HOME | ABOUT US | Speaker | Americans Together | Videos | www.CenterforPluralism.com | Please note that the blog posts include my own articles plus selected articles critical to India's cohesive functioning. My articles are exclusively published at www.TheGhouseDiary.com You can send an email to: MikeGhouseforIndia@gmail.com


Showing posts with label Satyamev Jayate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Satyamev Jayate. Show all posts

Sunday, March 10, 2013

Hyderabad Bomb Blasts: What's Next?

As a Muslim, I am tempted to blame bad guys among Muslims, but what good will it do to India? Deepen hatred for the Muslims? If I blame Hindus, what good will it do to India? Will it bring harmony or tear up our nation further apart?
Whether Malala was a Hindu, Christian or a Muslim, or if Amanat was Dalit, Brahman or Sikh, our outrage would have been the same, would it not? I request that the thrill seekers who want to make this a Hindu and Muslim issue to consider the following suggestions carefully.
...
Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel, India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com 

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Bollywood Star Remakes Himself Into TV Conscience


By


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/business/media/aamir-khan-a-bollywood-star-remakes-himself-into-tv-conscience-of-social-ills.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1



MUMBAI, India — Aamir Khan spent more than two decades as one of India’s most admired movie stars, appearing in a string of socially conscious but mainstream films. Now he has gained even more fame as the host of a hugely popular weekly television show that is calling attention to some the country’s longstanding social problems.
Prakash Singh/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Aamir Khan, right, is the host of a hugely popular weekly television show that is calling attention to some of India’s longstanding social problems.
Prakash Singh/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Mr. Khan addressed journalists in June after appearing before a parliamentary panel to discuss medical problems plaguing India.

Taped in front of a live audience, Mr. Khan’s show, “Satyamev Jayate,” or “Truth Prevails,” is something more than a talk show but less than “60 Minutes.” Mixing Oprah-style interviews on a couch with short reports from the field, it tries to shine a spotlight on festering issues like dowries, domestic violence and indignities in the caste system.

In just three months the show has become a national phenomenon, distributed in seven languages and drawing a cumulative audience of nearly 500 million, according to Star India, India’s largest private TV network, which is owned by News Corporation and which commissioned and broadcast the show.
One of the early programs, in May, provided a vivid example of the show’s influence. Mr. Khan, 47, highlighted a seven-year-old sting operation by two TV reporters who had broadcast footage of more than 100 doctors offering to illegally abort female fetuses. While the legal cases against them languished in India’s notoriously slow courts, the doctors continued to practice medicine.

But just days after Mr. Khan featured the topic on his show, the top elected leader from the State of Rajasthan, where the journalists did their investigation, met with Mr. Khan and promised to have the cases transferred to special courts that expedite the dispensing of justice.

That kind of swift reaction has made Mr. Khan — variously described as India’s Oprah Winfrey, George Clooney or Bono — increasingly sought after by policy makers, social advocates and others who see him as a savior or champion for their causes. In addition to meeting with the chief minister of Rajasthan, he testified before a committee of Parliament about the country’s health care system after he did a program on medical malpractice. And last week he met with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to press for a government ban on the practice of having human waste cleaned and carried away by people born into the lowest rungs of the Indian caste system.

He also has a weekly column in The Hindustan Times, takes calls from viewers on a weekly national radio show and is frequently interviewed on prime-time TV news shows.

“Mr. Khan is doing the nation a service by raising important issues which need greater public debate,” said Dr. K. Srinath Reddy, president of the Public Health Foundation of India, which is financed by the government and nonprofit organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Shyam Benegal, a respected TV and film director and a former member of the upper house of Parliament, said Mr. Khan has done what many others have failed to do — reach the Indian mainstream by using Bollywood tropes in the service of larger causes. His shows, for instance, always include musical performances, frequently show him crying as he interviews his guests and include jokey banter.

“This is effective because Aamir Khan is a film star,” said Mr. Benegal, who once made shows for the state-owned broadcaster, Doordarshan. “And he is a pretty good P.R. man for himself, as well. And all those things help.”

Mr. Khan’s fame has helped the show attract sponsors like India’s largest cellphone carrier, Airtel and the foundation arm of one of the country’s largest companies, Reliance Industries.

In an interview earlier this month — after spending two hours at the gym to prepare for an coming action film — Mr. Khan likened his approach to the show to his 2007 movie, “Taare Zameen Par” or, literally, “Stars on Earth.” The film, which he directed and starred in, told the story of a family’s and school’s inability to meet the needs of a dyslexic child. 




“If I tell you I am making a film on dyslexia, how many people are going to walk into the theater?” he said in a discussion at the Taj Land’s End, a five-star hotel frequented by Bollywood stars. “No one will walk in: ‘Oh, come let’s watch a movie about dyslexia.’ So, I have to tell you it’s a film about childhood and children.”

