'I Want No Fame, No Money, Just My Freedom' : Sanjay Dutt

INN interviewed bollywood star actor, Sanjay Dutt at his residence. This is the last interview taken before his verdict to get jail for five years. 

Excerpts of the interview:

On Thursday evening, Imperial Heights, the famous Dutt building in Pali Hill was buzzing, thanks to little Iqra and Shahran, Sanjay Dutt’s twins with his wife Manyata. Their squeals of excitements at the sight of a visitor, who they wanted to play with, took over the room. Very fit and with tattoos on practically every visible portion of his anatomy, Sanjay Dutt played the indulgent father as we chatted in an exclusive interview. “Shahran is a ditto copy of my childhood,” he laughed.

At 54, Sanjay seems a happy man. Son of Sardaar, his latest film running successfully and couple of more good film in shooting and one is in under post production stage.

Did you ever imagine that you’d be a new father at 50? 
It’s a lovely surprise for me. This is the most satisfying phase of my life! I have two lovely kids, a nice wife. My whole family is together in the same building and my career is doing fine! I was truly waiting for something like this.

That sounds great, especially since you’ve always felt that life’s been unfair to you. Is Manyata responsible for the change?
There are phases when you feel terrible, and phases like this one help balance your thoughts. I was going through a very difficult phase when I met Manyata. I felt secure and stable after she came into my life — in fact, a lot of things came into my life when she did. She brought me back on track. There were so many issues and by God’s grace, all are getting sorted out. I know I was very unstable and unhappy all through my life. I lost my mother and then my father. Losing dad was like losing the bearings of my life. My sisters took it badly, but I took it worse. Throughout my lean phases, dad was like a solid rock, supporting me, whether it was work, or my jail term. And everything crumbled after he was gone! Today life’s become much more comfortable and beautiful. We all live in the same building; it’s a big happy family. I mean my sisters’ kids, my kids, all of them together… it’s just unbelievable. Touch wood!

Is there anything now that you feel you lack? 
Yes. I want my freedom back. I have been embroiled in court cases for the last 20 years. I have lost all my youth and a lot of time! I couldn’t do many things. Now my final hearing is coming up. I just pray that I get my freedom back. I want no money, no fame, just my freedom!

Are you getting into politics again?
Yes, I want to. My parents were in the Congress, and I have come back to it. There was a phase when I meandered to some other political party, but it was a mistake. I went a little haywire. If I am approached to contest elections, I will give it a thought.

You look fitter than before. What do you do?  
I work out like a maniac, three times more than anything I did in the past. I am off carbs, salt, sweets, and live on a fish diet. And I promise I am not going to indulge in food again. See, when I was 49 years old, I was fine, but the moment I touched 50, I felt that something within me had changed drastically. My metabolic rate dropped.

Are you a doting father?
Absolutely! With the kids around, this is a different world to me. I spend a lot of time with them till they go to their playschool. I wake up early, have breakfast with them. I come back from work and am with them again till they go to bed by 10 pm. Touch wood, this is what I wanted always.

Do you feel the absence of your first child, Trishala?
All the time! I try my best to keep in touch with her but sometimes the timings are inconvenient for both of us. I obviously can’t go to the US because I am not given a visa. But I try and meet her outside the country sometimes. Unfortunately, I cannot spend as much time with her as I want to. She’s grown into a beautiful girl! One thing that really bothers me is that the time and moments I am spending with Iqra and Shahran, I wish I would have spent with Trishala when she was growing up. I really miss it. And for that I am apologetic to Trishala. I know she understands.

Can’t she shift here to be with you? 
I can’t see Trishala in this country. It would be unfair for me to uproot her. She has a strong base there. She loves New York City, her friends and life are there. I remember, years ago, we were in the family court and the judge told me that if I wanted to bring her back to India then I should do it in phases, never uproot her. I really understood what he meant. At that time, we didn’t have the Pizza Hut and McDonald’s culture in Mumbai. And that was Trishala’s growing up phase and she wanted all this. It would have been unfair.

Trishala wants to get into movies but you are dead against it. Why?
None of my sisters are in the movies, nor are my nieces going to be. That’s how Dutt sahab, my dad, brought up the girls in the family and I am just carrying his thought forward. If he had been alive today, Trishala wouldn’t have thought about getting into movies. In any case, she’s worked so hard in her academics. She has seen me go through my court trauma and she was very passionate about becoming a criminal lawyer to fight cases for innocent people. She studied forensic science. I really think she should continue it.

But it seems her heart lies in movies.
There’s a lot of labour that goes behind the glamour. Many youngsters are attracted to it without knowing the dynamics of it. It’s not an easy route to success. Plus, Trishala doesn’t know Hindi. Also, there are too many things involved. I have told her several times that the film industry doesn’t guarantee superstardom to everyone. There’s a grind you have to go through. Your lineage and surname become irrelevant after your first film. Audiences do not care.

Are you suggesting that the film industry is a big bad world for girls? 
Absolutely not. Both my father and mother belonged here. The film industry is a lovely family and I respect it. I am only trying to say it’s not easy.

Unlike many of your contemporaries, you are still sustaining your stardom. 
I don’t want to compare myself with anyone and I have gracefully accepted my age. I am not scared to take up roles that suit my age. Secondly, I am physically and mentally fit. Sometime ago I know I went out of shape and everything career-wise went haywire. Then I got Karan Johar’s Agneepath and I was born again! I think, as long as you accept your age and are willing to experiment with those kinds of roles, you can sustain your career. I can’t do what Salman does. It’ll look odd on me. You cannot keep thinking you are young; you have to accept age someday. Salman is at that juncture where I was once. The feeling is surreal! But listen, I am not saying I am against working with younger actresses. For me, the story has to sound sensible.

You have patched up with Sanjay Gupta after five years and even with Kangana Ranaut… 
I’ve known Sanjay since he was an assistant director in a movie called Thanedaar. We have done some great films together. Even though we weren’t on talking terms, I never spoke ill about him. Recently I was at Amitji’s birthday party. When I came in, Sanjay was standing at the foyer. We just happened to look at each other after five years. And before we realised it, we were hugging each other. I am sure even he felt my absence in his life. See, every family fights. I remember my youngest uncle (dad’s brother) fought with my dad and they didn’t talk to each other for 10 years. But eventually, everything vanished in a second when they met somewhere. It’s a matter of connect eventually.

Do you miss being in Bigg Boss? Why aren’t you there this time?
Of course I miss being there. It was a wonderful experience. I don’t give too much emphasis to whys and hows. Salman is there and that’s as good as me. That’s the relationship I share with him. He is like my younger brother. We are always there for each other, be it good times or bad times. Let me tell you, there are not many people around you in times of crisis. But Salman has been with me and I have been with him throughout. I am worried about him as much as he is about me. There can be never be a problem with Salman. Touch wood.

