Shashi Tharoor and Free Speech Restrictions

Yesterday, Shashi Tharoor pointed me to a Deccan Chronicle article where he lays out his rationale in detail. Let me address some of the examples, analogies, and references in the article. These rhetorical tools Tharoor used are frequently used by others who support some curtailment of free speech, so it's important to analyze them.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in the US, put it memorably when he said that freedom of speech does not extend to the right to shout “fire!” in a crowded theatre.

This quote has been misused so often in free speech arguments, that it is like the also-misused Einstein quote "God does not play dice" frequently employed by religious people against atheists. There are a couple of brilliant dissections of the Holmes quote, along with the context in which it was said here (scroll down) and here.

But in short,

a. Tharoor, like most people misquoting the line, has conveniently left out the falsely in the falsely shouting fire part.
b. The judgment restricting free speech where Holmes wrote it was overturned by the US Supreme Court in 1969.
c. Holmes himself changed his mind and when a similar case came to the bench, voted against curtailing free speech.

The irony here is that Tharoor has misused the quote in much the same way that Justice Holmes did in the original context. The Supreme Court case wasn't about whether to prosecute a man shouting fire in a crowded theater. It was about whether a couple of people distributing fliers criticizing the US government's draft order for World War 1 were right. Holmes wrongly used the analogy in a context where the government wanted to stop an individual from criticizing the government.

Mr Sibal’s main concern was not with politics, but with scurrilous material about certain religions that could have incited retaliatory violence.

And Tharoor is using it in a context where, despite all this talk about wanting to curb vile incitements, the fact remains that 2/3rds of the postings that the Indian government asked Google to remove were criticisms of the Government. Tharoor keeps insisting in his column and on twitter that Sibal's concern is not politics. But he refuses to explain why most postings sought to be removed criticized the government, and had no overt or covert scurrility about religion, or anything that could incite retaliatory violence.

Free speech absolutists tend to say that freedom is a universal right that must not be abridged.

This is a mischaracterization. Free speech supporters actually say that GOVERNMENTS should not abridge this right. Which brings us to....

But in practice such abridgement often takes place, if not by law then by convention. No American editor would allow the “n” word to be used to describe black Americans, not because it’s against the law, but because it would cause great offence.

And most free speech absolutists, including me, have no problems with abridgment by convention or social pressure, as long as it is not by law. Yes, the American society has placed a high cost on using the n-word. But it has not, will not, and thanks to a solid constitution and a generally rigorous legal system, cannot legally penalize someone for saying the n-word.

I don't know of anyone who insists that free speech means the editor should have no say in what his publication publishes. It's his publication. He gets to decide what goes in there. Similarly, I don't have a problem with Google or Facebook or Twitter voluntarily deciding to delete content that they don't like. Their servers, their decision.

The problem is with the government placing restrictions or handing down convictions in case some editor does decide to publish the n-word. Or Facebook has no problems with someone publishing a post critical of Sonia Gandhi.

As for the general points regarding free speech, and using the excuses of its possible consequences to restrict it, they have been wonderfully made by Greatbong and Amit Varma. And in response to Tharoor's points in an earlier context, by Christopher Hitchens here (do watch the video!). I will not repeat them here.

But will end with one last question for Shashi Tharoor. If a group of people band together and decide that The Great Indian Novel is insulting enough to the Hindu epic Mahabharat and the Indian freedom movement to go on a riot, would you ask for a ban on it? After all, riots in India have been sparked (engineered?) by text much tamer than referring to the father of the nation as Public Enema Number One.

Open Letter to Shashi Tharoor

Dear Shashi

First up, let me admit that I find the whole idea of "open letters" a bit grandiose and moronic. An exercise in conscience massaging more than anything useful. Kinda like..... I don't know.....maybe the United Nations? But still, I was annoyed enough by your craven volte face on the Indian government's proposed censorship measure to write this damned thing.

So here are a few tweets you posted about Kapil Sibal's proposal to censor the social media.

Spoke to KapilSibal. He assured me he opposes political censorship. Concern is re communally inflammatory images&language which he described.

