Comparing the Gandhis to the Bachchans is like comparing a peacock to the vultures (The B-i-G Freeze, Nov 8). At least Amitabh has the decency to acknowledge that the Gandhis are the raja and they the rank. Jaya, on the other hand, is ungrateful and disloyal, conveniently forgetting that it was thanks to Indira Gandhi that her husband is alive; she saw to it that foreign life-saving drugs reached him at jet speed. In her amnesia, Jaya also forgets that it was again at Mrs G’s personal request to Nargis and Sunil Dutt to help Amitabh get a foothold in filmdom that he got his first meaty role in Reshma aur Shera and consequent breaks through the Dutt influence. Today Jaya has lost all respect for hobnobbing with the Samajwadi Party and the Sahara group. The Gandhis were, are and will always be an intangible part of India’s history. Amitabh today is a caricature of the once great actor that he was. Now he is just Brand X, a commodity, pushing every product from cheap hair oils, to digestives, to chocolates.
Adi Katrak, Mumbai
Once again politics raised its ugly head and terminated relations between two prominent families. One wishes the two families would forgive each other and start afresh.
Debashish Pradhan, Rourkela
A few months ago, I went to watch Khakee, an Amitabh starrer, with a bunch of desis. We were all caught up in Bachchan’s aura and how he managed to evoke the magic of his days of Vijay—the honest but wronged cop. Couple of days later, I read that Bachchan performed at the wedding of Subroto Roy’s son and the event was directed by Rajkumar Santoshi—the director of Khakee. We all know the Subroto Roy-Amar Singh-Mulayam Singh Yadav nexus is most corrupt and precisely the kind of setup Amitabh railed against for 30 years in his movies. How can he do this now? Don’t these guys have a conscience? Indians treat their icons with more respect than anywhere else and we are sold short by our very icons.
Vikas Chowdhury, Madison, US
Your cover story on the feud between the Bachchans and the Gandhis has touched new journalistic lows, even by Outlook’s normal abysmal political reporting standards. Forget the "inside story", as you claim on the cover, there wasn’t much of the outside either. You say that a Jaya Bachchan comment brought the feud out into the open, but you don’t tell us what she said! The only person quoted in the entire article is Amar Singh. The rest are all "sources". The article just shows that your journalists are lazy, fly their own kites sitting in office, and would be better off writing fiction than pretending to be hard reporters.
Sharmila Akerkar, Mumbai
Despite a strong retort from Rahul Gandhi over Jaya Bachchan’ statement that the Gandhis had betrayed them, the Bachchans are too cultured to strain their relations with the Gandhi family or even harm anyone. And though Amitabh, on his part, has regretted Jaya’s utterances, it seems some misunderstanding still prevails in Rahul’s mind. Hope the families, both equally high-profile, patch up their differences and continue to set an example to the rest of the country.
K.V. Raman, Mumbai
At a time when Maharashtra was in the midst of a CM crisis and the elections in the US had the world agog, what does Outlook choose to write about? The Gandhi-Bachchan feud. I suggest you rename your magazine BollyCricket. Because Bollywood and cricket seem to be the only two things you care about.
Sunil Shibad, Mumbai
I was appalled to read your cover story on the Gandhi-Bachchan feud. Surely, you don’t have to stoop so low.
Meenakshi Purohit, on e-mail
Bush-Kerry be damned. We’ve savoured all that Gandhi-Bachchan masala, not once asking for water.
Gaurav Dua, Delhi
I read the cut-and-paste flight of fancy that was your article, Special Forces Circus (Nov 8). The assertion that parachute battalions are being converted to special forces ‘without government sanction’ is laughable. Are you aware that parachuting is a skill central to the special forces? You also have the temerity to question the competence of the seniormost parachute regiment general to head a study on the special forces. May we know what your credentials are to pontificate on specialist matters related to defence?
Arjun Rangarajan, on e-mail
Recently, a team of 10 Para (special forces) was sent to participate in an international competition to South Africa. The reason they couldn’t make it to the top slot was because they were headed by an officer from 6 Para, a normal parachute battalion. He had no clue to what’s required of the special forces, never having served in a unit. It seems the army too is following procedures of selection similar to our cricket selectors.