What’s your dream role?
I have done all kinds of roles, but Tony Montana’s role in Scarface is something I would love to play.

You are reprising Pran sahab’s role in Zanjeer. Have you met him?
I worked with Pransaab in few films. But I haven’t met him recently. Once we start shooting, I’ll go and see Pransaab.

You are close to Amrita Singh. Has it affected your equation with Saif today?
Yes, Amrita is a friend, but we are in touch off and on. I don’t know why Saif and Bebo didn’t invite me to their wedding. I think it was a closed affair. But I am fine with it. I wish them all the best. I have known Lolo and Bebo since they were little girls. Saif and I have done many films together and we have had some great times together in my house. 

Sanjay Dutt’s advice to his favourite five:

• Salman Khan: Bro, you are doing a great job, great charity work, just maintain whatever you are doing. You have God’s blessings. And yes, get married.
• Shah Rukh Khan: You have made peace with a lot of people, but you should make peace with everybody. We are all one big family.
• Aamir Khan: You make the right movies and choose perfect roles. Your TV show Satyamev Jayate had great intent. You are one of the greatest actors we have. Aamir, stay in touch like before.
• Akshay Kumar: He’s my paaji. Whenever his film is released and I find it interesting, I call him and he takes my call. Bro, remain the way you are.
• Ajay Devgn: He works from the heart. And he spends a lot of money. Bro, don’t be like me. You need to keep a check on your money.

What Did YSC Party Supremo Said on Media?

With a “we told you so” tone, Telugu Desam leaders have pounced on YS Vijayalakshmi’s interview in India Television in which she says her party could support a Congress-led UPA in 2014. Vijayalakshmi is the late chief minister YS Rajasekhara Reddy’s widow and Jaganmohan Reddy’s mother.

Not that the YSR Congress party’s leaders have not indicated such a position before. They did so before the Presidential elections last year when the YSRC voted in favour of Pranab Mukherjee and Jagan in fact, took permission to come out of jail to travel to the state assembly to cast his vote.

In contrast, Jagan did not even agree to a ‘mulaqat’ with NDA candidate PA Sangma inside Hyderabad’s Chanchalguda central prison. It is well-known in political circles in Andhra Pradesh that YSRC’s reported aversion to ‘communal’ BJP will automatically mean they will end up supporting a Congress-led political arrangement after the general elections.

But the fact that Jagan’s mother, who is also the honorary president of the party, chose to spell it out while talking of her angst over her son being in jail for the last nine months, has set tongues wagging in Hyderabad and Delhi’s political corridors. The politically unwise move is seen as an act of desperation to somehow strike a deal with the ruling party, given the fact that the Congress is equally desperate to somehow ensure a decent harvest of MPs from Andhra Pradesh.

Not that in the interview, Vijayalakshmi is all honey and sugar for the Congress leadership (read Sonia and Rahul Gandhi). In fact, she says, “if Sonia was fair, she would not have harassed Jagan” and that “we don’t think things happen without Rahul Gandhi‘s knowledge”. She also reveals that though the Congress is interested in a merger, her party is not.

But by stating in the same breath that YSRC MPs could join the government and seek ministerial berths in 2014, Vijayalakshmi has exposed her political naivete and given an opportunity to her political rivals to exploit. No wonder, TDP leaders want to know if closer to the elections, YSRC and Congress will be sailing in the same boat.

This has by far been the YSRC biggest failing. It has not succeeded in removing the public perception, particularly in urban pockets, that Jagan is open to striking a behind-the-scenes deal, in exchange for freedom. This is being exploited by the TDP that calls YSRC a mere offshoot of the Congress tree.

The YSRC has tried to blunt the TDP propaganda of a deal between the Congress and YSRC by suggesting that it is the TDP and the Congress who are into match-fixing to ensure Jagan does not get bail. It points to the Presidential election to say it voted for the Congress candidate without getting any favour in return.

The TDP obviously stands to gain if it discredits Jagan as “an opportunistic politician who will go to any extent to protect his wealth, earned through dubious means”. Chandrababu Naidu realises he has lost the opposition space to Jagan and this is his strategy to reclaim it.

The Congress meanwhile, is having fun, hoping to divide the opposition votes between the two and gain in the bargain. Like it is inside the Andhra Pradesh assembly. Ahead of the Budget session, parties like the TRS, YSRC and MIM are pushing the TDP to move a no-confidence motion. Naidu’s reluctance to do so is being exploited by the YSRC to insinuate that he does not want the Kiran Kumar Reddy government to fall, despite the latter having a very slender majority.

The YSR Congress has been putting up a brave face, ensuring some important leader from either the Congress or the Telugu Desam joins it every few days. Sister Sharmila is on a padayatra and trying to strike a chord with the people, by attacking both the Congress and the TDP. But scratch the surface and you would find things are not exactly hunky-dory. The party knows the lack of Jagan on the campaign trail will hurt it. In order to have a headstart, it has announced constituency incharges for 45 assembly seats, indicating they will be the party candidates in 2014.

Realising that the ET interview has only allowed fingers to be pointed at it, YSRC is now in damage control mode, rubbishing Congress hopes of returning to power in Delhi next year. And that they will cross the bridge when they come to it.

But the doubts over who will land up with who after the elections are unlikely to go away in a hurry.

Looking For A Job In UAE? Let The 'Biggest Recruiter' Help

Social media fast becoming biggest recruiter, with both employers and candidates frequenting it.

Your chances of landing a job in the UAE will be stronger and brighter if you keep yourself busy on social media as thousands of jobs are posted on this medium on a daily basis.

Fast becoming the biggest recruiter in the country, social media has become a place where employers come scouting for candidates and vice-versa.

A Roadmap To Apolitical Governance...

“The Indian Parliament to be dissolved shortly”
“No more Parliament - new systems in place”

Thus screamed the newspaper headlines. I read on…

“It has been decided to dissolve the Indian Parliament within the next 6 months. An interim government will take care of the day-to-day functioning of the country until new systems are in place – in about two years.

Along the lines of the civil services, an IPPPS has been mooted by the Government recently and IPPPS Act, 2012 and IIS Act, 2012 have been passed by both the Houses of the Parliament. The IPPPS and IIS systems will be implemented at both the Central and State levels. The present serving politicians at the Centre and States will be pensioned off in the next two years.

What is IPPPS? 
IPPPS is Indian Professional Politics & Public Service. Henceforth, the country will not be run by parliamentarians (representing different political parties), elected by the people. The parliamentary system is being replaced by IPPPS.

