Thank you so much, NL Hafta Team for discussing my email at length 🙂

Was really comforting to hear the panel speak as this is one podcast I don’t miss even if I have a lot of work.

Apologies for not mentioning everyone for advice but thanks Abhinandan for discussing this with everyone! I will mention briefly what I gathered from everyone on the panel.

• Thanks Ranga for supporting my train of thought but I would agree with Madhu ma’am – when I express my view even once, things just keep expanding, because I am younger and seen to have lesser wisdom than elders, and I am in a minority.
• To Vardhan, I would say, we need to take ourselves a bit seriously to change certain things in society or things will never change (status quo will continue and not desirable in many cases). If someone is caste-ist (as Manisha mentioned) or against inter-religious marriages (Abhinandan mentioned) I can’t accept it lying down without giving a piece of my mind. I don’t think it is being elitist or arrogant because certain things are wrong. I would not bother much about other people but within my own family, I would debate it as they are the people who matter most to me.
• Love Manisha for being so honest and exactly understanding my dilemma! I think what she spoke about i.e. caste-ism (like) problems in families resonates with me and I have had such similar experiences. I also lose it sometimes because there is no way you can justify certain things (important ones – not the whispering in rat’s ears analogy).
• Madhu ma’am was really sweet the way she asked me to enjoy shared history with my family. I completely do that and have a great time otherwise. But I also end up discussing social and political issues and that’s when the problem happens 😛 Yes! I don’t want to be viewed as “dekho! fir ladai karne chala aya”. I agree with her, venting on Twitter is not a healthy way of doing this. But I disagree that I should not discuss social, political stuff at home. They are the people who matter most to me, why not have a collective consciousness starting at home?
• I agree with Harshvardhan, I need to introspect and this email was an attempt at introspection, which is why I was asking feedback. Please read the complete email and you will hopefully understand where my conflict is.
• And finally to Abhinandan – you are my bro and you hit the nail on the head!! Have always been a big fan of yours (miss the I Agree With shows). I love combat (verbal jousting) about the important issues (not stupid stuff of course). I think I am beginning to know myself and I might end up fighting for certain beliefs strongly, even if things become awkward. I think in the long term people will get what I am saying, if it is scientific, humanitarian.

Once again, thank you NL Team. Really appreciate your work and keep going strong. You guys will continue to have my support (moral and financial) !!

Cheers,

Deb

Dear NL Team,

I had a choice to make, should I be subjective (as I support Modi and am from Mangalore) and “try” pointing flaws in your assessment of my beloved town or should I be objective and take it on the chin for this beautiful city I love. There is nothing better than my Namma Kudla, even if your reports makes it a laboratory of communalism. But I will take the direct route because it’s only with acceptance that great change / and conflict resolution happen.

But I would like to point a few things that were not covered.
1) Mangalore’s chequered history of supplying Bombay’s dons with shooters like Sadhu Shetty.
2) Another Don – Mutappa Rai and his Jai Karnataka movement.
3) The demography of the district where Christians and Muslims make up to 40 per cent of the population. This is true for Kerala too and you have made no mention of conversions.
4) How the Gulf Money led to the takeover of business and land from Upper Caste Hindus in the Nineties. Again true for Kerala too.
5) Influx of migrants from Kerala to Karnataka.
6) Yes, it might be the most affluent district in the state after Bengaluru but it is neglected by the Karnataka government. The affluence is because of the people and not because of the goodies doled out in the state.

A few observations on the last Hafta:-
1) The advice provided by each of you to Deb was brilliant , special mention to Vardhan and Mummyji (Madhu)’s advice.
2) Hrithik Roshan “Superstar”,  ummm really? Name one non-Rakesh Roshan produced film with Hrithik that was a blockbuster. Will need to go to Mission Kashmir (in which Sanju and Jackie outclassed him)?
3) The real story in the Jay Shah case is the Coop Bank loan and IREDA grant. Where was the tender, the bid, the proposal??? And where is my NL story. This is my demand as a subscriber.
4) The pink papers not being good enough. Mr Sekhri – ye business opportunity hai mere bhai. Arey yaar I can see Meghnad doing some brilliant economic and legal stories. And so can Akash Banerjee. NL Economics can have a separate or add-on subscription. Referencing back to Madhu’s comment about trading firms having massive up and downturns on their balance sheet. How many people know and understand that Mr Sekhri sprite peeyo aur apna akal lagao.

A special mention about the Anand Vardhan interview of Manu Joseph. There was so much awwwww! in it. I mean like a true fan adoring his idol.

