Ayesha Aleem wins short story contest organised by Deccan Herald

Ayesha Aleem, a Bangalore-based writer and journalist, has won the first prize in the fourth edition of the Sunday Herald short story competition organised by popular English daily, Deccan Herald. The young writer bagged the cash prize of Rs 30,000 for her story ‘In Search of Home’ which revolves around the character of a taxi driver of Indian origin in the United States.

The protagonist’s homecoming after 35 years is very different from what he expected and turns out to be not so comfortable after all. The entry “moved the judges with its subtle ending and original theme”. The story idea occurred to Ayesha last year. “I had started writing the story long ago but could not get a suitable climax. By the time I decided to enter the short story competition, I had finished my story,” Ayesha said.

Ayesha did MS (Journalism) at Boston University in 2010. Before that, she pursued PG Diploma in Journalism at the Indian Institute of Journalism and New Media, Bangalore in 2008. She also holds a Diploma in Creative Writing from the Writer’s Bureau, Manchester, UK. At present, she is a correspondent with India Today in Bangalore. She has worked for Elle magazine, Lowe Worldwide and publications in the United States, where she briefly reported on US Congress in Washington, DC.

K N Tilak Kumar, Editor, Deccan Herald, gave away the award to Ayesha at a function held at Bangalore Club on July 29. More than 500 short stories were received for the contest. According to judges – writer and columnist Monideepa Sahu, short story writer Srinath Perur, and poet-writer Shefali Mehta – short-listing the names was a difficult exercise.

Sunday Herald is the eight-page weekly supplement of Deccan Herald that carries regular features on consumer issues, green subjects, animal welfare, gardening, bridge, crossword, book reviews, and offbeat travelogues.

Courtesy : Karnataka Muslims. Here

Don't report bad news from India!

It was the writer and activist Arundhati Roy who set foreign journalists in India busily chattering recently. In an interview with Stephen Moss in the Guardian, Ms Roy was discussing the Maoist and Adavasi “resistance” to encroachment on tribal lands. Mr Moss, asked her why, “we in the West don’t hear about these mini-wars?”. Ms Roy replied: “I have been told quite openly by several correspondents of international newspapers, that they have instructions – ‘No negative news from India’ – because it’s an investment destination. So you don’t hear about it. But there is an insurrection, and it’s not just a Maoist insurrection. Everywhere in the country, people are fighting.”

Mr Moss’s response was: “I find the suggestion that such an injunction exists – or that self-respecting journalists would accept it – ridiculous. Foreign reporting of India might well be lazy or myopic, [Thanks Stephen, that's very decent of you.] but I don’t believe it’s corrupt.”

I’ve been thinking about what both of them said, and discussing the matter with some colleagues based in India. I’ve never received a “no bad news” order from London and the colleagues I spoke with insisted that neither had they. Several things struck me:

In the last decade or so India has certainly been successful in re-branding its international image. Where once it was seen as a hopeless, overwhelmingly poor country, there has instead been focus on a newly aspirational middle-class and economic progress, the new “Shining India”. As a result, there are fewer stories about malnutrition (which still haunts huge numbers of Indians) but more about new airlines, coffee shops, call centres, the World Is Flat, eight per cent growth and the attendant changing structure of society, especially in urban India. Though things have probably shifted too much, the change in focus is understandable enough; the media is always looking for something new, something different, to report on.  I also think that in India – as elsewhere in the world – the priorities of Western corporations sometimes find their way into the news agenda; every month or so, some article will ask when India will finally allow the likes of Wal-Mart and Tesco to operate here.

Since writing this, I’ve been contacted by a colleague who said they cannot interest their “editors in anything but stories of shiny new India”. When this person “pitches stories on issues of poverty, development, or those being left out of the Great Indian Miracle”, they are told it’s “old news”. The appetite of their desk is entirely for stories of growth and positive change.

This journalist says they did not speak to Ms Roy. Furthermore, this journalist said they had been told by a colleague who works for another international publication of an “identical problem”. The correspondent said their colleague was told by their desk: “Report the news. It is not news that there are poor people in India.”

