Ek Nayi League: What could it be?

The other day, I was surfing the net and reading sports articles when I accidentally saw one of Kapil Dev’s 1 minute video. He was talking something about playing “dil se” and why it succeeds. But towards the end of the video, he said we will fail if we play “dil se” in “Ek Nayi League”. This got me hooked. I searched for “Ek Nayi League” and came across this website - http://www.eknayileague.com/

The aforementioned website has more videos where Kapil Dev described about a renowned Indian person (Dhoni, Yuvraj, Sania for instance) and talks about how passionately they have achieved all the success in their area of expertise. How they have battled all odds (Yuvraj Singh from Cancer and Sania Mirza for elevating Women’s tennis in India). Kapil Dev think MS Dhoni shouldn’t retire after developing such a fantastic Cricket team. But one common thread that binds all these videos is that these champions will fail if they play with all their heart in a new league codenamed “Ek Nayi League”. 

Kapil Dev ends his videos by saying he will reveal the concept of the league soon. When a living legend, who brought India on a global Cricketing platform, tries to describe and tease you with something new, you better stand and take notice. I am no different. So I thought, why can’t I take a calculated guess as to what the new concept / new league is all about? 

Image courtesy: http://www.eknayileague.com/

Key takeaways from the videos and Kapil Dev’s image from the website – 

• Top performers will fail if they play with their heart
• It’s more to do with the mind than the heart
• The concept has to be something to do with renowned people in society, at least their examples are sought to put forward the point
• Kapil Dev is involved, either as a brand ambassador or as a host of the league

Here are my guesses – 

1. How about a “reality-show” league where a certain number of celebrities will compete either as individuals or as teams. There will be competitions where participants have to use their intellect to succeed. Individuals / teams will play against each other and points will be awarded. There will be a points table, similar to the IPL competition. Once the round-robin competitions are done, there will be a grand finale, typical of a reality-show, to decide the winner. This seems possible since such a game show is not present in Indian television at this point. Celebrities will also bring in more viewership. Kapil Dev’s teaser campaign suggests that the makers are confident of the concept and hence take a risk with such a marketing concept. 
2. If this is not about a television show, then it must be an advert of a product. The climax of the teaser videos by Kapil Dev will culminate in revealing an existing product category with a different concept. Now, as per the takeaways mentioned above, what could that product possibly be? Something to do with the mind. In one of the videos, Kapil Dev suggests Dhoni should not consider retirement. This makes me believe that the product category should be something that either prolongs retirement and / stimulates intellect. If my presumptions are correct, then it could be an Insurance advertisement of a new insurance product. Kapil Dev as brand ambassador also adds added weight to a product where trust in the brand matters.
3. One of the few sports where mind rules over heart is the game of Chess. We have had IPL-like concepts replicated in Badminton, Lawn Tennis, Kabaddi, Hockey. Will Chess be next in line? Some of the takeaways mentioned above support this line of thought – mind over heart and the fact that retirement can be delayed. But it doesn’t connect all the dots. Also, an IPL like league for Chess will cater to a niche audience. This appears to be a remote possibility, but a possibility nevertheless.

Let’s now wait and see what Kapil Dev has up his sleeve. Will it be a bouncer or a Yorker? Time will tell.

News Channels – a double edged sword

Once upon a time, Indian news channels were all about sharing news. What happened anywhere around our country will be “reported” as is. It was all about sharing news information. An earthquake happened – the news will be shared with the public. A bomb blast happened – it will be shared. Some politicians arrested for some wrong doing – it will be shared. India wins the world cup – it will be shared. Through all this, the news media of those times hardly ever tried to “promote” their views to the public. They were the messengers.

Now, they are transforming into message creators, or should we say in today’s parlance, content creators.

May 3rd was the World Press Freedom day. There’s not an iota of doubt that the press (and in a larger context, news media) should be free to perform their duties. Having said that, news media must have their own ethical standards they need to adhere to, in a humane way. On this day, Nepal citizens took to Twitter and Facebook to express two things – their gratitude towards Indian government for providing selfless help and their hatred towards certain sections of Indian media by trending #GoHomeIndianMedia.

When the earthquake happened in Nepal, Indian news media were immediately on it. No problem till now since speed is one trait the news channels compete on. News channels started showing the destruction caused by the earthquake. No problem here too. News channels asked their viewers to contribute towards the cause of Nepal. Great gesture, I must say. News channels started reporting about people being rescued from the debris. No problem here since it shows the hard work put in by all concerned and the improvements happening since the disaster. News channels started shoving their mic in front of the survivors and asking them how they feel now. Ok, now you guys are teasing to cross the limits. News channels asking people, who have lost their loved ones, how they feel. News channels promoting the help and support of Indians and thereby making it a PR stunt. Guys, now you have crossed all your limits!

