NAIPAUL'S PIO STATUS?

NAIPAUL’S PIO STATUS: BELITTLING INDIA

Naipaul is once again in the news – this time for wrong reasons of his own - he wants a PIO card from Indian government without any proof of being person of Indian origin.  The government has asked the High Commission in UK for a status report after it was discovered that the author was refused a PIO card for lack of documentation to prove his Indian origin.  It seemed that the government wanted to oblige Naipaul and might issue the required status paper after paving a short cut to acquire it.

In order to bring persons of Indian origin closer to their home land – the mother land – of their forefathers and reinforce their emotional bonds, the scheme of providing PIO card was launched by the government of India in 2002.  It was expected that persons given the origin-status would create better social, cultural and economic ties with rest of their brethren living in India.  It was an act of mutual respect to be shown towards each other.   So for, Naipaul had not indicated any inclination or even a remote trait which might enhance India’s prestige within or outside the country.  On the contrary, he vituperated against Indian ethos and worked constantly belittling the land and its people.  We had never appreciated if an artless and wounding vilification of our culture and icons were made without any sense or justification.  In that respect Naipaul had tried to erode India’s cultural grace and glory.  Naipaul is a colonially groomed writer freely paid for schooling and drilling at Cambridge, paying debt by portraying acrimoniously against the long lineage of his forefathers.   He is neither a profound thinker nor a writer with deep sense of research and academic justice.  

Indian government must have rules equally applicable to all.  Once they are flouted, there will be no end to it.  If you relax for Naipaul, you have to do the same for thousands others.  A curious question arises here.  Why does Naipaul want such a status?  He was neither born nor brought up in India.  He is a Caribbean by birth.  He had his schooling in Trinidad, higher education at Cambridge and ultimately settled in UK.  Why does he express so much fraternity to show himself being ‘Indian’ and wishes to obtain a certificate of his origin?  In a globalised world of today, who cares about the country to which you originally belong?  Naipaul is neither original British nor Trinidadian.  He cannot be technically called Indian.  By his name and fame, he may belong to the whole world, but none of its region or country originally belongs to him.  It is difficult to ascertain Naipaul’s country of origin.  He has also indicated that his forefathers migrated from Nepal.  If it is true how can he be given the status of a PIO?

Naipaul’s predicament is that he has lost his very basis – the ground which sustains an individual socially, culturally and provides a sense of pride which he may call the land of origin – not the land of his father or grandfather, but of his preceding generations belonging to millenniums.  A true Indian may boastfully pronounce that he belongs originally to the land of Buddha and Mahaveer; Ram and Krishna culturally and may also add recent metaphors like the land of Gandhi, Nehru and Vinoba or Tilak and Tagore.  One may mention thousands other icons too.  But Naipaul has none to quote.  He originally belongs to the land of his father or grandfather – Trinidad – a recognised fact – that’s all.  It is here one feels a vacuum and tries to remember the ‘mother land” – the land of his origin – the land of his forefathers.  One may not know his great grandfather but knows Ashoka and Buddha well. He is proud of his ancient lineage.  He originally belongs to their land or the land originally belongs to him.  This is called the land of origin.

When a man loses his identity and basic ground – the land of origin, he loses everything – name, fame and intrinsic self.  He has to re-build it.  No amount of power, prestige, awards or prizes can compensate the emptiness of soul that pines for the land of his forefathers.  One may be living in London or Paris, but when he sleeps, he dreams of the fields and pastures of his native land, the meandering paths of villages of Gorakhpur, Ballia or Motihari and Madhepura.  He desperately tries to find out the land of his origin in his dreams – is it UP or Bihar?  Naipaul can claim nothing of the sort, not even in his dreams.  Like an empty vessel he drifts   to Trinidad,   UK, Africa and India – such a great man with such emptiness! The people of India have a grudge against Naipaul.  The basic point is that all men are equal before the law and no extra favour should be given to him.  The other fact is much deeper – rather ticklish and difficult to express, but anyhow, the message must reach him.  He never identifies himself with India or Indians.  His heart never beats for his native land – Gorakhpur.  A slave in shackles may dream of his mother land, but Naipaul who brutally disregards the country of his origin and its people cannot express the feeling of love towards the land to which he originally belongs.  Does he really deserve a PIO status?

When some time back, Naipaul’s book ‘The Writer’s people’ was to appear, “India Today”- a prestigious weekly of India had an exclusive preview of the same.  The book was regarded ‘good, bad and ugly’.   Why?  As usual, by nature and habit, Naipaul degraded our icons specially Mahatma Gandhi and Acharya VinobaBhave.  ‘India Today’ issued a cover story and the book was accepted with mixed feelings.  Naipaul termed Gandhi as ‘mentally denuded’ and Vinoba as a ‘fool’ (see India today, Sept. 10, 2007).  The editor of the weekly, recalled when he was a student in London, that he was enraged at Naipaul for having exposed Indians so brutally to the world through his book which had appeared at that time, entitled ‘An Area of Darkness’ (1964).  Naipaul’s memorable observation was “Indians defecate everywhere… on beaches; defecate on the hills; they defecate on river banks; they defecate on the streets; they never look for cover.”   Naipaul has special memory cells always glowing and active to describe how Indians defecate.  In his book ‘A Writer’s People’ too, he has charged his memory to describe “Indians defecating, farting and belching “(page 177).  He describes Vinoba as a foolish man’ (page 172) and ‘holy fool’ (page 175).  His memory cells elaborate ‘the innocence of fart’ (page 174) and finds Vinoba’s men “badly” ‘farting’ and ‘belching’ (page 175).  May I ask: does Naipaul produce ‘symphony’ when he farts?  So high and great yet farting!  Naipaul forgets everything in the wake of his damaging remarks against his own people – the Caribbeans, the Indians, the Africans and the British.  He came into great controversy over his book – ‘A Writer’s People’ (2007).  He is desperate to find out his roots and try to link himself to the persons like Derek Walcott, HenerySwanzy and Samuel Selvon to Gandhi, Huxley and Nirad Chaudhary.  But he spares none; he kills them joyfully like a monkey smashing the hood of a cobra.  One can imagine how frustration grasps the person who tries to find out his lost identity and gets more and more engulfed into the labyrinth of nomadic human mode and social contact.  How VidyadharSuraj Prasad Nai…and his ancestors belonging to the rural hinterland of Eastern U.P. of Gorakhpur due to abject poverty, swim over to the far reaching land of West Indies, and start losing everything including name, occupation and fame is no surprise to anybody, but such situations do increase the mental capabilities of migrants to understand the home truth better than the native.  How a Nai… becomes Naipaul or Vidyadhar assumes the shape of Vidia is a form of common understanding, but how a migrant treats his home icons and historical figures (like Mahatma Gandhi and VinobaBhave) as ‘culturally denuded’ and ‘foolish’ or ‘holy fools’ is open to question and India as a Nation demands an answer, an enquiry and an explanation from Naipual and so do I.  Naipaul seems to be intentionally bad and far away from portraying truthful account of Gandhi and Vinoba.  With the passage of time Naipaul’s concepts of home truths might have blurred or sharpened (?), but who knows in future people might term him to be an achiever of Nobel but remained culturally eroded, ethnically clueless and all time idiot because of his continued damaging remarks on Indian culture, icons and the nation without any research to support him.  He tries to cut off the very base of the branch of the tree on which he is sitting like a new NRK (non-resident Kalidas).  