Eligibility criteria for IPPPS

• Any Indian citizen who is between 23 and 35 years of age
• Is at least a Graduate
• Has to qualify with at least 60% marks in the IPPPS Entrance Exam to be conducted by UPPPSC (Union Professional Politics & Public Service Commission)
• Score at least 70% in the Group Discussion & Final Interview
• The marks scored in the Group Discussion & Final Interview will be averaged out to arrive at the final marks

Composition of UPPPSC
The Union Professional Politics & Public Service Commission shall comprise:

• A Retired Chief Justice of Supreme Court to act as the Chairman of UPPPSC
• Two eminent economists
• Two Bank CEOs – one from the private sector and the other from a PSB
• Two eminent Corporate Sector CEOs
• Two eminent IT & ITES company CEOs
• Editors each of a leading newspaper and TV news channel
• A top HR expert from one of the IIMs

The Process

• UPPPSC will announce the schedule for IPPPS  Entrance Examination to be held once in four years
• A UPPPSC Examination Panel comprising experts from different fields shall set Main Subject and Ancillary Subjects test papers in Economics, Political Science, Public Administration, Information Technology, Engineering, Agricultural Sciences, Current Affairs & General Knowledge, and Statistics
• Candidates should choose any one subject from 2. above as their Main Subject and choose any two as Ancillary Subjects
• Another UPPPSC Expert Panel shall be responsible for Group Discussion and Interview.
• Each UPPPSC batch shall consist of 500 candidates

Post-Selection Process 

• The candidates who qualify the rigorous UPPPSC Selection Process will be conferred IPPPS
• The selected IPPPS candidates will be put through an intensive one year training programme which will provide them with all the inputs and skills to take over the administration of our vast country. During this one year, they will do on-the-job stints of 45 days each at rural, semi-urban, urban and metropolitan centres to round off their training. A knowledge of municipal administration will add immense value to their training
• The selected IPPPS candidates will also be given Information Technology training
• They will also be given Austerity & Social Service training for a month at ASSCI (Austerity & Social Service College of India) with a 15-day stint in an NGO
• They will be imparted lobbying, negotiation, strategic communication and inter-departmental co-ordination skills to achieve timely and seamless execution of projects. These skills are also expected to equip them with exceptional capabilities to achieve diplomatic successes globally.
• During the entire training period of the IPPPS candidates, an independent Group of Observers will select the best candidates and appoint them as the President, Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, MPPS (Members of Politics & Public Service)
• Each IPPPS batch will function for a period of 5 years. At the end of 5 years, they will facilitate the smooth entry of the next batch of IPPPS candidates as President, Prime Minister, Ministers, and MPPS etc.
• While the fresh batch of IPPPS takes over the functions, the earlier batch of IPPPS will act as advisors, mentors and facilitators for the next five years.
• As the IPPPS system settles, the earliest batches of IPPPS would be redeployed to work in different fields as trainers, mentors, advisors, Group of Observers, UPPPSC Selection and Expert Panels and different Committees, etc.

Outcome of IPPPS

• The IPPPS will put an end to the current political establishment in the country. The country will be professionally run by Politicocrats who will function in the best interests of the country. Bureaucrats will work closely with the Politicocrats to give policies and projects correct direction for timely execution.
• Governance of rural, semi-urban, urban and metro centres will be on par as also the project implementation processes thereby infusing a balance and need-based progress and development at all centres in view of the in built professional approach of the IPPPS.
• India can now expect execution of plans in a time-bound manner as each IPPPS batch will aim to complete its projects within the mandated 5 years. For the long term projects, the earlier IPPPS project head and key IPPPS members will continue to aid the smooth completion of the project.
• The IPPPS is a high-paying job with excellent perks and a huge opportunity to serve the nation in an apolitical way.

A similar Indian Intelligence Service (IIS) is also in the process of being designed. The IIS officers will function under an independent agency that operates without any fear or favour….”

Our country to be run by professional politicians trained in public service…? No political parties…? No parliament…? No elections…? No corruption…? Seamless and timely execution of projects…? What will be the role of bureaucrats..? An independent Intelligence Agency..? What about our avowed democratic principles…?

I had a whole lot of questions …?!

A huge explosion woke me up from my longish dream with a start… I was sweating….It was 2 am. The transformer in my building had conked off with a big bang and there was no electricity….!

Exclusive: Meet 'Single' Narendra Modi's Wife 'Jashodaben'

By Likha Veer | INNLIVE

The world knows BJP prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi as a 'Bachelor'; however, 62-year-old Jashodaben claims to be the wife of the Gujarat Chief Minister.

 BJP’s prime ministerial nominee Narendra Modi has finally come out clean on his marital status declaring himself as a married man. 

In an affidavit submitted along with his nomination papers filed on Wednesday for the Vadodara Lok Sabha seat, Modi stated for the first time that he is married and that his wife’s name is Jashodaben.

ALSO READ: “I Am Narendra Modi's Wife - Jashodaben Chimanlal Modi"

Actress Jiah Khan's Journey: From Nishabd To Housefull

By Niloufer Khan / Mumbai

Bollywood upcoming actress Jiah Khan committed suicide by hanging herself with her dupatta to ceiling fan in her Juhu apartment here in Mumbai last night. 

Jiah Khan’s foray into Bollywood didn’t follow the usual song and item-dance routine. In fact, the concept of Nishabd (2007) her debut film, where she was the subject of the obsession of a much older man played by Amitabh Bachchan, didn’t go down too well with most Bollywood fans. The film sank at the box office and many people questioned Bachchan’s decision to act in the Ram Gopal Verma film.

However, the film made Jiah, then 18-years-old, an actor to watch out for given her apparent willingness to  take up roles categorised  as ‘bold’ in Bollywood. Therefore, almost immediately after her debut, Jiah was perhaps conveniently categorised as a girl who would never fit into a Yash Chopra or a Karan Johan romance.

'Shahrukh Come To Pakistan', If You Feel Insecure in India' - Hafiz Saeed

Jamat-ud-Da’wah (JuD) chief and Mumbai attacks mastermind Hafiz Mohammed Saeed has some ‘friendly advise’ for Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan.Saeed has asked Shah Rukh Khan to come to Pakistan if he feels insecure in India. “Shah Rukh will be welcome here,” Hafiz Saeed told a Pakistani Television channel in an interview.

Saeed’s invitation to SRK comes following the actor’s comments on what it means to be a Muslim since the 9/11 terror attack.

In a recent interview to Outlook Turning Points, SRK said, “I sometimes become the inadvertent object of political leaders who choose to make me a symbol of all that they think is wrong and unpatriotic about Muslims in India.”

“There have been occasions when I have been accused of bearing allegiance to our neighbouring nation rather than my own country – this even though I am an Indian, whose father fought for the freedom of India,” SRK added.

In Saturday’s interview, Hafiz Saeed demanded that the United States take notice of the statement by the 

Indian home minister Sushil Kumar Shinde regarding Hindu terrorist camps in India and carry out drone attacks. “The US should carry out drone attacks on these camps in India,” he said.

Actor Hrithik Roshan Is The 'Real Superhero' Of Bollywood

By Niloufer Khan / Mumbai

To pour yourself into a latex suit and save the world by leaping from buildings isn’t an easy role to pull off. Just ask Bollywood’s mega star Shah Rukh Khan. He tried his hand at it in Ra.One. But the billion-plus box office debacle might make him wary of taking on roles with magical powers again.

