What do you think?
Rate this book


172 pages, Kindle Edition
Published December 13, 2019
"One horse laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms" - H. L. MenckenSometimes in this post-truth universe, the discourse gets so bizarre that ordinary rules of debate make no sense. In such situation, it makes sense to do what Mencken suggested - laugh out in the face of idiocy. In current India, laughter seems to be the only medicine against a society which seems to be going batshit crazy. In this book, Naomi Datta does just that - laugh out. And brilliant writer that she is, she makes sure that her readers laugh along with her.
The aim of this book is to set you up as a non-achieving, complacent fence-sitter at the very least and a stonewaller at the very best. But I don’t want you to be poor or a failure. I would have written a book on optimizing spiritual health then. You are a mass of inertia, but your career will always be on a steady ascendant. Not a meteoric rise, because as we will say ad nauseam throughout this book, you don’t want to be noticed too much. Your career goal is to be furniture in your workplace. However, you can choose to be the plush couch in the lobby rather than the plastic chair left out in the rain.The book has fifteen chapters.
You are the person who throws the rule book at new employees and resists all change by saying that it is against the brand values of the company. ‘This is not who we are,’ you repeat in tones of deep anguish each time something pops up that could topple the apple cart, your apple cart. Apples are odious fruits just by the way they fall unsolicited on people and make them come up with laws of gravity. The interfering busybodies encourage thought and change. You are a fruit for god’s sake. Behave like one. Give me a complacent plum any day.Chapter 3
‘Interesting’ is a word that doesn’t need you to commit to an ideology or point of view; it doesn’t need you to commit to anything at all. For instance, you could say Jack the Ripper was an interesting guy and it doesn’t make you a murderous sociopath sympathizer.Chapter 4
A Twitter influencer can be any or all of these: opinionated, well-read, a curator of other opinions, funny, rabid, liberal, right wing, moderate, erudite, ignorant. You need to engage, bait, provoke and inform. All of this for free, nobody pays you. An Instagram influencer just needs to have a good camera phone. You need to post photos—with hashtags. Banality is highly recommended. You can get paid to do this or you can get a host of freebies. It is all par for the course.Chapter 6
***
Stock up on Rumi and Kahlil Gibran. You don’t always have to be penning your own motivational quotes. Luckily for us, Rumi, Gibran and many other great writers, anticipating Instagram, have left us a handy bank of quotes that can be used for anything. Your pet cat, your cup of coffee, the stray pimple on your nose and even your garbage bags with dry and wet separated.
It starts innocuously enough: one morning, you will wake to find that you are now part of a group called *Insert School Name* Mums. It is all quite cheerful in the beginning—just a bunch of regular, pleasant-sounding mums journeying along with you on this life experience called motherhood. That is the brochure. And you know what lies beneath a brochure: the truth. Crack the surface, and it is a minefield of insecurity, hyper-competition, upmanship and fragile self-worth.I am sure there are many mums out there who use this method to survive!
***
You must have received this forward (usually on WhatsApp) on how God couldn’t be everywhere, so he created mums. Awww, ya. That cheesy PR spiel of motherhood. I have a slight revision to that for WhatsApp groups. When mums can’t be everywhere, they insert emoticons.
Passive participation is the act of inserting emoticons at regular intervals to suggest involvement and engagement.
Here are a few pointers on how not to be a tiger mum—how to compromise on what the world has made you believe is essential for good mothering. You are not slacking off; you are just keeping sane. You are in the race, but you are running at your own pace. You probably won’t win a medal, but you will reach the finish line and your kids will be more or less fine. They might even be prodigies, and it won’t be because you gave up on everything else besides them. At the very least, they will be average, well-adjusted blobs of generic humanity and not over-entitled, over-indulged misfits. You are doing them a favour—and yourself too. Ease off motherhood.The most interesting chapters in the book are chapters 8, 9 and 11 - you meet all these characters (the likeable - and the not-so-likeable - bigot, the sulking liberal and the shouting news anchor ) almost on a daily basis in India. In fact, we can't avoid them unless we trek to the Himalayas and decide to spend some time in caves doing meditation.
Bigotry only has a branding problem and that is what we need to fix. We need to rebrand bigotry and remove the value judgement from it. We need to pedal a softer version of it. Refer back to the meaning of bigotry; the case we build today is that while the ideas behind it may be strong, they are not unreasonable at all—and therefore attaching likeability to it is a reasonable ask.I can go on and on. If I do, I will end up quoting the entire book!
