Tera Rang Aisa Chadh Gaya, Koi Aur Rang Na Chadh Sakey…

He came, he inspired, and he conquered. This summer Aamir Khan forced India to cancel all Sunday morning appointments. Generations across the country, across the world, sat glued to their television sets or their computers to find out what else is wrong with India.

In 13 episodes, Aamir Khan initiated, established and supported a movement – a movement for change – change that India and Indians had been wanting for years. He appeared on our screens and spoke to us in impeccable Hindi [and several regional languages], bringing a new issue, a new problem and a new solution to us every Sunday.

A flood of sentiments, arguments, opinions, donations, questions, monumental praise and even criticism followed every episode. India was on its feet. Her citizens were thinking, making choices, taking decisions, and waking up. Or were they?

I waited to watch the last episode depicting Satyamev Jayate’s journey so far. I waited till an hour ago. It was telecast on August 15^th, 2012 in India – the day I flew out of the country to make my way back to a remote corner of the USA.

TIME magazine featured Khan on their cover with a caption asking readers whether an actor can change a nation.

If TIME magazine had watched even one of the 13 episodes, or looked closely at their own cover photo, they probably could have seen the underlying truth. Aamir Khan is not ‘an actor’. He’s an Indian. An Indian looking to create, build, and leave behind a better India for generations to come. I don’t think anyone is that good an actor. Good enough to pull off something like Satyamev Jayate and actively, personally follow up on every issue to see it to its destination.

His eyes give him away. They are brimming with grit and determination to make things happen, to make the right things happen. His gaze holds your eyes, draws you into the episode with him, makes you weep as he wipes his tears away, and infuriates you as you learn of new atrocities. No actor can do that. Only an Indian who, in every drop of his blood, loves and feels his country can. He can. He did.

So did several before him. Shaheed Bhagat Singh, Lokmanya Tilak, Babasaheb Ambedkar, even Mahatma Gandhi invoked this level of emotion in Indians the world over. So why is he different?

Because he is not advocating radicalism or leaning towards the Left or Right. He’s standing up for reality and advocating humanity, responsibility, and practicality. His ‘fans’ aren’t extremists or non-violence practitioners. His followers are the common people who experience these issues every day and have kept quiet for years thinking no one cared, and that nothing could be done either way.

Question is, why did we need an Aamir Khan to stand up and say he would do this? Why hadn’t we done something about either of these issues ourselves? Or do we always look to Hindi cinema for solutions? We let Shah Rukh Khan teach us romance, and we wait for Aamir to debut on television to mobilize ourselves. Why?

Does it not sting you somewhere deep inside that you’re asking for a Satyamev Jayate Season 2? Is it, on some level, not embarrassing that we’d need a second season?

Is it only Aamir Khan’s moral responsibility to mobilize the country every time it falls asleep or begins to doze off? Why do we always wait till the last minute, wait for a wake-up call? Purely and simply as legal citizens of India, we are required to follow the law. Everyone from our country’s premier, politicians, lawyers, doctors, engineers, scientists, painters, plumbers, tailors, actors, students, housewives, is required to dutifully and honestly fulfil their individual responsibility as laid out in the Constitution of India.

We lived under foreign rule for centuries. For 65 years, we have had the legal freedom to be responsible for our own country, our own lives. Somewhere down that road, we became complacent, materialistic and insensitive. Six and a half decades down the road, do we still find it impossible to initiate problem-solving techniques ourselves and do we still feel the need for a constant wake-up call or reminder to tell us to do our job better?

I find it hard to be saying and asking all these things because: a) I have no idea if anyone is ever going to read this, b) I’m actually a staunch supporter of the sheer spirit and élan with which Aamir Khan went about creating and executing Satyamev Jayate, and c) It’s 1:28am and I haven’t slept in a long, long time so thinking objectively and clearly kind of becomes difficult.

Despite the severe sleep deprivation, I wonder why people of India continue to flood Satyamev Jayate’s pages with requests of a second season. Maybe 12 heart-breaking episodes and windows into reality weren’t enough to rattle them out of their seats and get them moving, for good.

It makes patriotism look like a battery-powered emotion that runs out when you overuse it in a short period of time. Then it needs to be recharged or needs a ‘second season’ of batteries to get going again. Is this why we became independent?

It took us 65 years to discuss female foeticide, child sexual abuse, domestic violence etc. on a national, public platform. Do we want to wait another 65 to discuss the next dozen issues?

If India wants to change, and I believe in my heart that it does, then why can’t we change without requesting a nudge at regular intervals? Are we not all Aamir Khans? Aren’t we all the trustees and beneficiaries of our own country? 

