A review of #NLHafta from Raghu Sharma, Anonymous, Sayani and Deepti Sharma

Hi,

I have been your subscriber for a long time, so that’s there. NL Hafta is my only intellectual exercise on Indian Politics and helps me keep updated with the current events. However, I will just focus on one discussion in this weeks Hafta, about taking down of the statues in US of Confederate Generals. Well if you have seen the Civil War Documentary by Ken Burns (the best historical documentary ever), you will know that people like Robert E Lee, And Stonewall Jackson, were not a supporter of slavery themselves. Lincoln had requested Robert  Lee to command the Union Army, but Lee refused because his own state Virginia had seceded from the Union, and he wanted to stand with his state as a dutiful citizen of the state.  After the war, Lee served as an educator in the University and a very successful one as well. The Confederate Army achieved remarkable victories against the Union although they were grossly out numbered both in personal as well as equipment. That was possible only because of the Generals and their skills in what they were doing. Thus they became the symbol of Southern Pride. Even the Northerners did not enlist the blacks in Army, and consider it as the White Man War. The world was different at that time. Considering the statues and monuments, how far then you will go down the road. Every ruler before participated in atrocities against one community or the other. And they built Temples and  Mosques too.  Anand can say about Churchill and I completely agree with that, But at the same time what about Roosevelt who chose to kill thousands of civilians, women, and children included in Japan by dropping the atom bomb. Japan would have ultimately surrendered anyway, under the might of Allied forces and German surrender. Yes, it expedited the process, yes it saved many of Allied soldiers. But what is the moral equivalence of trading lives of a soldier with those of civilian population. But Roosevelt is considered a hero nevertheless. So it all depends on how you want to appropriate history and who is doing that. As in science, the facts seem to change with the observer.

Sorry to digress from the original topic. Also, I would like to recommend The Tokyo Trials to you on Netflix, in which Irrfan Khan plays the Indian judge presiding over the bench hearings for the Japan role in war just like Nuremberg trials for Germany.  The Indian Jurist Radhabinod Pal was the lone Judge to exonerate all indictees because he thought that there is no legal precedence to judge and convict the indictees as war was “just “on the basis of international law of that time. He was overruled by the rest of the Panel. And guess what , he is considered a hero in Japan even today and has his statue there . Japan PM personally met with his grandson (or descendant )  during his visit to India .  So it all depends .

Well apologies for all the typos , I finished listening to Hafta half an hour back and cant help but write back to you at 2 am here . Keep doing the  good work . I deeply respect each on of you , but I must admit I am a fan of your resident Genius Mr. Anand. Though I differ from many of his views ( being a couple of degrees left of center ) , but his  logical reasoning on all the issues  is really impressive . I wish I had known him personally , or someone like him who possess such great knowledge in diverse fields and various topics. If I had a science teacher like you , I would not have been running around worrying about next quarter sales numbers.  How the hell he gets time for all of that being a scientist , is one thing I really want to ask . All in all , I really appreciate the work your team does and wish you all the best . Hope to visit you when I come to Delhi next time .  Hope that should be fine .

Regards,

Raghu Sharma, Bahrain.

————————————————————————————

Hi NL Team,

If you decide to read the mail, I would request you to please keep my identity anonymous!

I am of course a subscriber and a big fan of the podcast and the team especially of Manisha and Atul who in my opinion are the most balanced members of the podcast.

I have been meaning to write for a while now, however, what really pushed me out of my laziness was Anand’s position last week on Ansari’ comments as well as his disregard and contempt for the fact that there is a sense of insecurity amongst the Muslims in the country. As per Anand, there is no feeling of fear amongst the Muslims as apparently, he data does not substantiate this! This is not the first time that Anand has said this and each time I have wondered how does he measure insecurity? Can a person or a community only feel insecure if there are overt physical actions of violence against them, which is the only thing that data will capture or does a sense of self censorship and being wary of expressing an opinion also add to this feeling? How does one measure feeling of persecution? So Anand may be right when he says that data does not reflect that there has been an increase in the violence against the minorities, but that does not give the complete figure.

Data will not and does not capture the mood of the people. To say that just because the physical violence has not increased, Muslims cannot feel insecure is a fallacious argument. I have friends who have not been subjected to any sort of violence but have started censoring their opinions and comments as they fear a backlash, which considering the backlash faced by Ansari and others seems to be a justifiable position.

People’s feelings and anxiety cannot always be measured and it is ironical that instead of assauging this sense of anxiety,  people like Anand believe in attacking the people who voice their fears! Doesn’t this only buttress their arguments?

I think I have rambled enough, it is just that I do have strong feelings when it comes to quantifying human emotions!

I do love your work and am a supporter of the kind of work that you are doing and of the add free model that you hope to build..so best of luck and hope you guys achieve your goal…

P.S. sorry for the typos, have just typed it on my phone.

Regards,

Anonymous

————————————————————————————

Dear NL team,

I have been a subscriber for over a year and though I don’t need any more reasons than I already have to justify my subscription, a recent development has reinforced my belief why one should subscribe to independent media and NL in particular.

