Page-turners

There’s nothing quite like a good book to get you through these trying times; so here are some recommendations

As the days go by and I remain confined at home for the most part, I seek solace in other worlds. Sometimes it is through travel and food shows that take me to destinations I can’t visit. At others, it is by scrolling through the Instagram feeds of friends who share my passion for travel, and revisiting their old posts. But more often than not, I venture into different worlds by simply picking up a book and reading.

Okay, make that picking up my Kindle and reading. Over the past couple of months, when bookshops and physical books have not been available to us, I have taken to downloading the latest titles and reading them on my devices (I even have the Kindle app downloaded on my phone). And unlike book snobs who insist that they need the actual feel, touch, smell and whatever else of a book, the printed word on a screen serves me just fine.

As I have written earlier, I started off the lockdown by trying to read worthy books, which required oodles of concentration, so that I could make best use of the stretches of empty time that I now had to negotiate. That didn’t last long. As my anxiety about the pandemic grew, so did my inability to digest new and complicated information. So, I fell back on my comfort reads, the books that have sustained me for years now, seeking refuge in the words of my favourite authors.

Well, that phase – lovely though it was while it lasted – ended a few weeks back, once I realized that lockdown was going to be a way of life now. And slowly and cautiously, I dipped my toes into the waters of new releases, starting off with some light fiction, graduating to memoirs, and taking in biographies along the way.

So here, based on my own recent reading, is a list of books that I enjoyed reading – and that you may want to read as well.

Rodham: A Novel by Curtis Sittenfeld

What if Hillary Rodham had turned down Bill Clinton when he asked her to marry him? How would her life and career have developed if she hadn’t been weighed down by her husband’s serial infidelities? Would Bill Clinton still have become President of the United States if he didn’t have Hillary by his side? This book tries to answer these questions, retelling the story of Hillary from the time she met Bill in college. The first half of the book can get a bit tedious because it goes over events we know all too well. But the second half, in which Sittenfeld’s imagination takes flight, more than makes up for it.

The Art Of Her Deal: The Untold Story of Melania Trump by Mary Jordan

Melania Trump, the First Lady of the United States of America, has often been described as the most famous unknown person in the world. Mary Jordan, in this painstakingly researched biography, tried to fill in the portrait of Melania with details from her childhood in Slovenia, her modeling days in Milan, her arrival in America as a little-known model, and how she finally made it to the White House, on the arm of her husband. Even if you’re no fan of the Trumps, this insightful book, written in a relaxed, easy style, should keep you entertained.

The Mirror And The Light by Hilary Mantel

Okay, it pains me to say this but say it I must. This last installment of Mantel’s trilogy – after Wolf Hall and Bring Up The Bodies – is not a patch on the two earlier books. Unlike the two others, which were sparkling and effervescent, this one seems stodgy in parts and entirely too weighed under by extraneous details about the Tudor court. But don’t give up after a couple of chapters. If you persist, you will be rewarded by a book that not only brings Oliver Cromwell to life but takes him to his death as well.

Lady In Waiting: My Extraordinary Life In The Shadow of the Crown by Anne Glenconner

I picked up this book thinking it would be a light and easy read, written as it was by the lady in waiting to Princess Margaret, Anne Glenconner, whose husband, Colin Tennant was the man behind the development of the island of Mustique. But what I found was a searing tale of love and loss, written by a woman who has endured more adversity and bereavement in her world of privilege than you could possibly imagine. That she remains optimistic and upbeat despite all she has gone through, and that she has managed to write a book that sings and soars is a remarkable achievement.

The Mothers: Five Women. Five Secrets. One Missing Husband by Sarah J Naughton

If you are looking for a nice, light read, that delivers a few surprises along the line, then you can’t go wrong with this one. The Mothers refers to five women who meet in their antenatal group but remain good friends even three years later, catching up with each other’s lives during boozy evenings. Everything falls apart, however, when one of their husbands goes missing and the police are called in. The ladies band together as the investigation begins but cracks soon start showing up as the book builds up to a surprising reveal. If you liked Big Little Lies, you will love this (as will Reese Witherspoon, if she hasn’t already bought the film rights!)

  

The concept of consent

The Donald Trumps in all our lives simply don't get it

Like everyone else on the planet, I have an opinion on the US election. And yes, you're right, if I had a vote, it would go to Hillary Clinton. Because, you know, the other guy is a sexist, misogynist, self-confessed serial groper.

We all knew this stuff about Donald Trump anyway. So why did every woman across the globe have such a visceral response to his words on that infamous Access Hollywood tape? Why did they send a shiver up our collective spine? Why did First Lady Michelle Obama confess that it shook her 'to my core'?

Why did all women take the Donald Trump tape so personally?

Well, because all of us have had a Donald Trump rub up against us -- quite literally -- at one time or another.

