Bring back the Suttee!

Bring back the tradition of burning widows along with their deceased husbands on the funeral pyre.

That would satisfy the insatiable taste of India bound western journalists who fantasize, mentally masturbate at the prospect and excitement of witnessing such an event and write about it, in many words and descriptions, together with flowery narrations of the scene and background, the colors and pagan rites, sounds and hymns, emotions and wailings, the prelude and aftermath, setting a grim deceiving tone to qualify the mood, and then increase the frenzy of the narration like a symphony note spiraling up to a sharp shrill octave, interspersed with silent pontifications from a 'humane' viewpoint of which the western civilization believes to have a monopoly - thus deriving the moral authority to judge other supposedly lower cultures, to end in a climax of a memorable quote, one that is bound to make an impact - a lasting one... ... to later stand triumphant under the warm limelight, bowing to accolades and standing ovation for sensitive, remarkably life-like reporting.

For the pleasure of these journalists and sensation-seeking photo-reporters, bring it all back. Let them have the real thing. Though they don't tire of finding the crappiest excuse or pretext to bring it up and mention it., give them the real deal. Give them a Sattee. The agony of death by fire is far tamer than the pangs of pain from the fire of temptation to write about Sattee that rages in the hearts of those like Andrea Bruce. They are forced to write about it partially out of the conditioning they undergo at the altars of western liberal education and partially out of lust for the rewards of writing on these topics.

Andrea Bruce does it so flawlessly : Quote: The subject matter was about the Widows of Varanasi - well selected - a leaf out of the 'Water' movie where Deepa Mehta hiding from behind a facade of artistic prerogative succeeded to profit immensely both in terms of millions of dollars as well as popularity and orgasmic praises, from her carefully orchestrated film with dramatic, touching and shocking images of the hardships of Indian widowhood. It was as good as pimping those very widows - that would have only been a desecration of their physical self, while this newer digital avatar of pimping is by capturing their aged bodies draped with old cotton cloth meant to hide their modesty on film for millions to watch who would pay and praise the film-maker, silently abusing the widow's rights to privacy and self-respect, selling their pity, secretly reveling in the opportunity of a good story, and taking advantage of their sorrows. Deepa Mehta would talk about her own freedom of expression, but its raging silence when asked about the real impact if any on the Widows on whom the film is based. Is there a doubt as to who really benefitted from that film? Today, Andrea Bruce has earned her monthly salary out of this very sort of pimping she calls Photo-journalism.

The motivation is weakly artistic, rather overtly to quench the thirst of self-importance while satisfying the hunger of their readers/patrons for their daily emotional and curiosity fixes.

From where she prays on the Ganges River, Mahum is aware of the fires and smells of Harishchandra Ghat cremation grounds, where her husband was cremated 17 years ago. Widows are expected to devote the remainder of their lives to the memory of their husbands.
By the third morning, Mahum welcomed me by putting her cool hand on my cheek. This is the feeling I think most of us photographers yearn for -- to be invisible and accepted at the same time.

Mahum: Does she realise that she is being paraded before the whole world in all her pitiable condition? Did she know that her story wins thousands of dollars in salary for the deceptively sympathetic listenerwho seemed to lend her a compassionate ear and heard her out? Can she be told that she was approached not out of pity, but to obtain a character for their story? How will she feel if she learns that her narration matters more than herself? That she is just a faceless source for a creative storyline?

Sattee is but forgotten in India, rare as it is, and well condemned by all. But Andrea sees the connection and relevance. Widows? Oh Sattee!! How can she not give in into the temptation of mentioning this word in the context of widows? After all it is the mystical India - the nation of unwashed pagans she is covering and Sattee is at the top of the list of words a western journalist dreams to mention! Although long defunct, they beat the drums of Sattee to keep it alive for the western audience. It is an unparalled attention winner, a word that conjures up mental images of uncivilized brutality so characteristic of the old world surviving civilizations such as India.

Now, thanks to the Water film of Deepa Mehta, Widows of Varanasi will become a perpetual topic for western journalists to write about. The widows have just earned the honour of mention in the 'Must Write' list of Western Journalism.