Andrew Buncombe in The Independent. Here

Politicians are not the only villains now. Journalists too have become villains

The last decade and a half has seen an unprecedented explosion in the growth of the media, specially audiovisual. Media has come to occupy centrestage, a platform on which political and other actors perform. If the world is a stage, showing on the closest screen near you is the television set.

For the privilege of capturing the theatrical happenings around the world and using one's power of discretion on what shall be showcased, the messengers and the medium gained an aura and a mystery that tickled public imagination and curiosity. No wonder then that journalists and the roles they play quite often became the subject films were inspired and influenced by.

From the idealistic, jhola-wala, stereotype who invariably was eliminated for daring to tell the truth to a cameraperson who becomes chief minister and brings in a political revolution (Mudhalvan in Tamil, Nayak in Hindi), the shades of the screen persona have evolved.

Politicians are not the only villains now. Journalists find themselves soaked in blood too big time, on the big screen. Time for some introspection and self-correction before `journalist' becomes a bad word just the way `politician' already has.

T S Sudhir in The Hoot. More Here

"Don't call him Veer Savarkar"

Veteran Writer, political commentator, social activist Chinna Kuthoosi @ Thiyagarajan passed away on 22nd May. I have met this legendary writer a couple of times. Once with Marhoom Moulana M A Jameel Ahmed Sahib and many times with our own kavinjar Moosa Kaka.

He was very receptive. always to the point. I remember during a discussion I inadvertantly uttered the name Veer Savarkar. He immediately corrected me. "Don't say Veer Savarkar. He is just Savarkar. What has he done to be called Veer Savarkar? He wrote an apology letter to the British to reduce his prison term".

Then once when prominent cartoonist Irfan Hussain of Outlook was murdered by unidentified persons in New Delhi we had published a collection of cartoons of Irfan Hussain with a four line message at the end in Samarasam. Chinna Kuthoosi liked it. He admired the choice of the cartoons. They were all famous cartoons of Irfan Hussain ridiculing the hindutva ways of L K Advani, M M Joshi etc. He liked the subtle suggestion hidden behind the choice of the cartoons and the four line message. When I heard it I was at cloud nine.

T Azeez Luthfullah. Here

சின்னக்குத்தூசி பெரிய படிப்பாளி. நான் சந்தித்த தருணங்களிலெல்லாம் ஏதாவது ஒரு புத்தகத்தை வாசித்துக்கொண்டிருந்த கோலத்திலேயே அவரைப் பார்த்திருக்கிறேன் என்பது நினைவுக்கு வருகிறது. ஒரு முறை கல்கியில் முக்கூர் லக்ஷ்மி நரசிம்மாச்சார் ஒரு தொடர் எழுத ஆரம்பித்தார். [சுவாமிகளின் சொற்பொழிவை ஆசிரியர் சீதா ரவி எழுத்துக்கு மாற்றி, வெளியான தொடர்.] அந்த வாரம் நான் சின்னக்குத்தூசியைப் பார்க்க அவர் அறைக்குச் சென்றபோது, ‘அதான் சங்கராசாரியார் அருள்வாக்கு போடறிங்களே, இதுவேறயா?’ என்றார். நான் பதில் சொல்லாமல் சிரித்தேன். ‘ஆனா நல்லாருக்கு. படிச்ச, விஷயம் தெரிஞ்ச மனிதர். ஒரு பக்திப் பத்திரிகைக்கு சரியா இருக்கும்’ என்று சொன்னார். [அவர் பரம நாத்திகர்.] கல்கியில் முக்கூராரின் தொடர் மிகப் பிரம்மாண்டமான வெற்றி கண்டபோது திரும்பவும் ஒருமுறை அவரைச் சந்தித்தேன். அவரது முந்தைய விமரிசனத்தை நினைவுகூர்ந்து, ‘என்ன சார் பண்றது? சுஜாதா தொடரைவிட இது பெரிய ஹிட்’ என்றேன். ‘இருக்கலாம். ஆனா காலப்போக்குல புது வாசகர்கள், குறிப்பா இளம் வாசகர்கள் பத்திரிகைக்கு வர்றதைத் தடுக்கக்கூடிய விஷயங்கள் இதெல்லாம்’ என்று சொன்னார்.