The truth is that if you are a woman - no matter what shape, size or colour you may be, or where in the world you grew up - you will have come up against a Donald Trump at some point in your life. Or even several Donald Trumps at different points in your life.

The uncle whose 'cuddles' always made you feel uncomfortable as a child but you couldn't figure out why until you were all grown up. The neighbour who regularly brushed up against you on the common stairwell and didn't even bother to look apologetic. The faceless man who felt you up on a crowded bus, his marauding hands all over your body. The boys who stood at the street corner to shout out loud comments about parts of your body and what they would like to do with them. The work colleague always 'accidentally' touching parts of your anatomy that should remain inviolate. The boss whose eyes undressed you every time you walked into his office.

We have all known these men, these Donald Trumps, who feel entitled to grab a woman, kiss her, molest her, objectify her, treat her like a piece of meat rather than a human being. Because even in the 21st century, the medieval, feudal concept of 'droit du seigneur' -- the right of powerful men to make free with a woman's body without her consent -- is still kicking ass and grabbing female genitalia with complete insouciance.

What that Donald Trump tape did was to bring back to all women every buried memory of being violated, of having their bodily integrity breached, of being treated with disrespect, of being reduced to a sex object, of having sexual assault 'normalized' in social discourse. That was why it felt so personal.

Small wonder then that it inspired such Twitter hashtags as #NotOkay started by Canadian author Kelly Oxford, who shared four stories of her own experiences with sexual assault and encouraged other women to speak up. In less than a week, Oxford tweeted later, 30 million people had read or contributed to the #NotOkay stories while a million women had shared their stories over the course of one night alone.

But for every woman sharing her story, there were probably ten others who remained silent about past assaults on their bodies. And there was another Twitter hashtag that explained why: #WhyWomenDontReport.

Not that any woman needed that explained to her. We know all the myriad reasons women don't report sexual assault all too well: because we are embarrassed, ashamed, afraid of creating waves, terrified of being disbelieved, and mortified at the thought of being known ever after as 'that girl'.

It seems so much easier to just brush it off as just another drawback of being a woman in a man's world, to shrug it away as one of those things that women have to 'deal' with and carry on with our lives. Because if you started complaining about every such event, you probably wouldn't have the time or energy to do much else.

The more important question is why men commit sexual assault. Why do they feel entitled to feast on our body parts? And why do believe that they can get away with it?

Well the short answer is because they can. And they do. Time and time again. And one of the reasons they get away with it again and again is that women are too ashamed, too humiliated, too traumatised to call them out on it.

And because they know that even if we do, we will not be believed but blamed. What were you doing there? What were you wearing? Did you lead him on? How much had you drunk? Why were you alone with him? How come you were out so late at night? Why are you speaking up now? Why didn't you complain at the time? Why didn't you try to fight him off?

Why? Why? Why?

The questions pile up until the accuser ends up feeling like the accused. And she starts to believe that she would have been better off if she'd just shut up and put up.

Well, you know what. It is time to tell her that that's #ItsOkay to speak up. And to listen hard when she does.

Gender bender

A quick primer on how not to write about women

The Rio Olympics were groundbreaking in one aspect. These were the Olympic Games which saw the highest female participation ever, at 45 per cent. Of the 10,444 total competitors, 4,700 were women. And while that is just short of actual parity, we have come a long way from 1900, when women were allowed into the Olympics for the first time. That year, of the 997 competitors only 22 were women (making up an abysmal 2.2 percent).

But while female participation has changed the look of the Olympics in no uncertain manner, what hasn’t changed is the sexist tone to the coverage of women athletes and sports stars. In fact sexism in sports reportage is so rampant that it has even generated its own hashtag on twitter: #CoverTheAthlete. It was started last year after a commentator asked Canadian tennis player, Eugenie Bouchard to “give us a twirl and tell us about your outfit”. (No, I am not making this up. Though I wish to God I was.)

The reportage of the Rio Olympics provided us some gems of this genre as well. A BBC presenter congratulated Andy Murray for being “the first person to ever win two Olympic gold medals”. (Murray, to his credit, corrected him instantly: Venus and Serena Williams have won four gold medals each.) The Hungarian swimmer, Katina Hosszu, won gold and broke the world record in the 400-meter individual medley, but one NBC commentator instantly pointed to her coach-husband watching from the sidelines to credit him with her performance.

And then, there was the constant comparison of women competitors to their male counterparts. Ryan Lochte, now in the news for having made up a story about being robbed at gunpoint in Rio, said this about record-breaking swimmer, Katie Ledecky, “She swims like a guy…I’ve never seen a female swimmer like that. She gets faster every time she gets in and her times are becoming good for a guy.” It was in keeping then, that the day Ledecky set the world record in women’s 800 freestyle, one paper chose to lead with “Phelps ties for silver in 100 fly.” And that the Daily Mail referred to her, with a certain predictability, as “the female Michael Phelps”.