Women were hunted down as witches and burned at the stake in the West around the same time when proud and brave Rajput women of besieged towns sent their warrior husbands, brothers and fathers to a sure death war and committed their own bodies to the Fire to destroytheir bodies into ashes preventing the Moslem invading hordes from hunting for their dead bodies to rape. That too was Sattee.

Anyway, we had Francois Gautier telling us way back in January 2000 in his article, 'India's Foreign Observers (Hinduism Today Magazine)

Foreign journalists and photographers covering India are generally interested in three kinds of India. First is the macabre and the negative: the widows of Benares, the caste system as practiced in Bihar, the rat temple, kidney traffic in Tamil Nadu, the slums of Calcutta, bride burning, etc. These subjects have their own truth and there do exist terrible slums, unacceptable exploitation of caste, dying people left unattended and bride burning. But by harping only on these topics, the foreign press always presents a strangely and unjustly negative image of India.

The second reporters' India is that of folklore/myth and the superfluous: Maharajas, whom Westerners are charmed by, although they are mostly irrelevant to modern India; festivals, the camel fair, kumbha melas, dance performances in Khajuraho. All these have their own beauties, but they represent only a small part of this great and vast country.

The third is the politically correct. If you give the 300 foreign correspondents posted in Delhi a subject to write about--any subject--say Ayodhya, the RSS, fanatic Hindus, secularism or recent elections, you will get 298 articles which will say more or less the same thing. This is not to say that there are no sincere Western journalists who write serious stories which do homage to India's greatness and immense culture, but they are rare. And at the end, the result is more or less the same: a downgrading of India, a constant harping on an anti-Christian "Hindu fundamentalism," conveniently forgetting to mention that Christians have found refuge in this country for 2,000 years and have often taken advantage of this Hindu tolerance.

'.

Washinton Times comes out with a hard hitting editorial tiltled: The oil-for-influence program

Indian Express posts a brief on this article
and we have various comments on the article with many commentators cooking up twisted logic powered brew to desperately defend the Congress by blaming and questioning the Washington Times' audacity to criticise Congress. Read more for a selection of twisted Paki logic that seems to affect Indians too lately.

Forbes has lost it.

Coming on the heels of Outlook's diarrhea, Forbes vents its bowels and spews toxic venom, portraying bloggers as 'lynch mobs' who have no other work, agenda and purpose in life, but to vilify brands, launch personal attacks and run extremist and smear campaigns. [Forbes: Attack of the Blogs (Free Subscription Req); Here is an accessible 'print' version]

The article is hate filled and fails to provide a balanced view. Its objectivity is totally non-existent - logic alarmist and tone, pure vitriol.

A selection of its hate literature is featured here:

Quote:

Web logs are the prized platform of an online lynch mob spouting liberty but spewing lies, libel and invective. Their potent allies in this pursuit include Google and Yahoo.

Blogs started a few years ago as a simple way for people to keep online diaries. Suddenly they are the ultimate vehicle for brand-bashing, personal attacks, political extremism and smear campaigns. It's not easy to fight back: Often a bashing victim can't even figure out who his attacker is. No target is too mighty, or too obscure, for this new and virulent strain of oratory.

"Bloggers are more of a threat than people realize, and they are only going to get more toxic. This is the new reality," says Peter Blackshaw

Some companies now use blogs as a weapon, unleashing swarms of critics on their rivals. "I'd say 50% to 60% of attacks are sponsored by competitors," says Bruce Fischman

The online haters have formidable allies amplifying their tirades to a potential worldwide audience of 900 million: Google, Yahoo and Microsoft, plus a raft of other blog hosts

Forbes seems to be blinded to the postive work of bloggers by its own virulent hatred of this new media. While accusing Blogs being inherently malafide, Forbes has betrayed its own interest in this matter. However, the reality of blogs isn't going to dissapear and will undergo constant evolution.

Web version 1.0 had personal pages which were rarely updated and held simple portfolio/resume/personal details. Advent of dynamic websites with database driven automation has seen blogs being published at the click of a button.

Although Forbes does have a point about the lack of accountability for views aired on the net, it is far fetched to portray the whole phenomenon as by nature pure evil - These views will only increase the divide between corporates and the internet community. Instead, companies must engage bloggers creatively to leverage their capability to influence and spread the word.