அவர் சொன்னது உண்மை. 1999வது ஆண்டு நான் கல்கியில் இருந்து வெளியேறிவிட்டேன். அதன்பின் இளைய தலைமுறையைக் கல்கி பக்கம் இழுக்கும் முயற்சிகள் எத்தனையோ விதமாக மேற்கொள்ளப்பட்டும் பெரிய பலன் இருக்கவில்லை.

Pa Raghavan. More Here

சின்னக்குத்தூசி என்ற புனைபெயரில் இவர் பரவலாக அறியப்பட்டாலும் கொக்கிரகுளம் சுல்தான் முகமது, காமராஜ் நகர் ஜான் ஆசிர்வாதம், தெரிந்தார்க்கினியன், ஆர்.ஓ.மஜாட்டோ, திட்டக்குடி அனீஃப் ஆகிய புனைப் பெயரிகளிலும் பல அரசியல் விமர்சனக் கட்டுரைகளை எழுதியுள்ளார்.

நடமாடும் திராவிட இயக்க களஞ்சியம் எனும்படி தமிழகத்தின் 60 ஆண்டுகால அரசியல் விவரங்களை விரல் நுனியில் வைத்திருக்கும் சின்னக்குத்தூசி அவர்கள் இந்திய அரசியல் குறித்தும் ஆழ்ந்த அறிவனுபவம் மிக்கவர். பொதுவாழ்க்கை - எழுத்துப்பணி இவற்றிற்றகாக திருமணம் செய்துக்கொள்ளாமல் வாழ்ந்து வந்த சின்னக்குத்தூசி அவர்கள் சென்னை திருவல்லிக்கேணி எண்.13 வல்லப அக்கிரஹாரம் தெருவில் தங்கியிருந்த சிறிய அறை, இன்றைய பத்திரிகையாளர்களின் வேடந்தாங்கலாக அமைந்திருந்தது. மனிதநேயம், பகத்தறிவு, சுயமரியாதை ஆகியவற்றை இலட்சியங்களாகக் கொண்டு திராவிட இயக்க நெறிகளின்படி வாழ்ந்து வந்தவர் திரு.சின்னக்குத்தூசி (எ) இரா.தியாகராஜன் அவர்கள்.

Obituary in Nakkeeran. Here

American media fraud in the Middle East

Too often, you consumers of mainstream media are victims of a fraud. You think you can trust the articles you read - why wouldn't you? You think you can sift through the ideological bias and just get the facts. But you don't know the ingredients that go into the product you buy. It is important to understand how knowledge about current events in the Middle East is produced before relying on it. Even when there are no apparent ideological biases, such as those one often sees when it comes to reporting about Israel, there are fundamental problems at the epistemological and methodological level. These create distortions, falsehoods and justify the narrative of those with power.

The American media always want to fit events in the region into an American narrative. The recent assassination of Osama bin Laden was greeted with a collective shrug of the shoulder in the Middle East, where he had always been irrelevant, but for Americans and hence for the American media it was a historic and defining moment which changed everything. Too often contact with the West has defined events in the Middle East, but the so-called Arab Spring with its revolutions and upheavals evokes anxiety among white Americans. They are unsettled with the autogenetic liberation of brown people.

The American media has been obsessed with Israel. And all too often, it just comes down to "what does this mean for Israel's security?" The aspirations of hundreds of millions of freedom-seeking Arabs are subordinated to the security concerns of five million Jews who colonised Palestine.

A student of the Arab world once commented that any self-appointed terrorism expert must first pass the Um Kulthum test - meaning, has he heard of Um Kulthum, the iconic Egyptian diva of Arab nationalism whose music and lyrics still resonate throughout the Middle East? If they hadn't heard of her, then they obviously were not familiar with Arab culture. In Iraq an equivalent might be the Hawasim test. Saddam called the 1991 war on Iraq "Um al-Maarik", or the mother of all battles. And he called the 2003 war on Iraq "Um al-Hawasim", or the mother of all decisive moments. Soon, the looting that followed the invasion was called Hawasim by Iraqis, and the word became a common phrase, applied to cheap markets, to stolen goods, to cheap products. If you drive your car recklessly like you don't care about it, another driver might shout at you, "what, is it hawasim?" If you don't make an effort to familiarise yourself with these cultural phenomena, then just go back home.

