Behold our moral hypocrisy!

Why is everyone making such a big controversy about the alleged(till proven) MP bribery scandal? Sample this:

-One doesn't get his pension unless the babu in-charge gets 'the cut'

-To get a passport, you have to bribe the police to clear your background check. Otherwise they will sit on your papers till the end of time

-One cannot set up and register a company without paying a number of babus in several different departments

-One can easily obtain a driver's licence without ever having to give a test by bribing the officials concerned through an agent

-My mother filed for a government loan through her salary account. The loan was sanctioned but the babu refused to sign the documents unless he got a suitable cut.

-There have been several incidents of crimes done by policemen - Matunga scam, several rapes and encounter killings of innocents.

What makes any of these less outrageous than an MP taking a bribe to vote for the government?

I think the statement that sums up the situation quite appropriately is this - People get the government they deserve.

The babu at the government office has no right to criticise the MPs. The police hawildar who routinely accepts 50Rupee notes from erring (and sometimes innocent) citizens has no right to criticise.

If we ourselves can't resist the lure of money, why blame the MPs?

There are several government departments where bribery is the norm. It is justified on the ground that the elite babus need money to sustain a lifestyle that their position entitles them. Think about the logic here. They think they deserve a lifestyle which the government is not providing them. Hence, it is acceptable to take bribe.

This logic effectively portrays them as a victim.

Let us not indulge in blatant moral hypocrisy.

Since this bribery system is so endemic, why not legitimise it?
A pension office be entitled to 1% of the pension disbursed. Let the police officer who fines a person for errant driving pocket the amount.

Let us have a moral system which discourages people from doing things in private that they can't admit in public.

I am aghast at the level of moral hypocrisy we have come to accept.

Either stop taking bribes or stop making such a fuss about those MPs.
Incidentally, I don't think the people are outraged as much as the media is portraying. That could easily be because many of them lack the moral ground to be outraged.

Incidentally again, I don't condone this behaviour of the MPs. At the same time, I have very little hope that anything is going to come out of all this moral outrage drama.

Lord save this country!

My view on Mr Sardesai's chat briefing

Something to think about :
[ Rajdeep on lessons from Arushi case ]

-------

Mr Sardesai:

There is a stark inconsistency in your statements. You admit 'Arushi murder case is a great story' while at the same time, you also say 'We could exercise more restraint'. What 'restraint'? Give me an instance when you exercised any of it!

I vehemently protest when you suggest that Dr Talwar must be more media-savvy in his appearance - after release from a 50-day prison term? You said -

"Let’s be less hypocritical. Arushi was a big story; Rajesh Talwar's release was a major photo opportunity. A cameraperson and a reporter are working in tough circumstances—they need the story; they need the pictures. Sure, we could handle it better, but for that it’s not just the journalists who need to learn a few lessons. Those who have to handle such situations could also become more media-savvy."

You must be joking Mr Sardesai. You had the time and luxury to prepare for this chat briefing. You didn't have to face the readers and could take the help of others around you in replying. You didn't even have to jostle with the readers surrounding you and forcing their mics inside your mouth.

When you say "Rajesh Talwar's release was a major photo opportunity", do you claim that it gives you the right to shove your mic inside his mouth? That is what your cameraperson did - and many others. To me, the sight was obnoxious. Yes, the camerapersons and reporters work in tough circumstances. Who is to blame for that? Dr Talwar? Isn't it because of the mad rat race between the channels for a 'quick byte'? Isn't it because reporters and camerapersons are expected (may be even required) to get the best photo-ops, other people's convenience and courtesy be damned!

Mr Sardesai, you ask - "Apologise for what?". And now, I will quote your own words in reply. You admit -

"I think at times television news channels need to go beyond the hourly news wheel and step back a bit. We are titillating viewers with morsels of information instead of really informing them."

"My prime responsibility as a journalist is to tell a story. My commitment must be to tell that story as honestly as possible. It’s a commitment we have often failed to respect."

