Chiru, stop poor me, poor me

Monday, April 6

“I used to work for three shifts. When I was newly married, I was busy shooting films and did not go on a honeymoon. I worked for 45 days at a stretch for a film which Jayaprada was the lead actor.” That’s crusader Chiranjeevi ruing about how he sorely missed his honeymoon.

‘“I am from a very humble background. We had just five acres of land. My father was a police constable.” That’s Chiranjeevi again. Here are some more: “As my grandparents were old, I had to perform all the household duties, living on the vegetable grown in our backyard and prawns available in our pond besides rice. While studying BCom, I had to cycle to a near by town, Narsapur daily to reach my college, covering quite a good distance. I used to eat whatever was left over in the night the next day because I did not want to trouble anybody early morning.”

These statements make one wonder if Chiranjeevi suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder or is it narcissistic personality disorder? The megastar seems to be preoccupied with the thought of himself, constantly brooding over his hardships and the sacrifices he claimed to have made. Often times, he slips into the morass of feeling sorry for himself. Occasional self-pity is not really a problem. Only when it becomes obsessive and recurring does it really become a problem.

So Chiranjeevi could not go on honeymoon? How does it matter now? What has that got to do with samajika nyayam? Social justice is not the politics of me, me and me. It is certainly not, the politics of pity. The high-sounding rhetoric of social justice is just a delusion created by Chiranjeevi . Thirty years after earning crores of rupees in the film industry, the megastar’s honeymoon with Tollywood is over and so he embarked on political honeymoon. But politics is not a bed of roses.

Today, the central challenges staring the nation in the face are elimination of poverty, empowering women and ameliorating the conditions of millions who are migrating to urban areas and eking out a precarious livelihood. The need of the hour is a politics that reconnects individuals with each other, a politics that looks outwards as well as inwards, a politics that is not all about ME.

Shobha, the rani of mudslinging

this is the latest post of jeevitha in her blog rajasekharam. she vehemently attacked chiranjeevi and shobha rani.

jeevitha writes:

Reacting to my post against Chiranjeevi, PRP mahila president Shobha Rani addressed a press conference yesterday advising me to maintain decorum. I am aghast that of all the people Shobha Rani, who has the dubious honour of mudslinging Roja, should advise me on decorum and dignity. This is like a devil quoting scriptures. I don’t think I should learn to be dignified from Shobha Rani.

If this was the dirtiest election campaign ever, the credit should go to Shobha Rani. I am amazed that she thinks she is an example of decorum herself. It’s time the PRP leader did some introspection or is it a case of memory lapse? Wasn’t she the one who vilified Roja? I don’t want to repeat the objectionable comments and choicest abuses Shobha Rani hurled against the former actress. But calling an actor a club dancer and vamp character does not bring ‘shobha’ to both the smear campaigner and the party. Her abuse of Roja was not only aimed at lowering the dignity of the actor but the womanhood itself.
Perhaps, Shobha Rani doesn’t understand that her deeply personal allegations were aimed at a candidate's most precious asset: her reputation. The comments are demeaning, objectionable and defamatory. But I wonder if Shobha Rani understands the difference between a personal slur and a legitimate political argument. What was ironic was that while High Court advocate Shobha Rani unleashed a vilification campaign against Roja, the advocate of samajika nyayam remained a mute spectator.
I want to ask Shobha Rani and Chiranjeevi if they respect film artistes and women at all? Does Chiranjeevi subscribe to Shobha Rani’s viewpoint on female artistes?
Every election campaign has its share of hard-ball political tactics, but nothing is more discomforting than a smear campaign.
My criticism and my husband’s criticism against Chiranjeevi was issue based and not personal. My husband Rajasekhar called Chiranjeevi a wolf in sheep’s clothing, something that even PRP leaders like Parakala Prabhakar have been calling though not in the same words.