It took Simone Biles, the Golden Girl of Gymnastics, to call out this false equivalence. After winning the gold in the gymnastics all-around, she executed yet another perfect landing: “I am not the next Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps. I am the first Simone Biles.”

Unfortunately, it’s not just sport that suffers from sexist reporting. Politics is no better. The night Hillary Clinton won the nomination as Democratic candidate for the US Presidency, you would have thought that she had earned the right to be on the front pages the next day. And you would have been quite wrong. All across America, newspapers great and small went with a larger than life picture of her husband, Bill Clinton. Hillary may have shattered that glass ceiling into a million little shards but it was still her husband who got prime billing (pun entirely unintended). 

Clearly, we in the media have still not got the hang of covering high-achieving women without a side-serving of sexism. So, in the spirit of helping out, here’s my ready primer on how not to write about women in the news.

• Try to focus on the woman herself, without being distracted by the significant males in her life. Don’t be like the Chicago Tribune, which referred to Corey Cogdell-Unrein, who won a bronze in women’s trap shooting, as the wife of a Chicago Bears linesman. (They apologized after a backlash on Twitter, conceding sheepishly that she was “awesome on her own”.)
• Don’t compare her to a man. Or announce that she is like a man, with the air of conferring a rare tribute on her. (As in: “Indira Gandhi was the only man in her Cabinet.” No, she wasn’t. She was a woman; albeit one who kicked ass.)
• Set yourself this simple test: would I ask a man such a question? If the answer is no, then don’t ask that question of a woman either. (Sample: How do you manage a work-life balance? Is having kids the best thing you have ever done? Or even: When are you settling down?)
• Stop hemming a woman within patriarchal constructs. She may be someone’s daughter, sister, wife, mother. But that is not her defining characteristic. So don’t act as if that is the most important thing about her. 
• Don’t reduce a woman to a sum of her body parts. If she is a politician like Theresa May, it is not relevant to point out that she occasionally flashes ‘a hint of cleavage’. A woman, every woman, has breasts. Get over it. (If it’s one of the Kardashians, however, go for it; that’s exactly what they signed up for.)
• Stop with the body-shaming euphemisms when describing women in the spotlight. She is flaunting her curves; i.e. she has gotten a bit fat. She is sporting a baby bump; as opposed to what exactly? Leaving it behind at home? And then, there’s that zinger: She is a ‘real woman’ (which roughly translates as: Oh my God, can you believe how big she’s gotten!).
• And most of all remember, no woman is a ‘female’ version of any man. Sania Mirza is not a female Leander Paes. P.V. Sindhu is not a female Prakash Padukone. Every woman is a person in her own right, with her own identity. Try and respect that; it’s really not that difficult.

Wear your attitude

What women politicians tell us with their fashion choices

Fashion is often dismissed as frivolous. Not the kind of thing that a 'serious ' woman should concern herself with. Not for her the needless obsessing with hemlines and necklines; not for her a seasonal update of her wardrobe; not for her a closet full of high-heeled shoes.

No, the 'serious' woman is not supposed to pay much attention to her clothes. She should ideally have a utilitarian 'uniform', the kind she can step into every morning with the minimum of fuss and then go out and conquer the world.

But what of the women who have, in effect, conquered their world? How much attention do they pay to clothes? And what do their fashion choices tell us about them?

This is an interesting question to ask at this time when the world is teeming with women leaders, all of them with a distinctive style of their own. A style that has been honed over the years to project an image. This image may portray anything from power to humility, femininity to feminism, style to practicality. But every image sends forth a strong message about the women behind it.

Let's take a quick trip around this picture gallery to see what it tells us about  those featured?

Hillary Clinton

It makes sense to start with the woman who will soon (fingers crossed!) be the leader of the free world. At the Democratic convention, where Hillary accepted the party's nomination to run for President of the United States, she appeared in a dazzlingly-bright white suit, set off by blonde hair blow-dried to within an inch of its life. This was an image calculated to send out subliminal messages of power, control, perfection. This was a woman confident enough to find her style -- pant suits in a single block of color, set off with a discreet neckpiece -- and stick to it. Yes, it was a uniform, but it was entirely of her own making. A nod to fashion and yet a complete repudiation of it. Very Hillary, in other words.

Theresa May

Reams of newsprint have been dedicated to May's love of shoes, which takes in every style from thigh-high PVC boots to animal print kitten heels. And now that she is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, her shoes attract more attention than ever before, signaling -- as the media never tire of pointing out - the fun and frivolous side of this otherwise 'serious' person. But it is her tightly-structured and perfectly-tailored jackets that tell us about the essential woman: always poised, always in control, the grown up in any room. And just when you think you have figured her out, May throws you off balance yet again: with a statement necklace that hints at hidden depths behind that icy exterior.


