Distortion of a Healthy Entertainment

I was sitting idle and browsing channels, when Antakhsari passed through. It was one of my favourite programs and I used to watch it regularly, but because of other indulgences, could not see it for a long time. So, there was no second thought on continuing the same channel for next half an hour.

I came to know that it was second last round of Antakhsari ‘Mahasngram’. It Sounded competition with more difficult levels played at broader geographical levels. With teams coming from different regions, it was understood that the competition was at national level. Rounds were more difficult and innovative and I expected the even better level of entertainment as I used to get a couple of years back

However, what I came across was a horrible version of a concept, which used to be simply entertaining to audience, highly encouraging to participants and had healthy competition touch. Now, it is no more an urge to display the talent and to perform better, rather objective is to beat the other teams. You cannot simply sit and enjoy the songs and the game. Now there are emotional moments, angry situations and depressing comments. Emotional levels are unusually very high.

It felt uneasy to see participants sobbing on making a mistake or on losing points. They expressed anger at other teams getting something which they felt was not justified. Even audience is adding to this whole drama. Over and above, Anchors, rather than encouraging and creating light atmosphere, acted as catalyst or even worse, perpetuator, to the whole emotional enactment.

There is nothing wrong in being upset over your mistake or on you losing the game. It is also right to express your protest against unjustified actions. However, disturbing fact is the unnatural and exaggerated manner, in which the emotions were expressed and screened. What rules the whole show is exaggerated emotions, high tension levels and a compulsion to perform to beat others.

There is no more a feeling of having watched a beautiful competition, where participants showed their talent. Now it has become a matter of life and death. Now it is a matter of your respect, respect of your family, respect of your city, your region. So you cannot afford to lose. You must win, at any cost.

Observe the faces of participants in different situations. They are so tense at all times. There is no calmness or serenity or a sense of self assurance. Anchors have been repeating – it is grand competition, how important it is for them not to lose. And they have not told this to only participants, they have been shouting this to whole world. Now the pressure levels are immense. Voice of anchors is reflecting from people around and getting magnified. You are representing the region, you cannot let us down. You will bring shame on us, if you lose.


Participants’ faces have hardened in a strive not to lose, audience are flowing with the same emotional turbulence and anchors are ensuring never to let it come down. What gets crumpled under the weight of these heavy emotions is the underlying goal of the program - Goal to provide a melodious evening to audience; Goal to provide a platform, an encouragement to the budding talent; Goal to play antakshari in a professional and entertaining manner. With this, the whole concept, whole meaning of the program is lost. What comes out of the program is the depressed eyes of losing teams, and over inflated winners filled not with satisfaction and happiness of winning but with hollow superiority complex.

Where are we going? Why we are distorting the simple things? Misguided commercialization is the answer. Sponsors want more audience and all exercise is to attract and involve audience into the program. Market and marketers believe that audience can get attached to program only if there are emotional ups and downs in the program. There should be emotional display of anger and fear. Audience should be able to feel sympathy or anger or support or protest for particular teams. Only when these levels are maintained, they believe, audience will stick to the program, otherwise they will get bored of it.

It is pity that Marketers have been so short sighted in their thinking and conceptualising. It is true that these things attract audience and make them feel attached to the program. But question is whether it is sustainable. You can read or watch news of rap, accidents, murder, scandal upto a limit. But do you feel good about it or does it leave you with a good feeling. No, rather it generates distaste with time. Then you want to feel good at heart, you need something simple, something natural, something close to heart. These are the things with lasting impact. People might get temporary attraction to exaggerated display of fear, lust and emotions, but it is never long lasting.
Further, even in short term, does these programs give desired results to marketers? Marketers can consult psychologist to understand if the person watching commercials during such programs will develop distaste for the products also. The blind race started by product companies, perpetuated by marketers, followed by television programs and played by talented participants has resulted into nothing but lose-lose situation, in which whoever participates, loses, including the winner.

Gandhigiri with Munna Bhai

This refers to the article “Nothing Gandhian about it” by Ajit Duara (‘Magazine’, 01/10/2006). I have a difference of opinion over views expressed under the article with respect to the movie “lage raho…..”, as well as on applicability of Gandhian Values. Article mentions that the movie gives a wrong impression about Mahatma Gandhi being a “passive fellow who always turned the other cheek”, “solved problems by saying sorry to people”, “shaming them into better behaviour” and so on. Article further mentions that the Gandhian principles (civil disobedience) works only with civil and law abiding people.