"You make a good point. I think a 24-hour news channel is a bit like a carnivorous beast that needs to be constantly fed. There is a certain limitation of format that forces us to often pass off trivia as news. This is no excuse though for declining standards"

"A father was accused of murdering his daughter, so naturally the media was excited. Where we failed was to understand that the bigger the story, the greater the need to exercise restraint."

"If news is entertainment, then we live in dangerous times. Again, lets not blame the entire media for this. However, those of us in senior positions must take prime responsibility. We have failed to set an example to the next generation of journalists. Moreover, training systems have weakened considerably."

We have a lot of "We failed" statements here. Where is the corresponding "We are sorry"?

Mr Sardesai, you also say -

"I can say with great pride that at CNN-IBN, we never attempted to concoct facts, or do stories without cross checking on the Talwar case. Having said that, I do believe that we could have handled the story with greater sensitivity. I also feel that the answer is not for the media to apologise to the Talwar family, the bigger question is: when the next time an incident like Arushi happens, will our coverage be any different?"

You can be sure that readers will definitely watch out for CNN-IBN's coverage of the next big story. If past precedents are anything to go by, I have very little hope the coverage next time will be any different.

Let me also give you candid feedback about what happens at my house. While sifting through channels, we look at IndiaTV and simply say - What the f***. Invariably, the stories in that channel deserve the response they get. Increasingly, we look at CNN-IBN and say - What the heck? We restrict our exposure to your channel to a few minutes at the most. Your channel is no better than the others.

In my opinion books, Arushi case dealt a final blow to your channel's track record. I no more watch your channel for more than a few minutes at a stretch because the titillating headlines and repeat telecasts have become intolerable.

You have kept the focus on Arushi case and deserve the credit for ensuring the investigations follow through. But you are also to be blamed for making a tabloid scandal out of a murder story and dishing it out to the viewers 24-hours a day.

Finally I ask you - when the next time an incident like Arushi happens, will your coverage be any different?

TOW I miss IITK

Correct me if I am missing something here, but a company only breaks even once. Isn't it?
REF: (emphasis is mine)
Deccan Odyssey breaks even after five years
Neha Raghunath MUMBAI
Deccan Odyssey, the luxury train, has managed to break even for the first time since its inception five years ago, according to Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation CEO Jayant Gaikawad.


Finally I have done something worthwhile (or set something worthwhile in motion) in a long, long time. I have signed up for a social service scheme. As it happens, I love to teach. You may disagree strongly if you were one among the majority of students who took the Data Structures course at IITK that I taught. There is a faint chance that you may appreciate my decision.
I still remember reading the course feedback and comments ranged from "The nation needs more teachers like you" to "Please don't teach. EVER". Quite confusing, except that I love to teach which makes my own decision easy to make.
I sometimes wonder why I didn't end up as a professor in some nice university. One reason is that I wanted to earn more than what a typical teaching position at an IIT or IIM affords. Another reason is that there is something I want even more strongly - it will unravel itself in a few years' time I hope and believe.
However, deep inside me, I still relish the campus atmosphere. I loved the lively discussions that happened in the CS101 lecture hall of IITK. I didn't like the discussions at IIMA so much because somehow, they seemed to be motivated more by the incentive of class participation marks.
I was more an observer than an active participant - speaking on the few occasions prodded by the professor, but I thoroughly enjoyed most discussions.
I also remember the time my English professor at IITK made me feel extremely guilty. He was a member of the interview panel which had screened me for a big-name scholarship. Clearly, he held a good opinion of me. However, that opinion took a big beating when I took his course on Modern English Literature and attended very few (and I cannot over emphasise this!) of his sessions. I still performed pretty satisfactory and just missed an A. I probably would have grabbed that A if I had known the course syllabus. One day, in his office, he exhorted me to change my attitude and I felt very guilty, but in my typical rebellious teenager manner, I didn't budge. It makes me wonder about the thought processes I must have originated in the professor's mind.
I wish I had attended more of those lectures - at least the ones I liked.
I wouldn't like to teach a student like that.