Angela Merkel

Frau Merkel doesn't care what anyone thinks of her. And nothing says that more clearly and loudly than her wardrobe choices -- or more accurately, the lack of them. She is always dressed in an ill-fitting suit, which makes no concessions to the German Chancellor's figure. The message is clear: this woman has more important things to think about than the fit of her clothes. And that is, in itself, a style statement of sorts.

Sonia Gandhi

From the time she entered politics, Sonia has based her look on that of her famous mother-in-law. It probably helps that she inherited Indira Gandhi's amazing collection of saris, a veritable treasure trove of handlooms accessed from all parts of India. And Sonia wears them well, always well starched and pinned into place, loose enough around the pleats so that she can take the same long strides that were an Indira trademark, head covered by her pallu when she heads into rural parts. She is the Gandhi bahu, the repository of the family legacy, and there is never a moment when she doesn't look the part.

Mayawati

In her person, she embodies the dream of Dalit empowerment. So, it is no accident that Mayawati is the only female Indian politician who is seen in public carrying a designer handbag; or that she sports diamonds in her ears that look straight out of J. Jayalalitha's collection. Or even, that she wears smart salwar kameez ensembles of the kind that upper middle class urban women live in. Her image conveys a strong message to her followers: expensive tastes are no longer a preserve of the upper castes. Dalits have as much right to them as anyone else.

Mamata Banerjee

Her crumpled cotton saris and flip-flops have become her signature style ever since she descended on the streets of Calcutta to fight the Communists. And now that she is chief minister of the state, it serves to signal that Mamatadi is the same as ever: power has not gone to her head, or indeed infiltrated her wardrobe. She remains the same simple woman who lives in a one-bedroom apartment and devotes her life to her 'peepul'. A woman like that has no time for an ironing board, even if someone else is doing the ironing.

Priyanka Gandhi

She is the chameleon of Indian politics. And just as she keeps the country guessing about her political intentions, she also tends to mix it up as far as her sartorial choices are concerned. In the city, she dresses like any other 40-something mother of two (albeit one with a better figure than most) in jeans and T-shirts. When she heads for the family constituencies of Amethi and Rae Bareli, she drapes herself in a handloom sari, just like her mother and grandmother before her. In that, she is like Superman or Batman, changing into costume before charging into battle. I guess the Uttar Pradesh elections will show if she really is Wonder Woman!

You go, girl!

When a triumvirate of female leaders comes to power across the world, it inspires young women everywhere

So, it’s done and dusted. Theresa May is now the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. And if Donald Trump keeps up his gaffe-a-day performance, Hillary Clinton is a dead cert for the White House. If you take in the fact that Germany already has a female Chancellor in Angela Merkel, this will be the first time in history that we see a triumvirate of powerful women ruling the world (well, vast swathes of it, at any rate) at the same time.

At the risk of sounding sexist, I have to confess that I find this a rather thrilling prospect. A female US President, a female UK Prime Minister and a female German Chancellor. What are the odds of this ever happening again – at least in my lifetime? So, even though I can see some of you (mostly those with that extra Y chromosome) shaking your heads and tut-tutting at my naivete, I refuse to curb my enthusiasm.

Whenever I express these views – both in real life and in social media – there are a few stock responses that are invariably thrown at me. How does it matter if these leaders are women? Surely, leaders should be chosen for their abilities and not their gender? And why do I assume that having women in positions of power will be good for other women?

Well, first of all, none of these women is in pole position because of her gender. All of them have proven track records in politics and have come through the same hurly-burly (or rugby scrum, to use a more recent analogy) that their male colleagues have failed to negotiate successfully. So, they are not women politicians. They are politicians who happen to be women. Or even women who happen to be politicians.

And yes, leaders should be chosen for their abilities and not their gender. But I am sure that even their most committed rivals would grant that Clinton, May and Merkel have more than proved their political chops during their careers. So, when it comes to ability and talent, they are easily the equals of their male counterparts (though, frankly, it is farcical to compare Hillary Clinton to the abomination that is Donald Trump).

So then, we come to that old chestnut: are women leaders any good for other women? Do they stand by the sisterhood? Is the feminist cause better served by having a female in a position of power?

Well, by way of answer, all I have for you are two words: Barack Obama.

As Obama nears the end of his two terms as America’s first African-American President (well, okay, mixed race, if you want to get all pedantic about it), race relations in the USA are at an all-time low. Just over the last week, we had two young Black men – Alton Sterling in Louisiana and Philando Castile in Minnesota – shot and killed by police in circumstances that would have earned most White folk a ticket or a caution at the most. And they were just the latest in a long roll call of Black men who have died at the hands of the police. Michael Brown, an unarmed teenager, was killed by a police officer in Ferguson. Trayvon Martin, another unarmed teenager, was killed by a neighbourhood watch volunteer in Florida. Eric Garner, who was put in a chokehold by NYPD officers, was heard saying ‘I can’t breathe’ over and over again before he died. His dying words became a rallying cry for those protesting police violence against Blacks.