As I said in my debate w/Hitchens that many of u have cited,all societies observe certain restraints re language&images acceptable in public

I understand Facebook is indeed taking down some pages that KapilSibal showed them. Pretty vile stuff. Sadly public didn't object2them 1st

I reject censorship. Art,literature&political opinion are sacrosanct. But inflammatory communal incitement is like a match at a petrol pump.

@KanchanGupta Kanchan, come on. Nowhere have I supported political censorship. I have a pretty long record of standing up for press freedom

You then tweeted that we should wait for some Deccan Chronicle and/or Asian Age article from you so you can expound at length on what the heck it is you mean.

So what the heck do you mean, Shashi? Do you support censorship or don't you? Because from what I read in your tweets, you are not opposed to censorship per se, only to "political" censorship.

What is "political" censorship? Censoring your political opponents? So if party A which is in the opposition says something and party B, which is in power censors it, that is wrong, and you're against it? Great! So you don't really support the "freedom" of speech. You support the "privilege" of speech, a privilege which is only extended to politicians, not to common voters.

So if I, as a common voter, say, something on my Facebook wall questioning the great place that Chhatrapati Shivaji holds in Maharashtra politics. And if the Sena or NCP decide to censor me, that is fine, because it is "pretty vile" or "communally inflammatory". But if I first enroll in some political party, file papers for a legislative seat, and say the same thing, then it is "political censorship" that you oppose?

So if I say something about Shivaji and am censored, whether it is wrong or not will depend on whether I am a politician or not? Do you realize how utterly ridiculous that sounds?

Oh oh oh.... I am sorry. Of course! It depends on what I exactly say, doesn't it? The speech has to be "vile" enough to be "inflammatory communal incitement is like a match at a petrol pump". So if I say something that in your or Sibal's (or according to Sibal, Zuckerberg's) infinite wisdom is just a mature critique of Shivaji's place in Maharashtra, then I have the right to free speech. If what I say is "vile" or "inflammatory" then it should be censored, huh?

And who makes that call?

Let me take a short detour here. And bring in an uncle. This uncle and I, over the years, shared a lot of conversations about literature. We recommended books to each other, and discussed them at length. We grew to trust each other's judgment on books, and took each other's opinions seriously.

Until one day in 1999. I recommended a book to him. He told me he was going to buy it. He read it. The next time I met him, he was more upset at me than when I had accidentally broken a rare vase he bought from Hong Kong.

"What crap are you reading, Gaurav?" he thundered.

"Huh???"

"Is this how little you respect you country and your culture?"

"What?"

"Public ENEMA number one? Is that how you'd talk about Gandhiji?"

"Ohhh....."

"You would read a book that jokes about Gandhiji shoving something up his own butt?"

"Uncle...."

"What offensive nonsense is this? Using our glorious and heroic freedom struggle and the most venerated Mahabharat for toilet humor and disgusting innuendos? This is some vile stuff!"

(I swear he used the word 'vile'!)

"Uncle, come on!" I protested and tried to reason with him.

And so the conversation went.

The book that he got so offended and inflamed by....well Shashi, I don't need to tell you what book it was. But in case someone eavesdropping on this open letter is wondering, it was The Great Indian Novel by Shashi Tharoor which jokes about things much more irreverent than Gandhiji getting an enema.

Obviously, I don't think the book is inflammatory. But my uncle did. I also know people who think the great Indian cult comedy Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron should be banned, because it insults the Mahabharat.

And in case you think these are just some fringe loonies, here's a sobering thought. I knew a guy a decade ago or so who though the Marathi play Yadakadachit (which used the Mahabharat as a satirical setting, not dissimilar to The Great Indian Novel and Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron) was offensive. The guy later entered local politics, and worked with right wing parties in Maharashtra to actually get that play banned!

That's the thing, Shashi. Anything and everything that even tangentially touches upon religion can be branded by someone out there as "vile" or "inflammatory". Who draws the line? And once someone draws a line, what stops it from being redrawn and redrawn until it has a chilling effect on any kind of speech that is critical of religion or community beliefs? Don't even think of bandying that old Potter Stewart quote here - "I know it when I see it", because no, you don't, and neither do I. No one does. Which is why speech should be FREE, not hostage to the opinion of the knowledgeable or even the majority. Some principles of democracy are too important to be left to the mercy of the majority's opinion.

