RSS |   Samvad   |   Vital Infotech Ltd.

April      Last updated: April 29,  5:00 p.m.

Satiricus

Frolicking Foursome

IT happened in Wonderland. That is, the wonderland of Indian journalism. Alice, the Mad Hatter, and the March Hare were in conference. Also present were two special invitees-the April Fool, and silly-season Satiricus. The question is, began Alice, should journalists make sense? The question is, rejoined the Mad Hatter, why should anything make sense? That will come later, Alice chided him, when we delve into nuances of nonsense, for the present, please stick to the agenda. So let me rephrase the question : Must journalism be jejune, or is there a compulsion for columnists, analysts and assorted pen-pushers to write sensibly? Everybody looked at Satiricus, as he fell in the category of assorted pen-pushers. Well, demanded Alice. It was a difficult question, a grave question. Well, began Satiricus haltingly, after writing a lot for fifty odd years I am in no position to say if journalists should make sense; all I can venture to say is, they could make sense, at least once in a while, if they try hard enough. After all, the dictionary says every word has a meaning, so it may not be quite impossible for words written by a journalist to mean something. Ah, words, says Shri silly-season Satiricus, softly sniggered the April Fool, smiling wisely.

Surely Satiricus is not so silly as not to know that words are like leaves, and where they most abound much fruit of sense beneath is rarely found. Look, for instance, at what a senior staffer of The Indian Express recently wrote about the way these four out-of-job ex-prime ministers are going about to resurrect themselves. In a most gentlemanly manner the gentle lady has described them as "four wise men on the move". But how wise, or even sensible, was it of her? With a toothy grim the March Hare remarked, "I'd say she is as mad as a mad hatter!" The Mad Hatter glared at him, but coming to the rescue of a fellow journalist Satiricus said, why should it be unwise to call them wise? Look at the pearls of wisdom enriching the statement they have issued on how the Vajpayee government is mishandling several national issues-the adverse impact of liberalisation, the insufferable saffronisation of institutions, the serious situation in Kashmir, and the reprehensible review of the Constitution. So, said Satiricus, warnming up to his subject, I would say the learned lady's precious piece was a most meaningful exercise in journalism when she piously wrote that "a presidium of former prime ministers could become a catalyst for change".

Satiricus thought it was an eloquent defence, but here April Fool suddenly showed that he was nobody's fool. Ah! change, he exclaimed-the more we change, the more we remain the same, no? What do you mean, Satiricus asked, slightly hot under the collar. Take Chandra Shekhar. He was always a one-man party. Has that changed? Take V.P. Singh. Is he going to change the BJP's so-called saffronization by again standing with folded hands before the ‘Shahi’ Imam? Take Gowda and Gujral. Had not liberalisation become actually aggressive under them? So then, what does this staffer have to say when her own editor writes, "For the former PMs now to turn around and point anti-liberalisation fingers at the NDA coalition smacks of opportunism"? Oh! well, Satiricus responded rather lamely, this editor and his staffer could sort out their differences between themselves, but I still like that "presidium of former prime ministers" phrase. Sounds so august. Yes, it does, agreed Alice, but is it not compulsory, or even optional, for august words to have an august meaning? How ridiculous! exclaimed the April Fool. In fact you need to use august meaningless words when you have to fool people.

For instance this lady equates these four men with Jaya Prakash Narayan. Does that mean one fully wise man is equal to four quarterwise men? Is wisdom so precisely quantitative? Maybe, maybe not, observed the Mad Hatter, tilting his hat back and reflectively scratching his head. It would depend. It would depend on what, asked Alice. Don't be dumb, Alice, the Mad Hatter exclaimed in exasperation. When I say it would depend I was just being idiomatic and using an accepted expression in the English language. I mean, when I say it would depend, it does not have to depend upon anything. That is not being idiomatic, that is being idiotic, the March Hare said. Hey, we are not in March, we are in April, so don't you encroach on my intellectual territory, April Fool angrily retorted. That's enough, Alice ordered. As I was saying, if something depends, you have to say on what. OK, OK, responded the Mad Hatter, I could amplify my apparently inexplicable statement by adding that the quantitative concept of wisdom would depend upon whether wisdom can be weighed by the kilo or measured by the litre.

But what will happen to this gang of four wise men if their wisdom were to be measured by the centimetre and they were proved pitiable pigmies, asked the Mad Hatter wisely. Alice held up her hand and said, this discussion is going off the tangent. I move that we leave the complexities of calculation to the Indian Standards Institution, and come back to the central question, which is : Is it wise to be sensible? Especially for anyone writing for the newspapers? Again all eyes turned to Satiricus. As I see it, he said, I don't see any connection between the two. In fact I would say being incomprehensible is the sine qua non of wise newspaper-writing. Take this new columnist of Indian Express, Renuka Khandekar. She has come up with a new caste among Hindus. She calls it the Nice Hindu. And what does that mean, asked Alice inquisitively. Actually I don't quite understand what she means, or if she means anything at all, Satiricus confessed. But she has talked of khaki paranoia, so I take it that according to her you can be either a khaki communalist or a Nice Hindu. But why can't a Hindu be khaki and nice at the same time, asked the Mad Hatter in his wisdom. Ah, that is the question, responded Satiricus. Take my own case, he said. I am admittedly a khaki Hindu. But I am law-abiding, I pay my taxes, I love my country and my countrymen (including my Muslim countrymen), and I am tolerant about religious differences. Still I know that Renuka Khandekar will abhor me, because I say there is too much tolerance among Hindus, and she says the term too much tolerance is abhorrent to her.

That would mean she abhors the truth, observed the March Hare, and added, even the American Vedic scholar David Frawley, who was in India in March, said Hindus suffered from too much tolerance. So then, what conclusions do we draw from this scholarly discussion, asked Alice. Number one, said the Mad Hatter, four ex-PMs deserve to be acclaimed for wisdom if they try to clamber out of the dust-bin of history. Number two, said the April Fool, they can fool people into calling them tall if they stand on top of each other. Number three, added the March Hare, limelight-hungry ageing politicians can pass themselves off as elderly statesmen by blaming the current prime minister for failing to do things that they themselves failed to do as prime ministers. Number four, chimed in Satiricus, even in these superbly secular times it is possible, though extremely difficult, to be nice despite being a Hindu, provided you are tolerant enough to smilingly subscribe to secular scurrility against everything Hindu. Amen, added Alice.