According to the Guardian, which runs a project to track police killings in America, at least 136 people have been killed by the police in 2016 alone. And the Washington Post estimates that 258 Black people have died at the hands of the police in 2015. Not surprisingly then, last week saw countrywide demonstrations in the USA against police brutality against Blacks (#BlackLivesMatter). And in Dallas, the police force itself became the target of an African-American sniper, who shot on a protest rally and killed five cops and injured many others.

All this, while the first Black President of America was still in the White House.

So, if the presence of an African-American at the helm of affairs can’t make things better for Black people, why should we imagine that the presence of a female leader will make things better for women?

The simple answer is that it is not so simple at all. Electing a Black President or a female Prime Minister does not mean that the problems of those sections of the community will magically disappear. No, that magic wand does not exist, so nobody – whatever their sex, colour, ethnicity – can wield it to make our problems vanish.

Let’s take an example closer home. The BSP leader, Mayawati, who styles herself as ‘Dalit ki beti’ has been the chief minister of UP four times over. But Dalit women continue to be raped and Dalit men killed if they overstep the bounds set out for them.

But that doesn’t negate the symbolic value of having a Dalit woman at the helm of affairs. By her sheer presence, she serves as a beacon of hope sending out glimmers of possibility to every Dalit girl studying in a remote primary school that one day she too can attain those heights.

And it is that message that will hit home for young girls everywhere when women do – quite literally – take over the world. And I for one can’t wait to see that happen.

Orange is the new President

As The Donald becomes the presumptive Republican candidate, here's a sneak peek at what a Trump presidency would look like

So, it is Donald Trump Vs Hillary Clinton in the US presidential race. And while both my head and my heart are with Hillary Clinton, there is a tiny part of me -- call it my funny bone -- that can't help but wonder what a Trump Presidency would look like (and what a hoot it would be; except, of course, you know the real and present danger of a nuclear holocaust).

Trump's run for the Republican nomination has already provided the rest of the world plenty of laughs, even as Americans look on in horror. There was the time he assured us that he didn't have small hands or a small anything else ("there is no problem there, I guarantee it!") in the course of a internationally televised debate. Or when he accused Ted Cruz's father of being directly involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I could go on, but then we'd be here all week, wouldn't we?

Now that he is the official Republican nominee, Trump has mellowed somewhat. The time for calling Mexican immigrants liars, thieves and rapists is clearly over. Now it is time to appeal to the substantial Hispanic vote in America. So, the man who only recently proclaimed, "This is America, where we speak English, not Spanish," is now singing a different tune, sorry, tweet.

Trump recently posted a picture of himself, looking fetchingly orange, combover jelled firmly in place, with a taco bowl artfully arranged before him, fork poised just so. The accompanying tweet read: "Happy #CincoDeMayo! The best taco bowls are made in the Trump Tower Grill. I love Hispanics!" (In typical Trump fashion, this tweet was a little economical with the truth. Taco bowls are not on the menu at the Trump Tower Grill, though they featured as a 'special' on the Trump Cafe menu to celebrate Cinco De Mayo.)

So, what comes next? Trump dressed in low-slung jeans and an oversized T-shirt accessorized with lots of Jay Z style bling, rapping about how he loves all those nice Black folks? Or as Omar Abdullah tweeted, in reaction to the taco bowl picture, "Waiting for @realDonaldTrump to tweet a picture of himself eating kababs, smoking a sheesha while saying I love Muslims."

But frankly, I have had my fill of the Trump candidacy; I am more intrigued by what a Trump Presidency will bring. So, these days I lie awake at night wondering what The Donald's America (Oh Yes! It's Great Again!) would look like. In case you are just as curious (and why wouldn't you be?), here's a sneak peek:

* The White House will no longer be the White House. It will be renamed the Trump House. And the Donald will only slum it inside the Residence for as long as it takes to build a kick-ass skyscraper ("the tallest building you ever saw") in the Rose Garden. Then, the White House will be converted into a spa, for First Lady Melania's exclusive use.

* Job interviews for the first Trump administration will be conducted on live television on a show called Celebrity Cabinet. And just like the Miss USA and Miss Universe contest, there will be a talent round, a question and answer round, and a swimwear round. America (It's Great Again!) will get to vote on whom it wants as its Secretary of State, Secretary of Justice, etc., and the winner will be crowned by President Trump himself, while Melania will give away the sashes.