Nir Rosen in AlJazeera. More Here

Sai Baba as a Professional Hazard

Every profession has its challenges if not stress tests. For journalism in India, we suggest this: trying to keep your copy straight while covering a godman. From jet-setting brahmacharis to sex gurus, from babas kick-blessing disciples to Naga sadhus in the buff, you can have your pick of divinely inspired performers doing their own version of the Great Indian Rope Trick. But if you really want to earn your spurs, you’d have to cover a godman with millions of devotees in a militant if momentary frenzy.

The dare of the moment is Sathya Sai Baba, who, according to doctors at his trust’s hospital in Puttaparthi, left his body at 7.40 am on 24 April. He’s one godman with a following so disciplined that a military general would envy it, so full of famous figures that a VIP list for a World Cup final would be put to shame, so zealous that the blasphemy police of the Subcontinent’s far frontiers could take tips from them.

Earlier this month in Puttaparthi, I phoned a district reporter for a local perspective on the godman. “Are you writing negative or positive things?” he demanded. “Just writing facts,” I responded. “What kind of facts are you looking for?” he asked. His tone suggested that the facts would have to be approved by the faithful.

Thankfully, violence is a no-no for Sai Baba’s disciples. But that does not necessarily make it unlikely. Outside the hospital where the godman lay ailing in an ICU ward, I suggested to a TV reporter that he run a sting operation for an insider story. “If I get in there,” he replied, “I will not get out alive.” He was only half joking.

Anil Budur Lulla shares the perils of tracking the deceased godman’s life, influence and miracles as a journalist in Open. Here

Bob Woodword : "The world requires high quality, probing journalism"

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

A Suresh Kalmadi is an easy target than a Sharad Pawar

There is a Soviet silence on television these days. Beneath the noise of the 2G scam and the chaotic cacophony of Parliament lurks a deeper silence that haunts every minute of every channel. The decision to blank out the murky goings-on involving some of India's top names in journalism is a staggeringly significant one. To be sure, the silence pervades most of mainstream media but leaps out of television strikingly because of its tendency to pounce on stories of this kind. For television channels, otherwise willing to go to any lengths for the sake of eyeballs to collaborate with each other in this way is quite unprecedented, and therefore particularly revealing.

But some facts are undeniable. The authenticity of the recordings have not been seriously challenged. The conversations on record show that senior journalists go way beyond the brief of news gathering into news-making by brokering power. It is quite clear that corporate interests are actively injected into the framing of news coverage. Lobbyists do not seem to plead for favourable coverage but issue instructions to journalists, including senior editors. Which are willingly listened to and in some cases, followed.  And finally, when these facts come to light, almost all of media clamps down and blanks out any coverage whatsoever .
The clarifications issued by those allegedly involved so far have been terse and interestingly, have been largely focused on the internet, which is the only space where one can catch a glimpse of the widespread public outrage. Even here, none of the people concerned allow for any comments to be put on their sites. The attempt is to brazen it out by denying the existence of any problem in what amounts to an Orwellian erasure of the present. What we have here is in effect, a case of media issuing a massive vote of no-confidence in itself and in everything it professes belief in. The desire to pursue the freedom of expression and the public's right to know has evaporated the moment the object of scrutiny is the media itself.

It is important to listen to the recordings and not go only by the transcripts, for the tonality of these exchanges is quite revealing. There is an ease, a feeling of being on the same side that pervades conversations between the media and the powerful. The eagerness to please is evident as is the thrill of being part of the world of such important people.

In the last few years, journalists have become Big People who are most comfortable when dealing with other Big People. It is no coincidence that we have a 'summit' run by a media house that is underway and which carries photographs of ornate looking journalists mingling with the bejewelled power elite –described as 'the who's who enjoying free flowing conversation over a lavish spread of cocktails and sumptuous food'. Of course, this is hardly limited to any one media house — every media organisation worth its name has something similar — an event which is designed to get cosy with powerful people and glamorous celebrities. In a deeper, more fundamental way, the interests of the media and the power elite have begun to coincide. The media today is an exponent of power, rather than a watchdog over those who exercise power as it is a participant in the culture of celebrity rather than its critic.