What does Naipaul know about Vinoba?  It ill behoves a Nobel laureate to call Vinoba a ‘fool’.  Does he find himself the wisest man on the earth?  Naipaul is incapable of understanding Vinoba.  To understand him is to understand the true culture and tradition of India.  Vinoba joins both the ends together – Buddha’s past and Gandhi’s present – the Himalaya’s serenity and the massive power of non-violence – to change India.  Naipaul is miles away from our traditional spiritualism, our long past and vision of society, economy, science and culture.  We are not static people.  We had produced Tagore much earlier than Naipaul was born.  Even during colonial rule we had the capability of producing Raman and Nehru at one end and Gandhi and Subhash at the other.  They are our icons who guide us.  Naipaul has shown extremely poor interpretation of India’s historical facts and relationship.  If Gandhi (according to Naipaul) has no knowledge of geography, Naipaul’s own approach to history seems to be imperfect.  There is no link of Gandhi’s DandiMarch to Vinoba’sBhoodan Movement.  Both differ in respect to their approach, content, purpose, planning and impact.  All ‘Pad Yatras’ are not the same and should not be confused.  Even Buddha marched till late his life spreading his message around the area now known as Bihar (traveller’s land) and part of Eastern U.P. to which Sir V.S. Naipaul’s ancestors so proudly belong.  Naipaul has a lineage of such a great culture: such a great nation.  Why does he feel ashamed of Indians who do not have sophisticated toilet habits?  Is it everything in life?  Why does he harp on the same?  There are reasons behind such maladies. Our culture developed in a different way than the West.  We have yet not created urban culture of which the soft master- bed- room- toilet system is a part.  There are other compelling factors which check such sophistication.  We belong to the Tropics where everything goes open; it is geographical compulsion; we have open houses, courtyards, open work places, fields and pastures, open theatre and far off open toilets – more of air, water and sun and a lot of flora to cover ourselves.  Then there are other factors:  our proverbial poverty, growing population and illiteracy which do not allow us to become so soft and urbanized.  I have seen Vinoba using open toilet and heard of Gandhi doing the same in his early years of Ashram life.   It will take centuries to change our poverty-stricken habits and create an altogether urbanized culture.  We are a settled people, not a nomadic.   We developed our culture not by fits and starts or in a jumping way.  We had experienced a long settled system creating a culture of its own over a period of time.  We had always lived a culturally creative aspect of life.  We have lived, experienced and changed ourselves from a well settled ‘Forest Culture’ (ArarnyaSamskriti) into an agrarian culture (slowly developed from forest to forest-cum-agrarian) spending several millenniums .  Past cultural habits don’t die spontaneously.   We have lived agrarian culture for long and still continuing the same way, but slightly changing according to the pace of industrialization.  We are in agro-industrial stage of cultural set up in spite of our boasting of globalization.   We have not copied others in cultural advancement or backwardness. Actually, culture can never be fully copied or imported.  It flows slowly and silently.  One can pick up some threads of other culture. But the settled people like Indians have always preferred to generate their own culture.  The westerners have changed themselves in a jumping style, not experiencing the cultural aspect of any epoch in a stable manner.  Nomadic don’t create their culture: they jump from one stage of development to another without generating a culture of their own.  It is because it takes millenniums to create a culture and the west had not lived so long a particular stage of development as to create a culture of its own.  We have still a sense of ‘Buddha’ in our lives and it is for this reason that we could create a Gandhi or a Vinoba out of our own.  Indian culture is an integrated whole and has not developed through piece meal ways or in fractions.  The people of the west cannot boast of even a single ‘Junior Christ’ or a Christ like messiah again – the living embodiment of love and sacrifice within its long history of about two millenniums.  It is because we have not jumped from one stage to another without experiencing a settled position which generates the culture of its own.  Naipaul in this respect is an imitator, not a culturally grown man.  We had a fully grown cultural life during our ‘ArarnyaSamskrit’ and even lived with lions and monkeys as friends and a family creating ecologically balanced system of our green Planet.  It is the western culture which has robbed of the whole Earth.  Even we lived a long epoch of an agrarian development and created a specific culture.  In spite of our poverty and hunger we don’t kill our cows for food because we love them culturally.  This ‘understanding’ of culture is missing in the west.  Once a Polish girl asked me crudely, “why people in India do not eat cows when they are so hungry (poor)”?   I asked her retaliating: “Why don’t you eat your horses”?  She had no answer to it because she had never ‘experienced’ the cultural aspect of her horses.  Naipaul is culturally illiterate in this sense.  He questions our so many culturally imbibed habits – good or bad.  Since these habits are with us over a long period of time, the bad ones will take their own time to change.   From Buddha to Gandhi, all have used open toilets (covered with a lot of flora) and the future environmental scientists would say that it was environmentally friendly habit.  Vinoba used to have a small garden trowel (Khurpi) while defecating and covering excreta in a pit instantly.  Only an environmentalist can appreciate, not a kind of person as Nailpaul is.  The modern sewage system is putting a lot of problems and pressure on environmentalists because ‘whole of it’ cannot be recycled.  It is damaging rivers and polluting the oceans tremendously all over the world.   Has Naipaul any answer to it?  It is the problem of the whole world.   Has Naipaul any idea of the work being done by Bindeshwar Pathak?   Surprisingly, he too belongs to Vinoba’s camp.     