In the same way, he said, Satyamev Jayate does not announce in advance the subjects he intends to cover.
There is little in Mr. Khan’s upbringing to suggest he would end up hosting such a show. He dropped out of college to pursue his movie career and his first breakout film, in 1988, was a popular Bollywood musical in which his character elopes with his girlfriend because their families do not approve of their relationship.
Starting about a decade ago, however, Mr. Khan began to go down a different path tinged with social activism. In the 2001 Oscar-nominated movie “Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India,” Mr. Khan played a villager in colonial India who challenges a British regiment to a cricket match to determine whether his village must pay an extortionate land tax, or lagaan.

Some entertainment industry analysts trace the change to his relationship with Kiran Rao, an assistant director on “Lagaan” who became Mr. Khan’s second wife. Ms. Rao is known for eclectic interests and for making films that do not hew to the well-worn Bollywood formula.

Since “Lagaan,” Mr. Khan has starred in and or produced movies that deal with issues like political corruption, indebted farmers and India’s regimented higher education system. Most popular Indian actors like Shah Rukh Khan and Salmaan Khan, who are not related to Mr. Khan but with whom he is often compared, have largely shied away from such subjects.

“It’s hard for people to remember now that in the 1990’s, that he was a huge star — one of the three Khans,” said Rachel Dwyer, a professor of Indian cultures and cinema at the University of London. “It’s in this decade that he has remade himself.”

Mr. Khan said he does not see “Lagaan” as a turning point for his career. But he acknowledges that Ms. Rao, who he described as “full of life,” helped him become less insular.

While his show has won much praise, it has also been criticized for its sometimes simplistic treatment of complicated subjects. The Indian Medical Association has protested its portrayal of doctors, which it says casts doctors as money grubbing and unprofessional on the basis of a few errant examples.

Mr. Khan and the top executive at Star dismiss that criticism as self-interested.

“We are very clear here that we are mass media, you cannot take the masses out from it,” Uday Shankar, the chief executive of Star India, said in an interview. “In order to keep the masses engaged if you have to simplify, so be it, because anything less would be meaningless. Then it would become an academic paper on the health sector.”

Other critics have argued that the show is too meek in identifying culprits. For example, it did not name the doctors accused of offering illegal abortions.

“He needs to catch a few throats,” said Dilip Cherian, a newspaper columnist and founder of Perfect Relations, a public relations firm. “A little bit of name and shame will probably work well for the show.”
Mr. Khan said he never intended to make an investigative show along the lines of “60 Minutes” and argued that he was having a much bigger impact by bringing big issues in front of mainstream audiences in a way that seeks to shame them out of their apathy. “We are not mincing our words,” he said, but added in Hindi: “Our attitude is not to blame this or that person. We are all to blame. First, you have to understand that.”
Both Mr. Khan and Mr. Shankar declined to provide financial details about the show, other than to say that Mr. Khan’s production company is paid 35 million rupees ($630,000) for each of the 13 episodes of the first season, which ends on Sunday. Both say they would like to do another season of “Satyamev Jayate” but will wait a few months to make a decision.

In the meantime, some of Mr. Khan’s supporters have suggested that he run for elected office, which has often served as a sinecure for Indian film celebrities. Mr. Khan denies any interest in politics.
“He could definitely make a good politician,” Mr. Benegal, the filmmaker and former legislator, said. But he added: “I think. ‘why should he?’ He has already been successful in politics now without being in mainline politics.” 

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Is Aamir Khan an Avatar of Krishna?



In his first show, called Satyameva Jayate (truth ultimately triumphs), Aamir Khan brings out different aspects the society to the fore.

What is great about this man, rather a pluralistic man is that he will not let the audience slip into prejudices. First, he shows a family living on the street, if anyone jumps to the conclusion, "o, it is the street people."  Then he goes on to show a Muslim family, you can slip some more on the slope, its the poor and the Muslims... he takes through several levels and makes you fall into an ugly pit full of shit - it was the bloody mother in law who was a rich Doctor who wants her Bahu Doctor to drop the baby in New Delhi! Evil has no religion and no economic levels. If Aamir Khan keeps doing his shows, one day, India will be cleaned up from prejudices of different varieties.  He is a truly a Krishna's avatar. He had said, whenever adharma takes over a tribe, someone will emerge from among them as his avatar and restore Dharma.

Abuse of Sonogram is a big story in India. In its first show, called Satyamev Jayate (truth ultimately triumphs), in May this year, it featured female feticide. The show has turned India upside down and new laws are being passed to prevent the abuse. A salesman sells the sonogram machine to the Doctors as an investment that will return their capital in six months, and unchecked income continues after that by performing abortions - not male babies but female babies. Guardian reports 6 million girl abortions in the last decade in India, reconfirmed by ABC news i.e., aborting 50,000 female babies a month.

In the sting operation, one doctor asks; if the baby does not die thru aborticides, what should be done, the other says, throw it in the river when it comes out. Yes, it is disgusting and heart wrenching to watch. This, one particular evil has led to disproportionate ratio of men and women to a point of sharing the wife with brothers and friends or selling one’s wife to the highest bidder.
The good news is that the prophecy of Krishna is relevant, in Bhagvad Gita IV-7 Krishna narrates to Arjuna: “Whenever Dharma, or the situation of law and order, is endangered on this world, I incarnate onto this world to re establish Dharma, law and order, and to protect good and destroy the evil elements of the society.” The movie actor Aamir Khan is indeed an incarnation of Krishna in mitigating the evil of female feticide, dowry, child abuse, and other evils of the Indian society.