Heck, I know people who insist that even atheists like me who say "there is no god....this whole god idea makes no sense" should be censored...because apparently listening to people like us could "confuse religious children who are unsure about their beliefs."

And as I said before, I know people who believe The Great Indian Novel is "vile", offensive to Hindus and to the freedom movement, and should be banned.

So my question to you, Shashi Tharoor, one-time nominee for the United Nations Secretary General, and member of the Indian Parliament, is, what the heck, dude?

Yours in Utter Revulsion
Gaurav

Re-Appreciating Sherlock

Like most of you, I read Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes books in my teens. Loved them. Sherlock Holmes became an elusive nerdy ideal I dreamed of copying. His mysteries were as spine-tingling as they were educational (my first exposure to the Ku-Klux-Klan was through Sherlock Holmes). Then, like all of you, I grew up. Moved on to other literary heroes, and other practical considerations in life.

Then a couple of years back, I heard that there were two different Sherlock Holmes "interpretations" in the works. Both being conceived by creators I was a fan of - Guy Ritchie of Snatch Fame and Steven Moffat of Coupling fame. Hmm, I said to myself, reinterpreting Sherlock Holmes while keeping his "soul" intact was no easy job. I had sen Granada Television's TV series, and as faithful as it was to the original, I still had issues with it. Translating Doyle's work into something you can put on the screen seems tough. But if I had to choose 2 guys to do it, Ritchie and Moffat would be in my list.

Furthermore, Ritchie's interpretation would feature Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes. I am a BIIIIG fan of Downey's. And Watson would be played by Jude Law whom I have a healthy regard for. I also heard that Irene Adler would be played by Rachel McAdams, whom I consider one of the most talented actresses around. So all in all, I was positively predisposed toward's Guy Ritchie's Sherlock.

Then the movie came out5. I went to watch it, "first day first show". And it left a bad taste in my mouth. I didn't have any major problems with how Downey played Holmes or Law played Watson. I just plain didn't like the movie. Didn't like the underlying "mystery" which I found too Dan-Brown-ish for my taste.

That blunted my enthusiasm for Steven Moffat's BBC TV series. As a tempered Sherlck Holmes fan, I had already been disillusioned by Guy Ritchie. Did I want to give another Brit the opportunity to disappoint me? No thanks! Plus I knew that Moffat's interpretation placed Sherlock Holmes in the 21st century, a tough ask. Yup, definitely NO THANKS! I steered clear of watching the show.

But then, a bunch of my friends got the better of me. "Give it a shot, just one shot!", they said. BBC's series Sherlock, although it is set in present times, is wayyyyy more true to the original than Ritchie's abomination, they said. So I thought, fine, let me give it a shot.

The result astounded me. I loved it, no I LOVED it! Steven Moffat's Sherlock, set in the 21st century, resonated wayyyyyyy more with me than Ritchie's Sherlock, set in Victorian times. The 3 episodes, all "movie length" (i.e., 90 minutes each)felt more genuine than anything Guy Ritchie served up. I didn't know why! How could Sherlock Holmes set in 2010, with text messaging, websites, and GPS, resonate with me more than Guy Ritchie's decidedly Victorian interpretation? I had no idea! But it did!

Then recently, I moved to New York City. Started spending a long time in suubways. So I downloaded the Kindle app on my phone. Looked for free books. Found a lot of Sherlock Holmes books. Started (re) reading them during my subway rides.

And I got why I loved BBC's Moffat series! Over the years, my mind retained the "essence" of Sherlock Holmes, but had forgotten the specifics. When I watched Moffat's series, I felt he had captured the "essence". Re-reading the books told me why I felt that way. Because despite throwing Holmes and Watson into 2011, Moffat retained their basic appeal, with some amazing attention to detail that, my mind forgot, but my subconscious mind appreciated!