Vinoba’sBhoodan Movement had no political mission while Gandhi’s Salt march had political intent – a call against the government.  The pity was while portraying Vinoba, Naipaul exhibited only superficial understanding of the Saint’s life and his works.  Naipaul did wrong reporting by mentioning that the movement of Vinoba was not backed by legal process (page 174).  All the state governments where the saint marched had passed Bhoodan Act and the donation of land used to be finalized through legal documentation by filling up a pledge form – land donation deed (Dan Patra) – duly signed by the donor along with the witnesses (see the specimen of land donation deed in appendix to   the writer’s book ‘Bhoodan Movement in India’, S. Chand & CO, New Delhi 1972).  The other fact which Naipaul distorted was Vinoba’s taking one-year leave from the Ashram to study Sanskrit and Philosophy under Narayan ShastriMarathe of PradnyaPathashala at Wai (not at Banaras).  Naipaul put it in a manner to create an impression that Vinoba due to hard work got ill at the Ashram and Gandhi had asked him to leave and regain health first (page 17 2).   It was not correct.  The facts were distorted by Naipaul so as to paint a person to project his wrong image, providing nothing but hollowness of the author himself  in treating his ‘People’ or the subject material.  Why did Naipaul choose such a subject of which he had no clear idea or understanding?    Vinoba was active with his mission when Naipaul visited India for the first time.  If this subject was so fascinating to him, he should have tried to gather more knowledge, understanding about the non-violent content of Bhoodan and should have personally contacted Vinoba.  Naipaul has miserably failed in creating an in-depth study of his chosen characters or the ‘people’ (with many of them he had not even remotest link) in his book – ‘A Writer’s People’ specially Gandhi and Vinoba.

Vinoba lived the life the way he explained human existence in his ‘Talks on the Gita’.   Life  is a force, a journey and it is not ‘what it is’ , but what it ought to be; how  do you  take it; what  do you make out of it?  It is to be shaped through your efforts – Karma – a difficult concept to be understood by Naipaul.  At the fag end of his life, there is little time left for him to understand the nuances of Indian Philosophical approach to life and instead of acquiring a piece of paper relating to his origin, Naipaul should have engaged himself deeply in true efforts to understand life, going through Vinoba’s ‘Talks on the Gita’ keeping aloof, unmindful of his origin, status, and history.  If he pursues the path truthfully, he would be labelled as a true Indian, born and brought up in Trinidad, lived in SW of  London, but his heart had a sense of smell of the land of Gorakhpur – Eastern U.P. – India – the land of his forefathers – the land of Buddha and Mahaveer – the land of his own origin.  Naipaul must know that Vinoba means by spiritualism, an orderly control, a brake on one’s body and mind.  Every vehicle has a brake to keep the speed in order.  Naipaul is recklessly driving his pen, damaging India, its icons – killing his own people.  Would he put restraint on himself?  If this does not move him, he should retire to his study; take out the old volume of his schooldays companion, the book – a terse Victorian anthology – which he keeps but desists ‘Palgrave’s The Golden Treasury’ and there is much for him to revise, but just concentrate on a line of the verse by T. Gray for instance: “The paths of glory lead to the grave”.  Nothing else can sound him better.  Had Vinoba been alive today, he would not have taken ill of what Naipaul opined about him.  He was above all such mundane considerations.  He would have rather blessed Naipaul for his good life and brighter future and asked him to work for love, truth and compassion and propagate world peace.  One may find the reflection of the same Indian spirit and culture among the disciples of Gandhi and Vinoba when he visits Rajghat (New Delhi).  Unmindful of Naipaul’s attack on their Masters, they still keep Naipaul’s books along with Gandhian literature at their bookshop near the Samadhi in New Delhi with equal reverence.  This can happen only in India.  As it is difficult for Naipaul to understand Vinoba, so is for others to know clearly the inner self of Naipaul without going through the history of human migration, the colonial rule and mass exodus to the far reaching lands, the geography of human settlement and psycho-analytical study of the migrants and their character influencing society, getting recognition, gaining popularity and achieving success or failure.  He should also have well grounding in human sociology, individual and community culture, ups and downs of human aspirations, formation and breaking up of families and societies and rise and fall of human groups and sentiments.  Naipaul as an individual represents a force relating to human civilization that has lived its past and projects a vision of future through his hooded eyes.  Naipaul knows very little about himself and his origin as he lives and acts on instincts and impulses and is the product of fragmented ideologies and borrowed nationalism.  It is a riddle to ascertain him: who is he?  Is he a Trinidadian? No.  Is he an English man? No. Is he an Indian? No.   He is a living embodiment of self-esteem personified in his own works of fiction and non-fiction.  He is a reservoir of intellectual force ready to open the flood-gates of knowledge to generate power through churning ways of his worded turbines.  His writings produce electric shocks as he himself does so.  It is like curing a wounded and paralyzed civilization through power-shocks.  And he is shockingly truthful.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services0

ARNAB GOSWAMI CUT A SORRY FIGURE BEFORE KIRAN BEDI

Arnab Goswami –the news vendor – for TOI in ‘Times Now’ Channel cut a sorry figure before Kiran Bedi.

Having acquired a dubious distinction of being the most damaging TV anchor, Arnab Goswami while interviewing Kiran Bedi on line became ashamed of his own remark regarding Bedi when he said that the files she was showing might have been ‘BJP’s file and not her own’.  To this she objected and said in a straight forward manner that either he should trust her or write off the whole matter; he cannot go further in this manner.  Kiran Bedi was in the midst of answering questions and she had already answered about ten such questions, but when uncharitable and unethical questions, almost a type of cherry picking, started out of context regarding Munde and others, Bedi in most submissive voice said that she has to attend other channels too and had little time at her disposal and yet she permitted ‘one last’ question of his (Arnab’s) choice to be asked.   And Arnab asked her ‘last question’ regarding instant change in her ideology to which she answered that it was a change from neutrality to national voice.  However, Arnab Goswami was bent upon creating a possible rift between BJP leadership and Kiran Bedi on the one hand and bringing Bedi into confrontation with Kejriwal on the other, through his journalistic astuteness.  Since Arnab could not crack the hard nut as Bedi is, and cut a sorry figure as not being able to pull her down to his satisfaction, and ‘damage’ her image, he continued to muddle with the Channel on his own by asking a few quick questions continuously, over lapping his voice on her's, and not even expecting the answers as Bedi had no time and Arnab too had realized the fact that he would ask questions in future as this was not going to be the last interview.  Bedi had said that this was the beginning of the interviews and she could devote more time in future interviews.  To this Arnab said emphatically that he had several tough questions to ask in ‘future’ and would also interview Kejriwal.  

