Be warned oh “Gunda Raj”. Be warned.

[Thanks to Rakesh Venkatraman for bring this to my notice]

For those who are unaware of the Simpsons world, Apu is an illegal Indian immigrant, a graduate from Caltech (Calcutta Institute of Technology) who despite holding a PhD from Caltech (Calcutta Institute of Technology) runs a 24-hours convenience store, Kwik-E-Mart where he speaks in a sing-song “Indian” accent, cheats his customers in various devious ways and is the last word in subservience/boot-licking saying “Thank you come again” even to people who rob his store. He also has eight kids, had an arranged marriage, worships “weird-looking” Gods—you get the picture.

In anticipation of the release of the Simpsons movie, “Seven Eleven”, a chain of American stores, ironically known to hire South Asian immigrants, has launched a promotion by which 11 Seven Elevens have been converted into the mythical Kwik-E-Mart where Apu, played by the South Asian employee does the trademark “Thank you come again” routine. The promotion has been very successful, with sales in comparison to the same time last year having been double in the “converted” Seven Elevens.

Some bloggers (Manish has gone on CNN Paula Zahn and NDTV) have taken issue with this kind of promotion (Racism as Entertainment) and some of the 7-11 franchisees have felt insulted. Needless to say, there are also people who feel that Manish is a clowntown (whatever that means) and argue that people who subscribe to Manish’s point of view have a “fundamental mis-appreciation of satire”. The cornerstone of their argument is that Simpsons is an equal-opportunities offender with racial/ethnic stereotypes of all kinds—Mexican, Jewish. What makes the show a classic is the fact that it uses political incorrectness as a comic weapon to paint a bitingly sarcastic picture of American life and uses the exaggerated racial stereotyping to point out the silliness inherent in the accepted perceptions of minorities. They also feel that by protesting the Seven Elevens merchandising of Apu, people like Manish are promoting a culture of competitive intolerance, like we have in India.

Responding to the second charge first, people who feel offended (not all of them Indian) at Seven Eleven’s use of Indian stereotypes are not calling for a ban, or a vandalizing campaign at Seven Elevens or flag-burnings or Jihads. Being offended at a stereotype, however well-intentioned the stereotype may be, is not intolerance —it is a civilized difference of opinion.

Now with respect to “not getting” the Simpsons humor. While the Simpsons very well may be a sophisticated, smart play on perceptions of race, the reason why many people (note I do not say all) laugh at Apu is not because they “get” this subtlely—- it’s because they do not. They take Apu exactly for how he is depicted—a cheating, unhygienic (he sells sausages dropped on the floor) illegal brown immigrant with the funny Hindoo accent who works in a convenience store. And what tickles them is the cowardice and subservience and the helplessness of the Indian man, who while protecting the till from the robbers, gets shot and even then remembers to say “Come again thank you”. Verily, nothing tickles the racist bone more than to see debasement of the “other”.

Pointing out that the Apu character in Simpsons is sympathetically etched by its creators thus becomes moot because the racists are not bothered by the plot-line of the show, but instead by its very convenient racial stereotype. The impact of the Apu stereotype’ can be gauged from the fact that “thank you come again” has been appropriated as a slogan of hate and irreverence targeted towards the “sand niggers” and the “Pakis”. The convenience store scene in “Harold and Kumar go to White Castle” where a ” a gang of white “toughs” vandalize a “Seven Eleven”-like store, manhandle the South Asian man (who is begging and pleading to the hooligans not to damage his store) and mouth the “Thank you come again” is not regrettably as much a work of imagination as it is a slice of reality.

Incidentally, you do wonder why none of the other racial stereotypes depicted in the Simpsons ever had such a malignant effect in the real world.

I for one am not blaming the Simpsons for perpetrating/promoting racism against South Asians—after all if it was not “Thank you come again” it would have been something else. However my point is that things being as they are , Seven Eleven’s use of a character that has unhappy associations for many South Asian working men and women and the use of a line that has become a racist taunt, is according to me a rather insensitive gesture on the part of the corporation.

[ A sidepoint: What really gets my goat however is the reaction to any kind of "racism in America" discussion. One reaction is the "Indians are the most racist"----as if that, even if it accepted, makes racism kosher when it is aimed at Indians.

The second reaction is "It's not your country. If you have a problem, go back to where you came from".

Counterpoint A: By that token, USA is only for native Americans: all the rest should go back from where they came from.