But there’s one actor in Bollywood who isn’t worried about playing a bloke with magical powers. Say hello to Hrithik Roshan, arguably one of India’s finest looking men.

In 2006, the 39-year-old hero gave movie-mad Indians their first taste of a Superman-style hero with Krrish, a sequel to the 2003 blockbuster Koi … Mil Gaya.

AirAsia-Tata Deal Positive for Indian Aviation

Malaysian no-frills carrier Air Asia’s announcement of its Indian joint venture comes at a time when airline companies in India are engaged in a fierce fare war. Is this just coincidental? There is no evidence to prove otherwise.

Jet Airways, SpiceJet, IndiGo and Air India are fighting a declining passenger traffic and in their bid to keep their “head above water”, as explained in this Firstpost analysis, are engaged in a “new round of bloodletting”.

This is just one of the bad news from Indian aviation. The government has not made much headway in making its aviation policy friendly for the companies.

Almost dead Kingfisher Airlines  itself is a grim reminder of the troubles in the sector.

Though most of the travails of Kingfisher are Chairman Vijay Mallya’s own creation, there are a few, like irrational fuel taxes and airport charges, which the government also has to take the blame for.

Despite this abundance of troubles in Indian aviation, AirAsia Chief Executive Officer Tony Fernandes is positive about the sector.

He thinks he can change people’s lives here. In an interview in Mint newspaper today, he has said that it is the driver whom he hired during his travel in India who gave him this confidence.

“This man took 40 hours to get from Madras to Delhi in a train and we were talking about fares (as he drove him around for meetings in Delhi) and how much he would pay to fly and that gave me the confidence to change many people’s lives in India and really create a product which could really be low-cost and make an impact,” Fernandes has been quoted as saying in the interview.

He told CNBC-TV18 that he hopes to start operations of the three-way joint venture by investing $30-50 million.

He said the company is not deterred by the high ATF rates and airport charges in India. He feels a progressive government with an eye on growth is more important. Clearly, his optimism stems from the recent policy reform initiatives undertaken by the government.

As far as strategy is concerned, he told the TV channel that Air Asia will do it differently from other airlines in India.

“We are here to create a new market, address new routes,” Fernandes told CNBC-TV18.

Mallya just became more confident
Among those who have become more confident after the three-way joint venture announcement yesterday is none other than Mallya, whose Kingfisher has not flown a single plane since October.

“With this deal, AirAsia is clearly going after the potential of the domestic market. This is one of the reasons why I have been relentlessly pursuing the re-start of Kingfisher, which I am very confident about with the support from all the stakeholders,” Mallya has been quoted as saying in a report in the Times of India.

Mallya’s confidence about Kingfisher may be a bit misplaced considering the sorry state of affairs at the airline, but the confidence he has about Air Asia’s entry is really something.

Fernandes’s grit and determination is storied. According to this Reuters report, in 2001 he forayed into aviation by buying “the then loss-making AirAsia from Malaysian conglomerate DRB-Hicom for about 33 cents and took on the airline’s debt of $13 million”.

When he started off, the company just had two Boeing planes, one destination and a staff of 250. In five years, he had 30 Boeing 737-300 aircraft and 15 Airbus A320s. It also started flying to more than 45 destinations in Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Macau, China, Philippines, Cambodia, Vietnam and Myanmar, according to this report.

Now the airline flies across more than 20 countries and has five associate companies AirAsia X, Thai AirAsia, Indonesia AirAsia, Philippines’ AirAsia Inc and AirAsia Japan.

The growth is fabulous considering that the company started operations during the tumultuous post-9/11 days.

In the years to follow, Fernandes fought many a battle, against rivals and also the Malayasian government in his bid to clinch routes. He lobbied with various governments in the South East Asian nations to open up the market for low-cost airlines, according to a report in the ToI.

Bigger rivals were forced to follow AirAsia and start low-cost airlines.

The phenomenal success is also because Fernandes is a hands on CEO. Once every month he works as a cabin crew member or supervises loading and unloading, another report in the ToI said.

Shining through all these is Fernandes’ determination. “Go with your gut, give it your best bet and you may fail, but don’t give up,” he once said in an interview.

This is the animal spirits that India is lacking in at present. And, naturally, the response to the announcement from India, in Fernandes’ own words, has been “amazing”.

“The Indians are very excited about it. It’s something I am very proud of, it’s something that’s been long in the making,” he told Mint.

One thing is for sure, with the confidence he exudes and people’s goodwill, this Malaysian of Indian origin—his father Stephen Fernandes was an Indian from Goa and mother Ena Fernandes a Malaysian from south India—is all set to change the dynamics of the much-battered Indian aviation.

Special Story: Has King Khan’s Crown Lost Its Lustre?

By Niloufer Khan / INN Bureau

We are all familiar with the story of the boy from nowhere. Over the past 22 years, it has been recounted so often that it has become myth. He is the ordinary young man who goes into a big, bad world and, against all expectations, conquers it. The story of Shah Rukh Khan is as outlandish as any plot in his most successful films. Much like Raj in Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge, his is the story of the outsider who wins against the odds. And again like Raj, Shah Rukh has been the poster boy of liberalised India, a metaphor for both progressive and traditional values, idealism and aspiration, the harmonious blending of East and West. But that was 18 years ago. Now Shah Rukh is Rahul in Chennai Express, with the same story arc, inspiring a few laughs but largely an object of ridicule. Critics who expected more, demanded more from a man at the very peak of his career, have expressed only disappointment, but this has done little to stop the film, a juggernaut if ever there was one, from steaming to Rs 200 crore in record time.

Life After Disaster: Are Positive Signs Emerging From Infosys?

Analysts and shareholders have always asked Infosys to make more productive use of its cash hoard of about Rs 20,000 crore.

“I had Infy shares… And now #Iamsomiddleclass,” a Twitter user named ‘Common Man’ tweeted, when the stock of the erstwhile investors’ darling fell more than 21 percent.

Had he owned the stock, he would not have made this remark on a day the stock lost most of the gains it had managed to amass over the last three months.

According to media reports, the stock had risen about 25 percent over the last three months as investors turned bullish about the company after its forecast-beating earnings show for October-December.

Modi’s 'Aap Ki Adalat' Episode – Honest Or Histrionics?

By Lkha Veer | INNLIVE

ANALYSIS Since there have been hundreds of allegations against Narendra Modi, it was good that he chose the format of ‘Aap Ki Adalat’ to take them up. It afforded him an opportunity to answer the allegations in front of the invited audience and even take questions from them, which is not possible in a one to one interview.

After watching his performance on the show, one feels that Modi has become an accomplished method actor. The voice modulation, the expressions and the meaningful pauses were all there in plenty. Also there were one liners and he played to the gallery to the hilt.