Where the question of running away of Kiran Bedi does arise, when she answered his last question and Arnab kept many tough questions for the ‘future’?  The idea of future interview was proposed by Arnab Goswami himself.  The Channel ‘Times Now’ is a perfect liar and a false propagandist.  Bedi had not run away from interview.  The session was supposed to be ended with the last question.

For a news vendor only news is important and not the time of the person who is being interviewed.  One must watch this on line interview along with the full transcript to finalize one’s own impression.  To collaborate the factual details and for clearing misinformation, one should visit other sites too like 'the fearless Indians'  and for reading the transcript of the last question and watching the same on the video loaded by them.  Arnab Goswami is a master craftsman and a great actor in keeping his poker like face intact while creating mischievous overlapping of his voice on his object's and generating a vine video to give a false but desired impression and result.

   

KIRAN BEDI JOINS BJP WITH A BANG

Kiran Bedi joins BJP with a bang. Kiran Bedi is the need of the time, while Kejriwal is the real future of Delhi. R N Misra Delhi needs Kiran Bedi at this hour on various grounds, but this cannot provide any futuristic aspiration or great ambition for the State. Bedi and Kejriwal belong to the same genus and both genetically are the product of the same crusade of anti-corruption started by Anna Hazare. Both were agitators, protestors and campaigners, but remained almost apolitical for quite some time like Justice Hedge who too had supported Anna at that time. While Anna Hazare kept alive the Gandhian values and tradition in him and did not approve of politicization of the movement for seeking power, Kejriwal chose otherwise, the lesser alternative, creating a party of his own. It was also the need of the hour - most imperative and challenging. At that time many MPs of several political parties (including BJP’s) had challenged Anna to come forward as elected representative of the people to the Parliament if he was so much worried about his Lokpal Bill. These political parties were all united and opposed to Jan Lokpal Bill. They never supported Anna whole heartedly or else some of the MPs must have resigned. Anna like Gandhi depended on people’s power, non-violence and courage of inner self. He fasted for the cause and his thirteen-day fast unto death rocked the nation. Kejriwal was such a direct product of that awakened India. It was greater being Anna or his associate than being an MP or a party leader. Still, however, theoretically there was a political challenge posed before Anna Hazare. Kejriwal accepted the challenge under most odd circumstances. Anna was not happy but later on blessed him for his endeavour in forming a party. It was not only needed but essential. He started from scrap. He had not even a paisa to organize the party. He formed his party in the most simplistic way almost unceremoniously. He called it a party as well as a movement. Kiran Bedi was indecisive then, but was active in her own way. She was half way between Anna Hazare and power politics. She was internally in the state of turmoil. Kejriwal kept on his ways hoping to change the society in his own style. He had two wings of his activities – agitation and power – both were intertwined. Indian political scene was changed much rapidly with the emergence of Narendra Modi at the helm of nation’s affairs. This prompted many people and parties to woo him. Kiran Bedi was one of them. One cannot dismiss Kiran Bedi simply as an opportunist. She has caliber and thronged with opportunities several times. She is perhaps the perfect person that the State of Delhi needs presently and admirably at the top. Her image is like that of a Shaktimann – a highly empowered woman; a power-crane that lifts and elevates; a roller that levels all. Yes, she dares to do what is good and undo what is bad. She seems to be a trinity of power of creation, protection and gentle destruction too, if needed. Her entry to BJP or politics should not be taken lightly. Politics of the State of Delhi intermittently played by Congress and BJP has ruined its base of effective governance. This politics of both the parties proved to be good for some people but bad and ugly for the rest of the State. There were no hard lines to work out new schemes for the State. Things were moved on ad hoc basis. All eyes were centered round votes and winning elections. Perhaps joining of Bedi serves the same purpose for BJP. Politics became the same last resort as was termed by George Bernard Shaw and as aptly this tailor made quote applies to Indian politicians. Kejriwal distinctly tried to refine it. But he was new, inexperienced and almost lone to fight the battle. He did mistakes, but still an energetic and powerful person in him, is showing passion to deliver good to the State. He is a well meaning person and it is unfortunate that Bedi has joined the party to betray her old friend and colleague. Kiran Bedi knows Delhi and Delhi knows her well. Bedi can set her priorities accurately. She knows how to work and how to make others work. Presently, Delhi-life has fallen on thorns and is bleeding. Nirbhayas are calling her to take the reins, not as a politician, but as a protector, a mother and a saviour. Delhi has become a criminal State – almost a rape capital of the country. She has to prove her mettle. Our daughters, sisters, mothers do not feel safe on Delhi roads, in parks, in public and private transport, in day and in night. We are degenerated and feel helpless. Let Kiran Bedi come in her old frame as a tough woman. Her nick name Crane Bedi has still not wiped off. Kiran Bedi comes as a hope for Delhi. She can prove to be a real Kiran – a ray of light - for Delhi and the nation. Delhi CM needs more power to exercise than politics. Coming of Bedi is always welcome. But BJP should not play politics with her as Congress played with Kejriwal. But Bedi is not a politician in real sense of the term and any party at any time can betray her. Even internal defection can play havoc. She has no roots in the party she has joined. Like Kejriwal her stay may be short lived. If she does not come in her original self and compromises with power politics, she would not be serving the people of Delhi well. And if she adopts her rough tough attitude as she did during lawyer’s strike in the past, party would not allow her to stay. This would be her dilemma and she might prove to be another Kejriwal. In Indian politics of to-day, the genes of Gandhi and Anna are missing. How can their disciples survive with the values of truthfulness and honesty? If one analyses Bedi’s career, achievement and activities one finds that she is a strict disciplinarian, full of courage and vitality. Her police and administrative training has made her so. She is strong; self cultured and has a mission and vision of life. She can even work in odds but given congenial atmosphere she can deliver good results. She has started her police career from Delhi and proved to be quite tough and upright officer. She was wedded to several controversies too like, lathi charge on lawyers protesting outside her office; wrongfully trying to get her daughter admitted to MBBS seat; coming in contact with Shobhraj and people say it was he who made her a writer and corrected the manuscript – ‘I Dare’. And in return, he was released. She has earned many laurels to live on but has to quit the job when due promotion was denied to her. She is an activist and reformer. She is now learning the game of politics, challenging the member of her own clan -  the civil activists. How long will she manage a political life which thrives on distrust, corruption and maneuverability is yet to be seen? As a hard nut to crack, Kiran Bedi can hardly be used as a pawn to counter Kejriwal. She would never agree to it nor Kejriwal directly confront her. Both belong to the same school of thought, and Sangh Pariwar is just a new home for her and is very difficult to be assimilated with her persona. She has always kept herself at arm’s length from shorts wearing and saffron colour boys. She cannot compromise her dignity in the company of ill trained people. She rarely likes to be at grassroots level and lacks a democratic temper. However, BJP can improve its chances of winning the election by putting Kiran Bedi as a CM face. Neither Harsh Vardhan nor Smrit Irani can match her in calibre and quality. In this respect the BJP’s move to bring Kiran Bedi in its fold is an added advantage. But this can work in the long run only if BJP is capable of keeping its house intact. Though victory of BJP in forth coming assembly polls is a foregone conclusion, what is important is the stability of Kiran Bedi if she is forcibly made CM. candidate. Bedi as an outsider cannot command that respect which is available automatically to an insider. Had Kiran Bedi joined politics much earlier during Parliamentary elections, the ground for Bedi would have become more solid by now. The present move of Bedi would be termed as opportunistic but any time, this type of decision would have been called opportunistic. Even Kejriwal was not spared and Anna called him opportunist. This is a political gimmick and a buzzword and the term ‘opportunism’ has almost lost its meaning. Every time is a time to join politics. There is nothing good or bad in it. It is like learning a new game, going for studies to gain knowledge and experience or making a decision for love and getting married. It is better late than never. There is nothing wrong if Bedi has joined politics, a bit late, but in a more settled and secured position.

