Category: TV

By Shailesh Kapoor

The contempt our social media elite have towards mass Indian television is well-known. Barring an odd Bade Achhe LagteHain, all fiction content on Hindi GECs (and most non-fiction too) is frowned upon by the upper echelons of Twitter. Even then, I was surprised by the attention MasterChef India going vegetarian in their latest season received over the last week.

MasterChef India has never got media attention in the past. But earlier this week, a story in The Economic Times suggested that the show going vegetarian this season could have much to do with one of its two principal sponsors – Amul and Fortune (The Adani Group).

Anyone who knows how Indian television works would laugh that conspiracy theory off. MasterChef India is not an ‘advertiser-funded programme’, where the creative control is shared between the channel and the advertiser.

Twitter picked up the news, and soon, it was the hot topic of discussion, with a largely negative sentiment surrounding it. Not that Star Plus would be bothered. They would know that those commenting are not the target audience, and more importantly, they have little understanding of the real target audience.

When we see the decision of turning the show vegetarian from the viewership lens, it makes perfect sense. I must clarify that I’m as non-vegetarian as one can get, and would have personally liked to see a non-vegetarian-only MasterChef. But TV shows are not made for individuals, are they?

If you’ve been brought up in a progressive, cosmopolitan environment, it would be impossible for you to understand the issue at hand. That would have been the case with me as well. But over the last five years, we have conducted extensive research on food and lifestyle television. The disgust that the sight of meat can generate in certain audiences (and by “certain”, I mean 30-40%) has to be seen to be believed. We have had live examples of upper middle class housewives instinctively turning their faces away from the screen when something as basic as a bowl of chicken pieces is shown. We’ve seen this happen across India, city after city.

I know there are studies that suggest that the consumption of non-vegetarian food is increasing in India. But there are many caveats on how to read that data. A lot of this consumption is infrequent, once in a fortnight, for example. Also, a lot of it is ‘out of home’. When we talk Hindi GEC, we are talking of ‘family viewing at home during dinner time’. All three parts of that phrase (family, at home, dinner time) support a vegetarian idea.

In MasterChef Australia, meat is called ‘protein’ and if you fillet a fish well, you are ‘respecting’ it. In an episode a couple of seasons ago, a trout was called ‘lucky’ because it was going to be cooked on the show. In the latest season, when there was a vegetarian challenge, where all ‘protein’ was removed from the pantry, half the contestants cooked Indian!

It’s easy to argue that Indian television channels should be ‘progressive’ and help India’s outlook evolve towards a more global one. I would totally support that point when it comes to issues related to woman empowerment, education, health, gender equality, sexuality, racism and the likes. But maybe we can leave food out of this? It has no social impact whatsoever. And there is a deep, religious aspect to this all, which should not be questioned in all fairness.

Like always, the choice of viewing or not viewing is with the one who controls the remote. I think we may do well to respect the viewer before respecting the ingredients.

By Shailesh Kapoor

Twenty-five-year-old Aussie batsman Phil Hughes passed away last morning, after battling for life for two days, since being hit by a bouncer in a first class game at Sydney. There was high chance that Hughes, who would have celebrated his 26^th birthday this Sunday, would play in the first Test against India next week. Now, the Test itself is under question, as players come to terms with the loss.

Even as family, friends and the cricketing community grieves, fans have also been left shaken. I’ve invested more than 30 years in this sport, though the interest has admittedly reduced over the last few years. I have seen Mike Gatting being hit on the nose by a Malcolm Marshall snorter, Sanjay Manjrekar have a bloody debut, Sachin Tendulkar fighting it out at Sialkot after a nose blow, Kris Srikanth’s forehead blow against Wasim Akram, and many others.

In recent times, ace South African wicketkeeper Mark Boucher had a nasty eye injury on the field, forcing him to retire from cricket, and start a recovery process that’s still on after more than two years.

There are many other instances, including former Indian opener Raman Lamba losing his life after being hit by a shot fielding at forward short leg in a game at Dhaka. Lamba was not wearing a helmet. But with Hughes’ incident, even that little learning can’t be taken.

There are two ways for a fan to handle such an incident. You can either pass it off as a one-in-a-billion case, convincing yourself that you are unlikely to see any other tragedy of this scale in your lifetime again. Or you can watch each delivery in each future game with a sense of trepidation, hoping all goes well. The reality, at least for me, will lie somewhere between these two ends.

There’s so much media talk around cricket of late. Sachin Tendulkar released his wonderfully sterile autobiography recently, and the Supreme Court is going all guns blazing to clean up the IPL. But the Hughes incident dwarfs everything else, in terms of its potential long-term impact on the game. I shudder to think what could happen if this freak, one-in-a-billion incident repeated itself within the next few months with another International cricketer.

The media coverage around the incident has been reasonably mature, though I haven’t seen much in the Indian media that’s insightful analysis with an eye on the future. On social media, some new agencies and publications were under attack for posting pictures of the on-field incident. The pictures are not “gory”, and one could question if there was indeed a need to exercise censorship here, or is it by now a stereotypical response to pan the media for being “insensitive”, when a tragic incident happens. But that’s another debate, for another day.

Helmet-makers will find some answers. ICC will find a few other. But a promising International cricketer has died at the age of 25. For me, cricket may never be the same again.