Vivek Savur, on e-mail
Just goes to prove that the Indian army is an expert in covering up blunders either by creating bigger problems or by diverting the issue. It works on the whims and fancies of commanders. And though it claims a deficiency of officers and personnel, a large number of these are dumped into civilian organisations like the Survey General of India, the Border Roads Organisation, Military Engineer Services et al to smugly mind over better qualified ‘civilian’ scientists, engineers and administrators. No wonder organisations like the drdo are in a mess.
Amit Kumar Mittal, Calcutta
Despite the excellent performance of British paratroopers in the Falklands, they’re not converting to special forces. Neither are the 82 and 101 Airborne Divisions of the US. Even the Chinese can maintain 15 Airborne Corps, so why are we reducing our airborne capability?
Lt Col D. Sinha (retd), on e-mail
I’m a retired paratrooper but know that parachute battalions are not special forces. Regiment loyalties notwithstanding, there seems a serious leadership crisis in our regiment. Can you imagine the colonel of the regiment not participating even in a collective parachute jump during its 50-year celebrations at Bangalore?
Vijay Saldanha, on e-mail
For the first time perhaps, I was disappointed by Vinod Mehta’s column (Medium is the Image, Nov 1). It was full of generalities and oversimplifications. While I agree with the overall thesis—that the medium is the message and at the moment it seems to be doing the Muslims in India gross disservice—it seems he wants to deny there are important schisms in the subcontinent. He seems to imply that we’re wallowing in the memories of Partition, but how can he expect people of the subcontinent to forget in five decades one of the most violent and disorienting redrawings of the map, and redefinitions of nationality? Don’t wallow in that history certainly, but don’t try to sweep it under the carpet either. It’s far too large and unwieldy and we will only end up tripping on it.
Priyanjali Malik, New Delhi
The All-India Muslim Personal Law Board is a group that is orthodox and has no concern for the development of the Muslim community. The moderate people in the board are in a minority, so they have no voice. The board is adamant on triple talaq and anti-family planning. Dr Kalbe Sadiq, aimplb vice-president who represents the Shia Muslims, has endorsed family planning and cites many examples of other Islamic countries practising family planning. There is no provision in Islam which prohibits family planning. As for triple talaq, the board’s not willing to scrap this absurd provision. The Shias don’t follow it. The conditions of Indian Muslims can improve only when educated, broad-minded Muslims take over the board.
Syed Adil Mehdi, on e-mail
The argument that censorship hampers freedom of speech and expression is baseless (Just Cut It Out, Nov 8). The path—as I think new censor boss Sharmila Tagore will readily agree—lies in moderation. For, too much of anything is good for nothing and that holds true for freedom as well. Unmitigated freedom not only misleads people, it also tempts one to do things that one would normally have abstained from.
Manisha Mishra, Cuttack, Orissa
Your special women’s issue (Nov 1) was excellent in that it featured the everyday woman rather than one who’s always spoken about. I was, though, concerned to note that throughout the issue there seemed an underlying sense of ‘being better than men’. Do women have to ‘substitute’ men? Why can’t they be themselves?
Vinita, on e-mail
True, there are some sensitive films (like Loknayak by Prakash Jha, Kaya Taran by Sasikumar) which need to be handled differently by the censor board (Just Cut It Out, Nov 8). But in the name of ‘freedom of expression’, cheap filmmakers like Mahesh Bhatt have begun to peddle soft porn through movies like Murder and Jism. We definitely need a censor board for films seeing the level of vulgarity that is already being beamed on television. As for that facile argument, ‘let people decide’, if people could really judge for themselves, why would we have had laws in the first place? With the censor board in the shape it is in, good films have to bargain harder due to other B-grade movies. The way around perhaps would be to have two sections to the censor board, one to look at films on social issues, and the other to examine the porn factory that is prevailing in Indian cinema these days. What we don’t need is the censor board being made into a battleground for settling political scores, like H.K.S. Surjeet has done in the case of Anupam Kher.
Yugal Joshi, New Delhi
Hope Tarun Vijay’s message (China Diary, Nov 8) reaches those who’d truly benefit by it; that alone shall rid India from chronic doublespeak.
Anurag Sangal, Mumbai
I think we should post H.K.S. Surjeet in China as our ambassador. Maybe, just maybe, living in their midst, some common sense will sink in. Likewise, we should have Syed Shahabuddin in Saudi Arabia (he will be treated there not as a Muslim but as a Hindu).
Srini Jasti,
San Jose, US