Can Chiranjeevi silence the popular anger against him over the allocation of seats? Can Chiranjeevi deny that the party tickets were not sold? Can Chiranjeevi deny that party tickets were not given to undeserving candidates?
Parakala Prabhakar and Samaram went on record to say that the social justice concept was only an appealing mask. Katari Eswar Kumar, Kesineni Srinivas, Masala Eeranna, M Sudershan and a long list of others remarked that the PRP has metamorphosed into a film production centre where the party tickets were auctioned to the highest bidder. Why even Shobha Rani was quoted in the media alleging that injustice was done while allocating party tickets. Is this the ‘maarpu’ that Chiranjeevi envisaged for the state?

Cartoon of the month

PRP oka visha vruksham: Parakala

Hyderabad: Calling the Praja Rajyam Party a ‘visha vruksham’ (a poisonous tree), Parakala Prabhakar, the spokesperson of the party, stepped down from the party on Thursday.
Addressing a press conference at the PRP office on Thursday, Prabhakar said he had expected the party to strive for clean politics but never imagined that the roots of the party were steeped in corruption. He said he couldn’t cheat people, or himself, any more by continuing to associate with an avanchaneeya shakti (an undesirable power center).

Prabhakar, a Harvard scholar who anchore a popular show on ETV2, said, “The Praja Rajyam’s talk of samajika nyayam and bringing in change is a sham. Praja Rajyam party nythika pattalu thappina oka avanchaneeya shakti.”
He said he had come to the realization that he did not have the ability to stem the rot in the party and therefore had decided it was his responsibility to bare the truth to the world.

Stating that lakhs of fans adored Chiranjeevi, he said, “There are certain undesirable elements in the party. They have cheated people. What face do we have now? Can we now look in their eyes and say we did justice to them?” On allegations that Chiranjeevi’s brother-in-law Allu Aravind had sold party tickets to the highest bidders, he said, “Those allegations are not unfounded. They are believable. I cannot rule them out.”

Prabhakar’s exit comes close on the heels of the resignation of vice-president C Anjaneya Reddy and Krishna district PRP member Dr G Samaram. Dozens of leaders have quit the PRP in the last two weeks to protest the manner in which nominations were given for Assembly and Lok Sabha polls. Sources said another senior adviser of the party, Dr P Mitra is also in line for an exit.

Jaago re navjawan

Is there a youth vote in the country? A good deal of the media coverage of this election assumes that the youth (18-25 years) make up a political constituency. There is no dispute that there are a large number of voters who are young. The proportion of youth among voters is larger in our country than most developed countries, thanks to what is called the ‘demographic dividend.’ Our country is passing through a short phase when the proportion of young adults in the population expands.

The idea that a larger proportion of youth will lead to a greater role for youth in politics is based on the assumption that they constitute a distinct political constituency — a section of population with distinct political preferences, attitudes and voting patterns. Let us examine this belief with the help of evidence gathered by the various National Election Studies conducted by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies.

The level of interest of the youth in politics is no different from the rest of the population. The National Election Study 2004 found that 39 per cent of those below 25 years are interested in politics, only marginally above the 38 per cent for the entire population. When it comes to polling, the percentage of youth that vote is less than the average turnout. The percentage of votes cast by youth in the last four Lok Sabha elections has been two to four percentage points lower than the national average. Besides, the turnout of the youth was not homogenous. If the turnout was 50 per cent among urban youth, it was 56 per cent among rural youth. Within rural youth, there was a 10 point gap between women and men who turned out to vote. Gender and locality mattered much more than age.

If we look at who the youth vote for, we find no distinct pattern. In the last four Lok Sabha elections, for which we have reliable data, the youth vote for the major political formations has been within a two percentage point band around their average vote share. The Congress has done a shade worse among younger voters but the difference is less than one percentage point. The BJP has secured between one to two percentage points more votes among the youth than its average vote share. The BSP did much better among the youth in 1996 and 1998 but this difference was evened out by 2004.

The Communist parties actually do a little worse among the youth than the rest of the population. An analysis of the trends of youth voting at the State level adds some nuances, but does not change this basic picture. Age makes much less difference to voting choice than class, caste, locality or gender. This makes India very different from Europe where age divisions have been the driver of many new political trends like the Green parties.

