Making a hash(mi) of the truth
|
The Emraan Hashmi episode — where the actor alleged that he was denied an apartment in a Pali Hill society because he is Muslim — has generated understandable outrage, with the media, the ever-present electronic media in particular, latching on to the case to once again bolster its secular (?) credentials. However, the case, at first glance, does not look so simple as a Hindu-versus-Muslim debate. First, every individual has the right to decide who he wants to sell his house to, regardless of his reasons for making that choice. Courts do not and cannot exercise jurisdiction over people’s prejudices in a personal domain such as this. Try looking for a house in New Delhi’s Chittaranjan Park, and if you are not a Bengali, chances are your offers will be turned down. This is truer for Mumbai than for any other city in India, where Marathis, Muslims, South Indians all hold fast to their spaces. Hashmi’s plea that he was denied the house because of his religion is open to question, since discrimination in India begins at home — caste, whether one is veg/non-veg, single/married etc all play a role. Second, Hashmi and his uncle Mahesh Bhatt made the customary rounds of news channels’ offices to speak, no shriek, their minds. Acting suitably wronged, Hashmi screamed bloody murder: “It’s not that I can’t get a house anywhere else. If I want, I can get 10. But this is not about that. It’s about what sort of India we want to develop.” Very noble sentiments, those, but somehow, their poignancy was lost when just behind Hashmi, one could spot a gigantic poster of his latest film occupying pride of place. Hard as one may try, it’s impossible not to take this thought bubble to its logical conclusion. But take him at his word, there still remains the slightly ungainly task of placing Hashmi in the same league as Shabana Azmi. Sure, both are actors — but it takes real dilution of one’s love for cinema to place on the same pedestal the person who gave us Arth and Masoom and one whose cinematic output limits the audience to keep separating Emraan Hashmi, the man from Emraan Hashmi, the lips. Well, what can one say? He has been wronged, apparently, and the best way to make up to him is go watch his latest unforgivable movie, whenever it’s out. Kiss and make up, eh? |
(21 votes, average: 4.62 out of 5)
Loading ...Disclaimer
All the content posted in the 'Business Standard Blogs' section, unless specified otherwise, are made by Business Standard employees. The content posted in 'Business Standard Blogs' does not follow routine internal Business Standard reviews and editorial processes and should be considered only as the views and opinions of the employees and not of Business Standard.
August 17th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
It is prerogative of people to decide what deal privately they execute. Some companies, true also of media as everyone can see from names in papers, do not hire muslims. It is common knowledge. No one makes hue and cry. That is the choice of policy
August 11th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Please get your facts right. There is nothing called ‘Marathis’. People from Maharashtra are Maharashtrians. Secondlt there are tons of societies in Mumbai where the dominant groups hold on to their flats. Its common.
August 7th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Vikram, I agree with your views, and you’ve voiced it very well. I don’t know why it is so hard for people to understand personal preferences.
@Indian, where is the question of secularism here.
This isn’t about public goods, utilities and services. This is about private property, and, I believe that if who own something, you decide what to do of it, whom to lease it out and so on… Why drag in (psuedo) secularism here?
Vrinda, if what you’re saying is true, then this matter needs more investigation.
August 6th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Please get your facts correct about Chittaranjan Park being a Bong bastion. Having lived there for more than 21 years, I find a large number of punjabis in the area. It might have been a bong area some years ago but right now you will find people of all communities settling there..
The deciding factor for a seller is the price he is getting for his property and not the caste or the religion the buyer subscribes to. Its not that they are going to share the same place after the deal gets finalized.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
What imran had said is the dark truth in india which is always speaking of secularism . This does prevail in mumbai and i myself have faced this when i had approached for the flat in mumbai .. But the so called self minded people try always to hide these matters for their own benefits… This is the true, dark fact hidden in the minds and so called secular culture of india.
August 5th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
What? Publicity stunt? What’s it coming to?
Outrage, outrage, outrage–thunder lightning (SFX)
Who goeth there? Who dareth complain? As frank victor doth say, exercise thy freedom, choose thy attitude. Right said Fred, er, Johri?
August 5th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Vikram, not many in the media, including the Times of India, which first reported the case, are fully aware of the facts and circumstances of the case. I am a resident of Nibbana, the building in which Hasmi was denied the flat. The owner in question, one Mr Suvarna, had indeed agreed to sell the flat to the actor and had even taken a token of Rs 1 lakh from him. The trouble started when the society was approached for the NOC (you must know that getting an NOC is not mandatory).
I dont have a very high opinion of that pseudo-secularist Mahesh Bhatt, but I believe he and Hashmi have made the correct noises in this case. As a resident, I also know that Suvarna was pressured into giving a statement pointing to gaps in the deal — gaps he claims Hashmi was responsible for.
Also, when the TV channels came unannounced to the society to cover the news the day it was out in TOI, none of the managing committee members, save one, had the courage to face the camera. I mean, they ran away literally and left the secretary of the building to fend for himself.