MY favourite heard-on-news-TV CWG-CWG (respectively,Commonwealth Games and corrupt,weak governance) comments:
On NDTVs Left,Right &Centre,a panelist said the guilty will have to be demonstrably punished and only then will a signal go out to the world that India is not a banana republic. Banana republic: a crazily politically unstable country thats ruled by unelected cliques. Thats more or less the definition. And thats India? Parenthetically,let me observe that I agree with every other citizen of this country that (a) theres plenty of corruption in India (b) there was plenty in CWG and (c) it would be wonderful if the CWG corrupt were punished. But do collapsing footbridges legitimise collapsing logic? Perhaps they do,on banana TV.
On CNN-IBNs 9 pm primetime news broadcast,the anchor asked Jaipal Reddy whether the minister was at all concerned that the country was watching dirty linen being spilt in public. What is happening to this country,this banana republic of ours,where thumbs are coming up with flags attached to them and where dirty linen is being spilt in public? In proper countries,dirty linen is washed in public,you know. Also,I think Bhandari has serious competition in the exhilarating sport of mixing metaphors.
On Headlines Today,the anchor interviewing Suresh Kalmadi started by saying hes in hot pursuit of Kalmadi. This took enormous confidence to say because Kalmadi was sitting right in front of the anchor. Kalmadi,the anchor said,was being literally hounded. I took this to mean big,hunting dogs were chasing Kalmadi. Gosh! But dont blame the dogs. Blame the culture of this banana republic. Kalmadi walked out of that interview (bad form,sure,but consider also that the mans being chased by hounds). The anchor said,o-ho Mr Kalmadi,allow me to finish. I found the o-ho wholly endearing. And I thought now the anchor will be in hot pursuit. But,sadly,no such thing happened.
I now turn to non-CWG-CWG news TV (hopefully,there will be more special CWG-CWG TV moments for me to share with you in subsequent editions of this column). CNN-IBNs Face the Nation examined live-in relationships. In the pre-chat news wrap part of the show,the voice-over referred to a couple who dared to live in and love. Ah! But that isnt half of it as far as live-in relationships are concerned. For,the same bit of the show had an advocate explaining that live-in relationships are those in which two single persons sleep together in the same house for a considerable length of time. My first thought was if you are sleeping with someone,both of you have to be in the same house,no? I mean,even if your thumbs have flags,you cant manage otherwise. But,seriously,you see the implication? If you are living in with someone but change houses,you are not living in.
Will two people who have dared to live in and love have this conversation? Man: Are you breaking up with me? Woman: No,dont be silly,we are just moving to a nicer apartment. Man: Thats what I meant,are you breaking up with me? You know you cant fool me. I heard this on TV.
Or this conversation. Woman: I know I am not your wedded wife. Man: I am sorry I am confused,whats wedded wife? I mean,no one can be an unwedded wife. Woman: Why dont you watch TV carefully,huh? On Face the Nation,a panelist said there must be a distinction between wedded wives and live-in partners.
Man: Yes,yes I saw that show and I heard the anchor say at one point that a man who has had a 14-year relationship with a woman (whos not his wife) can just turn around and say this was a one-night stand. Listen,I agree,men can be horrible. But which man will describe a 14-year-old relationship as a one-night stand? Can you have a one-night stand that lasts 14 years? Woman: I think we are fighting because we are watching too much TV. Man: I agree. Woman: In any case,if couples cant sort things out there are laws in this country. This is not a banana republic. Man: Are you sure,because I heard on TV saubhik.chakrabarti@expressindia.com