As a consequence, the media rarely attacks the truly powerful. It uses its power to isolate the vulnerable and trains its guns at them. The really powerful politicians are rarely put to sword and critical stories about the rich are almost unheard of. The interests of a few are looked after and the successful media people in turn lead lives of sponsored magnificence. 

A cozy circle drives the media agenda — we see the same people on all the talk shows and it is no coincidence that a large number of them appear on these tapes. The illusion of media activism is created not by the incisiveness of the reportage but by its shrillness.  

A Suresh Kalmadi is much easier to attack than a Sharad Pawar and it takes no courage to go after Ruchika's molester. By going after easy targets and chasing symbolic issues rather than substantive ones, the media discourse is flattened; the aristocracy of banality flourishes even as it schmoozes with each other.

Whichever way you look at it, there is no justification for the media to black out this controversy. Of course, it must be careful about not casually besmirching the reputation of the individuals involved by ensuring that it uses the highest standards of fairness in its coverage. But to argue that the issue does not merit coverage is untenable. If it feels no reservations about covering sting operations, which are flagrant violations of the privacy of those involved, it can surely not hide behind the privacy fig leaf. If the silence is attributed to wanting to make absolutely sure that the tapes are authentic, then that principle should have been applied in other cases too. Also, no one has seriously challenged the authenticity of the tapes. And if, the silence is part of an unwritten code of protection that the media offers to itself, then it is time to dismantle that pact. Not only because it must treat itself in exactly the same way as it treats others but because it is the right thing to do.

From Santosh Desai's column in Times of India. More Here

Barkha Dutt, Veer Sanghvi and Adolf Hitler

"What we have is freedom of purse, not freedom of press" : P. Sainath

The Indian media is a free media, they are free, they are politically free, but they are imprisoned by profit and commerce. No one is shooting you for saying something in India in journalism. But you’re a prisoner of profit. So even if they are politically free, they don’t make use of the political freedom because their first priority is profit. If profit entails loss of freedom they will accept it because anything but profit matters. Now every time they do some crime like “paid news” or anything else and if there is criticism of them, they respond it to by saying “you are attacking press freedom”.

The press doesn't have the freedom to loot and extort me. This is not freedom of press. This is freedom of purse. So whenever they want to make money, they say this is a business - we are on a business, etc. When they are criticized they say no...we want special rights because we are the press, we have freedom of press. When you are defending your privileges, you claim freedom of press. But then you are telling your journalist, this is a business. You go out and do what I tell you to do. 

The hypocrisy of freedom of the press is that freedom doesn’t apply to journalist. That is why AJ Liebling said 70 years ago in the US, “Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one”, those who own the press have freedom. This freedom is not for the journalist, it is not for the society, it is not for the readers or viewers of these channels. It is for the corporate interests that control them. So it is very interesting when they are defending their position, they defend it on the high moral ground of press freedom. The rest of the time they are operating not as guardians of freedom but as extortionists and profiteers. 

That is the hypocrisy involved and one day that will boomerang very badly on all of us , so this is the thing, .you have free press……it is free, it is not that there are any editors in prison ,there are no prisoners of conscience in the media happening yet. 

But the freedom we have is very limited. It belongs to the bosses, not to the journalists, not to the readers, not to the audience. It is a very limited freedom and the freedom related on your capacity to pay for it. How much money you have and your equation with power. There is also a real freedom of press in India that also has to be said. The fact that is real freedom of press is that there is still a space for dissident voices. I can function in the press, hundreds of people like me also function in the press. So we have a space. There is some freedom even for the journalist and a particular kind of freedom exists. But that space is shrinking. I won’t say that I have no freedom. I have enjoyed lot of freedom as a journalist in India working for different publications but I am saying if I look at how was it twenty years ago and how it is now, then the space overall is shrinking. It is becoming more and more homogenized, corporatized and those who have anti corporate views will find it increasingly difficult to find employment in the media.

What is “paid news”? Paid news is run to pass off an advertisement, a piece of propaganda and advertisement...pass that as news, pretend that it is news, that is “paid news”. Paid news does not disclose to the reader that this information has been paid for.

Suppose you are a quack doctor you are putting out medicine which will cure asthma or tuberculosis. It may be fake. I write the story saying this man has some found cure for asthma. He has done this, he has done this, and he is a genius. You buy this; you will be liberated from asthma. I do not tell them that I have taken three lakh rupees from the advertiser - that is paid news. 

