Help
Sign In
26 11
June 2009 
Celebrity Wisdom
Posted on Dec 21st, 2008
by 
a.vicky
a.vicky
Being born and spent most of my years in Bengal I have been greatly influenced by Bengali culture. One of the early foods for thought shared by a Bengali with me was - ‘a word is mightier than a sword’. I don’t remember who said this, but am pretty sure he was somebody in his mid-seventies at that time, somebody who had seen India in the pre-independence era. The era when India had great scholars who picked their words like workers picking up diamonds in a diamond mine.
The world has moved on since then. And so has India. Recently I observed an interesting phenomenon. The phenomenon came to my attention post Mumbai 26/11 carnage. Celebrities sharing their thoughts on important social events; something I call ‘celebrity wisdom’.
Celebrity wisdom isn’t a new phenomenon but in this age of internet/blog it becomes more interesting. It gives us an opportunity to know what goes on in a celebrity’s mind, first hand without any edits.
Post Mumbai carnage many celebrities have written their views on it. A few of them which are interesting are as follows:-
Note: My idea is not to ridicule anybody in particular. More than any particular person my comments are directed to the ideas articulated.
1. One celebrity wrote that he slept with a gun under his pillow the night he heard about the incident.
2. Second one complained that not many celebrities have come out in public to make a statement against the incident.
3. The third said that there are two sides of society. Side A and side B. In A the fanatics become terrorist and in B the government.
4. The fourth celebrity had his response well orchestrated and polished. Being an actor he executed the TV interview as if it was an impromptu show.
What was the first celebrity thinking when he wrote that he slept with a gun under his pillow. Does that mean he had lost all faith in police and country’s security forces that keeping a gun made him feel safe? Many years back all the villagers in Bihar (an Indian state) were massacred in their sleep by a local gang. I wonder how did the neighbouring villagers react to this incident. Taking cue from this celebrity, I bet they would have asked for the whole gallantry to be at their bedside.
If this celebrity had his way the Mumbaikars would have lived in boats post Mumbai floods. What was the celebrity thinking when he kept the gun under his pillow. Probably he would have said “Maa kasam, tera khun pi jayuga. Kutte chun chun kar marunga” (Swear in mother’s name I would drink your (terrorist) blood. Dog I would kill each one of you).
The point is that one should act judiciously and not get carried away with emotions. And even if they get carried way with emotions, one must present the thoughts in a way that convey the meaning. If fine literature or figure of speech is the argument in favour of using the phrase then why was the celebrity caught with a gun at an airport few days later? Word is mightier than sword.
The second celebrity complained that not many of her contemporaries have responded to the carnage. What is this? Is it some sort of cricket match were anybody who is somebody needs to make a comment on how the players played or which way the ball swung? In the world of electronic media and 2 minutes of fame, we have more celebrities than history has ever witnessed. I wonder what happens if all the celebrities come out and make public speeches on any social event that occurs. Word would cease to be mightier than sword.
The third celebrity thinks either it’s A or B. In side A, fanatics are terrorists and in side B the social figures infuse riots and social disturbance. She argues creators of both the society are well respected in their own domain. I guess the celebrity wanted to draw a parallel between two societies. She wanted to draw home the point that terrorism exists in various forms; one created by terrorist and others by political and social figures.
I think its plain play of words. I don’t advocate either of the two societies to be correct. But then we cannot confuse terrorism with riots. They both are enemies of societies in general. But in riots the commoner is equally responsible as the rioters. The general public plays puppet in hand of rioter. In terrorism, the terrorist spreads terror all across. Nobody gets mercy. If there own people protest then they themselves become the victim in the name of sacrifice.
The fourth celebrity gave a well edited interview. Every word finely picked and delivered with ease. Something you would probably expect from a seasoned actor like him. I wonder why he gave this interview. The society had just been beaten down. It needed leadership and direction, not a repeat of political rhetoric. I wonder to keep the TRPs and eye balls glued, the media had nothing else to do but to catch each celebrity and ask them how they feel. After a scarp one feels relaxed, after a joke is cracked one laughs and after such brazen carnage one feels disgusted, helpless, insecure and in deep pain. It is a known feeling/expression where there is nothing new.