Oye Madhuji,
Aapse ek shikhayat hai , aapne interview lena bandh kar diya hai kya? I mean if you all think that the ruling dispensation has completely curved the media, isn’t that an opportunity for NL to fill the void.

I guess all us subscribers will be thrilled to see NL interviews or even getting them on Hafta, namely:
1) Raghuram Rajan
2) Yogi Adityanath
3) Amit Shah (if you can get him)
4) Devendra Fadnavis
5) Mithali Raj, Harmanpreet Kaur, PV Sindhu (feminism feminism karte rehte ho , why not take their interview )

A few Haftas ago an engineering student chose an NL subscription over a jeans pant. Talking about core constituency, have you guys worked on getting subscription from this student constituency? I know there is the debates and such things that NL organised but has that translated to subscription.

Guess I have exceeded the word limit. But I have to protest to the curbing of my freedom of expression. From my NL brethren to you, Mr Sekhri. –

Sukhoon milta hai do lafz kaagaz par utarkar…
Cheekh bhi leta hoon aur awaaz bhi nahin hoti

– Piyush Mishra

Addendum

Tum cheektey chillatey ho har haftey NL Hafta par
Dost humey bhi cheekney chillaney do in kaghaz ke lakeeron par

Keep up the good work, guys.

Best Regards,
Dhiraj

Hi NL team and NL Hafta cast and crew,

A response to the brief conversation in Hafta – 141 regarding allegations of sexual misconduct against Hollywood film producer Harvey Weinstein.

First, referring to the recent spate of accusations of harassment and assault, some of which refer to transgressions that allegedly took place several years ago, Madhu said “… pehle kyun nahi bola ji, pehle sab chup the… now suddenly they’re coming out of the woodwork”. She went on to suggest that victims were speaking out only after Weinstein was fired by his production company and could no longer exercise any influence on the course of their careers. So, you kind of answered your question yourself – Weinstein was a powerful man and allegations of misconduct against him would have serious negative consequences on the careers of the alleged victims (though I would argue it is far more complex than that).

I suspect you think these consequences are trivial. I couldn’t help but detect dismissiveness in Madhu’s tone. “… coming out of the woodwork” is a disrespectful way to refer to people who choose to go public with their humiliation at the hands of an alleged serial sexual predator. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt of airing an opinion that was not well thought out or researched – such are the limitations of a free-wheeling conversation on personal biases and opinions. Also, it’s possible that I misread what you meant. But if you are genuinely curious about the culture of silence surrounding sexual harassment and assault – now is a good time to get up to speed with various explanations for it. The Weinstein cases have inspired a cottage industry of Op-Eds that attempt to characterise sexual harassment in the workplace. I would recommend a piece in the Guardian by Zoe Williams titled “Why did no one speak out about Harvey Weinstein” (link). There are many others.

Second, referring to Weinstein’s response to allegations – that he is a “man of the 60s”, Madhu said, “… the 60s and the 70s was an era of free sex… multiple partners was normal”. Referring to allegations of rape against Bill Cosby and Weinstein, Madhu said, “… this kind of behaviour… this exploitation of people who work for you and potentially work for you… this behaviour was considered normal”. This comment either betrays ignorance of how morals concerning sex and sexuality evolved during the 60s and 70s or an ignorance of the facts of the allegations against Cosby and Weinstein. I am hoping it is the latter – I have only read about the Summer of Love and the Sexual Revolution, and I’d prefer not to argue with Madhu’s lived experience. But I do feel equipped to point out a few things. I cannot believe I actually have to say this – the women who are alleging misconduct by the now disgraced stalwarts DID NOT WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH THEM. Cosby is accused of administering sedatives to his victims before raping them. Weinstein is accused of hiring a professional to corral women for his recreation, using his resources to settle allegations of misconduct in courts, and bullying influential celebrities to vouch for his integrity and quash unflattering stories in the media. Again, and this bears repetition, the women speaking out about their experiences with Weinstein did not approach him for sex, they approached him as professionals seeking to have conversations regarding work prospects. This is not about sex, “free” or conservative.

By characterizing the use of positions of power to exploit the vulnerable as “normal” or acceptable in any era, you do two things – you misrepresent the complexity of what that era stood for, and more significantly, you undermine the seriousness of allegations of sexual misconduct in this or any other moment in history. Weinstein and Cosby are not hippies or free-thinkers struggling to adapt to a politically correct environment in which women are more empowered than they used to be. Nor are they conservative fuddy-duddies who happen to be on the wrong side of history. If what they’re alleged of doing is true, they are sexual predators, plain and simple.

It makes my blood boil that this distinction is unclear. You’re better than this. I hope we all are.

Sincerely,Swati

Swati