For example, the way Holmes asks Watson "Afghanistan or Iraq" when they first meet. It's a clear reference to the way Doyle's Holmes guessed Watson's military background in Afghanistan. How he guesses....I am sorry....deduces several facts about Watson's sibling based on his cellphone (clear and direct reference to how Holmes deduced facts about Watson's brother in the original books).

But these are blatant references. The series is full of references to facts that the generic Holmes fan, who read the books years ago, is likely to forget. For instance, in the series, Sherlock randomly shoots at the wall because he is bored. Seemed gratuitous to me. But after reading the books, I realized it was faithful to the original, in which Doyle writes that Holmes does that!

Or the cipher in the 2nd episode. Such a clear reference to the cipher in the Valley of Fear! The series is studded with loyal references like that. Which makes it, despite being set in present times, the most loyal interpretation of Doyle's Sherlock Holmes ever!

Watch it!

Rickshawwallahs

Do you remember that pretty bungalow in your neighborhood owned by a rickshaw driver? Do you remember those groups of rickshawwallahs that sit in Barista or Cafe Coffee Day sipping lattes and mochas as they take a break from their shifts? Do you remember how the expensive box seats at IPL matches are mostly taken up by rickshawwallahs? Do you remember all those rickshaw drivers, with their wives and kids buying up all the designer clothing and shoes in malls?

No?

Me neither!

The IC 814 Fallacy

I am opposed to the death penalty. In all circumstances and situations, no matter how evil the perpetrator. This draws me into occasional debates (the latest triggered by the Troy Davis execution) with my friends who support the death penalty, at least in the rarest of rare cases.

This post is not about why I believe the death penalty is wrong. Rather, it is to address a fallacious argument that pops into death penalty debates among Indians with predictable regularity - the IC 814 argument. This argument typically unfolds as follows. A supporter of the death penalty says that executing the rarest of rare cold blooded murderers protects society from likely repeat offenses. To which my answer is, lifelong incarceration in a secure prison could protect society from the murderer just as well. The counter-point then is, ah, but what about an IC 814 type situation?

For those who came late, IC 814 was an Indian Airlines plane hijacked by Pakistani terrorists in 1999, demanding the release of three dangerous Pakistani terrorists in Indian custody. The hijackers killed one passenger, and threatened to kill all others unless the three terrorists were released. The Indian government gave in to pressure from the hijacked passengers' families, and released the terrorists. So the IC 814 argument in support of the death penalty, at least for terrorists, is that if we incarcerate terrorists without executing them, their supporters may threaten or kill more people to secure their release. That's why convicted terrorists like Ajmal Kasab should be executed.

I find this argument deeply fallacious, perhaps the most flawed argument that a supporter of the death penalty can make.

The first and biggest flaw in this logic is the assumption that terrorists' supporters will only carry out an act of terrorism to negotiate their release, not to seek revenge for the execution. In fact, a follow-up act of terrorism is much more likely to be motivated by revenge, considering that the stated objective of almost all terrorist acts is retribution.

Another flaw is that when you provide prevention of possible murder by someone else as grounds for killing the convicted, the whole logic about the validity of the death penalty goes for a toss. Because you're implicitly saying that the convict's own acts or potential to himself kill again is secondary to what someone else may do. The argument is thus very utilitarian, driven by convenience or precaution against something the convict himself possibly cannot do. Utilitarian or convenience based arguments are rather hollow in justifying execution, don't you think?

If preventing the headache of hijacks or hostage-takings is such a strong motivation, why can't it be utilized against people who haven't committed murders? In the 70s, when the Janata government arrested Indira Gandhi, two men hijacked a plane and threatened to blow it up unless she was immediately released from prison. The aforementioned argument implies that Indira Gandhi should have been executed to prevent such hijackings by her fanatical supporters. There have been other hijackings demanding the release of jailed individuals who had never killed anyone. Should these individuals be executed because their supporters are crazy enough to threaten others for their release?

I am sure any reasonable person's reply is, no, they shouldn't. Because it is absurd to kill someone as a precautionary measure against something someone else might do. The same is then true regardless of what the jailed individual's crime is - fraud or corruption in the case of Indira Gandhi, or cold blooded mass murder in case of Ajmal Kasab. Argue the merits of executing someone on the basis of what THEY have done, not what someone else MIGHT do.

