M A I L B A G

Slimming is a risky fad

APROPOS of Amar Chandel’s article on slimming (Slimming: Facts and Fallacies, Spectrum, Nov 23), it is true that in the past few years, our obsession with our bodies has become pronounced. With beauty pageants having become a way of life, our fixation with what is perceived as “fitness” has, to say the least, become a nightmarish reality. In reality, does fitness really enter the picture? Does being too twig-thin mean being hale and hearty?

It is not surprising that with an overemphasis on trying to acquire a thin and frail body, certain serious mental and physical problems have cropped up — ailments such as anorexia and bulimia. These diseases are the outcome of an anti-fat society where figure control ensures control of life at various levels. People who suffer from these eating disorders have a frail or even no self-esteem and genuinely believe themselves to be fat.

Since these ailments are imported from the West, wouldn’t it be more wholesome in our own interest, if we would not mimic this Western culture down to the very last breath?

K.M. VASHISHT, Delhi

Attack on the Press

It is good that Khushwant Singh has after all read through the real face of Tamil Nadu CM Jayalalithaa (This Above All, Windows, Nov 23). The glamour girl of Tamil screen from a balcony baby, she has now become a haughty and arrogant Chief Minister. She has been a crafty woman all through her life. She pulled down the Vajpayee Government. Now she is again cozying up to the BJP-led NDA government.

Napoleon was not afraid of an army; but he very much feared the Press. Hopefully, Ms Jayalalithaa will realise the situation in which she has placed herself after an attack on The Hindu.

Freedom of the Press is not expressly mentioned in Article 19 of the Constitution, but has been held to flow from the general freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to all citizens. I have come across at least nine cases in which the apex court upheld freedom of the Press. The first was Virendra v State of Punjab, ASR 1958, SC 986. In L.K. Koolwal v State of Rajasthan, ASR, 1988, freedom of the Press was linked with citizens’ right to know.

Preamble (since declared a part of the Constitution in Keshvananda Bharati v State of Kerala, ASR 1973, SC 1461) talks of India as a sovereign democratic, republican structure. It is one of the basic features of the Constitution which cannot be amended even under Article 368. Yet the Tamil Nadu CM sided with her Assembly Speaker. The sooner the privileges of legislatures are codified, the better for a harmonious relationship between the Press and legislatures—so essential to preserve the country’s hard-won freedom.

S.S. JAIN, Chandigarh

Return of the ordinary I don’t agree with the views expressed in the article “Return of the ordinary” (Nov 30) by Chetna Keer Banerjee. The writer says Ektaa Kapoor’s TV serials are now close to the everyday realities of an average viewer. The serials like “Office, Office”, “Astitiva — Ek Prem Kahani” etc. pander to the hobbies, tastes, whims and caprices of the well-bred and well-fed urban people. More or less, the same is true of other TV serials. As far as the serial “Khhichadi” is concerned, it mirrors the luxurious and comfortable lifestyle of the upper middle class and its quaint sense of humour. Almost all the present TV serials project and glorify the life values of a consumerist and capitalistic society. In other words, being remote from the harsh realities of rural India, these serials are propagating the questionable hedonistic philosophy of the elites of the country. I have been watching “Kasauti Zindagi Ki”, “Kehta Hai Dil” and “Kitty Party” for several days and I don’t feel these are, in any way, authentic stories of the masses of India. In these serials, the main characters are miles away from poverty, unemployment and social oppression. They wear gaudy clothes, always move in shining cars and wait for their servants to prepare lunch and supper for them. My counter question to the writer is “How is it the return of the ordinary”? The basic character and culture of Indian TV serials have not changed the least. It panders to the taste of rich urban people. It is highly apathetic to Indian villages, in whom, Gandhiji believed, the soul of India dwells. RAJ BAHADUR YADAV, Fatehabad

Live-in relationships

This has reference to the write-up “Do live-in relationships really benefit women?” by Vimla Patil (Spectrum, September 21). Today, in the race of crowded life, where women who are divorced or widowed, in spite of their good status in society, are treated casually, then how can live-in relationships be beneficial for women in such a society, where such relationships are constantly in a flux?

Such relationships lay more stress on individualism that may give a breath of freedom in a limited sense, but not in the long run. Happiness, that ultimate goal of life, can never be achieved by this short-term arrangement (live-in relationships). Anyone who has ever entered such an arrangement can be questioned for his or her morality and viewed with suspicion.

It is, therefore, much better to get married and enjoy all the legal rights of a husband or a wife instead of escaping from this responsible relationship.

ANJU ANAND, Chambaghat (Solan)

Banda Bahadur

I read with interest the book “The Legend of Banda Bahadur” written by Harish Dhillon and also the review of the same by Himmat Singh Gill (“The life of a saint and general recreated”, Dec 7). After reading the review, I gave another reading to Dhillon’s work. I find the objections raised by the reviewer uncalled for. His first objection is about the “made-up scenarios and story settings” in Dhillon’s plot. As is clear from his introduction, Dhillon obviously does not make any claims to be a keeper of whatever is known to be historically true about Banda Bahadur.

The reviewer fails to appreciate the vision of a creative writer. As Mr Gill himself pointed out, writing authentic Sikh history is a task fit for institutions like the SGPC, but writing history apart, an interesting and inspiring account of the heroes of the Sikhs like Banda Bahadur, as provided in Dhillon’s book, fulfils a dire need when our young generation is drifting away from their grand heritage.

Illusions of incidents like a meeting between Bulle Shah and Banda Bahadur and that of the interaction between Banda Bahadur and his wife, Sushil Kaur, are part of fictional treatment of a historical subject. These are coverings and adornments to make history perceptible and substantial.

As regards the question whether Banda’s mission was a socio-economic movement, I have read and also seen the enactment of a play by Gurdial Singh Phul on the life and achievements of Banda Bahadur and the Punjabi playwright did focus on the socio-economic aspect of Banda’s mission.

A similar objection, as the one raised by Mr Gill in the context of Dhillon’s novel, led to the unfortunate censorship and editing of a part of Madeeha Gauhar’s play staged recently in Punjab. Madeeha directed a play on Bulle Shah’s life, in which a meeting between Bulle Shah and Banda Bahadur takes place. Obviously, the episode was written as such by the playwright Shahid Nadeem, who is husband of Madeeha.

If the writers of two different countries have shown Bulle Shah and Banda Bahadur face to face in their works and have the same wavelength of thoughts, there must be some compelling reason for it. The reason is that writers and artistes like Dhillon and Nadeem write or create for common people and not for die-hard historians.

KAMLESH UPPAL, Patiala