The Maha TV Debate: Circa 1943

IN Opinion | 11/04/2013

As we all know, it doesn’t hurt to dream occasionally. Swen-Ruoh, the rather secretive and committed TV news critic (his interest in the idiot box is only known to himself and his dog, Scoop) writes for his own pleasure. And in the early hours of every morning, when the channels are still repeating the late night bulletin, he reads the observations he made in long hand the previous night. A meticulous critic, Swen has devoted the last decade to surfing news channels and has managed this indulgence thanks to an uncle who bequeathed him a considerable fortune. As a result our critic, free from any mundane 9 to 5 occupation, has to only watch TV and occasionally keep tabs on simple and compound interest accumulating in his bank account. Some people sure are lucky.

Last fortnight, Swen had a dream. He had fallen asleep while watching all those news shows in which the speeches of two Prime Ministerial hopefuls – Rahul Gandhi of the Congress and the BJP’s Narendra Modi – were subjected to micro-analysis by so-called experts. “The rather predictable discussions,” our critic noted before he slipped into deep slumber, “has acted on me like a sleeping potion. I am afraid I can’t keep my eyes open…” In retrospect, had Swen stayed awake that night he might well have missed a TV debate that he would never have seen with his eyes wide open. In fact, so excited was he when he woke up the following morning that he committed to the written word all that had passed through his mind during his sleep. And he did this in a tearing hurry while every detail was fresh in his memory.

Now, Swen is not the kind to share his writing – particularly his critique of TV shows – with the rest of the world. Apparently, he wishes to make his writing public posthumously when no one can file libel suits against him. However, making an exception, he sent us this piece about his dream through a friend with a third person description of himself which we have suitably adapted and shared with readers. But over to what our critic saw that night in his sleep which got him so excited:

MOHANDAS KARAMCHAND GANDHI—AN EXCLUSIVE AND INCISIVE DEBATE

Setting: A TV studio in Delhi in 1943. (Television came to India much later. But what the hell! Everything goes in a dream.) 

Dramatis Personae

Anchor: Peedjar Banra (Has mood swings. At times noisy)

Expert Panel: Mr John Bull – pro British; Mr India – supports Independence; Shri Maha Bharat – represents the Hindu right; His Highness Raja Hindustani – defends royalty; Shri-Shri-Mister-Mister – a neither here nor there character who has come dressed in khadi (his left torso, thighs and legs covered in a kurta-pyjama) and the other side of his body in a Gabardine suit. On one foot he wears a chappal and on the other a shoe. His headgear is a fusion between a Gandhi topi and an English hat.      

Anchor Peedjar Banra (effusive as ever): Welcome ladies and gentlemen to this exclusive show where for the first time on television we will take a hard and close look at Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi – his philosophy and his vision for India will be subjected to in-depth scrutiny and analysis. And we are conducting this exercise so that the entire nation knows and becomes better informed. I understand that our friends in the print media have been writing a lot about Mr Gandhi. But when debated on TV there is far greater clarity simply because one does not have to read between the lines. Anyway, to get to the point, here are some of the questions that will be debated by members of our expert panel who have already been introduced:

Some call him the messiah who will save the country from the clutches of the British empire. But will the freedom that he promises guarantee Indians a better life? Will it bring down the prices of essentials and check inflation? Can it make imported cars and wine any cheaper? And will every poor family finally get a TV so that their great grandchildren can improve TRP ratings of news channels?

Also, can we expect better GDP figures in the days to come? Will all that talk of inclusive growth make the rich poorer and the poor richer? Can we expect infrastructure getting top priority post-Independence and will Bombay ever become Shanghai? What does one make of Gandhi’s non-cooperation movement, Salt March and the latest – the call to the British to Quit India. 

And finally, should Mr Gandhi, as some may suggest, have practised law at the Bombay High Court, earned a decent living, and played cricket on Sundays instead of taking on the British establishment?

Let me kick things off by asking Mr John Bull to share his thoughts.

John Bull: Well, you have to ask yourself this question – what were the Indians doing for thousands and thousands of years? Did we see any progress? Did the great Indian minds do nothing – no planning, no industrial growth, no import-export. Compare that inertia to what we have achieved in a matter of just a few centuries. We took the country forward – if you have the railways then thank the Raj for it. We built infrastructure –roads, bridges, tunnels, ports, schools, colleges, hospitals, hill stations and what have you. Of course, some of the sceptics may say we were responsible for the Jallianwala Bagh massacre but you see the guilty have been punished. In any case, other than baseless allegations there was nothing against King George V. One must understand that such unfortunate things do happen but we have to forget the past and see the larger picture. No one can deny that the country progressed under the British, which is why another 100 years of the Raj will only do India good.

As for Mr Gandhi, why couldn’t he make his money as a barrister and enjoy the good things in life? Why does he have to rub salt into those who have come from across the seas to build a better land?

Mr India (agitated): Under British rule we have been reduced to slaves in our own country. The Raj believes in a divide-and-rule policy. But in a free India all communities – Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, will live in harmony. We will be our own masters. Long live Gandhiji!

Shri Maha Bharat: Becoming Independent is fine. But why is Gandhi so sympathetic to Muslims? Hindustan must be a country only for those who respect Hindus and their religion. Bharat Mata ki Jai!!

Peedjar Banra (interrupting): Gentlemen, let’s not communalise the discussion. We are here to debate Mr Gandhi not Hindus and Muslims.

Shri Maha Bharat (protesting): But the Hindu-Muslim question involves Mr Gandhi.

Peedjar Banra (cutting him short): Let’s get in His Highness Raja Hindustani…

Raja Hindustani: Well, we are with whoever is good for the royals and serves our business interests better. We believe that the private sector, like the maharajas, must grow and that wealth generation must be encouraged. I am sure Gandhiji will understand our concerns.

Peedjar Banra: Point taken. Now, let me get the resplendently dressed Shri-Shri-Mister-Mister to express his views.

Shri-Shri-Mister-Mister: Well Peedjar, let me first of all say it’s a great pleasure to be on your show. Clothes, to add to the old adage, maketh and speaketh for the man. My dress says it all – non-cooperation is fine but only in moderation. Can the Swadeshi lobby provide us luxury cars, whisky, cheese and chocolates? Earlier you mentioned the Quit India movement, my astrologer predicts that in the future it will be Indians who will be quitting the country to settle in the US, Canada and Britain. As for the charkha and khadi, people who have to spin yarns on TV may find some thread of a story there…

Peedjar Banra: Thanks for that dig. On that note we will end this discussion. But please send in your votes by SMS on the number flashing on the screen. Type ‘G’ for Gandhi, ‘R’ for the Raj. Those without mobiles can send smoke signals. Good night!