Controversy over Such ka Saamna

Rajya Sabha members cutting across party lines on Wednesday have expressed concern over mushrooming of TV reality shows involving "dirty" content aimed at improving TRPs and earning additional advertising revenues.A section of senior Parliamentarians in the Upper House mainly belonging to Opposition parties took serious objection to the telecast of Star Plus's new reality show, called Sach Ka Saamna, citing objectionable content that goes against the morality of Indian society.Last week, MP Sharad Yadav had voiced his reservations against Colors' show Balika Vadhu, stating that the show promoted child marriage. Now, its the turn of Samajwadi Party MP Kamal Akhtar, to be the moral police.Raising the Sach Ka Saamna issue during zero hour, Akhtar said, "Obscene questions are asked by the anchor of the programme."Akhtar cited an example when a woman was asked in the presence of her husband whether she would have physical relationship with another person. "When she said no, polygraph test said the answer was wrong."Subsequently, the Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry has also served a show-cause notice to Star Plus over the continued telecast of Sach Ka Saamna. The Ministry has given Star India Pvt. Ltd., the company that owns Star Plus, time till July 27 to respond to its notice.According to senior I&B officials, the broadcaster has been asked to clarify its position on the various objections raised by the MPs. Uday Shankar, chief executive officer, Star India, did not respond to a query sent in the matter.It is known fact that when figures like former India batsman Vinod Kambli and TV actress Urvashi Dholakia bared their heart and soul on Sach Ka Saamna, everyone sighed and said - "Yes, we are all listening."Recently, in this emotionally-charged show, Kambli also created a huge controversy, when he said that his childhood friend and former India captain Sachin Tendulkar didn't do enough to stop him going down a self-destructive path, which ended a glorious career.Now many among us may want to know Kambli's dark secrets, apart from Akhtar's concerns. But what possesses people let it all hang out on telly? We have thought that no one would be interested in our humdrum lives. But how wrong we were, there is a great slavering public out there lapping up every bit of humiliation suffered by others.

What do I as a young Muslim think of the programme? Well I simply dislike/don’t approve the format as well as the content of the programme and strongly feel that it should be banned. Here is why:

Consider two of the prophet Mohammed’s (peace be upon him) sayings (Hadeeths): i) Don’t try to find others’ secrets and if at all you come to know about them don’t spread them. ii) Don’t raise the veil over those crimes of yours on which God has kept veil.
Words used by me in above two statements may not be similar to those used by prophet (pbuh) but I think I have conveyed the message. The above mentioned rules are essential for a society where people have confidence over each other. They are even more necessary for strong ties amongst friends and family members. This is why, I can’t approve a game showwhere people are asked bold-vulgar to be precise- questions about their personal life and people shamelessly unfold their black deeds in front of an audience which contains their near and dear ones. Can you imagine how much faith a husband will have in his wife after hearing that she is ready to sleep with another man if he isn’t around? Or what a daughter will think of her father when she comes to know that she has an illegitimate sibling also! One may argue that one feels relieved after confession, so what’s wrong with it? The simple answer is that one should rather confess before God and seek forgiveness from him. It will not only make him feel relieved but also hoping that he/she will be forgiven.

Divorce caused by moment of truth (actual Sach ka Saamna) @ www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=38398&cat...

SHIVAJI - HERO OR REBEL?

The ongoing controversy over Dadoji Konddev, the mentor of Maratha warrior king Shivaji – as we studied in our 4th std. history book – has came to an end with the Maharashtra state’s decision to reduce Dadoji to just an ‘able administrator’ from mentor and inspiration of Shivaji.<<http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=RSSFeed-News&id=209a2e94-9440-4c96-aa8f-b4f70da33f99&Headline=History+book+row%3a+Sena+slams+Maratha+organisations>>
This kind of incident is not new. Earlier also ruling the ruling classes have altered the history books to their liking. I vividly remember that throughout my fifth std. history book Indian National Congress was mentioned as ‘The National Party’, as the book was prepared under BJP rule. Similarly, BJP had also removed assassination of Mahatma Gandhi from the school history book, which was later introduced in just a single sentence.
In my school days it would have made no difference to me had Dadoji konddev not been mentioned as the mentor of Shivaji because small as I was and being a Muslim I was quit unaware of Brahmin-Maratha drift. But some things, really, did matter.
The ongoing controversy reminded me of the mental conflict I had when I was in 4th std. in my Urdu medium school. Our 4th std. history book was all about Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and his struggle against the rulers like Nizam Shah, Adil Shah and Aurangazeb. Now, Shaivji happened to be a Hindu and the rulers happened to be Muslims. Besides, since our book had given this struggle a slightly communal colour it looked more like a Hindu-Muslim affair (This communal colour is more evident in the texts of some historians and TV serials). It’s why I hesitated to accept Shivaji as a hero. Rather I looked at him as a rebel.
It was amusing to see how our teacher innocently neutralized the communal tone of our textbook. The textbook said: Before Shivaji, the people of Maharashtra were victims of the rulers like Nizam Shah and Adil Shah. Hindus didn’t have the freedom of pujapat (Worshipping)…… Our teacher explained it this way: Yes, those were really hard times. Hindus weren’t allowed to perform puja, Muslims weren’t allowed to go the mosque……
As days passed I studied how Shivaji conquered the forts one by one, defeated his enemies and his influence increased in the area. Now, a conflict began in my mind over accepting Shivaji as a hero. Who doesn’t want to be with the winning side? Moreover we were told that Shivaji came as a rescuer and messiah to the local people. He was an able administrator and he brought dignity to the people.
On the other hand, we were told, the rulers were really devils. But then, I would think how can Aurangazeb be a bad soul? He was, in my mind, the most pious ruler of India living a modest life not using even a single paisa of royal treasury for his personnel expenses. I took a stung exception to what the book said. And in order to justify my craving for Aurangazeb I would glance through the map which suggests that Shivaji rules over a small land whereas Mogul empire is spread all over India.
As for my friends, some of them took Shivaji as a hero. Others didn’t because a) he was fighting against ‘Muslims’ and b) He used to attack from backside and without prior notice – a guerilla war. Some even got a derogatory word for him: Pahadi Chooha (Mountain Rat) – despite the fact that he was a brave warrior – because of the same reason.
But I, even at the end of the year, wasn’t sure if Shaivaji was a hero or not!