ON KHUSHWANT SINGH - TRUTH, COURAGE AND AGNOSTICISM: AN OBITUARY

Khushwant Singh: Of Truth, Courage and Agnosticism - An Obituary Khushwant Singh, a prominent journalist and a noted novelist, breathed his last silently at noon on Thursday, March 20, 2014. He lived his life perfectly well to his satisfaction almost nearing a century (99) which was a rare achievement keeping all his vitals intact up to the end. On the eve of his departure, he had his last Patiala peg of single malt whisky with golden fried prawns on Wednesday at 7pm sharp. The next day he got up at 5 am and as usual along with daily papers, he had his mental exercise with crosswords puzzle – almost a type of hobby he had developed – and when tired got to sleep, this time for an everlasting sleep, not to wake up again. The end was supposed to have set in between 12.05-12.55 pm in his sleep. He had been for the last few years in dialogue with death. The idea had obsessed him; he talked much about it; played with the nuances of its philosophical approach; wrote a lot on it sportingly, and never was afraid of it. He took it as a peripheral aspect of life. In fact, life to him was more important which reflected in varieties of work and various form of actions. He believed in work culture and discarded worship. He never wasted his time in religious rituals, prayers, meditation and gup-shup. He was least concerned with the word God and was quite vocal about it. In this respect he surpassed Einstein who only at the far end of his life tried to express his idea about God – the word - which he did not believe. Khuswant Singh, even when he was young, had a clear cut outlook about non-existence of God. Religion to him was acceptable with its non-fundamentalist profoundness, but God for him was far away from reality. It might sound contradictory to many, but he was quite clear in his approach to life – a self proclaimed agnostic, a non-worshipper and a blasphemer. He was the man who knew his strengths and weaknesses. He had a positive approach to life making most of it through work and pursuit of fruitful activities. Though born almost like a prince in a well to do family and ‘walked with kings (and higher ups) yet (he) had a common touch’ as his son Rahul Singh has very aptly put it quoting Kipling. He had a bit of grudge against his writing career. Why did not he start as a novelist much earlier in life? He could have done so better as a writer. He was almost a contemporary of V.S.Naipaul who had achieved international status in the literary world as a writer and a novelist. Khushwant Singh took to writing much later in life and the field of journalism and contemporary politics had a toll on his literary genius. It had given him name and fame but took a lot in return by not allowing him an elevated position in the world of literature. He had the capability of achieving much higher a place to what he had really achieved. Journalism is a time consuming and risky business which thrives only in its temporariness. It helps to rise instantly but never brings depth of a literary charm, satisfaction, a prize, a Booker, a Nobel. He missed the opportunity of a whole time literary writer, a narrator, a novelist and standing in the line of a well recognized man of letters early in his life. As a journalist he was able to produce, train and nurture serious scholars and editors, Akbars and Karkarias, but missed the whole life chance of becoming a Naipaul, a Wilson, a Moore or a Fowles. He stands much behind them, although he has had better privileges and longevity of life. He has yet to be assessed as a novelist with his limited stock and range of production separately. Writing on sex has not been his weakness, but strength, strategy, and a hobby. He has opted for sex oriented subject matter and style of writing because he has firm belief that it sells like a hot cake; it is a central theme of every body’s life and has a larger scope for writing and provides larger circulation and wider audience. But he has never tried to become sublime as sex occupied higher place in his life than love. He seldom rises to a higher plane of love. For Khushwant Singh love finds its ultimate destiny in sex and lust. They are intermingled and inseparable. His populist ways have been a constraint in his achieving higher levels and greater pursuits of writing. It checked him to soar high like a star in sky. It stopped him to become a timeless writer transcending the boundaries of agelessness. Journalism restricted him to temporary realities. He could travel only from The Illustrated Weekly to The Hindustan Times that too after many efforts put up by Sanjay Gandhi and he became his “Bhakt” on that count. There seemed to be a great contrast when one looked at The Weekly days of Khushwant - the time he joined, and when he left it. There were two aspects of it. It was Khushwant Singh who brought its sale many fold (from 60,000 to 4,50,000) and it was he who brought it to the point of closing down too. It was a paradoxical situation. The Illustrated Weekly ceased to be a respectable family magazine – for every house hold, family, and drawing room. Bannet Coleman & Co was much disturbed by it. In fact, it produced a wrong signal and Khushwant Singh’s term of editorship ended without delay or any extension. Khuswant Singh converted the magazine to the caliber of a Play Boy. It soared high, but it became a carrier of too much of paper sex, gossips and cheap humour. Khushwant Singh never exhibited author’s journalism. It lacked the literary charm. It symbolized Hinglish style of ‘Roti-making and Chappal-faking’ language developed and adored by Khushwant. It was said that with Khushwant Singh the Illustrated Weekly of India had attained its perfection and peak, and with him also started its decay and downfall. Even Kamath, who succeeded him, failed to check its deceleration and imminent close down. His other distraction was his unacceptable punching humour tending to farcical situation and creating unending annoyance. It never became classical; it attained only a populist way and vanished the moment it was released. It was mere a collection of jokes, some acknowledged, other anonymously projected, and he worked them out as an editor, getting also published in book form in his name almost becoming a farcical character himself of the rank of either Banta or Santa who will perhaps survive through the eternity. This sense of humour was isolated from real life and could not attain any literary charm, a well expressed form and style, sublimity, relief or emancipation. It never hit the imagination, but spoiled the taste, the ambience, the individual and group behaviour of understanding to overcome the socio-cultural inhibition and relief of tension. He unfairly caricatured his own image, society and people whom he represented. He showed the exemplary strength of character as an editor when he supported Indira Gandhi during the Emergency days. It was not a sudden advocacy. One has to understand Khushwant Singh’s basic adherence to the principles of democracy and its real purpose. One has to understand the times, the delicate situations, the meaning behind the