Texas Faith is a weekly column at Dallas Morning News managed by Editors William McKenzie and Wayne Slater, and the material is contributed by several panelists including Mike Ghouse.

For all the other responses visit:

How much information is enough? The New York Times reported last week that researchers have discovered that performing simple tests on parents can lead to an understanding of almost the entire genome of a fetus. By taking a blood sample from a pregnant woman and a saliva specimen from the father, experts can let parents know virtually all the DNA of a child before it is born.

As the Times reported, thousands of genetic diseases could be detected. In the not-so-distant future, parents could pay an affordable price to get that information, too.

But this breakthrough also raises complicated ethical issues. On the one hand, parents could be more ready for the challenges that await them. Yet will this lead to more abortions, including of children whose parents don't like the DNA profile?

Undoubtedly, we all like information. But you could argue the creation story in Genesis shows the risks that come in acquiring knowledge.

Is this one of those instances? Is this discovery taking medical knowledge too far?

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas

We have come a long way in accepting things we would not have accepted each previous decade or a century. Whether it is ethics, morality, civility, religion, science or medical knowledge, we have accepted the new information despite the initial resistance.

There was a time, when saving a life was considered evil, it was considered against the will of God, and we battle that even today. In 2010, 70 children died in Zimbabwe, because of the religious opposition to vaccination. The religious tolerance organization reports that an average of one sick child a month dies in the United States from denied medical attention.

Discovering medical knowledge is not going too far. It is indeed beneficent in living a better life. The problem is not with the knowledge; but with the abuse of it, which will always be there as a part of the whole. We should not resist new research for the fear of its abuse. Let the benefits to society at large determine our research and not the abuse.

We might consider a requirement of ethical dimension and abuse prevention in the research proposals before they are submitted and funded.

Nuclear power in the right hands is a blessing, but a hell in the hands of evil men. Religion in the right hearts is a mercy to mankind, but a hell for others in the wrong hands. Evil men are not a separate group; they are among us, within each one of the faiths, races, and nationalities. As a society, we have to prevent abuse, but must welcome research.

Abuse of sonograms is a big story in India. The Guardian reports 6 million girl abortions in the last decade in India, reconfirmed by ABC news i.e., aborting 50,000 female babies a month. The good news is there is a strong movement to stop this and laws are being passed.

Unless we discuss the ethics of what parents can or cannot do with the knowledge of a DNA child before it is born, we will never be able to deal with it. With the new knowledge of a difficult DNA child, we will also develop techniques in re-aligning a few, if not all of the defects. We must not withhold the good from those who benefit from the DNA research.

A Doctor friend of mine is teaching stem cell research in Australian and European Universities, and sees the value of the research in terms of improved quality of life for many, in the United States we are still struggling with it. I'd rather struggle and place things in order before we embark on it. It is the American way; infrastructure first.

We have dealt with Dr. Kevorkian, Terry Schiavo and many other ethical issues and we will continue to do with resistance. We are indeed better off today, living a little better and little longer due to the research in medicine.

Other pieces on Aamir Khan:
Aamir Khan is God sent
http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2012/05/aamir-khan-is-god-sent.html

Aamir Khan, the new Social Hero of India
http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2012/05/aamir-khan-new-social-hero-of-india.html

CRITICAL ADD ONS:

WAS
Khursheed,
Shirk/ Incarnation

My apologies for lack of clarity in my piece about Aamir Khan. Each one of us has an obligation to resist the temptation to judge a statement or a person, I should have clarified more.

Personally, I don't believe in reincarnation, we are here once as person in flesh and are gone forever. However, on this topic; using the civil language of Sura Kafirun, I must add that, "Muslims don’t believe in what Hindus believe, and Hindus don’t believe in what Muslims believe" when it comes to life after this life, and we don't have. To you is your religion and to me is my religion. Kindly note, God did not condemn the other religion, not one word, he taught us how to be civil in putting the other religion and our religion on Par. Read the Sura again.

As a person committed to seeing the essence of each religion, I see the reincarnation (Hindu) and Life after death (Muslim) as a common value to mould one’s behavior. One does not want be born again less than human, and the other does not want a painful here after and prefers azab-less life. In both instances, reincarnation or life after death, serve the same purpose; behavior modification, to avoid a difficult continuum after this life.

When I wrote, “The movie actor Aamir Khan is indeed an incarnation of Krishna,” and then wrote, “in mitigating the evil of female feticide, dowry, child abuse, and other evils of the Indian society.” The word incarnation was used in its broadest meaning - playing the role of. It is like saying, “my Grand Son talks just like my father” or “Amitabh Bachchan gestures look like like Dilip Kumar’s” or Dev Anand appeared at times like Gregory Peck… The role Aamir Khan is playing fits the ideal role that Krishna played - in removing the evil.

I hope this gives some clarification. I am a strong believer in oneness of creator, creation and humanity.

Jazak Allah Khair
Mike Ghouse