After the tragic events at Gorakhpur recently, there were a slew of reports in news media that ranged from the relevant (apathy and corruption in health care administration) to the bizarre (whether Dr. Kafeel Khan was a “hero” or “villain”). But none talked about lacunae in diagnosis and treatment of AES and what measures could be taken to improve those, barring this excellent one in the Fountain Ink, which I would like to recommend.

Then I found NL’s report on the antibiotic minocycline and the bureaucratic hurdles in it getting approval for AES in spite of showing favourable results in a clinical trial. The report resonated with me at a personal level since I know Dr. Anirban Basu—who headed the minocycline research at NBRC, Gurgaon—and am aware of his exasperation at the red tape on minocycline’s path to approval for AES.

This is why I was ecstatic when I read in NL this morning about the Health Ministry giving the go-ahead to an observational study of minocycline in AES patients and considering including it in AES treatment. The credit for bringing minocycline under the spotlight goes, to a great degree, to NL and I would like to applaud Kanchan Srivastava and the NL editorial team for giving space to this story.

There are a number of thoughts that I’d like to share about hafta, but I’ll reserve that for another day. For today, let’s leave at “when the public pays, the public is truly served.”

Best,
Sayani.

————————————————————————————

Dear Newslaundry team,

Thank you for yet another insightful episode of Hafta. Towards the end of this week’s episode, Abhinandan mentioned the re-emergence of Rohith Vemula suicide controversy. I’d like to address that.

Abhinandan rightly said that suicide is linked with Depression, and trying to determine the role of a specific trigger, the way Arnab Goswami in his trademark baseless confidence was trying to do is well, very Arnab. As a person with Depression, I have been asked a number of times if I had suicidal thoughts. I don’t, and I never did. Depression works in different ways on different people, and it is impossible for me to relate to feelings of self-destruction that I hear other people going through. From certain experiences, I have realized that even during my darkest phases of depression, and under the most traumatic triggers, my instinct of self-preservation has seen me through. I may have actually displayed more presence of mind and/or cautious wisdom in those situations.

So then, what happens to people who, instead of summoning all their innate resources to the cause of self preservation in difficult situations, instead turn against themselves and end their own life?

I will not venture any guesses, but we need to ask these questions, because there is a huge gap in our understanding of suicide as a society. If I’m not mistaken, Indian Penal Code still treats attempted suicide as a criminal offence, and not a mental health issue. Our popular culture has been no help. In fact our movies, TV and literature has time and again been guilty of projecting suicide as a choice an individual makes, often linking it to “triggers”. The most common and worst cliche is of the rape victim committing suicide.

As an aspiring screenwriter, I see this as mere lazy writing. In a certain kind of film, the sister’s rape & subsequent suicide is your hero’s motivation for whatever heroics he’s about to embark on. Suicide, because once her narrative function is fulfilled, this character is not needed in the rest of the film. But there’s another layer to this deeply troubling narrative.

Our stories rationalize suicide as the only possible course for a rape victim. In one detective series, behind the mystery of a young woman’s death turns out to be her rape by a bad, bad man. Our detective looks the culprit in the eye and tells him, “this woman committed suicide, because… well a terrible man like you wouldn’t understand.” So the act of suicide is tied to her virtue.

In one of the 80s Jeetendra-Sridevi films, our hero, yes, Jeetendra rapes Sridevi to prove a point or something. She tries to jump off a cliff. Seeing her do that makes the hero realize that she’s actually a good girl; he saves her, and marries her, and the rape is never mentioned for the rest of the film.

Even more recent films are guilty of callous treatment of suicide. Remember 3 Idiots. The suicide of a student under tremendous academic pressure is, in the film’s narrative, squarely blamed on his professors.

In real life too, any news of suicide is treated with incredulity; I have shockingly heard people say things like, “why reason could she possibly have?” As if any living being could have a rationally justifiable reason for ending their life. Things like, she killed herself over a fight with her parents; he killed himself because his girlfriend left him.

I’m not saying that rapists, abusive spouses, insensitive teachers etc. should be totally let off the hook. But a simplistic correlation of triggers and suicide, responding to suicide with, “bechara aur kya karta?” is very dangerous. The very question, “why?” should simply not be raised in suicide cases. Trying to assign cause is futile. This is because, no matter how traumatic a specific event, the natural instinct of a human being is to save themselves, or come out of it with least damage possible. Any feeling of self-destruction is rare, and its origin is more or less pathological. In these humans, that tendency is always there, somewhere below the surface.

So the question to be asked, is not “why?” We should ask, “How?” How did people surrounding this individual not notice that he/she had a problem? How did they go so long without seeking help? How was their depression never treated? Because suicide is the last resort even for a depressed person. I’m willing to bet, in any case of suicide, the person must have exhibited signs of depression, that were probably ignored by their surroundings.

Rohith’s case, his extreme isolation should have raised a few alarms. This is important to note, even as we hold the authorities accountable for their callousness. Because for all we know, there might be more Rohiths out there, lonely, troubled, and in need for help, and it may not be too late for them.

Thanks and all the best,

Deepti Sharma