BEKAA-AAR KEE CREATIVITY; if not outright repugnant, naively offensive......

My apologies at the outset to the great masters of creativity in Indian advertising. What I'm referring to is some of the TV commercials which have been raiding the idiot (here I go again) box lately, which, if I may be boastful a little, make even me, a deseemoron - a village idiot, feel a trifle superior. Sample this:-

The immaculately dressed young man dashes towards the lift and enters it in time to the closing of doors. He settles himself by the back wall of the cabin, amid many occupants, all suitably impressive looking. He coolly withdraws his cell phone and flicks it open. Now with confidence and an air of superiority writ large on his face, he instructs his driver, in a voice loud enough for everybody to hear, "driver, CAAAAR leke aao". And sure enough, everybody looks up to him admiringly. Now we cut to a car, which seemingly is really loooong, pulling in in a portico. And now a voice over proclaiming that they give extra length in their super luxury CAAAAR.

Hey, hey, folks; what's it?

Do you really think a sophisticated man, who apparently has already 'arrived', will behave so outrageously; in such a 'show off' manner? Only the nouveau-riche behave like this. The 'real affluent' person will behave subtly; for one he'll discreetly mumble his instruction to his driver in the cell phone, so that the others don't hear and secondly, he'll never and never, broadcast his instruction so offensively loudly in a public place, about summoning his CAAAAR.  And Mr. Advertiser, have you done any survey as to how many people remember the brand of the car you are promoting after this awful commercial, especially amongst your target audience, the sophisticated ones with high net worth, who ordinarily have refined sensibilities.

But this is not all:

This small swish car arrives in front of a modern high rise residential block, at night. The 'lover boy' bloke, apparently the boy friend, gazes into the eyes of the female driver - a truly sensuous woman, with a deep, dreamy and soulful look - with she reciprocating in suitable measure, before getting down, crossing the lobby and boarding the lift which promptly goes up. Now also promptly, she presses the lever next to the dash board and lo and behold, the boot opens up to reveal another generous sized boy jumping out and swiftly taking the seat where the earlier gentleman was seated. Now their faces beaming with 'sheer delight', they drive off.

Did you get the message? 

Whether one got the message about the spaciousness of the boot of the car or not, one message I certainly got. That in addition to being utterly distasteful, how demeaning you can get to a 'modern' woman; and then you perhaps expect her to buy your car. And which car I pray, because once again, at least I did not get the make of the car because of your stupidly offensive stance, Mr creative genius.

And talking about being offensive; this one takes the cake:

This former Indian superstar (but why am I being so coy about it?), okay okay Mr. Anil Kapoor is addressing me, I mean the average viewer in a reflective mood. He tells me that when he decided to become an actor, his father told him plainly that he wont be able to extend him any help, but then he offered him this extremely pricy and exclusive pen saying, "This is what I can give you".

Then Mr. Anil Kapoor goes on to say, "then one day Sonam (his daughter) told me..." 

Cut to, Sonam entering the room and saying trifle meekishly:

"Dad, I have decided to become an actor."

Cut to, a long searching look on Mr. Kapoor's face in close up. Then, even a tighter close up of Sonam followed by his face, with him saying:

"Okay, don't expect anything from me..." 

A shocked face of Sonam. No words.

"But, I can offer you this," and he extends the same pricy, pedigree pen to her, which she enthusiastically takes with her eyes smiling full on. And then, then we are told that the rest is history.

But what is this God dammit? Even you Mr. Kapoor with a Hollywood twang to your accent, did not object to this atrocious, demeaning, condescending and offensive commercial towards many a great souls of India who could not even afford a new book and who acquired education under a street lamp after slogging all day as a child worker to achieve unbelievable level of high distinction in life.

No chance now for an Abdul Kalam to become a great scientist and the President of the Republic of India! Well, at least the advertiser and the creative team who conceived this foolish ad seem to think so.

Shall I go on sirs...?   

 

</div>

All corruption is due to me; but Anna ji wont even talk to me!

Anna ji, I've been all around you all the time, but you never noticed me; much less talking to me. And I challenge you that you can not rid this country of any corruption, unless you address me first.