From 40°C to -40°C: Montana, A home away from home

I’ve lived in Montana, USA for exactly 5 months and 1 week now. It has been nothing short of an adventure all the way- settling in, getting used to driving on the wrong side of the road and the wrong side of the car, wearing 4 layers of clothes to avoid freezing to death, learning how to cook the weirdest stuff to stay alive when time is short, learning how to cook in general, getting used to waking up on my own without mom calling out every 5mins., talking to photos of Ginny [the best dog in the world] because she isn’t here in person to talk to, doubting my memory and writing down every little thing and ending up with 15 “to-do” lists stuck to the walls, moving into ‘my own house’ and setting it up, exploring campus and whatever part of Missoula I managed to walk through during Fall, and most importantly, making new friends.

Moving to Missoula, MT. from Pune, has been the weirdest, bravest, and most sensible thing I have done in a long time. There aren’t as many colours here, not to mention, the number of people [or the sheer absence of people] is the one thing that can make you love and hate this place. There are times when I’ve pulled out my hair because there are no people here, everything closes at 8pm or if it’s a really cool place, 9pm. By that theory, The Pita Pit must be the coolest place ever because it’s open till 3am. And I complained about the ‘night-life’ in Pune. Learned my lesson. Be grateful for what you have, when you have it, before you have to move to Missoula.

People back home went all out to convince me that I was going to regret not knowing how to cook Indian food. Well, news flash folks, I’m not regretting anything. I stand by what I said- I will adapt. I honestly don’t care if I’m eating Mexican or Ethiopian or Chinese or Punjabi food. There is no way in hell that you can survive in any part of Montana if you’re an ‘I don’t need adaptation. I am set in my ways’ person.  

Living in Montana has made me appreciate India in an all-new manner. I would have never seen home the way I do today had it not been for these last 5 months and 7 days. I’m not saying I now have this pretty rosy image of India; if anything, my perspective has become more grounded in reality and my eyes have learned to see what I was unable to, or didn’t want to see before. Sometimes you cannot see beyond grassland habitat or dry-deciduous forests so you’re used to spotting Tigers in Ranthambhore or Bandhavgarh but not in Siberia’s snowy mountains. Then, when you move to the snowy mountains, you adapt. Your vision adapts with you. So you never know what you’re capable of until you actually attempt something new. And if you’re afraid of every new thing that comes your way, you’ll never learn. You’ll never move ahead. And stagnation is something I am not cool with.

I don’t like not having even one Sun-ray in an entire day but yes, snow is the prettiest white thing I have ever seen. It’s dark outside till 8:30am, sometimes, 9:30am and then it’s dark by 4pm. I still find that outrageous. But I have never had a more intense learning period in my life. I had no idea I could do the things I am managing to do every day for the last 5 months until I actually got here. I had no idea I would love journalism this much. I had no idea I would hate being referred to as a scientist someday.

When you move to a different continent, and that too, to one of the most remote corner it can have, you are forced to look back at your life and then look at your present in such a way that it alters almost every inch of your idea of your future. This time away from home helps you understand what really matters to YOU and why. It helps put things in a practical perspective and rather unexpectedly, it helps you realize that you are actually capable of being a lot busier in life than you have been thus far and that scares you a little bit. But like I’ve said before, being overworked is loads better than being out of work, particularly if you’re one of those people who loves what they do.

So no matter how hard it is to be living so far away from home, to be away from Indian wilderness for almost a year, the trick it keep in mind that the struggle is what will get me where I belong; that the only way out, is forward; and that when I leave Missoula for good, I will BE a journalist, I will be taking with me, tonnes of memories, good times, bad times, particularly tough times, and the confidence-knowledge-skill combination that will equip me to battle whatever the world throws at me.

And while I’m at it, here’s what Missoula looks like. 

[CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE]

Rendered Speechless - when the 'other side of the coin' goes missing.

I guess it’s true what they say about time. Or most of it anyway. Time heals; time teaches; time changes. Time essentially also means age. It means growing older, and hopefully, more mature. Time can be your best friend and your worst enemy all at the same time.

In a land far from home, where the weather is different, the people are different, the culture, the traditions are all different, time is your only hope to make it through because you know, that no matter how bad it gets, it’s going to pass.

Another cliché about time is that it teaches you to value that which is precious and discard that which isn’t worth your time.

At home, comfortable in one’s space, surrounded by familiarity in faces, places, names and food, one tends to take all of that for granted. People complain about their country, its politics, its financial crises, its corrupt officials, its miserable education system, inflation, food quality, crime rates, safety system, basically anything that they can express their opinion on. And it’s real easy to do all that in a familiar environment.

But once you’re out of your comfort zone, in a new place, those social, economical, political and environmental problems of your homeland travel with you in your mind and bug you no matter where you are.