utterances, and the hidden agenda made to spoil the governance of the period. Khushwant supported Indira and the imposition of the Emergency as a logical conclusion of JP’s anarchistic style of politicking. While Khushwant Singh succeeded in his stand, the most of journalist fraternity failed to understand it because they worked only on the lines of cartel behavior guided by the capitalist bosses. Indian journalism has never been free, the way freedom of press is really understood. It has always remained a caged bird. It works under the lense and surveillance of industrial groups of the type of Goenkas, Sahu Jains, Birlas, Andrews, Karnanis, Kasturis etc. Indian press remains censured always mentally and emotionally by their crony money magnates. So when censorship was imposed during Emergency it was the group like Goenkas or JP’s which was hit most because this pseudo revolutionary movement was highly projected through the press. The press was already a jailed bird controlled by industrial giants and others. What mattered if they were not allowed to magnify an anarchist movement? Khuswant Singh survived Emergency because Bannet Coleman as a unit was never influenced individually as was Goenkas by JP. Infect JP lived on Goenkas patronage. Had any Daily news paper stopped its circulation or production in protest against press censureship? Had any editor left his job in protest against his freedom? JP was neither a socialist nor a democrat. He paid lip sympathy to Gandhism and always misguided the people who surrounded him; who considered him as a revolutionary or an avatar to bring total revolution which flopped within two and a half years and Indira like Phoenix re-emerged from ashes to punch JP’s sense of inflated ego. ‘JP failed yet again’ wrote one of his sycophants and when Indira met JP at Kadam Kuan (Patna), he had no words but to appreciate her courageous victory. JP said to Indira,” you had a bright past and I wish you a brighter future”. Those who lived during the Emergency times and still dishonouring the era of discipline – Anushasanparva – or discarding Emergency must answer the nature and causes of Indira’s re-emergence as a victorious leader. Many adulatory books or “JP Chalisas” had been written by journalists, civil servants and academics but none had courage to answer: why Indira re-emerged and why total revolution turned to be a total flop? The followers of JP still keep this dead movement close to their chest in the hope that it might come to life someday like Macaque monkey keeping the dead infant close to the heart. Khushwant Singh was one of the great personalities of India who had seen merit in Emergency. This was the truth of his life and somewhere in his consciousness Khushwant found a Gandhian touch in him as far as the courage of conviction was concerned. Khushwant had always admired Gandhi. As a student of Modern School, he had an occasion to meet Gandhi who created a lasting influence on him. The strength of truth provided Khushwant Singh a special mindset to generate a sense of righteousness of his own understanding. This elevated him amongst the journalists of his times – he was The Master. As an editor of Illustrated Weekly he had a cover story to publish about the pitfalls of JP’s movement. And he did so courageously while JP was alive. What Khushwant Singh predicted had happened. Emergency was imposed and JP was jailed. In the luxurious ambience of PGI, Chandigarh, well protected and carefully looked after by doctors, nurses, servants and bureaucrats who willingly worked for JP as his assistants, advisors and secret messengers. JP had an occasion to spew up venom in the elaborate elegy written as a Prison-Diary. The conditions of Emergency were of JP’s own creation. There was no alternative to the anarchy brought about by him. JP had given a final call for armed forces to revolt. No government, worth the name, would have tolerated such a situation. JP was in hurry to become a Marx, a Lenin and a Mao – combined in one. But history had pulled him down as a failed leader or a fascist who could not successfully ‘March on Delh’ before the Emergency. Those who still adore JP must answer: where is the total revolution? One has to admit Khushwant Singh as a truthful and courageous editor who admired Emergency to its core even in the midst of all opposition from his journalist fraternity. And he ultimately had to pay the price for it. Unperturbed by trials or tribulations, he stood on his ground firm like a rock of strength with full conviction and faith that Emergency was inevitable. Khushwant Singh’s truthfulness had been reflected much when he wrote quintessential books on his life like – Absolute Khushwant: The Low-Down on Life, Death and Most Things In Between; Khushwantnama: The Lessons of My Life; The Good, The Bad and Ridiculous; Agnostic Khushwant: There Is No God; Truth, Love and A Little Malice; Women and Men In My Life etc. As a writer he believes that truth must be told, accepted and worked out. Nothing except truth should prevail. It is truth that is exhibited in all his writings – journalistic or literary. He is comfortable with it; sometimes hilarious and other times bitter too. He left nothing untold about his life: of love, dejection, hope and despair; of sex, women and prostitution; of friends, family, home and hearth; of death, deception and defeat – in a sense all about his professional and personal life. It is this revelation which makes him different from Gandhi‘s openness who had concealed his clear way of approaching his love for a woman of Tagore’s family (as discovered by his grandson later) and his practical indulgence in prostitution in London. Revelation does not mean fooling the readers; it is courageous way of embracing bitter truth as Khushwant Singh has done. His truthfulness and agnosticism are the outcome of his transparent behavior, openness of mind and clear vision of life. He is bold enough to acknowledge his failures and also a bit of his ugliness, malice, sex, bitterness and blasphemy. Khushwant Singh had a peculiar sense of imagining his death and writing about his obituary or own epitaph. At one time he was so enamored with the idea that he wanted to have a grave of his own. Well and good. He was trying to create a non-sense style of humour to make others rejoice on his death. Sometimes he felt ‘The Tribune’ would write this or ‘The Times of India’ write that. But it did not happen. Of all his prophecies, perhaps one stood correct out of his ‘make belief’ obituaries. It reads,”Khushwant Singh, a noted novelist, died in his sleep……”. He wrote his own Epitaph emphasizing how he should be remembered – ‘as a critic, a sod, a blasphemer and a nasty writer (not a good man to remember?), thank God he is dead’. But the most fitting Epitaph is as follows (in Khushwant Singh’s own words with a bit alteration and much addition) and with an apology to this great liberated soul: “Here lies the man whose pen had no condom to wear”; He was a literary sort of Vikky Donor and a great seer. He produced and nurtured writers, journalists, as the Peer; And left behind his affairs, to mourn, crates of whisky and beer.

