When stunts go wrong

It is common in the film industry to have a body double to perform stunts, which are too dangerous to be performed by the protagonist. Stunts are important because the audience loves thrill, action and edge of the seat adrenalin rush. That’s when they come out saying, “paisa wasool ho gaya” (I got value for my money).  Stunts is a risky job despite all the precautions that are taken. The harness, the cushions and now the computer, which can turn a stuffed toy into a tiger, make the act more of an art than a dare. The job is still not risk free and that’s probably the reason the demand for stunt actors still exists. The stuntman or stuntwoman is someone who risks his or her life to earn a living and earns applause for the protagonist in the process.

 

The real life

Now, human mind is very creative. It has the power to read patterns and adapt itself to the events around them. Here is where the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) enters the scene. It started off as a people’s movement that captured the imagination of youth. Its evolution from a street movement to a political force and eventually power holder in Delhi was carefully carried out with a charm offensive targeted at the youth. But the recent events of a major split in the party ranks, ouster of the ideologues Prashant Bhushan and Yogendra Yadav and a series of stings involving top leadership has left the party clutching at straws to save its image. The youth needed another event to charm it, to restore the credibility of the movement.

 

The reel life

Veeru climbed the water tank and threatened suicide. The villagers left what they were doing and gathered at the foot of the tank. They pleaded him to climb down and made all attempts to convince Mausi to promise Basanti’s hand in marriage to Veeru. Once promised, the suicide is called off and the scene ends. While Veeru was threatening suicide, Jai was calm as a cucumber and made no attempt to stop his friend from jumping to his death. He obviously has called his bluff. He said, “jab daaru utregi to yeh bhi utar jayega”. But that was cinema, takes, retakes and more retakes.

 

The real life

The Aam Aadmi Party chose this classic scene from Sholay to charm its audience. After all who does not love some drama? So Gajendra, a politician in making, who was in touch with Manish Sisodia might have been chosen to play Veeru. Kejriwal will play Jai the indifferent friend who knows what is happening. Thus started the drama. Gajendra perched himself up on a tree with a broom, which also happens to be the party emblem of AAP. He started sloganeering, tied a towel around his neck and threatened suicide. He said his crop was damaged and the wanted to kill himself. The speeches by AAP continued below and the police stood by. People watched Gajendra do his sloganeering, some might have urged him to climb down but that did not seem to have any effect.

While all this was going on, Jai the indifferent friend, Arvind Kejriwal, kept silent. It appears he knew Gajendra was playing Veeru. He also knew that unlike the screen Veeru Gajendra was not allowed any retakes nor were there any safety harness to save him should he slip. Real life stunts cannot be the same as reel life stunts. He did slip and hung himself. A tragic loss of life. A woman lost her husband, three children lost their father and the AAP grabbed a lot of headline.

The director and the stunt man

A man who claimed to be a devastated farmer was a professional safa expert and owned a fairly large plot of family land. News reports suggest that there was no apparent reason for him to commit suicide, other than a domestic row he had a few day ago.

 

Reports also suggest that he was a party hopper who switched his allegiance from the BJP to SP to Congress and recently to the AAP. His alleged meeting with Manish Sisodia at 11 AM on the day of his suicide raises some important questions. He might have met him to further his political ambitions or to discuss the stunt, we may never know. But what we know is that his death was probably a political stunt that went horribly wrong. The usual blame game has begun and will probably continue for a few days before the public memory fades and something new catches its fancy.

The one thing that has emerged from the fiasco of a rally that AAP organised is that Kejriwal and his AAP will go to any extent to further their political ambitions. Gajendra is a small sacrifice on the long road Kejriwal has chosen for himself. This is dangerous. Bollywood should be restricted to cinemas, the day it enters our streets we will be left at the mercy of directors like AAP. They will not flinch at coaxing another Veeru to climb a tree.

Inside the USCIRF - The people, the commission and their selective list

We have an agenda, do you know what it is?

Later this month the US Commission on International Religious Freedom will come up with its 2015 report. The media will offer it extensive coverage to the findings of the report, like it did in the past. Last year the commission placed India in its tier II list, along with Afghanistan, Russia, Indonesia, Turkey and five other countries. The Tier II is a category where there is some degree of concern on religious freedom. The other categories being, Tier I with “particular concerns” and the milder, “other countries and regions" mostly in Western Europe. The list of countries exclude the entire Americas, except for Venezuela, Cuba and French Guiana. It also excludes all countries in North Africa, except for Egypt and Sudan.

 

It’s interesting why some countries are excluded from the list while some like French Guiana (with a population of 250,000) are included in the list. But before giving that a thought, let us see who the people behind the commission are. The commission is a bipartisan organization, enacted by law, with members appointed by both the Republicans and Democrats. It essentially means that both parties get to drive their agenda. Here is a short introduction of the Chair, Vice Chair and the Commissioners.