First of all, it needs to be understood that this movie is not a documentary on Gandhi’s life and values. It is only a simplified demonstration that principles preached and practiced by Gandhi seventy five years back to gain freedom for the country, can be applied to our daily life problems and situations. It rekindles the faith in the principles of truth and non-violence at a time when present generation (and even the older generations) has lost the real meaning of these terms.

With regard to the opinions about Gandhi after watching movie, each person can have their own interpretations of Gandhi as a person. Someone totally ignorant about Gandhi can be excused for mistaking Gandhi as passive person. However, those with deep understanding on strength of truth and non-violence, will understand what type of activeness, awareness and courage, it takes to turn the other cheek.

It needs to be understood that it does not amount to surrender to the tyrant. On the contrary, it is a slap on his face with a silent bang. It says that I will not retaliate in your manner, I will do it in my manner and I will continue on my way, whatever you do to me. People try to empty their frustration out, in the name of teaching others a lesson (which never happens) and aggravate the situation.

It should be understood that what is important here is not “taking the slap” but “not to deviate from the right path and action”. Those who think that getting a beating is equal to defeat, have no better purpose in life than to protect their ego, by showing that they cannot be beaten.

Again, saying sorry to people, shaming them into better behaviour and telling truth to scoundrels are only the outward display of basic principle of truth and non-violence. These actions and other similar actions will not work unless the actions are taken with conviction that this is the right thing to do. It may or may not result into change in behaviour of others immediately (may not be as fast as shown in the movie), it definitely gives one the satisfaction of doing right things. And eventually, things do change, as the other person starts seeing the mirror and an inner change takes place. This will not be the case, if he is given a violent reply.

Similarly, in case of elderly gentleman shaming the official, article states that the old man will be laughed at and shall be described as senile. The root of most of present problems is that we are so afraid of being laughed at, that we do not gather courage to take the right step. The person, who is convinced about his actions and does not care about what people think about him, will be successful in this type of active surrender.

It is true that the events have been simplified but if that is not done, it is not possible to fit all those events within the frame of three hour movie sequence. Despite this, director has kept the basic theme alive in all the events. One can show the application of each of Gandhi’s principles and can make a movie out of each of them. However, this movie acts as a ignition to the faith of common people, whose beliefs in basic human values have been crumpled with so called ‘practical approaches’.

One thing that needs to be kept in mind about the movie is that it is just a glimpse, a ray of hope that these principles do work. There is not absolute formula for getting results in these principles and so any manner of application of these principles can always be questioned with logic and reasoning. One needs to catch the basic theme of any principle and than he may apply these principles in life in his own way.

The most disturbing fact about the article is that it qualifies the application of Gandhian principles based on whom you are dealing with and states that these are workable only with civilized and law abiding people. It is shortsighted view about the outcomes from application of these principles, which has made our society to take such limiting views about Gandhian values. In fact, these principles are more relevant while dealing with uncivilized and ruthless people. Results might take time, but this is the only way to get long lasting results, where people change from within.

Considering the recent examples quoted in the article, let us answer, whether Iraquis have been successful with their violent attempts against the Bush regime and is there any hope of success for them with present way of fighting. Had the Jews protested Nazi Barbarism in Gandhian way, it might not have saved them (they could not be saved otherwise also), but it would have definitely shattered the base of barbarism and dictatorship.

It is too narrow a view about the principles of truth and non-violence, that its application is restricted only to the law-abiding ones. It is rather the fear of short term sacrifices that one might be required to make, if he follows these principles. A real understanding of these values will definitely give conviction to anybody that only means which work in long run are truth and non-violence.

Regarding enforcing rules in society, Gandhi would have never advocated strict enforcement of law. He never advocated external enforcement, rather, he practiced and preached taking right action from within. He would have encouraged people to obey law because it is right thing to do for all of us.

Lastly, a true understanding of character of Munna Bhai will reveal that though he is a ‘Bhai’ and does illegal business, from within, he is full of love and care for fellow beings. He knows what is right and understands it in very simple terms. Gandhian Principles actually channelise his energy into more productive outcomes. Let us answer, if this character can be stated as idiot, are the people around us picking up small fights without any purpose, any better.
The movie needs to be taken with an appreciation of the fact that somebody is trying to put the Gandhian Principles back to the place, where they belong to – the heart of common people. These do not belong to the book shelves of libraries or the speeches of great orators. Let us not argue the logic behind the actions suggested in the movie. Rather, let us understand whether the truth and non-violence are right things to follow, and then let’s take actions in our own way. That is the spirit behind GANDHIGIRI.