On Reading 'Half Girlfriend' - A Critique

On Reading ‘Half Girlfriend’: A Critique. The writer of ‘Half Girlfriend’ has caricatured almost the whole of Bihar by introducing a character – Madhav – originally hailed from the hinterland of Patna, but might be said as a representative of any district of Bihar – call him a typical ‘Bihari’ - who happened to be from anywhere of the interior of Musahari or Motihari; Chhapra or Madhopura. The story moves around two main characters, another Delhiite girl, who under certain circumstances becomes his friend – both school fellows - and are proud of being Stephanians. The writer has specifically tried to define the concept of half girlfriend. But it is a confused word and may be interpreted in different ways. The term half brother or half sister is quite prevalent, but concepts like half married and half widowed are of recent origin. In the same way, half girlfriend in its origin, is a recent term, and is liable to be vaguely interpreted by the author himself. In any case, half girlfriend is not very attractive title of the book. Dear author, girlfriend is a value loaded word. It means many things to many persons. It is hope for life. Possession of it is the creation of life, dispossessing means death. Don’t vivisect it by making half or a quarter of it. Love is not surgically operated as you have done. Like his other stories, the writer had again tried to be autobiographical and could not detach himself from the story. A good writer dominates his writings through his thoughts, words and style, and not as a person or a character. Have you ever heard Shakespeare appearing in any of his plays? It is another point that you are trying to set a new trend in writing. Well and good. Your marketing management training has lured you to do so. It is possible this fine story may land you some day in the sphere of acting as a Bollywood star. But this self characterization has its own limits. When the imagination fails a writer, what is left is autobiographical form of writing. You might not be aware of it, but you must be losing some inner talent as a writer in a slow process. A writer must move out of his own orbit. How can a writer expand his horizon unless he changes the orbit? The story of half girlfriend is primarily written for teenagers who accept any form or style of writing without any comment, if it suits their sense of sex and love. They are governed by these basic instincts without any thoughtful provocation. But the writer of half girlfriend does not want to go beyond it. A boy meets girl; they are separated for good. But they meet again only to get separated. They ultimately come together. The concept of half girlfriend is smashed somewhere in the very process of narration only to be converted into a type of live-in relationship – half married, half divorced and a child in between. The writer seems to be a protagonist of new social order – changing the mindset - of young generation. Very subtly he had introduced father- daughter bitter chocolate relationship and also tried to open the path of divorce and re-marriage. In the age of shrinking world and having acquired advanced technical skill, one can hope to serve two Hemispheres together – East and West. It is a sea change from rural Bihar to New York, shuttling almost at will. The writer seems to be weak in style of his narration and describing the story. He seldom tries to read the situation minutely. His expression lacks the literary charm. He does not touch the line of a novelist. He goes on adding one book after another but simply remains a story teller. He is good in making a plot – a fine story – but he is always in hurry to create events, and developing the story, and by doing so he leaves behind much valuable aspect of literary element that goes through the process of a masterly expression of thought and style. He is in no way being called a novelist in literary parlance. The writer claims to be a catalyst of change. But in what way he thinks so? What has he given to the society through his language? He is getting more and more debased in the use of words. His diction is simply getting horrible. ‘Deti hai to de varna kat le’. What does this mean? Mr. Writer, please keep in mind that whatever be the stature of a woman in society - she must be dealt with dignity. Even prostitutes have their self respect. Are you going to elevate womankind with such a language? As a writer you cannot absolve the responsibility. These are not Madhav’s words. This is the writer’s Hindi – not Bihari (Bhojpuri) language – but pure and simple Punjabi-Hindi mixed dialect. This very sentence makes the book a trash. And the word F**king has been so profusely used in the book that it has become the catchword – rather a password – of the book, half girlfriend, without using that you cannot enter into the text to read the sublime passages. ‘F**k or get f**ked’ is the message teenagers can receive from your book. And here in this book you have used abusive word Ch***a also. How nice of you Mr. Writer, to think of changing the society in this way! If you want to become a good novelist you have to mend your language. You have to develop a literary style of creativity with a deep sense of expression which is pleasing to mind and soul. You never try to describe landscape; never try to form images through words; never write passages to beautify text. Bare story surrounded by events with common narration does not make a novel. A novel is a form of writing which requires the creativity of an artist, profoundness of a linguist and perfection of a writer who is able to describe the quality of observation through the choice of his words, easily to be moulded at his command. He must have the sensitivity of revelation and ability to impress upon his readers the view points with his capacity to organize a story of an architectural quality, brick by brick, stone by stone. A good plot – a nice story – is of utmost importance. It must have a definite beginning, middle and an end. It must flow with ups and downs creating rhythm through words. It must carry the universality of some of the deepest human emotions to sustain the story. It is music within heart which comes out spontaneously and reaches the zenith to serve a climax and slowly arrives at the destination as a river flows down calmly into the sea. There is nothing like a set pattern, but the designer has to invent paradigm to bring out a sense of in depth satisfaction and achievement in each of his successive creation. Somehow ‘half girlfriend’ does not come to these expectations. In spite of a good story and a plot, it lacks the smoothness of narration, depth of emotions and sublimity of diction or language. No doubt, the writer has capacity to create a good stuff for his book, but as a columnist or a journalist, he always remains within bounds of a dead line for his story to be sent to the press. This has created in him a hurried style of writing and he has adjusted to the temporariness of journalistic writing than to a more sustained and value added concept of a man of letters. He fills columns but does not prettify his writings. He has been for the last ten years in this profession, but still lacks maturity. If observed minutely, he seemed to have deteriorated a lot in the use of words – rather became more abusive - and dwelled on the surface of the story. How one can make Bihar proud? By f**king a girl and win her over? Has the writer not degenerated in his understanding of the state? There are instances which count in making a story worthy for appreciation or rejection and here one may find many such points of rejection. It is not novel-material but pulp fiction stuff. How can such a writer think that he should be ‘missed’, if not remembered? At most he can be put to the level of yester year (Hindi) writers like Kushwaha Kant or Gulshan Nanda – an English version of them. They had written good stories which were also converted into films, but survived for a decade or two only and never were ‘missed’ because others were in the pipeline to fill the gap. The writer of half girlfriend has great power of creating stories, generating plots, but he does not want to come out of quick fame of journalistic style. He is satisfied with that. He is in essence a columnist, not a writer of great promise. He has to develop the other facet of his personality as a writer. He must come out as a man who knows the art of narration, observation and description; the man who has the capacity to develop literary style of expression, the man who has potential of a novelist of some name and fame. But he has to change his style. I do not want to see him transformed into a Hardy or a Naipaul. Centuries have lapsed; times have changed a lot. But permanent truth can never be obsolete. In ‘half girlfriend’ one may find some traces of a good novelist in making. Just mark the letter – wonderfully set and drafted - in section33, page 189 by Riya to Madhav. This letter surpasses even Hardy’s letter when Tess writes to her lover (in a different context of course) addressing, ‘My Own Husband….’. This letter of Riya creates the climax of the story. It is worth reading, preserving, and appreciating. There are other better expressions too, but they run only up to a line or two. This is unsolicited advice to the writer of ‘half girlfriend’ to accept the challenge as a novelist and rise above the level of a story teller. In spite of all its failings, ‘half girlfriend’, is worthy for reading and appreciating.