* Cabinet meetings will be the new reality TV. They will be telecast live (with a two-minute delay, so that all expletives can be bleeped out) as and when they take place and viewers will be able to tweet in their thoughts on the designated hashtag. Every six months, there will be a season finale during which one Cabinet member will be sacked with the Donald's immortal phrase: "You're fired."

* True to his word, Trump will keep Muslims out of America (Yes! It is Great!) until he has figured out 'what's going on'. And since he's not the brightest bulb, this won't be happening any time soon. But immigration numbers will not go down, as tall, pneumatic, young blonde women from Eastern Europe will get visas in record numbers, with the President himself vetting the applications (it's called succession planning, duh!).

* In keeping with the Trump tradition of giving all his rivals catchy nicknames ('Little Marco' 'Lying Ted' 'Crooked Hillary'), the new President will bestow world leaders with their own monikers. My money is on 'Dodgy Dave' (David Cameron), 'Stupid Angey' (Angela Merkel) and 'Macho Modi'  (our very own Narendrabhai, of course).

* Less than a year into his administration, when the wall on the Mexican border is only half as high as The Donald wanted, funds on the project will have to be diverted into building a wall on the Canadian border. But unlike the Southern wall, which was built to keep Mexicans out, the Northern one will be built to keep Americans in. And yes, this one, Canada will be happy to pay for.

It's that time of the year again...

And instead of New Year Resolutions, here's my wish list for 2016

Last year, for my first column of 2015, I had gone all contrary on you and compiled a wish list instead of listing my New Year resolutions. Re-reading that piece, before I sat down to write this one, was a rather depressing experience though. My wish list, in retrospect, read like a triumph of hope over experience. And like a beach bully who demolishes sand castles almost as a matter of principle, 2015 had done a marvellous job of quashing all my hopes and desires.

I had hoped that every child who set out for school would come back caked in the mud of the playground rather than his own blood. That women would feel safe in public spaces, that they could walk the streets without being groped or harassed. That we would realise that Swachh Bharat was about more than mere optics (and photo-opps with broom in hand). That harmony would prevail among religions, and peace would reign on earth.

Of course,  not one of these things happened. Instead, we watched in horror as terror took over the streets of Paris, we wept as we saw refugees drowning off the beaches of Europe as they tried to reach a safe haven from war and mayhem, and we mourned the many lives lost to the marauding, murderous gang called Daesh.

Back home in India, the loonies continued to run amok. The rise of Hindu majoritarianism meant that anybody who raised a voice against growing intolerance was asked to go off to Pakistan. Such was the frenzy created around the issue of cow slaughter that baying mobs thought nothing of breaking into a man's home and beating him to death in front of his horrified family, simply because they thought he had beef in his fridge (it is another matter that it turned out to be mutton). And violence against women continued apace, with as many as six rapes and 14 molestations being reported every day in the city of Delhi alone.

So, I have learnt my lesson; and this time round, I am keeping my ambitions very limited, in the hope that this year's wish list has a better success rate than the last.

That said, what do I wish for 2016? Well, here's just a teeny-tiny sampler

* A woman in the White House: It is about time, wouldn't you say? It has been half a century since India had its first Prime Minister in Indira Gandhi and 37 years since Britain put Margaret Thatcher in 10 Downing Street. So it is time that the leading democracy of the world caught up and elected a female President. It helps that voting for Hillary Clinton is a no-brainer if (as looks increasingly likely) she is pitted against Donald Trump, the current front-runner in the Republican field. America surely deserves a President who promises results rather than one who simply delivers insults (and bizarrely finds bathroom breaks 'disgusting').

* More news, less noise: An entirely unscientific survey among my friends and colleagues shows that they are tiring of the current news television formula of prime-time programming, where anchors choose one issue to outrage about through the course of the day and then invite a phalanx of guests to 'debate' it. That is, if 'debate' means to shout at deafening sound levels at one another, even as the anchor ensures that nobody can complete an entire sentence, let alone a complete argument. My hope is that the rest of India will also begin to tire of this shouty format -- full of sound and fury, signifying nothing -- and vote with their remotes. Maybe then we can finally get some news -- rather than endless views -- from our news channels.

* A clean, green India: Actually, at this point, I am prepared to settle for a slightly cleaner, greener India. Even the smallest improvement in this area will leave me deliriously happy. Delhi has been the first to show some intent on this front. And no matter what your views on the odd-even formula that Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal is experimenting with (as of this writing, at least) during the first fortnight of the year, there is no denying that some sort of beginning has to be made before the air we breathe kills us all. Maybe 2016 will see more cities and states take similar initiatives; if not for our sake then for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

* Civility in our political discourse: Remember those innocent days when leaders across the political divide insisted that they were 'rivals' not 'enemies'. Well, they are only a fond memory now that the political discourse has been cheapened to the extent that political foes think nothing of spewing abuse at one another in public and on social media. I can't be alone in praying that better sense prevails in 2016, and a measure of decorum is restored to public life.