But during elections - paid news becomes twice as dangerous, because it is not only harming the readers' information, it is harming the readers' electoral democratic rights. It is concealing from the reader - if X is standing in an election, X is paying me as a news paper to run positive information on X...According to how much X pays I will run so much positive information on you..The reader will not even know the name of X's opposing candidate in the election unless I mention the candidate to attack him. His name will not appear. 

So it’s what vice president Hameed Ansari calls a double weapon. Paid news destroys the concept of a free and fair and balanced press. That the same time the paid news undermines the very basis of electoral democracy because it prejudices and interferes with the free and fair election. It allows huge use of money power without accountability. 

So in elections paid news becomes even more damaging but it is not only in elections that there is the phenomenon of paid news. There is paid news every day in the news paper and channels. If journalism does not wipe out paid news; paid news will wipe out journalism.

From a wide ranging interview of P Sainath given to V Sivadasan in Pragoti. More Here.

Nikkamma number 1

First, I want to assert that I am not a blind supporter of Manmohan Singh. How could I love a man who openly declares his love for George Bush and who has stooped low to get an autograph of Obama! But, nevertheless, I didn't like the way he was ridiculed, scolded and derided by Luh purush L K Advani. The choice of the word Nikkamma was in bad taste. Manmohan Singh may have played with the destiny of the nation in bonding with USA. But to call him Nikkamma is different.

All these days, weeks and months the scathing comment by L K Advani never faded away. Now I was pleased to hear it from Khushwant Singh. Oh! what a reply it is! I enjoyed it. Each and every word of it.

Dr. Ajmal sent it to me. Thank you, Dr. Ajmal!!

Now read the story! It was published here and here.

Nikkamma number 1

By Khushwant Singh
Like millions, I watched Mohan Bhagwat’s press conference on TV. He is the head of the RSS; the BJP is the progenyNikkamma number 1 of the RSS. The BJP leaders had a bitter fallout and are looking for guidance from one who now represents their founding father.
Bhagwat did not commit himself to anything specific. Like any father would, he told his squabbling children to settle their differences between themselves, without involving him. However, he did express the opinion that it was time the BJP retired its old leaders and infused younger blood in the party. He did not name anyone, but it was obvious who he meant. That his voice counts a lot was proved by the fact that the next day most of the top leaders of the party, including L.K. Advani, Rajnath Singh, Sushma Swaraj, Arun Jaitley and Venkaiah Naidu went to call on him to get his aasheervad — blessings.
It can be assumed that the one man almost certainly to be asked to step down will be L.K. Advani. He should have left the political scene in a blaze of glory, but now not many tears will be shed for him. And for good reasons. Did he ever regret the role he played in the demolition of the Babri Masjid? If he did, as he claims, why did he not tender an apology? Did he regret the anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat? If so, why did he protect Narendra Modi from being sacked as Prime Minister Vajpayee evidently wanted to do? Is it possible that as home minister he did not know of Jaswant Singh’s mission to Kandahar to swap three jehadi militants for 150-odd Indians held hostage in hostile territory? There cannot be an iota of truth in his statement that he knew nothing about Jaswant’s mission till it was over.
An important omission in the analysis of the rapid decline of the BJP is the role of the RSS. The BJP took its ideology from the RSS. Islamophobia was its motivating factor as it was of militant right-wing organisations like the Shiv Sena and Ram Sena. An increasing number of people no longer subscribe to this ideology. Membership of these parties has dwindled.
Mohan Bhagwat’s assertion that the RSS includes members of the minority communities, including Muslims, has to be taken with a large dose of salt. While he decides on replacements for Advani and Rajnath Singh, he should also take a closer look at the factors which have contributed to peoples’ disenchantment with what all these parties stand for and the readiness with which they resort to violence to achieve their ends.
I have no regret over Advani’s discomfiture and imminent fadeout from national politics. He has done grievous harm to our efforts to create a truly secular India. He described Manmohan Singh as nikamma — useless. It so happens, Manmohan is still much in use, while Advani’s own erstwhile colleagues have pronounced him as of no use any longer. It is as comic a tragedy as any we have witnessed in recent times.