Name and Designation	Best known for	Appointed by
Dr. Katrina Lantos Swett, Chair	President of Lantos Foundation, daughter of the only Holocaust survivor elected to the US House of Representative	Democrat, Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader
Dr. Robert P. George, Vice Chair	Most influential conservative Christian, opposition to same sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research, anti-abortion	Republican, Speaker of the House John Boehner
Dr. James J. Zogby, Vice Chair	Founder of Arab American Institute, subtly justified Muslim outrage against the Danish cartoons	Barack Obama, president of US
Dr. M. Zuhid Jasser, Commissioner	President of American Islamic Forum, served as medical officer in US Navy	Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
Professor Mary Ann Glendon, Commissioner	Former US ambassador to Vatican, consultant to the US council of Catholic Bishops, refused to share stage with Obama for his alleged anti-Catholic views	Republican, Mitch McConnell Senate Minority Leader
Dean. Eric P. Schwartz, Commissioner	Former assistant secretary of state for population, refugees and migration, dean of Hubert Humphrey School of public affairs	Barack Obama, President of US
Dr. Daniel I Mark, Commissioner	Professor at Vilanova University, works with Tikvah Fund, formerly taught at Yeshiva University	Republican, John Boehner, Speaker of the House
Rev. Thomas J. Reese, Commissioner	Catholic Jesuit priest, believes in missionary activities, member of the Society of Jesus	Barack Obama, President of US
Hannah Rosenthal, Commissioner	Head of Jewish Council for Public Affairs, combats anti-Semitism, works for other Jewish matters	Democrat, Minority leader US house of representatives, Nancy Pelosi.

 

An institution claiming to look at the religious freedom of other countries, which are more diverse and multicultural than the country it is based in, has virtually no religious diversity in its own management. The people representing the commission are either conservative Christians or Jews who work for Jewish cause. Of course there is a token Muslim face.

It will be unfair to assume that Christians or Jews are not capable of judging the religious freedoms of countries with Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, Atheist or Hindu populations. But one should be concerned when the people on the board have clear conflict of interest. How is an ultra-orthodox Dr. George or Professor Glendon supposed to view religious freedoms in other countries when they themselves espouse opinions which are contrary to other people’s freedom (anti-abortion or dislike for a President’s views on Church)? How is a Dr. Swett or Ms. Rosenthal or Dr. Mark supposed to judge other countries when all that they do is to further only the Jewish cause (Dr. Swett however does some work on human rights by awarding meagre grants of USD 500 – USD 2,500)?

The exclusions & inclusions

The list includes most of the Middle Eastern countries in its tier I list, which is hardly surprising given their harsh rules to suppress other religions. But surprisingly it excludes the rich kingdoms of United Arab Emirates and Qatar, which offer next to nothing when it comes to freedom of speech or basic human rights let alone freedom of religion. Both monarchies happen to be flush with oil, gas and cash, a key American requirement. It also excludes the war torn Yemen where sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni Muslims has claimed thousands of lives in the past years. Apparently religious freedoms of failed countries is not important. Israel, a country that blatantly discriminates against its Muslim Arabs is not on any of the three categories. No surprises here.

The commission has put most west European countries on its list. This is primarily because the European secular and human rights laws are apparently at odds with view of American religious freedoms. Banning of religious symbols in public by France, or protests by activists against male genital mutilation, also known as circumcision, in other European countries is a terrible cause of concern for America. A country, which has passed a law on religious freedom at federal and state level, with potential to be abused against other religions and communities.

Strangely enough Cuba and Venezuela (both with majority Christian population and hardly any religious diversity) feature in the list. The only reason for their inclusion is their communist government, which is not friends with Uncle Sam. Poor French Guiana is there just because France is on the list. What is also interesting is to see why Morocco (with its national motto, “Allah, Homeland, King”) is not on the list but Egypt is, or why the Philippines with its Christian-Muslim conflict is not on the list but Vietnam is? It will not be unfair to say that most of the times the concern boils down to the presence of Christians in the countries. So while Morocco with hardly any Christian population is off the list, Egypt with Coptic Christians is in the list. A Catholic majority Philippines is out but Vietnam (a communist country) with a Christian population is in. Another reason why countries make it to the list is to further the agenda of the missionaries working in those countries. The evangelical and proselytization activities by the missionaries, like the Joshua Project in India, will find special attention from the ultra-orthodox members of the commission.

One of the main objectives of the commission is to use the information and rankings as a tool of America’s foreign policy. It is no surprise that countries, which the American government wants to deal with but finds it difficult are on the list.  The commission serves the two pronged strategy of furthering the religious agenda of the ultra-orthodox Christians in America and the department of state of the US government.

So the next time you read the report released by the commission (most likely on 30^th April) or its coverage by the print and electronic media make sure you know what the commission really is. It is a tool like many other to further vested interest of individuals, organisations and the US government.