If a word is mightier than a sword then why can’t people refrain from using words just because it exists in a dictionary? Literature is not a grammatical arrangement of words. It is a dance of ideas that plays on the tunes of the writer.
The world has moved on since then. And so has India. Recently I observed an interesting phenomenon. The phenomenon came to my attention post Mumbai 26/11 carnage. Celebrities sharing their thoughts on important social events; something I call ‘celebrity wisdom’.
Celebrity wisdom isn’t a new phenomenon but in this age of internet/blog it becomes more interesting. It gives us an opportunity to know what goes on in a celebrity’s mind, first hand without any edits.
Post Mumbai carnage many celebrities have written their views on it. A few of them which are interesting are as follows:-
Note: My idea is not to ridicule anybody in particular. More than any particular person my comments are directed to the ideas articulated.
1. One celebrity wrote that he slept with a gun under his pillow the night he heard about the incident.
2. Second one complained that not many celebrities have come out in public to make a statement against the incident.
3. The third said that there are two sides of society. Side A and side B. In A the fanatics become terrorist and in B the government.
4. The fourth celebrity had his response well orchestrated and polished. Being an actor he executed the TV interview as if it was an impromptu show.
What was the first celebrity thinking when he wrote that he slept with a gun under his pillow. Does that mean he had lost all faith in police and country’s security forces that keeping a gun made him feel safe? Many years back all the villagers in Bihar (an Indian state) were massacred in their sleep by a local gang. I wonder how did the neighbouring villagers react to this incident. Taking cue from this celebrity, I bet they would have asked for the whole gallantry to be at their bedside.
If this celebrity had his way the Mumbaikars would have lived in boats post Mumbai floods. What was the celebrity thinking when he kept the gun under his pillow. Probably he would have said “Maa kasam, tera khun pi jayuga. Kutte chun chun kar marunga” (Swear in mother’s name I would drink your (terrorist) blood. Dog I would kill each one of you).
The point is that one should act judiciously and not get carried away with emotions. And even if they get carried way with emotions, one must present the thoughts in a way that convey the meaning. If fine literature or figure of speech is the argument in favour of using the phrase then why was the celebrity caught with a gun at an airport few days later? Word is mightier than sword.
The second celebrity complained that not many of her contemporaries have responded to the carnage. What is this? Is it some sort of cricket match were anybody who is somebody needs to make a comment on how the players played or which way the ball swung? In the world of electronic media and 2 minutes of fame, we have more celebrities than history has ever witnessed. I wonder what happens if all the celebrities come out and make public speeches on any social event that occurs. Word would cease to be mightier than sword.
The third celebrity thinks either it’s A or B. In side A, fanatics are terrorists and in side B the social figures infuse riots and social disturbance. She argues creators of both the society are well respected in their own domain. I guess the celebrity wanted to draw a parallel between two societies. She wanted to draw home the point that terrorism exists in various forms; one created by terrorist and others by political and social figures.
I think its plain play of words. I don’t advocate either of the two societies to be correct. But then we cannot confuse terrorism with riots. They both are enemies of societies in general. But in riots the commoner is equally responsible as the rioters. The general public plays puppet in hand of rioter. In terrorism, the terrorist spreads terror all across. Nobody gets mercy. If there own people protest then they themselves become the victim in the name of sacrifice.
The fourth celebrity gave a well edited interview. Every word finely picked and delivered with ease. Something you would probably expect from a seasoned actor like him. I wonder why he gave this interview. The society had just been beaten down. It needed leadership and direction, not a repeat of political rhetoric. I wonder to keep the TRPs and eye balls glued, the media had nothing else to do but to catch each celebrity and ask them how they feel. After a scarp one feels relaxed, after a joke is cracked one laughs and after such brazen carnage one feels disgusted, helpless, insecure and in deep pain. It is a known feeling/expression where there is nothing new.
If a word is mightier than a sword then why can’t people refrain from using words just because it exists in a dictionary? Literature is not a grammatical arrangement of words. It is a dance of ideas that plays on the tunes of the writer.
Access: Public