Who am I and what do I do? Well, let's take 'what do I do' first; a casual reckoning of my colourful  and smart acts to help me and my folks. Here we go:-

(1) I try to under-declare or not declare at all, the 'beyond the limit' valuables I bring with me from my visits abroad, to escape the duties or pay as little as possible, if forced to. And in this enterprise I don't hesitate to grease a palm or two among the custom officials, if need be. Of course sometimes, someone of my ilk also gets caught in the act, rather awkwardly, like this female actor colleague of mine who was all over the media for her mis-adventure. But Anna ji people should appreciate that her heart is at the right place; she supports your cause wholeheartedly. Doesn't she?

(2) I may be a big film star, a distinguished doctor, a top lawyer, a Chandni Chowk trader, a media personality or some such, tell me Anna ji, am I not entitled to save a few extra pennies for my fun and frolic or even my old age? And by the way, how do I do it unless I take a good part of my remuneration in  unaccounted 'cash'? And how does it matter if I persuade the I.T.O. concerned to not come up with too many queries about this matter by just making his palms a little extra slippery. The essential point is, do I not support your cause in public, on network television channels; and do I not cry hoarse with you for bringing back all the 'black' money stashed in Swiss banks?

(3) I strongly believe in 'good' education, hence I consider it perfectly justifiable to secure 'leaked' question papers from the 'resourceful' middle men, these moralists so much frown upon. After all how are you going to expand the numbers of the 'educated' masses for our expanding economy?

Okay, let me enumerate in brief, some more of my enterprising attributes:

(4) Being a firm believer of 'free' enterprise, I gladly though surreptitiously extend my house or business structure by annexing unauthorized areas, if the opportunity arrises. And if I get caught, you know what I do...Right!

(5) I under declare my assets to try and save on 'stamp duties' or inter-state tolls or levies on the mobility of my commodities where ever I can.

(6) I try and jump the queue for college admissions, for house allotments, for obtaining quotas of every kind and frankly even for paying obeisance to Gods at the religious places. And yes; you guessed it right. A little bit of grease and hands can really do wonders in displaying efficiency.

Truly Anna ji, there are so many layers, so many shades, so many complexions to my face that you would almost give up.

Now the first question Anna ji! Who am I?    

I am called, an "INDIAN' Anna ji. To me I come first and I come last Anna ji. Unless you drive 'I' out of me and inject a bit of an elixir called 'CHARACTER' in me, I am afraid you are going to fail miserably Anna ji. In fact, I'm sure you are going to fall on your face Anna ji, because not once have I noticed you or your Lieutenants addressing me Anna ji. I think you are not even interested. You are mesmerized by your own self obsession of bringing in the "2nd. battle of Independence"; of being the GANDHI that you are not. The saddest part is that you don't even know that you are a prisoner already. I think, as I said in my earlier anguished expression, the flash bulbs and the TV cameras have gotten to you a little too much.

Yes sir; I'm also the ever bumbling DESEEMORON. 

Television Gandhy; who'd be the king?

It'd be the Independence Day in just about 24 hours; hence perhaps a deseemoron, yes,yes a village idiot like me can also have the aazadi (freedom) to say something on the 'aazadi' related matter. Of course some questions too, which rankle the mind; even a less developed mind such as mine.

Sirs maaf karen, is it true that the Govt. troops had massacred hundreds of sleeping people in a mid-night firing like the English had done in Jalianwala Baag, in a broad day light annihilation?Yes sir ji; I'm talking about the midnight raid a little over a couple of months ago on Swami Ramdev's followers at Ramlila maidan in Delhi. If it's not true, then sirs please tell me, whether claiming such a thing in full glare of several network television channels, even as a figure of speech, though no such suggestion was in place, is a blatantly irresponsible and dangerously provocative lie or not? And who made this claim? Much revered Anna Hazare ji, who is proclaimed as the new Gandhy by one and all, especially the media. And where was this claim made? In a public speech, at a highly sacred public place RAJ GHAT established in the memory of the Great Saint, the original Gandhy who shunned lies and violence all his life.

One of the issues, the honourable members of the "Civil Society" have been talking about is about the black money. Is it not amusing sirs, that at least some of the celebrities gracing the stage alongside Anna ji, are known to have themselves been taking a considerable amount of black money, as part of the payment for their services in their individual professions?