The inherent property of Internet is 'self-governance' and blogs too are subjected to this principle. In any case, the masses deciding what is correct and wrong will prove beneficial in the long run.

Forbes can only bitch about it.

Bloggers covering the story:
Micro Persuasion
Bayosphere
Instapundit

OUTLOOK posted its much awaited 'comprehensive' take on the IIPM fiasco. Shame on you Outlook. You are running a story on the Blogosphere and its collective ability to take down a story into pieces and analyse it -- In that very story you make such glaring mistakes that betray your shallowness. Irony. [Transmogrified indicts outlook]

Dan Rather is a blogger? Whatever stuff you are smoking, it is sure clouding your monitor!

Mainstream media suffers from a self-inflicted disease which goes under the guise of 'objectivity'.

Objectivity in reporting about any issue that has opposing parties, according to the MSM, is simply achieved by slighting both or all the sides. Found fault with one of them? superimpose something on the other side and make it equal = equal.

The Time while reporting on Islamic Terrorism, in an attempt to prove that Terrorism is not the exclusive recluse of Islam, chose to drag in Hinduism and force it on the socialist LTTE and make a point that even Hindus can be the vilest terrorists.

While reporting Kashmir, make India and Pakistan look equal-equal. Pakistan pumps in terrorists? Mention that Indian Army is present in the Kashmir valley. Pakistan has the Islamic fundamentalists? so does India with Shiv Sena, Bhajrang Dal and RSS. Doesn't matter that India and Pakistan do not fall into any common category, be it size, population, economic strength or whatever. Do not mention Pakistan without dragging India down to the level of Pakistan. Equal-equal.

Outlook too tries to bring in the same standard of 'objectivity' when it defines the Blogosphere with blanket sentences as follows.

The Indian blogging community (or blogosphere, as it likes to call itself) is essentially a bitchy, self-indulgent and an almost incestuous network comprising journalists, wannabe-writers and a massive army of geeks who give vent to their creative ambitions on the internet

Outlook thinks that it is being impartial when it denigrates and excoriates both IIPM as well as the blogosphere. equal equal.

It only goes on to prove that Outlook does not comprehend the Blogosphere in its entirely which is not just a playground of sorts for college students beating the blues, but also an outlet for opinions of professional scientists, engineers, politicians, artists, actors, imams, excluding only such as this Mr.Vivek, pompous journalists who think they have some sort of divine mandate to be the purveyors of news and writing.

90% of the matter in this article comes from the work of bloggers. The rest 10% conjured up by the author is dedicated to disparaging remarks on the bloggers - hardly a piece of fine journalism. Move over MSM.

The whole bunch of Media in India is run by leftist 'intellectual' class, who think that by virtue of the freedom of expression, they can get away with everything they can possibly write.

Herein lies a fundamental question... What and where exactly does the 'Freedom of Speech' end and start?

The Freedom to express oneself is not an ultimate right. It ends where the freedom of another individual to express him/herself starts. That is, like the old cliche goes, your freedom (to swing, say) stops where my nose begins.

Freedom of expression cannot be used to curtain or restrict the right of anybody else to that same freedom.

Also, this freedom comes with certain unrevokable and inseperatable responsibilities.

Like for example, if an allegation or statement is made out to be factual, the person making that statement can and is liable to be asked to provide proof or prove it.
If not, it might fall under either the category of slander or libel.

Thus, one cannot call another person a thief wrongly and claim immunity by invoking the freedom of expression right.

Quote:

Indians still trust the Journalists to the extent that they are willing to hand over power to them or the military instead of the politicians.
Isn't this an irony given the fact that many of the existing politiciains were journalists once?
Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4246054.stm

Dressed in saffron, Uma Bharati is a sanyasin - someone who has taken the pledge to remain unmarried and vegetarian and wear saffron clothes. BBC has come up with an definition of a Sanyasin: someone who has taken the pledge to remain unmarried and vegetarian and wear saffron clothes. WOW!
It looks like a definition straight from a five year old Kid's textbook.
BUT unfortunately, for a global news media, it is way too simple an explaination. Can't they do better? Can't they educate their viewers/readers better on what the word 'Sanyasi' means?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3301307.stm