A popular cartoon created by @mirsuhail

To Indian News Media – I understand news reporting has changed. Corporates with big money have invested in the emerging news media hoping to make big bucks. There’s high competition for eye-balls now. Rankings matter. Ratings matter. Revenues matter. But one more thing has increased more than what it was a decade ago - and that’s responsibility. Sensationalism sells. And now we have reached a stage where we cannot go back and undo the wrongs. In this age of social media, you will receive instant support and criticism which will spread like wild-fire. So, you need to find a way to balance sensationalism with responsibility. There’s no harm in learning from the past. Perhaps, the news channels of old were more responsible than what we have now. 

To Citizens of Nepal – The loss you have gone through post the tragedy is difficult for us to even comprehend. Loss of lives and property, struggling to come to terms with the loss and braving yourselves at a long drawn recovery is, in itself, a tough ask. Our prayers and our support will always be with you throughout this recovery phase. We got a glimpse of the destruction caused by the Himalayan tragedy and the pain you endured thanks to the news channels (primarily Indian ones). Yes, there are some who cross the lines of ethical and responsible journalism. We have faced the same problems ourselves when we had to endure natural disasters (Earthquake, Floods) and man-made ones (terrorism). The sections of News media you are accusing are the ones who did the same thing to us Indians too. So, we understand the root cause of your concern. In a way, we are glad you brought it to everyone’s attention. News channels need to learn their lessons from this one and accept that they need to change. 

A change is needed here. If the news channels don’t learn from this feedback from Nepal, we viewers should take a stand ourselves. We can choose not to watch such channels, which will reduce their viewership count, which will lead to a reduction in their “rankings”, reduction in ad and sponsorship revenue and finally forcing them to change themselves. It’s a vicious circle and we can play a part too.

Aren't we all the same?

The whole of socially active Indians are talking about “freedom of speech”, “freedom of expression”, right to be heard and having the option to make a choice of deciding what one wants to watch / experience. Post the 3-part episodes of AIB knockout that were released on YouTube, a furore of gigantic proportion erupted over the content of the episode, the language used and how much it is against our culture and the whole concept of “insult comedy”. For those not in-the-know of things, here’s a small backdrop of the incident – Some stand-up artistes decided to have an event that insults stars in a light hearted way.  The stars on their part are sporting enough to be insulted in front of live (and online) audience. So basically, people insulting each other and we, as outsiders, are watching it for fun. Harmless fun, I may add.

Not that my opinion matters compared to the popular ones on the Internet, but I still have an opinion and I have a platform where I can write about it – my blog. I saw all the 3 webisodes and found it quite entertaining. These were not awesome, but good enough to watch. Some of the jokes were really funny, some were ok, some were repetitive and some were not funny at all. But overall I enjoyed it and kudos to the team and the participants to even dare such a concept in India.

But there’s a problem. The ‘who’s-who’ of India perceived it differently. Some found it offending. Some compared this to porn. Some found it against Indian culture. Are you surprised by this reaction? Not me, for sure. 

To be fair to the AIB guys, the video started with a statutory warning and the way AIB roastmaster was introduced should have set the platform for what we are about to watch. The people who found it offending should have seen it coming. The people who compared this to porn, well, are ignorant. The people who found this against Indian culture need to test the ground reality by being a silent spectator to any teenage group conversation anywhere in India. During my teenage days, it was a fine balance between constructive discussions with a few cuss words thrown in between. The balance was maintained those days. Now the balance has tilted. 

So much enrage has happened on this issue that even FIRs have been filed! Wow, tough times ahead.

But that’s just one side of the problem. The other side of the problem is the reaction of ‘freedom-of-expression’ supporters towards those who are opposed to it. One Khan from Bollywood voiced his opinion and we pounced on him, called him a hypocrite for producing a movie “Delhi Belly” which had an objectionable song. Aamir Khan used his freedom of expression and we found it objectionable. A certain Khanna, ex-actress and now a writer, wrote about the hypocrisy of Khan and we commended her! So, what does that tell us? We will appreciate those who are in line with our thoughts but will also pounce on someone who does not support our version of the argument. Aren’t we also hypocrites in that regard? When a movie on god-men (demeaning them) hit the theatres, some of us silenced those who opposed the movie using the “don’t-like-don’t-watch” card. But when another movie on god-men (promoting them) was released, some of us went ahead and made fun of it. Isn’t the whole AIB-controversy also on the same line? Maybe what we fail to realize is that “The best way to explain our point of view is to walk the talk”. 