Counterpoint B: The people who say this, if they actually live by what they say, should not venture beyond their own apartment in their home-city. Because if they go to even another locality, or to another city they should be willing to considered as "outsiders" (the concept of "outsiders" is subjective) ----and hence, by their logic, should expect "taunts" and discrimination. And no, staying inside your country does not mean you cannot be considered an 'outsider'. As an example, the Shiv Sena did not believe, during their anti-"Madrasi" campaign, that South Indians by virtue of being Indians were not "outsiders" in Mumbai . This is because Shiv Sena defined an "outsider" as non-Marathi.]

Coming back to the Apu issue and the “Indian Americans like Manish are oversensitive” angle, I can point out, from my very limited knowledge of American pop culture and media, that studio/media executives are very very careful of using racial stereotypes as humor props mainly because of some embarrassing cock-ups in the past. Cockups like George Lucas’s attempt at racial humor aimed at African Americans through the character of Jar Jar Binks, a pathetic unfunny racial stereotype (you can see here how the character is perceived) . I recall, that unlike the dissenting chorus of “Indians cannot understand sarcasm”, there were very few stringent voices in support of the supposedly “clever racial humor” embodied by Jar Jar Binks.

In general, you would very rarely find offensive racial humor directed towards any group in a mainstream Hollywood production because while Americans are not half as ban-happy as we are, they do know how to vote with their wallets. In this context, the Simpson’s production house (Fox what else !) and Seven Eleven’s publicity stunts seem a rather cynical marketing decision based on assessing the two sides: how many people do we offend versus how many do we please. We know which side of the balance won. I doubt if it would have been the case if the target was any other racial or linguistic group in today’s “politically correct” atmosphere.

Concluding my long post, a few weeks ago I was watching “Transformers” in a packed theater with the raucous crowd that was laughing and cheering at every point. Well nothing got them as going as the bit where one of the heroes saving the world from the Decepticon scorpion makes a call and gets stuck with an Indian call center worker who with his Apu-type accent and indecipherable mumblings keeps delaying the hero. The entire crowd exploded at presumably this “subtle bit of racial humor” and I would have also been laughing (being someone who understands “sarcasm”) when a voice rose above the din with a boisterous “Motherf**** dothead”.

And then it happened.

As the connection with the call center operator was terminated by the impatient hero, someone to my right laughed out:

“Thank you, come again.” (Do click this link)

Neha Hingorani represents this new-age awakened citizen. A far cry from the khadi-clad Gandhi topiwala from yesteryears, we find her sitting in the lounge of a multiplex, working furiously on her Motorola Razr sending SMS-s to all her friends and to public polls on all the TV channels.

Her voice quivering with righteous passion, she told this correspondent:

We got justice for Jessica. We got it for Priyadarshini. And we will get it for Shilpa. After all, yaar Shilpa is our ambassador. In front of all those gora-shoras. She isn’t doing it for money…after all paisa to sab naheen hain na…she is doing it for the country. Now if only my dad would buy me an iPhone, I could be even more of an activist and send these SMS-s even faster….

The normally apathetic Indian government’s reaction has been swift. Usually unwilling to take stances on most foreign issues, they have reacted decisively probably swayed by the tidal wave of outrage.

[From Times of India]

“We have been apprised of the matter. We are looking into all the aspects and will take appropriate action as required,” Minister of State for External Affairs Anand Sharma said in the Capital on Wednesday.

“The world knows that India has throughout firmly rejected all forms of discrimination and racism,” he said.

On further investigation as to the “appropriate action” that the government will take against “Big Brother”, reliable sources tell us that all kinds of options are on the table: from a high-ranked hooter-troubleshooter discreetly visiting Britain and talking to the racist models to a lightning-quick attack on the United Kingdom through the use of high-pitched nasal rays from the Himesh.

Sameer is one of India’s leading Web 2.0 activists. We caught up with him in a cybercafe just as he was minimizing some rather provocative site. One of the almost 20,000 signatories to the “Stop Shilpa Shetty Being the Victim of Racism in Big Brother” , he started by reading out the petition to us.

This petition has been created because of the racial discrimination Indian actress Shilpa Shetty is facing within the Celebrity Big Brother House.

Channel 4 have clearly edited the programme to cut out the many offences committed against Shilpa, one being Jack Tweedy calling Shilpa a ‘Paki’ in bed with Jade and it being bleepedout. Clearly with the footage available on the internet (www.youtube.com) you can lip read and hear him close the word with an “ee” sound. Yet Channel 4 bleeped it, failing to expose Jack Tweedy for the racist biggot he is.