Khushwant Singh: Truth, Courage and Agnosticism - An Obituary

Deepika Padukone scolds the Editor : TOI and it's lack of respect for women

The editor of the online entertainment section of TOI tried to redo a Khushwant by morphing – rather zooming and highlighting through an arrow and a circle - the worst kind of act, for better attention of the readers to prove his degenerated sense of sexism with a caption ‘OMG …Cleavage Show’ of an otherwise simple professional photograph of a popular Bollywood actress. What was there in that image which prompted the editor to highlight it? Has he not seen the cleavage of any other woman in his life? With this perverted sense of editorship you can go on making your online edition a sexshop by putting as many arrows, indications and images of woman’s body – breasts, buttocks and pelvis etc till it is contested in the court of law as porno or the sure way of outraging the modesty of a woman. But the common public is not attracted towards it. It pulls down your prestige and makes the mockery of your paper. Perhaps you know the under lying cause how and why Khushwnat singh was fired from Illustrated Weekly? The magazine had ceased to be the carrier of respectable reading material for every household, family and drawing room. Its readers were getting confined to the clubs and coffee houses. Bennett, Coleman and Co had sensed its degeneration and promptly closed down the Weekly. Do you want the same fate for your online edition? People will not remain silent if you do this bakvas any further. Every woman has a right to have dignified and respectful place in the society. You must assure she gets it and see that her modesty is not hurt in any form by your actions directly or indirectly. The time is not far away when apart from Verma Commission’s new definition of rape, the court will also draw a line beyond that print or electronic media cannot go to attract attention through semi or complete nude photographs of women. You put black strip to cover your malafide intentions. But now this will not do. The photo-journalism is a branch of activity which has devoured the good sense of writing and understanding of the editor. Please be in your limit and don’t show to the world that you do not respect your women. You admitted that the heading could be better. But at the same time, in retaliation, you loaded more photographs to bring the situation at the same point from where it had originated. Have you really lost your sense? What you want to project? Yes, she is a woman. She has breasts. So what? She is young, attractive and beautiful. But she is not meant for your entertainment edition to attract readers. You have no right to put arrow or circle over her photograph. It is morphing of a new order. It is a crime. The fault lies in your thought process, approach and understanding of women. It is against sexism, erotica and sensuousness that the women are fighting. The aftermath of Nirbhaya episode should have taught you a lesson. But you have forgotten the tension the society is passing through. You are living in a society which has certain laws – social and legal. You have to obey them. Don’t retaliate if a woman asks you to behave in an orderly manner. She gets now more protected under the law of state than she used to have earlier. Putting online images and zoom them in your interest amount to outraging her modesty. Whatever is the level, the status or position of a woman – high or low – she has to be dealt with dignity, honour and respect? A beggar woman, a household maid or an office girl, an actress or a selected beauty queen, all have the same dignity as a woman as our daughters and sisters. There should be no distinction among them as far as the dignity of a woman is concerned. Why you try to pull her down? Why you call her a calendar girl? How would you feel if I call you a news paper vendor or a hawker? There is no difference between an editor and a news hawker. Both bring news to our door step. You must remember that women are not a sex signs. They are trying hard to change this image. And you must try to understand difference between professional and personal life. It may also be said as the reel vs. real life. You want to project that the photographs which you uploaded in retaliation as a reply belong to her real life. No. They are all stills from professional life. Women are fighting for equality and empowerment but by bringing in a woman’s or man’s anatomy to attract attention is a cheap form of journalism – print or electronic. Don’t peep into a woman’s body; don’t zoom to expose her skin pixel by pixel. Please have respect for women off-screen. You have highlighted the image of the actress encircling her breasts and cleavage. Why? Are you full of shit or have any sense of art form? Your arrows and circles create a doubtful journalism. Surely, the world of online is different from news paper. But underlying philosophy is the same. You have to have a healthy outlook of journalism. You have miserably failed in this test. You seem to have wrongly landed in this field. You can best fit as a pimp. You can attract more clients in that business than what you do to attract readers for your online entertainment section. There is an instance in our cultural history. ‘In the reign of King Dilip, there were no poor, no thieves, no fear among men and women. There was equality among people and no clash of material interest and when there were no unchaste men how could unchaste women be?’ It only means that man is elevating as well as degenerating factor for a woman. Let us accept this truth and the reality of our social life. Let us lift our women high in our mental setup and don’t degrade them only as sex symbols. She needs our help. She is God’s best creation. We must give her dignity, respect and love. I request Bennett, Coleman and co to look into the matter seriously and sack the editor(s) of the online edition of TOI as well as the editor of the entertainment section, if there is any, and replacing them by women editors so that it may get rid of pelvis-penis kind of journalism which has put your online edition into great controversy. Women journalists will at least not play the arrow-circle game and this will also be the test for the management how much respect they show for women.