***
When someone like you—read someone from your community—commits a crime or misdemeanour, it is clearly an individual aberration. If someone outside your community does the same, he or she indicts the entire race or religion he or she belongs to. Always be equipped with infallible logic like this that can’t be countered... The advantage of having an opinion not based on facts is that it can’t be countered by facts.
***
Bigotry needs a massive rebranding exercise. You need to soft sell it. How do you do this? By giving it softer labels such as ‘controversial’, ‘provocative’, ‘contentious’, ‘fractious’, ‘problematic’, ‘conservative’ or ‘old school’. This relabelling makes it part of the mainstream narrative and socially acceptable. It takes the edge off the issue and puts forward the proposition that a bigot is just another kind of person expressing a different opinion.
***
A bigot and a hard-nosed liberal will have contrasting and divergent views. Focus on the commonality. Both of these views are hardliner views. What you need to do is hone in on the hardliner part: you need to state that you are opposed to extreme opinion and would rather seek the middle ground. The middle ground is a grey area, a moral marshmallow that will be more acceptable to the bigot and untenable to the liberal. You can then make a case for how inflexible the liberal is and is therefore more of the deviant than the bigot. The context for the hardliner views does not matter. The fact that they are often non-negotiable is what you can deflect the attention to.
***
The Indian liberal can be summed up thus, ‘I sulk, therefore, I am’—and that is his or her only plan: petulance. It is pretty comfortable being a liberal: you live in an air-conditioned echo chamber and then Uber it to other echo chambers. You sip tea out of eco-friendly earthen pots with other suitably stirred individuals and lament the end of reason. You shudder and wring your hands in delicate distaste at the ignorant masses and hope the right hashtag will bring back the world order you so desire. You haven’t really defined what that world order is; it is a bit hazy, but you know it is sweet and flaky—a bit like you. It is a charming place where people waft around in wishy-washy congeniality, saying perfectly well-mannered things to each other.
***
Actually, the sulking liberal is even less of a doer than our amiable bigot. The bigot has the force of his convictions. The liberal is mostly confused about what his convictions are—but he knows that whatever they are, they make him morally superior to the rest of humanity. The liberal, then, is clearly not a person of action and is in fact the ideal reader of this book.
***
This is often called the paradox of liberalism or illiberal liberalism, where a liberal shouts down a contrarian view because he or she operates on the assumption that their stance is the only one worth having. Everyone else is a yokel. A truly democratic stance.
We can now cheerfully proceed with the true objective of journalism, which is to make sure we stay in a bubble of self-involved knowledge. We choose to know only that much that suits us. And that is where later thinkers say Chomsky and Herman might have erred a bit by assuming that the reader/news consumer doesn’t know—it is more likely he or she chooses not to know. We have already established in previous chapters that what we think is truth is often just a validation of our own belief systems. What we seek then is the post truth, which is a bit like the after-party once verified facts have left the party. It is where the real fun begins.Read it. As a nation, we Indians tend to think too much about ourselves, and need to be taken down a peg. This is the ideal way to do it. Kudos to the author!
***
As a journalist, it is your business to keep tabs on the popular pulse and make sure the set of facts you have picked are in sync with that. News must give the viewer or the reader an emotional high. News must entertain and engage, and if it manages to inform, then that we must treat as unfortunate collateral damage.
***
Your superpower is anger. You have to figure out a way of staying angry all the time. Give up on yoga, meditation and chanting classes—you don’t need inner peace. The world needs you to stay angry. You also don’t want the world to have peace—you will lose your job. Work yourself up into a vigilante anger, ask furious questions. However, note that your furious questions are never to be directed at figures of authority. Line up some inconsequential spokespeople, throw in a few out-of-work army generals from Pakistan and bellow. Be righteous and emotional in your anger—your prime-time meltdown is cathartic for your viewers. As you verbally pummel your equally angry panellists, the appetite of your audience is whetted for the next season of Big Boss. If on the off chance you do manage to get an interview with a genuinely powerful person, ask them which variety of mango they like to eat. The nation, I assure you, will want to know.
***
Ace this game then—if you can make actual reportage and fact-gathering seem like an anti-national activity, you can continue to loll around in your studio for the rest of your career shouting down divisive forces. The biggest bonus to this is that you will come across as a national hero. Without ever actually doing anything at all.