* On a more personal note, I fervently hope that I finally get the push to finish my book, that has been hanging fire for years now (don't ask), and see it on the stands -- and hopefully on your shelves -- before the end of 2016.

And on that note, a very Happy New Year to all!

The clock is ticking...

Will Anil Kapoor’s 24 change the landscape of Indian television?

Like much of the world, I was addicted to 24. And like any fully paid-up addict, I would stock up on the good stuff, shut the door on the rest of the world, and mainline. Because I came to it rather late, I could swallow seasons one, two and three in one greedy gulp. Staying up till four in the morning, trying to squeeze just one more episode in, before the rising sun shamed me into going to bed, became a regular feature. And when my stock of old episodes ended and I had to wait for the new season, I suffered serious withdrawal symptoms.

Yes, as you've probably gathered by now, 24 was addictive. The central conceit of the series was that it chronicled 24 hours of a national security crisis in real time. Keifer Sutherland played the main character, Jack Bauer, as a superhero without the cape (and no visible underwear either, thank God!) maiming, torturing, blowing things up, and then torturing some more, to get to the bottom of some diabolical terrorist plot. The storyline tested the limits of our credulity, the stunts were sometimes plain unbelievable, and the twists and turns of the plot often bordered on the ludicrous. But the series was tightly scripted, fast paced, and things went by in such a blur that you didn't even notice the glaring holes in the plot - until much later, in bed, when you were running through the best moments in your head.

Looking back now, 24 was prescient in many ways. In giving us a Black candidate in the guise of the future President David Palmer in 2001, it eerily foreshadowed the election of Barack Obama in 2009. Its brutal rendering of the torture of terror suspects was an early hint of the Abu Ghraib-style security scandals to come. And who knows, the female US President Allison Taylor who premiered in 24 Redemption in 2008 and then starred in seasons 7 and 8, may well be a nod to the election of Hillary Clinton (the Democratic frontrunner for the 2016 polls) as the first woman President of the United States.

But watching all those endless episodes, perched at the edge of my seat, I was never prescient enough to think that I would soon see an Indian version of the series. No, not even when an Indian actor, Anil Kapoor, played an important role in the last and final season, starring as the ill-fated President Omar Hassan of the fictional Islamic Republic of Kamistan (modeled on Iran) who is assassinated by the bad guys – but not before putting in some good old-fashioned action hero stuff in the company of Bauer.

His messy end in the series notwithstanding, Anil Kapoor knew that he was on to a good thing. And after endless negotiations he bought the rights to make the Indian version of the show, with Kapoor himself playing the Jack Bauer role. In some ways, of course, Kapoor is uniquely qualified to play the superhero, or more accurately, the super anti-hero. His Mr India, released in 1987, brought the legend of the Invisible Superhero to us a full decade before JK Rowling wrote about the Invisibility Cloak in the first Harry Potter book in 1997. (Yes, yes, I know, H.G. Wells wrote The Invisible Man a century ago in 1897; we can play this game endlessly.)

As of this writing, the first two episodes of the Indian 24 have been aired on Colors. And I have to admit that my initial reservations about how this would work have been belied. The storyline is strong, the characters are well defined, the pace is fast, the action well choreographed, and bar a few, the performances are strong. Even the so-called Indianisation works. Instead of Presidential hopeful David Palmer we have a putative Prime Minister from a political dynasty that appears to be loosely based on the Gandhis.

So, will 24 be a game changer as far as Indian television is concerned? Will our TV production companies finally move away from their Saas-bahu Sagas and their Mangalsutra Melodramas, and give us quality television of the like that the West enjoys?

Well, frankly, it is too early to tell if there will be a substantive change in the Indian television landscape. Shows like 24 cost money, they need good writers, talented directors, committed producers, and a top-quality star cast to work. And so far, at least, Indian TV shows no signs of being able afford any of the above. So, I don't really see things changing very much in the short term.

What will change, I think, is Bollywood's attitude to television. Until now, Indian film stars have treated television fiction shows with a certain disdain. Everyone from Amitabh Bachchan to Salman Khan to Shah Rukh Khan is happy to play quizmaster to the nation. Stars like Madhuri Dixit, Hrithik Roshan are happy to turn up to judge singing and dancing competitions. And the likes of Karan Johar delight in hosting their own talk shows.

But TV series? That seems to be strict no-no (unless, of course, if you are a no-hoper like Vinod Khanna). This is in sharp contrast to the West where everyone from Glen Close (Damages) to Martin Sheen (West Wing) to Kate Winslet (Mildred Pierce) to Ashton Kutcher (Two And A Half Men) is happy to transition from the movies to TV (and back again). But rare is the film star in India who is willing to play a role in a TV drama.