On live footage housemate Liverpool girl Danielle and racist Jack Tweedy were telling Jade Goody that “Shilpa wants to be white” repeatedly on the 13th January 2007.

At this point, Sameer became overcome with emotion. His voice choking up, he said:

They did this to Bapu in South Africa. And history is being repeated again. But we are not so powerless now as we were then.

India’s blogosphere has not been silent either–rising as one against this outrage on Shilpa Shetty. Taking particular exception to racist suggestions that Shilpa’s breasts may be fake, Desipundit has made a “sticky” post where agitated male bloggers are for now just wiping their hands.

However there were some ambivalent reactions too.

Akshay Kumar, the world’s foremost expert on Shilpa Shetty (as well as on Ayesha Jhulka, Pooja Batra, Nipunika, Raveena Tandon, Twinkle Khanna and Priyanka Chopra), refused to take our calls.

Dhwajadhari Dutta, one of India’s foremost gossip-analysts, was sceptical. Our correspondent was able to get hold of this elusive 70 year-old man, as he sat on the park bench, leaning on his cane and visually following a female jogger.

Shilpa Shetty is smart. She knows that she is on a show where one’s success depends on public perception. Realizing that she is surrounded by the worst kind of trash, she has very cleverly pushed them into revealing their ugly side (not that it took much effort) , thus not only getting audience sympathy but more importantly by equating a vote against her with a vote for racism. She might very well win this thing.

Of course Mr. Dutta’s rather cynical view found few takers. Neha Hingorani, when told of this assessment, brushed it away.

Daddu is just frustrated that Dadima doesn’t have a bod like Shilpa. What’s Daddu’s number? Let me send him a ringtone of Pussycat Doll’s “Doncha wish your girlfriend was a freak like me?”

Sameer was also not-impressed.

It is because of the mindset of people like Mr. Dutta that the world’s greatest movie ever “Rang De Basanti” was not shortlisted in the Oscar’s Best Foreign Film section. These people just do not want to “be the change”. …argh….look at how Mr. Dutta attacks the victim…typical Nehruvism.

And so the debate rages on. While we can only speculate at how history will judge this incident, what we do know is that India’s Gen Next activism is, in the words of a Shilpa Shetty song from Zameer, very much “Taktakatak”.

[Update from our senior political correspondent: Britain's Prime Minister-in-waiting Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown on a visit to India and no-doubt reeling under the weight of the national Aakrosh: Cycle of Anger (the name of a Shilpa Shetty starrer) and widespread effigy-burning of Big Brother bosses has unequivocally condemned the attack on Shilpa Shetty. Treasury Minister Ed Balls scratched a condemnation too saying he was "ashamed" and that the image this incident projects of England abroad is appalling.

The reaction to this was immediate.

"They might not have apologized for Jallianwalah Bagh but they sure did for Shilpa Shetty" yelled a jubilant youngster as the tunes of "It happens only in India", a song from another Shilpa Shetty starrer Pardesi Babu started playing on his cellphone.]

[ Online petition link courtesy Asterix]

However, if you ask a flight attendant whether he/she prefers to rumble with a cobra in heat or with a desi on a trans-Atlantic flight, I think he/she might go for the snake.

Now we may shout racism as much as we want to, and I am not saying there was not any, but the hard reality is that amidst the terrorism paranoia that has benumbed logic and rational thinking in authorities all over the world, if a group of brown Asian men refuse to listen to the cabin crew, take off their seatbelt and walk about, passing a cellphone among themselves, the chances are that they are going to get themselves in deep trouble.

Among others on board the ill-fated flight was Central Industrial Security Force Deputy Commandant (Retd) Umesh Prasad Behera.

Behera says the air marshals did what they ought to have done. The group of 12 passengers was not heeding the instructions of the stewardesses, who had asked them to switch off their mobile phones and to remain seated. As their pleas fell on deaf ears, the stewardesses had to alert the air marshal, Behera said.