Not just this sirs, can the thousands of senior or junior 'babus', civic and police officials, even some jurists, educationists and NGO functionaries who are part of Anna ji's team or are supporting him and are going to join in the fast with him; cross their hearts and swear that they have never taken small or big bribes or unjustified gratification of 'another' kind for circumventing the regulations 'just a little' for an out of turn or undeserving favour seeker? Likewise, will all the thousands of traders, small and big businessmen, high income professionals and artistes supporting him, cross their hearts and swear on God that they have never ever tried to hide or understate their income to Income Tax authorities or tried to save taxes or duties or levies by under declaring the value of the goods or commodities they have acquired?

Another thing that completely foxes me sirs is, that Anna ji and his 'celebrity' team seem to be totally unbothered about the 'small picture' because in reality small picture is the actual 'big picture'. And that picture concerns the small man; the lower and the lower middle to middle middle class man, who suffers the most on account of day to day corruption. Everybody knows that the corruption is rampant in the lower bureaucracy, which affects the common man by not only robbing him of good part of his hard earned income but also of his dignity and self respect. But Anna ji and his generals' chief concern seems to be only the Prime Minister and the higher judiciary. As if the "New Lok Pal Bill" has no relevance without bringing the PM and the Chief Justices in its ambit. Is it a power game or is the reason elsewhere? Will they be as hot about it as they are, if there was no media around especially the electronic media; if there were no endless chat shows to appear on or sound bytes to give?

Also sirs, what really do we mean by being 'democratic'? Do I become truly democratic if I simply proclaim so or am able to solicit sms endorsements to that effect; and even superior to the other citizen who may have been elected by the active and legitimate election process? How can I over rule him or disregard him, just because I am sitting on a fast and he is not? And how can I brazenly defy the tenets of my constitution which has given me the fundamental right at the first place to say what I like, where I like and how I like as long as I do not hurt anybody's sentiments or call them names. And, respected Anna ji? I think he genuinely believes that 'constitution gaya tel lene', he can call PM the thief, 'sarkar' the thief; anybody the thief.

What is overtly simplistic if not outright deceitful, more like the volley of promises made by a vote seeking politician, is to make wild pronouncements, that everything would be alright once the "New Lok Pal Bill" is passed. He seems to be completely oblivious to the oppressive realities of the systemic processes. His arrogance on the issue is as naive as it is dangerous. I think he had been reading 'nanee's stories' too much. 

Respected Anna ji, you are absolutely off the mark sir. Yes it has to be a 'new battle for independence'. But it has to be fought on the hearts of the billions of our countrymen. We all have to clean ourselves from within. We all have to declare our assets in public and take oath that neither we shall take bribe or give bribe in future, ever. That calls for a 'real' revolution of the kind which happens in the small villages and towns and narrow alleys of every city of India; which certainly doesn't happen only in front of the newspaper and television cameras. Anna ji you are a sad and futile man, because that's what you are not doing. I think the flash bulbs have bedazzled you excessively.

Forgive me Anna ji, but I am only a deseemoron. But sir, I also aspire for my country.

.    

Aamir Khan's SMELLY ALLEY, a feel real film?

Folks,

I really don't know whether all these wise men of the village are making a fun of me because I'm a deseemoron, or do they really mean what they're saying. They tell me that after the techno wonders like 3D and 5.1 surround sound etc, the film technology is on the threshold of another big leap and 'smell real' films are round the corner. They tell me that the theatres will gradually be nose sensitive with the installation of digitally compatible fragrance emitters. This, they proclaim, would mean that we as viewers would be transported to the 'real reel world'. By this, I mean; no no I mean, they mean that if you're amid the flower beds in Switzerland, you'll smell the real roses; or if the scene is in a halwai's (sweetmeat maker) kitchen, you'll smell the real mouth watering delcacies.