That may well be changing though. Even before 24 aired, Amitabh Bachchan announced that he would be starring in a TV series directed by Anurag Kashyap on Sony. And where the great man goes, the rest are sure to follow.

The clock is ticking...

Will Anil Kapoor’s 24 change the landscape of Indian television?

Like much of the world, I was addicted to 24. And like any fully paid-up addict, I would stock up on the good stuff, shut the door on the rest of the world, and mainline. Because I came to it rather late, I could swallow seasons one, two and three in one greedy gulp. Staying up till four in the morning, trying to squeeze just one more episode in, before the rising sun shamed me into going to bed, became a regular feature. And when my stock of old episodes ended and I had to wait for the new season, I suffered serious withdrawal symptoms.

Yes, as you've probably gathered by now, 24 was addictive. The central conceit of the series was that it chronicled 24 hours of a national security crisis in real time. Keifer Sutherland played the main character, Jack Bauer, as a superhero without the cape (and no visible underwear either, thank God!) maiming, torturing, blowing things up, and then torturing some more, to get to the bottom of some diabolical terrorist plot. The storyline tested the limits of our credulity, the stunts were sometimes plain unbelievable, and the twists and turns of the plot often bordered on the ludicrous. But the series was tightly scripted, fast paced, and things went by in such a blur that you didn't even notice the glaring holes in the plot - until much later, in bed, when you were running through the best moments in your head.

Looking back now, 24 was prescient in many ways. In giving us a Black candidate in the guise of the future President David Palmer in 2001, it eerily foreshadowed the election of Barack Obama in 2009. Its brutal rendering of the torture of terror suspects was an early hint of the Abu Ghraib-style security scandals to come. And who knows, the female US President Allison Taylor who premiered in 24 Redemption in 2008 and then starred in seasons 7 and 8, may well be a nod to the election of Hillary Clinton (the Democratic frontrunner for the 2016 polls) as the first woman President of the United States.

But watching all those endless episodes, perched at the edge of my seat, I was never prescient enough to think that I would soon see an Indian version of the series. No, not even when an Indian actor, Anil Kapoor, played an important role in the last and final season, starring as the ill-fated President Omar Hassan of the fictional Islamic Republic of Kamistan (modeled on Iran) who is assassinated by the bad guys – but not before putting in some good old-fashioned action hero stuff in the company of Bauer.

His messy end in the series notwithstanding, Anil Kapoor knew that he was on to a good thing. And after endless negotiations he bought the rights to make the Indian version of the show, with Kapoor himself playing the Jack Bauer role. In some ways, of course, Kapoor is uniquely qualified to play the superhero, or more accurately, the super anti-hero. His Mr India, released in 1987, brought the legend of the Invisible Superhero to us a full decade before JK Rowling wrote about the Invisibility Cloak in the first Harry Potter book in 1997. (Yes, yes, I know, H.G. Wells wrote The Invisible Man a century ago in 1897; we can play this game endlessly.)

As of this writing, the first two episodes of the Indian 24 have been aired on Colors. And I have to admit that my initial reservations about how this would work have been belied. The storyline is strong, the characters are well defined, the pace is fast, the action well choreographed, and bar a few, the performances are strong. Even the so-called Indianisation works. Instead of Presidential hopeful David Palmer we have a putative Prime Minister from a political dynasty that appears to be loosely based on the Gandhis.

So, will 24 be a game changer as far as Indian television is concerned? Will our TV production companies finally move away from their Saas-bahu Sagas and their Mangalsutra Melodramas, and give us quality television of the like that the West enjoys?

Well, frankly, it is too early to tell if there will be a substantive change in the Indian television landscape. Shows like 24 cost money, they need good writers, talented directors, committed producers, and a top-quality star cast to work. And so far, at least, Indian TV shows no signs of being able afford any of the above. So, I don't really see things changing very much in the short term.

What will change, I think, is Bollywood's attitude to television. Until now, Indian film stars have treated television fiction shows with a certain disdain. Everyone from Amitabh Bachchan to Salman Khan to Shah Rukh Khan is happy to play quizmaster to the nation. Stars like Madhuri Dixit, Hrithik Roshan are happy to turn up to judge singing and dancing competitions. And the likes of Karan Johar delight in hosting their own talk shows.

But TV series? That seems to be strict no-no (unless, of course, if you are a no-hoper like Vinod Khanna). This is in sharp contrast to the West where everyone from Glen Close (Damages) to Martin Sheen (West Wing) to Kate Winslet (Mildred Pierce) to Ashton Kutcher (Two And A Half Men) is happy to transition from the movies to TV (and back again). But rare is the film star in India who is willing to play a role in a TV drama.

That may well be changing though. Even before 24 aired, Amitabh Bachchan announced that he would be starring in a TV series directed by Anurag Kashyap on Sony. And where the great man goes, the rest are sure to follow.