Existential Crisis: 'I Sacrificed Everything - Health, Wealth And Teenage To Study At IITs - But Why It's Not Worthy?'

By Ananya Rathi in Mumbai

In eighth standard, I volunteered to revise one of the Anglo-Indian battles for the class. Using the blackboard, I described the various players and events of the battle in great detail, making up for my faltering English with infectious enthusiasm.

Impressed, my class teacher asked me, “So what have you finally decided? Who do you want to be: a cardiologist, a historian or a scientist?” Those days I used to proudly proclaim that I wished to be a cardiologist, primarily because my doctor parents used to tell me that it was the hottest specialisation in medicine. Excited by my teacher’s praise, I went to my father and told him about it. It brought a proud smile on his face and he said, “Tell her you want to become an IITian.”

On the record: Mumbai and media coverage

By Burkha Dutt

Sixty hours of live television at the best of times is impossibly difficult. But when it involves an ongoing and precarious terrorist operation and a potential danger to the lives of hundreds of people, it throws up challenges of the kind that none of us have ever dealt with before.

Even those of us who have reported for years, on conflict, war and counter insurgency weren't prepared for what we encountered in Mumbai: an audacious attack on a city that was more in the nature of an invasion of India, than terrorism in any form, that we have known before.

As India debates where to go from here and whether a "war on terror" is the borrowed slogan that should define our response, I notice there is a different sort of civil war brewing; one that places us in the media on the other side of the enemy line.

For every Mumbaikar who believes we did the best we could in very trying circumstances- and we have received thousands and thousands of such messages- there are some others who are now questioning our ethics, our integrity and our professionalism. On the streets of Mumbai, I only met people who thanked us for providing a larger sense of community to a city seething with rage and grief. But as I fly back to Delhi, Im told that "hate" groups are trying to compete with "fan" communities on social networking sites like Facebook and Orkut. The Internet apparently is buzzing with vitriol and we, in the media in general, and sometimes, me in particular, are being targeted with a venom that is startling. I understand that India is angry, nerves are frazzled and emotions heightened. Even so,many of the charges are not just offensive. malicious and entirely untrue; they are a convenient transference of responsibility. This is not to say, that we made no mistakes- I am sure we inadvertently made a few- as did every department of government, when faced with a situation that India has never dealt with before. But to park concocted and slanderous charges at our door is simply unacceptable, grossly unfair and saddening.

I would also like to stress though that this eruption of allegations is only one small part of a larger picture. In the past week, we have also received countless words of support and encouragement- from thousands of people - Indian citizens of every hue and ilk across the country, as well as some better known ones, like Narayan Murthy, Salman Rushdie, Shashi Tharoor, Sunil Khilnani and Suketu Mehta, to name just a few. When asked in an interview on NDTV, what struck him watching the events unfold on television, Narayan Murthy, said it was the "finest piece of TV journalism in a decade."

But in journalism, we know that, praise and criticism are twins that travel together. And we welcome both and try and listen to both carefully.

So, for those who wrote in to tell us that we got it right- Thank you so much. Your words encourage us.

But for those who charged us with crimes we absolutely assert we have not committed, here is our response. Some of it is answer to general questions about the media and some to specific charges made against our organization.

1. Please do note that at all times, the media respected the security cordon- a cordon that was determined by the police and officials on site- and NOT by the media. If, as is now being suggested, the assessment is that the media was allowed too close to the operations, here is what we say: we would have been happy to stand at a distance much further away from the encounter sites, had anyone, anyone at all, asked us to move. In the 72 hours that we stood on reporting duty, not once were we asked to move further away. We often delayed live telecasting of images that we thought were sensitive so as to not compromise the ongoing operation. Not once, were we asked by anyone in authority, to switch our cameras off, or withhold images. When we did so, it was entirely our own assessment that perhaps it was safest to do so. Across the world, and as happened in the US after 9/11, there are daily, centralized briefings by officials to avoid any inadvertent confusion that media coverage may throw up. Not so in Mumbai. There was no central point of contact or information for journalists who were often left to their own devices to hunt down news that they felt had to be conveyed to their country. No do's and don'ts were provided by officials. While we understand that this situation was new for everyone involved, and so the government could not have been expected to have a full plan for media coverage, surely the same latitude should be shown to us? The NSG chief even thanked the media for our consistent co-operation. Later the NSG commandos personally thanked me for showcasing their need for a dedicated aircraft- which they shockingly did not have - they have now been given there after NDTV's special report was aired.

We have only the greatest respect and admiration for our armed forces, and throughout the coverage repeatedly underlined how they are our greatest heroes. But we were taken aback to hear the Navy Chief, branding us as a "disabling force," for reporting on an ongoing operation. If that is the case, why were his own officers briefing us on camera, bang in the middle of an ongoing operation and that too when they only had a few rushed moments at the site of encounters? Before the encounter was over at either the Taj or the Oberoi, his marine commandos even held a hastily called press conference that was telecast live, with their permission, across channels. If we were indeed the obstacle, or the "disabling force" why did they have time for us in the middle of an operation? While shooting the messenger is convenient , the government also needs to introspect and determine whether it has an information dissemination system in place that is geared for such crises. Blanking out channels- as was done for a few hours- may not be the ideal solution. It only leads to more rumour mongering, panic and falsehoods spreading in already uncertain situation.

2. Why did we interview waiting relatives who staked out at the hotels as they waited for news on their families and friends? Quite simply, because they WANTED to talk. Allegations that I or any of my colleagues across the industry shoved a microphone in the faces of any waiting relative, are untrue in the extreme. Television, for many of these people, became a medium to express pain, grief, anger and hope. Sometimes, they expressed the desire to speak, because as they said, they just wanted to feel like they were doing something, instead of sitting by on the pavement for endless, countless hours. Many did not want to speak or be filmed, and they were neither pressured nor asked. Many personally asked me for my telephone number, and got in touch, requesting whether they could come on our shows and make their appeals. And besides, wasn't the issue at hand as much about their potential loss and anxieties, as it was about an ongoing gunbattle? Wasn't it important to touch upon the human dimension and not just the military one? I believe strongly that it was. Capturing suffering on live television is a delicate issue that needs the utmost sensitivity. We believed we showed that sensitivity, by not thrusting microphones in people's faces, by respecting privacy if people asked for identities or images to be withheld, by never showing a ghoulish close-up of a body, and by respecting the limits set by the people themselves. Those limits were different for different people and had to be adapted to subjectively. But every interview of a relative that was aired on any of my shows, was done so with the full consent and participation of the people speaking. If they wanted to share their story, vent, give an outlet for their grief or just make an appeal for peace- and the emotions varied- how can other people out there determine that they should not be speaking? But to say that we had no business talking to families is an entirely naive and misplaced criticism. They chose to talk. In every case, it was their choice to share and to speak. And their voices were in fact the real tragedy and needed to be heard and told.