Now, they tell me that  Bollywood's celebrated Producer/Director/Actor Aamir Khan is going to be the first one to embark upon the path breaking nose sensitive film. They tell me that for the starter, he's going to upgrade his hugely successful film, DELHI BELLY in to a 3D, NS (nose sensitive) version, thus offering the never before realised experience of smelling the real shit, when it is so longingly laid out on the silken cloth in front of him by Vijay Raj the Don himself. Even the scene of cunnilingus underneath the quilt would have the real smelling juices, just as the emissions from Kunal Roy Kapoor's naked bum - shown in B.C.U. (big close up) will have smells of the 'real', with every one of his loudly roaring emissions.

But I beleieve that as usual, Hollywood is going to beat our whiz kid Aamir khan to it. They think that dear old Danny boy (Danny Boyle) has already started converting his mega success, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, in to a 3D, NS version. Boy what a real experience it would be to all those Chanel sprayed noses, when the vagabond boy takes a dip in, you know what?

But, they say that our Aamir is already another step ahead. He's already going to announce his multi multi million dollar extraveganza as a 3D, NS venture titled "SMELLY ALLEY'. And you know what; the film is going to begin with a vey, very big BCU of our Kunal Roy Kapoor's big bum, just as DELHI BELLY.

Folks please tell me if it all is true or is it just a film industry bull s..., you know what I mean?

Deseemoron   

When was the last time any of us stood up and fought?

Two distinct reactions emerged from the latest Mumbai bombings:

One; most people were found to be indifferent to the tragedies and went about their work, as if, it was just another media incident. It is generally proclaimed as the so called "Mumbai Spirit".

Two; exceeding number of people were seen to be expressing angry outrage and cursing the government for everything.

Both reactions evolve out of one common factor. Selfishness; self-centredness.

People went to work or carried on with whatever they were caught up with, because there was no choice; you've to earn your bread, feed your children, provide shelter, succour. It was a compulsion. At least it is understandable, though it has dangerous portents. Insensitivity can be evil and cruel if upheld as virtuous.

But, what about blaming the government aspect; of course with opposition parties adding fuel to the fire generously and impetuously? This happens out of our inherent tendency towards petulance and refusal to take responsibility.  We don't want to admit that most of us are hugely responsible for whatever is ailing us. How many of us have bothered about illegal parking when leaving our vehicles in crowded lanes; or dumping our rubbish indiscriminately; or habitually keeping an eye on a bag or a package left unattended  in a public place. What do you think the government is; a man you've appointed who should be lurking over the shoulder of every man/woman in the street or a public place? How many men would you then need for each member of our voluminous population?

Would you also please search your heart and tell me; do you all pay your taxes honestly, follow the civic laws and rules diligently; do you or do you not circumvent conditionalities and restrictions in a given situation, by means fair and foul?

And my intelligent brother, can you not see the designs of the attacker; the usurper? He is trying to divide you and me; to weaken our institutions to achieve his evil objectives.

Folks wake up, grow up and own up. You say, America didn't have another attack after 9/11. Yes it's true. But America didn't have another attack, because Americans were not blaming each other; they were standing together and telling the would be attacker that they were one and will remain one wherever the war on terror takes them. On 9/11 and thereafter, on the issue of terror the Americans and the political parties let the world know that on that front they are Americans first and Americans last. And we?

When was the last time that we stood up and fought? Time has come that I've to say: DON'T DUCK MAN. STAND UP AND FACE THE ATTACKER. I promise you, more than half his power would go when he sees us standing stoically together. Soon he'll  vanish altogether.


I'm just a deseemoron, but sometimes good thoughts come to me too.

Did he have life in him when Neeraj Grover was cut into pieces?

Folks,

Here's your deseemoron, the village idiot, again.

After my earlier musing on Maria Susairaj matter, 'SEARCH FOR JUSTICE', I read the relevant specifics of Sessions Judge M. W. Chandwani's judgement in the Indian Express today. Hon'ble Judge has stated that his reason of rejecting the prosecution's argument about the conspiracy theory is that, "for a feeble woman (Maria Susairaj), to kill a man with plenty of brawn, is impossible......Neeraj, who had plenty of brawn than Susairaj, it would not be possible for Susairaj, a girl 25 years old, by her feminine and with her feeble body to kill Neeraj Grover." (Sic).