There are many cogent and respectable arguments in favor of the death penalty that I may not agree with, but understand where they are coming from. The IC 814 argument however, is just fallacious and wrong.

Public Servants - America vs India

I usually don't partake in the "XYZ is so cool in America, but the same XYZ in India sucks!" talk. But a recent observation drove me to think that way.

In New York City, I got into a subway train at its first stop at evening rush hour after a day spent on my feet. The compartment had only a dozen or so people - an exhausted me, 6-7 exhausted looking young uniformed guys, and a few others. We all sat on the easily empty seats, as anyone getting on at the first stop of a commuter train would. I looked at the uniforms. They all said "New York City Police Academy". So the guys were all new recruits in training to join the New York Police Department. They all were drenched in sweat and looked tired. It was clear that they'd spent a day in training or drills so demanding that my own day seemed luxurious in comparison.

The next stop was one situated in a busy office zone, and where a lot of subway lines intersect. So as the train pulled into the station at rush hour, there were heavy crowds waiting to get on. It was obvious that the remaining seats would be filled in a matter of seconds, AND there'd be dozens of people standing.

Just as the train was about to stop, ALL the police academy guys got up from their seats, without a word. I assumed they were going to get off at the stop. But no! They got up. And they stood, clutching the bars. The door opened, the crowds came in. the quick ones took the seats, the rest stood. And the police academy guys, who had rightfully earned the seats by the universal public transport law of "first come first serve", voluntarily stood with them.

In the grand scheme of things, a minor incident. But I couldn't help stare at them all in admiration. These young men, still in training, had the sense to think - it's the public we serve, and it's not fair that we sit while the public stands. There's no law requiring that cops give up their seats for civilians. yet they did it, without comment or provocation, in tandem, indicating that all of them thought it was the most obvious thing to do.

I could not help but contrast it with the hundreds of occasions in Indian buses or trains that I have seen Indian cops claim scarce seats as if they were royalty. Indian "public servants" take the phrase to mean that the public are their servants. In the US, it is clearly the other way around.

IIPM and Caravan Magazine

As is usually the case, whenever something noteworthy related to IIPM happens, I get a surge of emails, IMs and tweets from people asking about it. So yesterday when Caravan made it public that they had been sued by IIPM, I saw the incoming communication surge. Rather than individually answer everyone who asked my opinion on it, I thought of making this post, summarizing it.

Firstly, I have been aware of IIPM serving Caravan a legal notice for a couple of weeks now. The Director of Delhi Press and Managing Editor of Caravan, Anant Nath is a friend (we were in the same batch at IIM Lucknow). He told me about the lawsuit and his intention to fight it. Anant is a great guy, with outstanding vision that has made Caravan one of the best magazines in India in recent years. He also has a great sense of morality, personal conviction, and courage, which is why I am happy but not surprised by his decision to take on IIPM.

As for the lawsuit itself, it is a painful reminder of how someone can manipulate the legal system in India. Just like JAM magazine, Caravan has been sued in a court in remote Silchar, although neither or JAM, Caravan, or IIPM are based in Silchar. In both cases, the court in Silchar ordered an "ex-parte injuction" asking both magazines to take down the posts without ever hearing from them. And the court has asked the magazines to keep the posts down until the case has decided. Apparently, the legal system in India allows for this.

However you can still access both articles, not on the magazine sites, but on private blogs. Here is the JAM article and here is the Caravan article.

Will IIPM manage to win the cases against JAM and Caravan? Based on what lawyer friends tell me, unlikely. The Indian libel laws give a decent amount of leeway under freedom of speech, and the plaintiff has quite a challenge in proving libel.

But it is my guess/opinion that IIPM is not interested in actually "winning" these cases. Now that the court injunctions have taken the articles offline, their purpose is served. As we know, court cases in India can drag on for years, and as long as the cases drag on, the injunction will forbid the two brave magazines to publish the articles.

Well, what can I say? My opinions about IIPM are well known. I can only extend my full support and any help possible to my friends at Caravan (and JAM). I hope they can somehow manage to get the cases thrown out or decided in their favor soon.