Similarly, when the rescued hostages first emerged from the hotels many of them WANTED to speak because they wanted to let their families know they were safe. The unfortunate absence of a cordon created an avoidable crowding in of journalists. But every rescued hostage who appeared on any of our shows did so entirely voluntarily. Every participant on We the People, including Shameem, a man who lost six members of his family at the CST railway station was there because they wanted to share their tragedy or miraculous escape or trauma in a wider community. Shameem, who said he did not have money to bury his dead, has since been offered help and rehabilitation by our viewers. In that moment, television provided a wider sense of community, when no one else had the time of wherewithal to talk to the waiting relatives.

3. Could we have been more aware of the suffering and tragedy of those killed in the first few hours at the CST railway station and not got singularly focused on the two hotels? On this one point, I would concede that perhaps, this was a balance we lost and needed to redress earlier on during the coverage. But, mostly our attention was on the hotels, because they were the sites of the live encounters, and not because of some deliberate socio-economic prejudice. Still, when many emails poured in on how important it was to correct this imbalance, most of us, stood up, took notice, and tried to make amends for an unwitting lack of balance in air time.

4. Should there be an emergency code of dos and donts for the coverage of such crises? We in the media would welcome a framework for sensitive events and are happy to contribute to its construction. But it is important to understand that in the absence of any instructions on site and in the absence of any such framework we broke NO rules. Both the NSG chief and the special secretary untrue took place and we have an official aknowledgment of that, including from then Army Chief, V.P Malik. I would urge Admiral Mehta to read General V.P Malik's book on Kargil for further clarity. General Malik was the Army Chief during the operations and puts to rest any such controversy in his book. In a formal letter, NDTV has also asked for an immediate retraction from the Navy and officially complained that the comments amount to defamation. Several writers have already pointed out how the Navy Chief has got his facts wrong. (DNA, Indian Express, Vir Sanghvi in The Hindustan Times, Sankarshan Thakur in The Telegraph). This, incidentally, was the same press conference where the Admiral threatened literally to "chop the heads off" of two other reporters who aired his interview ahead of schedule.

I believe that criticism is what helps us evolve and reinvent ourselves. But when malice and rumour are regarded as feedback, there can be no constructive dialogue. Viewing preferences are highly subjective and always deeply personal choices, and the most fitting rejection of someone who doesn't appeal to your aesthetics of intelligence, is simply to flick the channel and watch someone else. The viewer, to that extent, is king. But, when, comments begin targeting character, morality and integrity of individuals and the commentary becomes more about the individual, than the issue, then frankly, the anger is just destructive and little else. More than anything else, it is tragic that at this time, we are expressing ourselves in this fashion. Surely, India has bigger lessons to learn and larger points to mull over, than to expend energy over which television journalist tops the charts or falls to the bottom.

The viewer has his own way, of settling such matters. And the last word belongs to him.

On the record: Mumbai and media coverage

By Burkha Dutt

Sixty hours of live television at the best of times is impossibly difficult. But when it involves an ongoing and precarious terrorist operation and a potential danger to the lives of hundreds of people, it throws up challenges of the kind that none of us have ever dealt with before.

Even those of us who have reported for years, on conflict, war and counter insurgency weren't prepared for what we encountered in Mumbai: an audacious attack on a city that was more in the nature of an invasion of India, than terrorism in any form, that we have known before.

As India debates where to go from here and whether a "war on terror" is the borrowed slogan that should define our response, I notice there is a different sort of civil war brewing; one that places us in the media on the other side of the enemy line.

For every Mumbaikar who believes we did the best we could in very trying circumstances- and we have received thousands and thousands of such messages- there are some others who are now questioning our ethics, our integrity and our professionalism. On the streets of Mumbai, I only met people who thanked us for providing a larger sense of community to a city seething with rage and grief. But as I fly back to Delhi, Im told that "hate" groups are trying to compete with "fan" communities on social networking sites like Facebook and Orkut. The Internet apparently is buzzing with vitriol and we, in the media in general, and sometimes, me in particular, are being targeted with a venom that is startling. I understand that India is angry, nerves are frazzled and emotions heightened. Even so,many of the charges are not just offensive. malicious and entirely untrue; they are a convenient transference of responsibility. This is not to say, that we made no mistakes- I am sure we inadvertently made a few- as did every department of government, when faced with a situation that India has never dealt with before. But to park concocted and slanderous charges at our door is simply unacceptable, grossly unfair and saddening.

I would also like to stress though that this eruption of allegations is only one small part of a larger picture. In the past week, we have also received countless words of support and encouragement- from thousands of people - Indian citizens of every hue and ilk across the country, as well as some better known ones, like Narayan Murthy, Salman Rushdie, Shashi Tharoor, Sunil Khilnani and Suketu Mehta, to name just a few. When asked in an interview on NDTV, what struck him watching the events unfold on television, Narayan Murthy, said it was the "finest piece of TV journalism in a decade."

But in journalism, we know that, praise and criticism are twins that travel together. And we welcome both and try and listen to both carefully.

So, for those who wrote in to tell us that we got it right- Thank you so much. Your words encourage us.

But for those who charged us with crimes we absolutely assert we have not committed, here is our response. Some of it is answer to general questions about the media and some to specific charges made against our organization.

1. Please do note that at all times, the media respected the security cordon- a cordon that was determined by the police and officials on site- and NOT by the media. If, as is now being suggested, the assessment is that the media was allowed too close to the operations, here is what we say: we would have been happy to stand at a distance much further away from the encounter sites, had anyone, anyone at all, asked us to move. In the 72 hours that we stood on reporting duty, not once were we asked to move further away. We often delayed live telecasting of images that we thought were sensitive so as to not compromise the ongoing operation. Not once, were we asked by anyone in authority, to switch our cameras off, or withhold images. When we did so, it was entirely our own assessment that perhaps it was safest to do so. Across the world, and as happened in the US after 9/11, there are daily, centralized briefings by officials to avoid any inadvertent confusion that media coverage may throw up. Not so in Mumbai. There was no central point of contact or information for journalists who were often left to their own devices to hunt down news that they felt had to be conveyed to their country. No do's and don'ts were provided by officials. While we understand that this situation was new for everyone involved, and so the government could not have been expected to have a full plan for media coverage, surely the same latitude should be shown to us? The NSG chief even thanked the media for our consistent co-operation. Later the NSG commandos personally thanked me for showcasing their need for a dedicated aircraft- which they shockingly did not have - they have now been given there after NDTV's special report was aired.