So what’s the bottom-line of all this? I genuinely felt AIB was good, it had an interesting concept and should not be a one-show wonder. The show must go on. People who like / support this concept, let’s show the other group how to support freedom of expression by practising what we preach. People who don’t like the concept, please close your YouTube window or watch some other video. The choice is yours.

Different ways to interpret a statement

“We Indians love a good debate” blurts a news channel that has been promoting debates on time slots they describe as something bigger than prime time. They claim to know about cases or scandals more than the people involved in them. They claim to have copies of written emails / circulars that were supposed to remain confidential. They have reporters who travel to the nook and corner of the world to search for people who are usually absconding / left previous life to start afresh. No one knows how they do it. Logically thinking, maybe they have access to mail servers or are in touch with postmen who transfer confidential letters. Maybe they have access to smartphones of every individual with a mobile phone and track the whereabouts as and when needed. And sometimes, maybe, just maybe, they are in touch with souls or do some type of Ouija to gather information that police or investigation agencies don’t have access to. Either ways, the technology or method they use can benefit the country immensely and can fast track India to become the next super-power!

Sarcasm aside, I am not arguing with the concept or the content shown in the news show as I watch it almost every day and find their way of ‘investigative journalism’ quite interesting. What I don’t like, however, is interfering with personal issues of individuals, who happen to be popular figures in India. One such incident is happening every evening these days and is getting too personal to anybody’s liking, let alone the family. Those in support of the public debate on personal issues justify by saying that the crime happened because the victim was going to reveal something that could have had grave repercussions to some people with power and the country at large and the victim should be given complete justice. Personally, I am all for the “complete justice” argument but not at the cost of causing grief to the victim’s family. Imagine their plight! They are facing baptism by media! They are followed by media everywhere for their sound-bites. And what about their acceptance of the loss? Are we even allowing that to happen?

One way media understands / misunderstands what powerful people say to them is called “reading between the lines”. One statement is made and is interpreted in multiple ways – some more bizarre than others. Here’s one statement and how it can be (mis)interpreted in different ways – 

Statement – “I have said everything I wanted to say and I have nothing more to add”.

Interpretations – 

• He is hiding something. And that something can be a critical piece in this crime mystery.
• His statement says he said everything ‘wanted’ to say, which means there are certain things he doesn’t want to say. What could that possibly be?
• His body language was defensive, why did he avoid the media if he has done nothing wrong? There’s a chink in his armor. 
• The question asked to him was – did he commit the crime. He made a safe statement without denying the accusation.

It’s on these above (mis)interpretations that some media houses bank on (financially and content-wise) which further excites the audience, especially those who are opposing the person under media trial. It may be a discussion point for the neutrals and the audience at large, but just think about the family who are going through the trauma months after the unfortunate event. 

I repeat that I like the new form of “investigative journalism” and trial by media provided we are dealing with scandals worth crores etc. Just when it comes to personal space, we need to have a self-restraint. There’s a thin line in every event that shouldn’t be crossed and in today’s day and age, that line has faded away. 

Where "Eaten Alive" messed up?

I finally got to see the video that made headlines for all the wrong reasons in the past one week! That “Eaten Alive” broadcast on Discovery where a naturalist and a wildlife filmmaker, Paul Rosolie, was supposed to enter the belly of a giant Anaconda and yet survive. If you haven’t heard of this, you are seriously missing something! Whether he entered the belly or not is another story altogether!

If you enjoy watching wildlife channels like Discovery, Nat Geo or Animal Planet and you were completely oblivious to the promotions, you would have loved this show. Seriously! This show starts with Paul Rosolie and his team of experts searching for what Paul claims to be one of the biggest Anacondas alive in Amazon. Their hunt passes through the dense forest of Amazon right up to the floating forest (which, by the way, is awesome – not for a vacation, but for viewing purposes). On the way, they come across relatively smaller Anacondas, Alligators, Electric Eels etc. Later, they realize they could not find that giant Anaconda and had to make-do with a relatively smaller one. Paul, in his hi-tech suit, tries to grab the Anaconda’s attention. Anaconda gives it, grabs the head of Paul, starts swallowing and slowly reaches his shoulders when Paul snaps. His team comes to his rescue and, well, that’s it. To be fair to Paul, he attempted something unique and he and his team deserves due credit (assuming you still haven’t seen the promotions). Technically, Eaten Alive lived up to its name. Paul was eaten alive. 

Now see how they promoted the show - 

This is exactly where they messed up – promotions. They heavily promoted eaten alive to the extent where curious viewers (me included) were expecting Paul to be inside the belly of the snake and will remain there till help is called for / snake decides to push him out. But neither happened. Instead Paul called for help immediately when the Anaconda reached his shoulders. With due respects to Paul for even attempting such a feat, fooling viewers was just not what the doctor ordered! When the promotions were being aired in November, I initially felt they were crossing the invisible line which they are not supposed to cross and decided never to watch / support such an initiative. But these promotions totally gripped me like an Anaconda normally would do to its prey.