Personally, I prefer to criticize something only if I intend to do something about it myself. I think the people that take the effort to do their homework and make an informed choice when they vote, have the right to complain or protest about their lazy politicians. Which is why, the rest of this “article” will focus on such people. Not the ones who crib about issues without ever intending to work towards resolving them. I call these people, these second kinds, drawing room heroes [meaning they can watch a patriotic movie and feel the need to do something for their country till such time as they leave that room]. One of my English teachers in school used that term once and it stuck with me.

I know that there are a lot of things wrong with the world, and specifically, with where I come from. But where I come from, has a lot to do with who I am, as is true for everyone. Our culture and our education influences us enormously.

As an Indian citizen, I have the right to criticize the things that go on in my country which anger me or hurt me or just simply baffle me. I do not, however, think that as a journalist, I am allowed to present to people, only one side of a story, of an issue, of a crime; while leaving out the ‘significant other’ to eventually have an incomplete collection of information.

I think this tallies significantly with the ethics and biases that journalists should and should not have respectively.

We do, probably, as journalists already go in with a bias when we cover stories, or write articles, or even do interviews. The questions we ask, the people we interview, the way we edit our videos, the quotes we choose to leave out, all of that probably reflects a bias. Note: “probably”.

But where is the line between a “white-bias” [kind of like a white lie that doesn’t really harm any one] and losing your objectivity?

When we cover important, sensitive issues, like human trafficking for the sex trade, is it ethical/objective to leave out, even in a preview or a sample of your work, facts, which if included, would definitely change the impact it would have on your audience?

Is it right to put an entire country in bad light and illustrate how prominent this heinous trade is in that country, and then let a completely different country come in and play hero? I have no problem with Nepal being the hero here. I have a problem with India being cast almost as an indifferent, cruel, sold-out country.

Yes the infamous illegal sex trade in Mumbai is high. But is it not your responsibility to tell your viewers how much it is has gone down since serious crackdowns began and were implemented, or since cops were suspended for not doing their duty and accepting bribes? 

Is it right to say that an NGO from Nepal came in and rescued this young girl who was sold to a ‘hustler’ in Mumbai and that the Indian police are involved in tolerating and ignoring the continuity of such crimes?

Does generalizing all of the Indian police make you an objective reporter? The sheer number of people you point your finger at when you accuse them of taking bribes, should itself make you want to be more specific and thorough in what you present.

I have never had a harder time than this last one-hour ever since I’ve been in the United States.

A fellow journalist made a video about human trafficking and how traumatic it is for those who are victims of the trade. In the subtitles, as a victim was being interviewed, was the line, “..and the Indian police are involved in these crimes. It’s like they sold us too.” The translations said that they [the cops] would take a little money and let the prostitution racket continue under their noses.

The worst thing for this film was to have me sitting there. I didn’t come out speechless because I was hurt by what that lady went through. It must have been shattering, I’m sure. I came out speechless because I could not believe that this journalist had just generalized an entire country, and its work force. I’m sorry but because this is not a ‘journalistic piece’ I’m just going to be honest and say- I can never trust anything that this reporter writes or says again.

I don’t know if she had researched NGOs and government organizations in India who work endlessly for rescuing and rehabilitating victims of human trafficking. These groups look after, treat and find employment for such victims who end up getting infected with HIV or AIDS.

Either way, she had completely missed, or didn’t have in her video, this entire “other side of things”. It doesn’t concern me because it would have neutralized her coverage if she had it, but because it would have made her entire endeavor seem much more objective, and genuine.

Just for the record, if a journalist, including me, is ever thinking of accusing an Indian, or more than one Indian [or a person of any other nationality] of being involved in such horrifying criminal activity, that journalist had better be seriously backed up by chunks of evidence. You can’t say that 75% of Nepal’s trafficking victims were sold to India in the 1980s and walk away. You owe it to your audience to tell them what the situation is 21 years later in 2011. If you’re accusing thousands of people in one go, you HAVE to be sure that they are all guilty. If not, stop generalizing.

I don’t take what I saw lightly. I was and am offended by something that shows my country and its people in such bad light.

I am, like any young educated and responsible Indian, fiercely patriotic. I will not stand for this kind of finger pointing. But I have been taught by generations before me, that if someone else puts you in bad light, work towards eliminating that perspective by being a controlled, respectable person. And most of us will silently work our way towards letting people know how we really are but you never want to get on our wrong side.

Hopefully, being the bigger person and learning to forgive are things that get easier with time. For now though, I am just an angry, offended Indian sympathetic towards the girl who was sold at an age when she should have been in school, learning.

I think I just understood what objectivity means. People sometimes link the meanings or usage of certain words to experiences they have had, or things they can draw from. Each individual has a unique thought process. Mine just told me that this is how I am going to remember objectivity and ethic.

Three years ago, I would have included the name of the concerned journalist. But with time, age, and thankfully, some maturity, I understand that it would be unfair, and unethical to do so.

Questions, Comments, Criticism, Insights- welcome.