Finally let us turn to political opinions and attitudes: are the youth distinct at least in this respect? Sadly, the answer is no. The CSDS has completed a major study on the attitudes of the Indian youth (Indian Youth in a Transforming World : Attitudes and Perception, to be published by Sage).

The report reaffirms what those who study public opinion in India have known all along: in their political opinions, the youth are not very different from the rest of the population. They support democracy, have a moderate interest in politics and hold opinions on issues of our times that are no different from the older generation. They are about as egalitarian and radical as the rest of the population. The Indian youth of today are not the epitome of cosmopolitanism, not the votaries of globalisation, and not the advocates of radical politics. There is a generation gap, but when it comes to politics, there is no generational divide.
Youth is but a stage in life that people pass through. The youth are more impressionable and thus more open to new ideas. They are not yet part of the system and thus open to radical politics.


They are unencumbered and therefore in a position to shape their own lives and pursue what they believe. That is why the youth can be more radical and pro-change. But this is not true all the time and everywhere. The youth become a distinct group if there is a robust tradition of student politics. They may be converted to radical ideas if there are strong political currents inside and outside campuses. It would be naive to expect the youth to be a distinct group just because they are young.

Chiranjeevi self-obsessed narcissit

Jeevitha and rajasekhar have launched a blistering attack on chiranjeevi. in her latest blog posted in www.votecong.com, she says chiranjeevi is a self-obsessed man. Here is the extract: "These statements make one wonder if Chiranjeevi suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder or is it narcissistic personality disorder? The megastar seems to be preoccupied with the thought of himself, constantly brooding over his hardships and the sacrifices he claimed to have made." for full text go to www.votecong.com

Chiranjeevi dabbula Rajyam

This election season has seen politicians talk openly about how much they paid their parties to get tickets. Of course, the high point of this campaign has been the hitherto unknown Samala Venkat Reddy who boasted that he had paid Rs 10 crore for the Secunderabad LS ticket to the TRS. He has been hauled up by the Election Commission for his trouble and lost the ticket in the process.

Disappointed Praja Rajyam Party ticket aspirants have also been open about the price of tickets in the party. According to Praja Rajyam Party Prakasam district organising secretary Bathula Brahmananda Reddy, it is between Rs 3 crore and Rs 5 crore. Brahmananda Reddy, who has since resigned from the party, has alleged that PRP general secretary Allu Aravind openly demanded money from ticket aspirants.

Says Brahmananda Reddy, “Recently I met Allu Aravind. He said I have public support and told me that the seat was mine. But I was shocked when he asked me to pay Rs 3 crore for the party ticket. I told him that I would not pay him a penny because I had been an active worker for the party ever since its inception. Allu Aravind has turned the party into a money spinner in the garb of saamajika nyayam.” Brahmananda Reddy said the ticket for the Parchur Assembly seat was finally given to Sandu Purnachander Rao for Rs 3 crore.

Former Dalit MLA and former Kurnool zilla parishad chairman Masala Eeranna lamented that the party was giving tickets to the highest bidder while party faithfuls were left in the lurch. Eeranna hunkered down for a dharna at the Praja Rajyam office in Hyderabad and his brother sat on a hunger strike. “The party promises samajika nyayam but does not give tickets to Dalit politicians. Chiranjeevi, his brothers and brother-in-law have no right to talk about corruption. Praja Rajyam Party is giving tickets to criminals who have bushels of money. Isn’t Bhooma Nagi Reddy a criminal?

How did they give a ticket to him,” asked Eeranna.
P V L Narasimha Raju is another disappointed Praja Rajyam ticket hopeful who is going to town with the dirty linen. He wanted the Undi Assembly ticket but he alleges Allu Aravind demanded Rs 2 crore for it. “Chiranjeevi preached Gandhigiri in Shankardada Zindabad, but in real life it’s a different story,” he said. (courtsey: (www.votecong.com)