Discovery also got some serious negative publicity (but publicity, nevertheless) from various wildlife conservationists / organizations. They were contemplating banning the show altogether. Entering the belly of any animal alive, let alone a giant anaconda goes against the basic right of the animal to live. The animal may get killed during the “stunt”, may be seriously injured and in any ways, won’t be benefited at all. Paul Rosolie defended the stunt claiming they are doing this to generate awareness on reducing numbers of Anaconda. Quite an ironic argument, I must say. If you want to generate awareness, you could have done it with anaconda facts and figures, reasons why their count is reducing, and how viewers can contribute towards this cause. 

Another area where I feel they goofed up was that the “eaten alive” part of the show was smaller in comparison to the “search” part. The search for the biggest Anaconda was shown for almost an hour and the actual stunt was just about 15 minutes. They could have easily reduced the viewing time from over 90 minutes to less than 45 minutes by just concentrating on what they intend to show. As a viewer, you had to go through virtual treks and informative discussions on Anaconda to reach the climax, which was primarily the reason why you decided to view this.

The first show of “Eaten Alive” turned out to be more like “Tasted Alive”! Overall, a decent enough show killed by its own promotions! If eye-balls are what they were looking for, they got it right. But will they sustain it? I doubt.

Upma - The Award-Snatching dish.

Picture this: A Reality show is going on.. Name: Top Chef Masters... Three contestants are remaining.. Its the grand finale... Two of them are firm favorites (Mary Sue Milliken and Traci Des Jardins).. The other one, a guy (Floyd Cardoz), should be proud that he's one of the finalist.. Everything's come down to one last round !!  And one of the theme is to cook a meal of their lifetime inspired by their own stories... And what does Mr. Floyd Cardoz make? Guess.. Guess..

Upma

Upma !! Really?? And did I mention that he won the show?? By making an Upma?? $100,000 by making an Upma?? Awesome !!! Why am I so excited? How does it matter to me? --> It matters to me because the dish we are talking about, was the same dish I used to eat every day for breakfast !! Every single day !! I never knew it was worth $ 100,000..

To those still wondering about Upma - Its a popular South Indian dish. It can be split into uppu (means salt) and maavu (means flour). Now, I am not a cook by any stretch of imagination, but I can tell you that it can be made in any way you like. There is no standard (and worldwide) accepted way of making it, which is what makes it unique. And that is exactly what the Mumbai born chef Floyd Cardoz exploited. He had his own way of making it and he christened it "Upma Polenta" - our Upma's Italian cousin. And by the way, Cardoz has donated the entire amount for Cancer research. Great Gesture, I must admit !!

Link: http://www.oregonlive.com/ The person in the center is Floyd Cardoz

They say we are aping the west, but now they should also say that the west are aping us... Brownie points for India. As far as the show is concerned, it's like Mr. Floyd Cardoz had one upma-nship over the rest of the contestants !!

C'mon.. Lie to me...

The other day I came across this sitcom called "Lie to me". Its an investigatory series where the protagonist observes the body language of the accused / concerned people including facial expressions, posture to determine whether a person is lying. And as it is explained in the series, 'The question is not if the person is lying, the question is why is he lying'. And that's what this series is all about. This series is based on real life scientific discoveries of a scientist called Paul Ekman.

Every human being shows what is termed as microexpressions. These are involuntary emotions, usually lasting for about 0.1 seconds or even less. There is no need for the accused to even talk. And if we observe microexpressions closely, we can detect lies. There is a theory behind it and relevant proof to support the same. But, as is the case with all scientific theories, you can either accept it or reject it.

Some microexpressions / facts that I wasn't too aware of:

1. Raising one shoulder while talking - denotes that the person is lying / trying to lie
2. Making a fist (involuntarily) while talking - denotes hiding something that a person doesn't want to reveal
3. Raising your eyebrow momentarily while talking denoted a sense of sadness and so on.
4. The problem with polygraph tests is that they can also be false-positives. It can be due to any emotion like fear, anger etc not just guilt.

Now that's an interesting set of tools which can be fruitful in our day-to-day interaction with people.

Truth be told, I used to love the CID (Indian T.V. Series) series, for an altogether different reason - Humor. So, all you CID lovers out there who wants to watch real investigation without:

• forcing the killer to accept his crime,
• Daya opening doors with his bare hands / fist,
• ACP Pradyuman making circles with his index finger and sounding suspicious,
• Fredricks and his (supposed) humor,
• the same Toyota Qualis with different colors...

... This one is for you !!

"The Truth is Written All Over Our Faces"