“As an educated passenger I had asked them not to use the lavatory while the plane was taking off, but they did not listen,” he said.[Rediff]

From a TOI piece titled ‘Indians Are Unruly Fliers’

An Indian Airlines attendant who flies on the Kolkata-Bangkok sector says, “These so-called educated passengers do not switch off their cell phones when they are asked to do so, and still make calls when the plane is ready for take off or is landing. Before the plane halts, they jump up from their seats and open the baggage. They ignore the ‘seat belt on’ signs. It’s really tiring to attend to such passengers.” [TOI]

While the statement ‘Indians are unruly fliers’ may be a gross generalization, it has to be accepted that a number of Indians do exhibit extremely boorish behaviour on flight—a proportion so significant that it affirms some of the stereotypes held against us. The reason for that may be that we have this tendency to think that just because we have paid a lot of money to buy the airticket, we are entitled to be treated like “Maharajas”. In other words, we can be as whimsical as we wish and the cabin crew is obligated to listen to us and not we to them.

Now I don’t know about you but for me the biggest terrorists abroad flights are those babies (from my experience, mostly South Asian) who keep on bawling like air raid-sirens and their ‘couldn’t-care-less’ parents, who seem to think that all of us are supposed to find their little cherub’s screaming as cute and hence obligated to grin and say choo-sweet. These are closely followed by those people who keep on kicking the back of the seat in front of them—just when you are about to doze off.

Those are the times I do wish for a rattlesnake or a sidewinder to crawl in through the air-duct.

Or at least a SWAT team to burst in and whisk the baby and his/her parents away for questioning about possible Al-Qaeda connections.

While right-minded people would say that the policeman was merely doing his job, the liberals represented by the Democrats started shouting “racial discrimination” and “profiling” —two extremely dirty words in the American lexicon. According to them, Ms McKinney was stopped from entering the building only because she was black and that “act of discrimination” somehow justified her actions of striking a police officer (She has subsequently apologized for striking an officer).

And while successions of liberals expressed their outrage at racial profiling, I could not help but snicker.

A few weeks ago, these same “liberal” Democrats were giving sound bytes condemning how national security was compromised by giving contracts to run certain American ports to a Dubai-based company. Their argument was that 2 of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens and that the UAE has recognized the Taliban. As a result, an UAE-based company was a security risk. Despite the fact that the company won the contract fairly, they had to withdraw due to the massive uproar orchestrated by the Democrats and disgruntled units inside the Republican party.

An entity was thus “profiled” and denied business purely based on their religion/country of origin (remember there are no sanctions against UAE). And the liberals felt no compunction in making the connection between Muslim Arabs and terrorists simply because here was another stick they could beat GWB with!

The impression the Democrats sought to pass of was of shady Arabs working in the docks and putting bad things in UPS containers. It was quite another thing there would be no Arab anywhere on the docks—the work would all be done by unionized port workers (all American citizens who love beer and country/rap music). The management would also comprise of Americans—the only thing was that the owner was a Muslim Arab. The question was not even about foreign control of essential infrastructure (which is what some liberals spun it as)—the previous contract-holder was British—but we all know that they are good blokes and not really “foreign” (if you get what I am saying).

Double standards—anyone?

[Note: I oppose profiling in all its forms—-I find it illogical that a community should be blamed for actions of its individuals (even a large number of them). But what I find totally hypocritical are people who support profiling for one set of people and not for the other.

I spent my time adding spice and flavor
From family recipes back home in India
I like to introduce you now in South Africa
So come and try today
Handy Ghandi is my name
Handy Ghandi
ooh Handy Ghandi
Handy Ghandi great curries no worries

Enough of fooling around. Handy Ghandi is the name of an Australian chain that sells Indian food (I first read about it on Ranajit’s blog

The irony of it all.

The master of the “fast-unto-death” has now been made the poster-child for selling succulent lamb curries. The next thing we will see: Gandhiji on Celebrity Deathmatch drawing blood

No wait that has already happened—–Gandhiji wasted Chengiz Khan.

Coming back to Handy Ghandi

The colonial hubris is unbelievable. The Aussie owners sell Indian food because Indians are a large demographic and many Aussies also, I am sure, like the exotic curry.

Yet they do not think twice of creating a caricature of the father of the nation to sell their wares. Because while they are entirely comfortable making money off Indians, they are unwilling to give us “respect”.

And the non-Indian customers savor the experience—make fun of a person held in high esteem by the “natives” and yet savor the exotica of their food.

Great, colonial fun.

After protests from Rajmohan Gandhi (Ghandi), the company has decided to change its logo from the old one—the original was an actual caricature of Mahtama Gandhi to a modified one which still looks like Gandhi , albeit a well-fed pre-Satyagraha one. The bad thing is that the logo now looks like the stereotypical “towel head” .

The old logo

The new towelhead