The Culinary Underdogs - "Simple" Indian Dishes

This week, Floyd Cardoz, a New York-based Bombay-born-and-raised chef won Top Chef Masters. In the finale, the first course was supposed to be a dish that was associated with an early memory. Cardoz made the humble upma, by elevating it with subtle variations, like using chicken stock and adding mushrooms. In the third course, along with an Indonesian braised beef dish, he served a side of what he called "tapioca pilaf", but which essentially looked like good ole sabudana khichdi.

My twitter timeline and facebook newsfeed are full of Indians marvelling at, confused at, and even laughing at an Indian chef winning a prize of $100,000 after serving *snicker* upma and sabudana khichdi. And that triggered a post I have been composing in my head for a while now - simple Indian dishes, the culinary underdogs.

Indian cuisine's foremost ambassadors have been Punjabi restaurateurs. So what the rest of the world thinks of as "Indian" cuisine is essentially Punjabi (plus some mughlai). These dishes are elaborate, requiring a dozen or more spices and ingredients, including but not limited to the standard pantheon of turmeric-chili-cumin-coriander-ginger-garlic-onion. Then there's garam masala, cloves, cinnamon, cardamom, poppy, dry fruits, and much more. The main ingredient, whether meat or veggies or dairy, needs to be cooked thoroughly. So the cooking time is at least half an hour.

The end result is usually yummy. I have spent a couple of hours on biryani, nihari, haleem, murgh musallam, and always found the food worth the time and effort.

But.

The elaborate cooking is just one facet of Indian cuisine. Not that this is news to any Indians out there. We have all grown up eating the simplest of dishes that our moms could whip up in no time. And we love eating them. But for some reason, most of these dishes have not made it to fancy restaurant menus, and the few that have, like upma, are treated like stepkids. Subsequently, they have not been the subject of experimentation and enhancements with a few exceptions like Floyd Cardoz and Jehangir Mehta in New York. If an Indian dish is simple, it is considered infra-dig.

Why?

Some of the most fancied dishes in the world are refreshingly simple. But they are fancied because their proponents have, without any sense of shame or inferiority, held them up as special dishes. So if you think "upma", you think, oh, this simple lame dish I have had a million times. But take the same concept, apply it to a different grain - corn, give it a fancy name like "polenta", and suddenly people are willing to pay big bucks to eat it at a posh restaurant. Or, take yet another dish based on the same idea - "grits", and people will wax eloquent about the magic of soul food, southern American cuisine, and so on.

In a Frasier episode, Frasier and his brother Niles, who considered themselves refined gourmands, realize that the fancy French and Italian dishes they swoon over are essentially "peasant food", so why should they look down upon American "peasant food" like burgers and sandwiches? They get rid of their snooty attitude and enjoy pleasant meals.

Similarly, my dear Indians, most of the non-Indian dishes we eat are simple, yet delicious. So why not share with the world our own simple dishes? And why not take pride in them?

I have enjoyed cooking and eating all sorts of dishes from different cuisines. I love a good risotto, but don't see why bisibelebaath or dahibutti or tempered-curd-rice shouldn't be considered in the same league. Why are savory crepes so la-di-dah but dhirde/ghavan (served as "veg tomato omelet" in Indian udipi joints) infra-dig? Why is couscous such a posh choice, but sabudana khichdi sold only in tiny college canteens? Why is Neapolitan Eggplant Parmesan so eclectic but simple vaangyaache kaap are not even seen on a menu? Et cetera et cetera...

Growing up, I have eaten dozens of simple Indian dishes at home (or at friends' homes) that have given me as much pleasure as elaborate dishes. On the few occasions that I made and shared such simple dishes with non-Indian friends in the US, I got a great response, with them wondering why Indian restaurants don't serve these dishes. I am convinced that if Indian foodies and cooks go forth and boldly serve a different kind of Indian cuisine - simple low-on-ingredients dishes, it will be just as successful as the spice-and-effort-heavy food that everyone now thinks of as Indian food abroad.

Do your part!

As for me, I can't wait to try making upma with chicken or beef stock!