We have only the greatest respect and admiration for our armed forces, and throughout the coverage repeatedly underlined how they are our greatest heroes. But we were taken aback to hear the Navy Chief, branding us as a "disabling force," for reporting on an ongoing operation. If that is the case, why were his own officers briefing us on camera, bang in the middle of an ongoing operation and that too when they only had a few rushed moments at the site of encounters? Before the encounter was over at either the Taj or the Oberoi, his marine commandos even held a hastily called press conference that was telecast live, with their permission, across channels. If we were indeed the obstacle, or the "disabling force" why did they have time for us in the middle of an operation? While shooting the messenger is convenient , the government also needs to introspect and determine whether it has an information dissemination system in place that is geared for such crises. Blanking out channels- as was done for a few hours- may not be the ideal solution. It only leads to more rumour mongering, panic and falsehoods spreading in already uncertain situation.

2. Why did we interview waiting relatives who staked out at the hotels as they waited for news on their families and friends? Quite simply, because they WANTED to talk. Allegations that I or any of my colleagues across the industry shoved a microphone in the faces of any waiting relative, are untrue in the extreme. Television, for many of these people, became a medium to express pain, grief, anger and hope. Sometimes, they expressed the desire to speak, because as they said, they just wanted to feel like they were doing something, instead of sitting by on the pavement for endless, countless hours. Many did not want to speak or be filmed, and they were neither pressured nor asked. Many personally asked me for my telephone number, and got in touch, requesting whether they could come on our shows and make their appeals. And besides, wasn't the issue at hand as much about their potential loss and anxieties, as it was about an ongoing gunbattle? Wasn't it important to touch upon the human dimension and not just the military one? I believe strongly that it was. Capturing suffering on live television is a delicate issue that needs the utmost sensitivity. We believed we showed that sensitivity, by not thrusting microphones in people's faces, by respecting privacy if people asked for identities or images to be withheld, by never showing a ghoulish close-up of a body, and by respecting the limits set by the people themselves. Those limits were different for different people and had to be adapted to subjectively. But every interview of a relative that was aired on any of my shows, was done so with the full consent and participation of the people speaking. If they wanted to share their story, vent, give an outlet for their grief or just make an appeal for peace- and the emotions varied- how can other people out there determine that they should not be speaking? But to say that we had no business talking to families is an entirely naive and misplaced criticism. They chose to talk. In every case, it was their choice to share and to speak. And their voices were in fact the real tragedy and needed to be heard and told.

Similarly, when the rescued hostages first emerged from the hotels many of them WANTED to speak because they wanted to let their families know they were safe. The unfortunate absence of a cordon created an avoidable crowding in of journalists. But every rescued hostage who appeared on any of our shows did so entirely voluntarily. Every participant on We the People, including Shameem, a man who lost six members of his family at the CST railway station was there because they wanted to share their tragedy or miraculous escape or trauma in a wider community. Shameem, who said he did not have money to bury his dead, has since been offered help and rehabilitation by our viewers. In that moment, television provided a wider sense of community, when no one else had the time of wherewithal to talk to the waiting relatives.

3. Could we have been more aware of the suffering and tragedy of those killed in the first few hours at the CST railway station and not got singularly focused on the two hotels? On this one point, I would concede that perhaps, this was a balance we lost and needed to redress earlier on during the coverage. But, mostly our attention was on the hotels, because they were the sites of the live encounters, and not because of some deliberate socio-economic prejudice. Still, when many emails poured in on how important it was to correct this imbalance, most of us, stood up, took notice, and tried to make amends for an unwitting lack of balance in air time.

4. Should there be an emergency code of dos and donts for the coverage of such crises? We in the media would welcome a framework for sensitive events and are happy to contribute to its construction. But it is important to understand that in the absence of any instructions on site and in the absence of any such framework we broke NO rules. Both the NSG chief and the special secretary untrue took place and we have an official aknowledgment of that, including from then Army Chief, V.P Malik. I would urge Admiral Mehta to read General V.P Malik's book on Kargil for further clarity. General Malik was the Army Chief during the operations and puts to rest any such controversy in his book. In a formal letter, NDTV has also asked for an immediate retraction from the Navy and officially complained that the comments amount to defamation. Several writers have already pointed out how the Navy Chief has got his facts wrong. (DNA, Indian Express, Vir Sanghvi in The Hindustan Times, Sankarshan Thakur in The Telegraph). This, incidentally, was the same press conference where the Admiral threatened literally to "chop the heads off" of two other reporters who aired his interview ahead of schedule.

I believe that criticism is what helps us evolve and reinvent ourselves. But when malice and rumour are regarded as feedback, there can be no constructive dialogue. Viewing preferences are highly subjective and always deeply personal choices, and the most fitting rejection of someone who doesn't appeal to your aesthetics of intelligence, is simply to flick the channel and watch someone else. The viewer, to that extent, is king. But, when, comments begin targeting character, morality and integrity of individuals and the commentary becomes more about the individual, than the issue, then frankly, the anger is just destructive and little else. More than anything else, it is tragic that at this time, we are expressing ourselves in this fashion. Surely, India has bigger lessons to learn and larger points to mull over, than to expend energy over which television journalist tops the charts or falls to the bottom.

The viewer has his own way, of settling such matters. And the last word belongs to him.

On the record: Mumbai and media coverage

By Burkha Dutt

Sixty hours of live television at the best of times is impossibly difficult. But when it involves an ongoing and precarious terrorist operation and a potential danger to the lives of hundreds of people, it throws up challenges of the kind that none of us have ever dealt with before.

Even those of us who have reported for years, on conflict, war and counter insurgency weren't prepared for what we encountered in Mumbai: an audacious attack on a city that was more in the nature of an invasion of India, than terrorism in any form, that we have known before.

As India debates where to go from here and whether a "war on terror" is the borrowed slogan that should define our response, I notice there is a different sort of civil war brewing; one that places us in the media on the other side of the enemy line.

For every Mumbaikar who believes we did the best we could in very trying circumstances- and we have received thousands and thousands of such messages- there are some others who are now questioning our ethics, our integrity and our professionalism. On the streets of Mumbai, I only met people who thanked us for providing a larger sense of community to a city seething with rage and grief. But as I fly back to Delhi, Im told that "hate" groups are trying to compete with "fan" communities on social networking sites like Facebook and Orkut. The Internet apparently is buzzing with vitriol and we, in the media in general, and sometimes, me in particular, are being targeted with a venom that is startling. I understand that India is angry, nerves are frazzled and emotions heightened. Even so,many of the charges are not just offensive. malicious and entirely untrue; they are a convenient transference of responsibility. This is not to say, that we made no mistakes- I am sure we inadvertently made a few- as did every department of government, when faced with a situation that India has never dealt with before. But to park concocted and slanderous charges at our door is simply unacceptable, grossly unfair and saddening.

I would also like to stress though that this eruption of allegations is only one small part of a larger picture. In the past week, we have also received countless words of support and encouragement- from thousands of people - Indian citizens of every hue and ilk across the country, as well as some better known ones, like Narayan Murthy, Salman Rushdie, Shashi Tharoor, Sunil Khilnani and Suketu Mehta, to name just a few. When asked in an interview on NDTV, what struck him watching the events unfold on television, Narayan Murthy, said it was the "finest piece of TV journalism in a decade."