But Sirs, my issue is different. I am not talking about the first flush of stabbings supposedly by Emile Jerome which perhaps did or did not kill Neeraj Grover. I am talking about the hacking later on; the cutting of his body into several (300?) pieces bit, in which apparently Emile Jerome and Maria Susairaj both took part. In any event, this has been admitted by her that she herself had gone out to purchase the butcher's knife and the three large bags, to give effect to their plan for cutting the body into several small pieces for easy stuffing into the bags and transportation to the place of disposal. So at least, this part of the conspiracy is admitted by her.

Now the crucial question is; was Neeraj really dead when they cut his body into pieces or did he die as they were in the process of cutting him into pieces? Has it not happened before, that even after grievous injuries or after having been given up as dead, a person was revived at the hospital because undetected by others, there was still life left in him/her? The veracity of either contention could only have been proved by forensic examination, which was cruelly denied because of either sheer adventurism or plain conspiracy to kill by the two accused.

Please assume for a moment that Neeraj was not quite dead when he was cut into pieces. And if it were so, then was it not an act of murder to cut his body into pieces? If Hon'ble Judge's judgement is founded on an assumption by him, that " it would not be possible for Susairaj, a girl 25 years old, by her feminine and with her feeble body to kill Neeraj Grover"; then why can't the other assumption also not be given credence or consideration, that "he was alive when he was cut into pieces and thus was inadvertently or may be even deliberately murdered?".

Thus, I beg you intelligent folks and the judge to answer me: "My Lord; DID HE HAVE LIFE IN HIM, WHEN NEERAJ GROVER WAS CUT INTO PIECES?"

I'm a village idiot, but in true democracy even I deserve an answer.

Cheers,

Deseemoron       

Maria Susairaj case: search for justice

Hi folks!
I m just a deseemoron; a village idiot really. So please don't take it to heart if I ask a few uncomfortable questions.

Sirs, will somebody tell me as to how is it upheld that Maria is not a killer; that she did not participate in hapless Neeraj Grover's murder? Where's the evidence to establish this? If I say that she too is a murderer; that she too joined Emile Jerome Mathew in actively killing Neeraj, how will you fault me or disprove my contention? What the hell am I saying, you'll ask? Let me explain.

First of all, I m not at all saying that she had any hand in the first round of stabbing, which was probably committed entirely by Emile in a state of rage, as a pure crime of passion and that Maria was merely a helpless bystander who was too scared to interfere after already getting injured on her initial interjections. What I m saying is that she participated in the murder afterward; after having returned from the shops where she had gone for purchasing a butcher's knife and the three large bags. Now here's my story:

When Maria returns from the store, she and Emile find that Neeraj is still alive, but too injured to make any move or make any sound. First they are furious, but then a vicious idea comes to Emile or both of them. To spite him, they perform wild sex right there; right in front of him. Alternately, may be when she returns from the store, they take him as dead, but in actual fact he is still alive; still breathing though  not noticeably. In other words, if even at this stage he had been taken to a hospital, probably he would have been saved.

Then, while he is still breathing, they proceed to cut him into pieces, fifty of them, hundred, three hundred, whichever; who's there to count? Thereafter, they stuff his body pieces into the bags, have their shower, a hearty meal, put the bags in the borrowed car and drive down to a God forsaken place, in a jungle by the sea. They burn the disjointed corpse and bury it - all the parts included, in a freshly dug hole in the ground. When the police searches later, they find only some unburnt bones to pick, which perhaps did match Neeraj's DNA.

Now, how would you prove that it did not happen, the way I've stated? Where's the proof to the contrary? There's no forensic evidence either way, anyway. Does it not happen or has it not happened before, that a person has survived grievous body injuries or even ruthless multi stabbings? And I m not even reflecting on all the animalistic, inhuman acts they committed when they cut Neeraj's body into parts, which too perhaps is not less than any murder anyway. I am only saying that he was still alive when they cut him and that Maria is also his murderer just as Emile is. Prove me wrong; and if you can not, then, how can you hold her guilty only  for participating in the destruction of the evidence?  How can your judgment be solely based on her testimony; on what she says; when you know that she has changed her testimony so many times?

Is it not a travesty of justice?

Sirs, I want to know, what you think of what I've said, for after all I m merely a deseemoron; a village idiot.

Deseemoron