Why Outsourced Failed

In an expected move, NBC has canceled Outsourced, thus ending the experiment with a sitcom based in India. The show debuted at 9:30 on Thursday nights, which means it got the strongest lead-in* an NBC sitcom could get - The Office. The early ratings were decent, and the show got picked up for an entire season. However, after a promising start in ratings, the viewership declined, and by the end of the season, it was obvious that the show wouldn't survive. Let's see why Outsourced failed.

Like all Indians, I tuned in to watch the early episodes, and like most Indians, I was underwhelmed. Despite the heavy dose of cliches (jokes about cows, traffic, arranged marriage, diarrhea, pronouncing Manmeet as man-Meat), I didn't really find the show offensive like several commentators did. I just found it lazy. This was an opinion shared by my non-Indian friends as well.

As an Indian, I also found it a bit jarring that all the Indian characters on the show, played by Indian immigrants from UK or US, had horrible accents. Except for Rizwan Manji's Rajiv Gidwani, all other actors sounded like poor imitations of Apu from The Simpsons. The worst by far was Rebecca Hazlewood, who played Asha. After a few episodes, she seemed to have stopped even trying to sound Indian, and everything she said was in a mild British accent. But these are minor points. The biggest problem was writing.

After a few episodes, I still continued to watch the show (mainly because it aired between two shows I usually watch). And I was pleased to see that the show improved. The improvement wasn't vast, but the jokes were at least going beyond the cliches. Some of the characters, especially Rajiv and Charlie, were actually starting to seem funny. I know others like Gupta, but I always hated that character. Very badly written and clumsily portrayed, I thought.

As the season went on, the show became watchable. Not something you would heartily recommend to your friends, but not something you'd necessarily hate either. The scope of jokes and humorous situations widened, and in fact trained guns more on the white folks than the Indians. The India-centric jokes were also funnier and not cliched - like the huge line of people (including an actual grandma) applying for a call center job, the scenes involving haggling with shopkeepers, and so on.

Throughout Fall, ratings stayed decent. Then came the Christmas break. And when the Spring schedule started, NBC pushed Outsourced to 1030 PM, giving the 9:30 slot instead to Parks & Recreation's 2nd season. Personally, I welcomed the decision. I think Parks&Rec is one of the best comedies on TV right now, light years ahead of Outsourced or any other comedy on network TV. But this demotion meant that Outsourced would get a smaller captive audience to begin with.

And that's when ratings faltered. It meant that the show didn't have enough dedicated fans who would tune in to watch it no matter when it was aired. Its respectable Fall ratings had more to do with The Office lead-in than any inherent fan base.

Through the spring, the episodes were decent. I didn't watch most of them when they aired, but caught it later on Hulu or ONDemand. And it's losing viewers like me that eventually spelled doom for Outsourced.

Even though I thought the show improved vastly compared to its first 3 episodes, I found nothing in the show that really grabbed me. The plots for the most part were just rehashed from standard sitcom fare - misunderstandings, silly pranks, will-they-wont-they romance, and so on. There isn't a single episode that stands out as really good.

But the biggest problem with the show, that I think made its cancellation inevitable - the lukewarm lead character/actor. Todd Dempsy, the American executive forced to go to India just did not strike a chord with me or anyone else. He was just a unidimensional bemused/amused smiler who didn't really speak to the audience. Ask any Outsourced viewer who their favorite character is, and all of them will say Gupta or Manmeet or Charlie or Madhuri. I don't think anyone would say Todd. Ben Rappaport didn't do a great job portraying him either. I don't think he had the range. In contrast, the Todd from the movie from which the sitcom was spun off was portrayed very well by Josh Hamilton.

Most sitcoms, especially on NBC, need the lead character to do most of the heavy lifting at least in the first season. 30Rock would've been nowhere without Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin. Parks&Rec was carried by Amy Poehler in the first season, as was The Office by Steve Carell. And even Community, with a much stronger ensemble cast, needed Joel McHale's Jeff Winger to resonate with the audience first. With Outsourced, Todd had nothing for you. I cannot think of a single hilarious scene carried by Rappaport, although i can think of many with Manji and Bader.