But in journalism, we know that, praise and criticism are twins that travel together. And we welcome both and try and listen to both carefully.

So, for those who wrote in to tell us that we got it right- Thank you so much. Your words encourage us.

But for those who charged us with crimes we absolutely assert we have not committed, here is our response. Some of it is answer to general questions about the media and some to specific charges made against our organization.

1. Please do note that at all times, the media respected the security cordon- a cordon that was determined by the police and officials on site- and NOT by the media. If, as is now being suggested, the assessment is that the media was allowed too close to the operations, here is what we say: we would have been happy to stand at a distance much further away from the encounter sites, had anyone, anyone at all, asked us to move. In the 72 hours that we stood on reporting duty, not once were we asked to move further away. We often delayed live telecasting of images that we thought were sensitive so as to not compromise the ongoing operation. Not once, were we asked by anyone in authority, to switch our cameras off, or withhold images. When we did so, it was entirely our own assessment that perhaps it was safest to do so. Across the world, and as happened in the US after 9/11, there are daily, centralized briefings by officials to avoid any inadvertent confusion that media coverage may throw up. Not so in Mumbai. There was no central point of contact or information for journalists who were often left to their own devices to hunt down news that they felt had to be conveyed to their country. No do's and don'ts were provided by officials. While we understand that this situation was new for everyone involved, and so the government could not have been expected to have a full plan for media coverage, surely the same latitude should be shown to us? The NSG chief even thanked the media for our consistent co-operation. Later the NSG commandos personally thanked me for showcasing their need for a dedicated aircraft- which they shockingly did not have - they have now been given there after NDTV's special report was aired.

We have only the greatest respect and admiration for our armed forces, and throughout the coverage repeatedly underlined how they are our greatest heroes. But we were taken aback to hear the Navy Chief, branding us as a "disabling force," for reporting on an ongoing operation. If that is the case, why were his own officers briefing us on camera, bang in the middle of an ongoing operation and that too when they only had a few rushed moments at the site of encounters? Before the encounter was over at either the Taj or the Oberoi, his marine commandos even held a hastily called press conference that was telecast live, with their permission, across channels. If we were indeed the obstacle, or the "disabling force" why did they have time for us in the middle of an operation? While shooting the messenger is convenient , the government also needs to introspect and determine whether it has an information dissemination system in place that is geared for such crises. Blanking out channels- as was done for a few hours- may not be the ideal solution. It only leads to more rumour mongering, panic and falsehoods spreading in already uncertain situation.

2. Why did we interview waiting relatives who staked out at the hotels as they waited for news on their families and friends? Quite simply, because they WANTED to talk. Allegations that I or any of my colleagues across the industry shoved a microphone in the faces of any waiting relative, are untrue in the extreme. Television, for many of these people, became a medium to express pain, grief, anger and hope. Sometimes, they expressed the desire to speak, because as they said, they just wanted to feel like they were doing something, instead of sitting by on the pavement for endless, countless hours. Many did not want to speak or be filmed, and they were neither pressured nor asked. Many personally asked me for my telephone number, and got in touch, requesting whether they could come on our shows and make their appeals. And besides, wasn't the issue at hand as much about their potential loss and anxieties, as it was about an ongoing gunbattle? Wasn't it important to touch upon the human dimension and not just the military one? I believe strongly that it was. Capturing suffering on live television is a delicate issue that needs the utmost sensitivity. We believed we showed that sensitivity, by not thrusting microphones in people's faces, by respecting privacy if people asked for identities or images to be withheld, by never showing a ghoulish close-up of a body, and by respecting the limits set by the people themselves. Those limits were different for different people and had to be adapted to subjectively. But every interview of a relative that was aired on any of my shows, was done so with the full consent and participation of the people speaking. If they wanted to share their story, vent, give an outlet for their grief or just make an appeal for peace- and the emotions varied- how can other people out there determine that they should not be speaking? But to say that we had no business talking to families is an entirely naive and misplaced criticism. They chose to talk. In every case, it was their choice to share and to speak. And their voices were in fact the real tragedy and needed to be heard and told.

Similarly, when the rescued hostages first emerged from the hotels many of them WANTED to speak because they wanted to let their families know they were safe. The unfortunate absence of a cordon created an avoidable crowding in of journalists. But every rescued hostage who appeared on any of our shows did so entirely voluntarily. Every participant on We the People, including Shameem, a man who lost six members of his family at the CST railway station was there because they wanted to share their tragedy or miraculous escape or trauma in a wider community. Shameem, who said he did not have money to bury his dead, has since been offered help and rehabilitation by our viewers. In that moment, television provided a wider sense of community, when no one else had the time of wherewithal to talk to the waiting relatives.

3. Could we have been more aware of the suffering and tragedy of those killed in the first few hours at the CST railway station and not got singularly focused on the two hotels? On this one point, I would concede that perhaps, this was a balance we lost and needed to redress earlier on during the coverage. But, mostly our attention was on the hotels, because they were the sites of the live encounters, and not because of some deliberate socio-economic prejudice. Still, when many emails poured in on how important it was to correct this imbalance, most of us, stood up, took notice, and tried to make amends for an unwitting lack of balance in air time.

4. Should there be an emergency code of dos and donts for the coverage of such crises? We in the media would welcome a framework for sensitive events and are happy to contribute to its construction. But it is important to understand that in the absence of any instructions on site and in the absence of any such framework we broke NO rules. Both the NSG chief and the special secretary untrue took place and we have an official aknowledgment of that, including from then Army Chief, V.P Malik. I would urge Admiral Mehta to read General V.P Malik's book on Kargil for further clarity. General Malik was the Army Chief during the operations and puts to rest any such controversy in his book. In a formal letter, NDTV has also asked for an immediate retraction from the Navy and officially complained that the comments amount to defamation. Several writers have already pointed out how the Navy Chief has got his facts wrong. (DNA, Indian Express, Vir Sanghvi in The Hindustan Times, Sankarshan Thakur in The Telegraph). This, incidentally, was the same press conference where the Admiral threatened literally to "chop the heads off" of two other reporters who aired his interview ahead of schedule.

I believe that criticism is what helps us evolve and reinvent ourselves. But when malice and rumour are regarded as feedback, there can be no constructive dialogue. Viewing preferences are highly subjective and always deeply personal choices, and the most fitting rejection of someone who doesn't appeal to your aesthetics of intelligence, is simply to flick the channel and watch someone else. The viewer, to that extent, is king. But, when, comments begin targeting character, morality and integrity of individuals and the commentary becomes more about the individual, than the issue, then frankly, the anger is just destructive and little else. More than anything else, it is tragic that at this time, we are expressing ourselves in this fashion. Surely, India has bigger lessons to learn and larger points to mull over, than to expend energy over which television journalist tops the charts or falls to the bottom.

The viewer has his own way, of settling such matters. And the last word belongs to him.