Another problem was, I don't think the creators or writers knew exactly what they were setting out to create. In marketing lingo, the positioning of Outsourced was very muddled. Was it going to be a fairly formulaic, easy-to-laugh-at, simple sitcom with fairly predictable plots and arcs, but in a different setting (e.g., The Big Bang Theory, How I Met Your Mother, Two and a Half Men)? In which case, it would get panned by reviewers but have a large, mostly "simple" audience who prefer their sitcoms straightforward. Or was it going to be an intelligent and bold show, subversive, charting new territory hoping to find a niche but loyal audience (e.g., Community, Parks&Rec, Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia)? In which case its ratings would never go through the roof, but good reviews and a loyal following from the coveted educated demographic would keep it on air.

Outsourced fell somewhere between the two. It was heavy on formula for sure. But it also used things from Indian culture as the premise, which made the LCD audience think too much. It had some slapstick humor, but did not go all the way with it. It introduced some complex humor based on Indian realities, but did not jump into it either. It ended up being neither here nor there. So as the season came to a close, it didn't have the masses-who-love-easy-laughs on its side. And it didn't have the reviewers or the niche intelligent audience base on its side.

And it was canceled. Not because the premise was bad. But because the execution was not up to par.

* - Lead-in is an advantage a show gets from TV viewers' inertia. Research shows that more than half the viewers don't switch the channel after a show. So if a new show airs after a very popular show, it gets a larger captive audience to start with.

India-US Relationship Parallels with Angsty College Non-Romances

I have been amused at the self-righteous outrage in the Indian media over the US supposedly "refraining from drawing a parallel between 9/11 and 26/11". So what did we expect? That the US will say - "yes, yes, you absolutely have the right to go after LeT guys in Pakistan. In fact, allow us to do that for you! How many navy SEALs would you like?"

On one hand, the Indian government, most of the Indian media, and a large chuck of the laregly-lefty intellectual class want India to maintain an arm's length distance from the US. They cheer and support steps like snubbing US firms in the $10bn fighter jet deal. They want us to be pro-Iran. They find nothing wrong with India's protectionist measures against the US.

Which is fine. Not something I agree with, but these positions, stressing independence from the US, are fair ones to take.

But on the other hand, they also want the US to go out of its way in supporting India. They want explicit blessings for our "hot pursuit" dreams (And dreams is what they are. Are we really capable of taking out anyone inside Pakistan? Get real!"). They want the US to increase the number of H1B visas and are opposed to hikes in visa fees. They want the US to carry us into the UN Security Council and execute the nuclear deal according to our wishes.

India's general attitude towards the US reminds me of a species of girls that are all too common in colleges in India and among Indian grad students in the US - the "chaste good friend" species.

You all know the "chaste good friend"! She is very friendly with a couple of guys in college. She proudly says "I find guys easier to be friends with than girls". These guys will fix her ailing laptop, give her rides to class or for some work, help her with her homework, do her share in a group project, and generally be her unofficial handymen. They do all this because they generally have the hots for her.

But remember, she is "chaste"! So when one such guy's feelings come out in the open, she either "thinks of you only as a friend" or "hasn't thought about him THAT way" or "feels this is the time for her to focus on her studies/career" or "doesn't think her parents, whom she respects too much would approve". But but but, "your friendship still means a lot to her, we should stay friends". So the guy continues to be her handyman/driver because they are such good friends! And of course, he is optimistic that some day, she will upgrade their friendship.

That is India's general attitude towards the US. India wants the US to go out of its way because "we are such good friends". But India doesn't want to go that extra mile (or "put out" if you will), because it doesn't think of the US "that" way.

The thing is, America is not a socially awkward grad student with limited prospects. If India won't "put out", America isn't giving India a ride anywhere. America has other options, several girls who will put out. Heck, they even have a dysfunctional relationship with this superhot but schizophrenic chick that they can just visit late at night and do anything they wish, as long as they keep paying for her meals on dates. They don't need to keep carrying the water for India hoping that one night, India might invite them up for a cup of chai.

So Indian media, the next time you feel like outraging about the US not exhorting India to attack Pakistan or raising visa fees or suchlike, remember the "chaste good friend". And calm down.