Kashika Saxena
kashikasaxena.90@gmail.com

FLASH MARRIAGE, FLASH LIFE, FLASH DIVORCE

In Hollywood, they marry to divorce. Much of their life is acting. They confuse acting with life, and understandably so. And finally things fall apart. Five couples have split in the first half of 2010!

Kate Winslet and Sam Mendes

Kate Winslet of Titanic fame and her director husband Sam Mendes have separated after a 7-year marriage. It was the second marriage – and second divorce, too – for the 34-year-old Winslet, 34, winner of the best actress Oscar award for The Reader, a movie based on the theme holocaust. She divorced her first husband, Jim Threapleton, in 2001, three years after their marriage.

Both Kate and Sam are Oscar award-winners.

Sandra Bullock and Jesse James

Newly-crowned Oscar queen Sandra Bullock and Jesse James have just divorced, ending their 5-year marriage. Jesse’s unfaithfulness is said to be the reason for the split.

Huang Yi and Jiang Kai

Chinese actress Huang Yi and her husband Jiang Kai have just ended their year-old marriage. Conflicting personalities is ascribed as the reason for the fiasco.

Charlene Choi and Ronald Cheng

When Hong Kong actress Charlene Choi and singer Ronald Cheng announced their divorce ending their 4-year marriage, it took even the paparazzi by surprise because they did not know the couple was married in the first place.

Gong Li and Ooi Hoe Seng

Gong Li the actress has split from Singaporean tobacco tycoon Ooi Hoe Seng (59). Gossip about Gong’s new relationship is making the rounds.

PUBLIC OR PRIVATE























It may not b termed as 'intrusion of privacy' as the picture has not been clicked inside one's house or bedroom for that matter. One cannot turn a public place into a private area and then condemn the media for covering any sort of activity taking place over there. There is a difference between personal and public space and that should be maintained.

Raj Shekhar












I would not like anyone intruding into my private life. Let what is public remain public, and what is private, private.


SEEMANTI GHATAK











Since I am not yet a public figure or even married, I would not like people intruding into my private affair. I strongly feel privacy must be respected.

ABHERI ROY












Born as an Indian girl I am socialised in a way to cherish such moments in private rather than public. So I would not like my kissing photo be published in newspaper.

DEEPA CHAUDHARY











It is unfair for the media to expose an intimate moment of a public figure for the sake of boosting the circulation.

ANKITA SUKHEJA












Any publicity is good publicity, but certain things in life are best kept private. I would like to be in news for doing something commendable instead of something as mundane as kissing. Besides a photograph like this will instantly create sensation for all the wrong reasons and I would rather not make a spectacle of my life before all and sundry.

KASHIKA SAXENA











From a common man's perspective, it is definitely invasion of privacy. But for a celebrity who revels in the glare of publicity, that shouldn’t be a problem.

ALKA BRAHMA












In the era of social networking where everyone loves to show off and the generation always in the camera-on mode, there's nothing left to hide. Under such circumstances, protection of privacy is an uphill task. To compromise one's privacy is disgraceful So things that need to be done under the wraps, should remain there. And only there.

SHREYA JAI

Will you publish this picture?

TO PUBLISH OR NOT TO PUBLISH

If you were the editor of a newspaper, would you publish this picture?


SANJANA SAKSENA


The picture gives out a signal that times are changing in India and people are gaining global exposure. In spite of this Indian society still largely shies away from displaying their private lives in public. Since the picture displays this basic conflict, I would have published it without any reservations.




TANYA RUDRA
Public display of affection is something our Indian society will never permit but it's legal and common in the western world. This picture however keeps the identity of the couple discreet and is just an expression of love between them. It's just the outlook that matters, some might take this picture as a divine feeling whereas some might call it a lewd gesture. But being the editor of an Indian newspaper I wouldn't have published it.



SUKHPREET SINGH

As the editor of a local newspaper, my target audience would be the middle and the upper middle class. I would publish the picture not considering about sales figures going up, but because in my target audience this picture wouldn't be offensive.






SANYA AHUJA
If I were the editor of a newspaper, I would certainly not pay any heed to a picture like this, publishing it is out of question. There is nothing about it that a public needs to know. It shows a young couple sharing a private moment and that's about it. A newspaper carries fresh, important, thought-provoking news to make its readers well-informed and aware. Neither are we the moral police, nor do we support them. So this picture will have no place in my newspaper.



DIPTI JAIN
My aim as an editor should not be to 'make news'; rather it should be to convey information that is mature, authentic and serves some purpose. Publishing inappropriate pictures for the sheer purpose of stirring a sensation would render my job grossly unethical. Entertainment without vulgarity must be emphasised upon.







ESHA MAHAJAN
Today the Indian society is far more liberal with regard to displays of affection, as can be seen in several movies and music videos. However, publishing a picture like this only for the purpose of generating sales and creating sensationalsim is unethical. As the ediotr of a newspaper, I would publish it in a supplement privided it is in sync with a particular story and adds meaning to it.

Sandeep Shrivastwa

sandeep.andes@gmail.com

IN THE NAME OF JUSTICE!

The irony of justice in India is that if you killed someone, you could be hanged, but if you are a mass murder, you go scot-free. We have before us the Gujarat carnage, the Delhi riots and the Bhopal gas chamber, signalling something is terribly rotten with our idea of justice. Half a million people awaiting justice for a quarter of a century with 20,000 dead in history’s worst corporate disaster was indeed shocking. But more shocking was the verdict treating the genocide of a people as misdemeanour – a crime that could be catalogued with Auschwitz, Hiroshima, andJallianwala Bagh. It’s happening in the world’s largest democracy.
If Jallianwala Bagh marked the turning point for the freedom movement, this verdict could well be the turning point for the idea of justice that the people demand. Jessica Lall, Priyadarshini Mattoo and Ruchika Girhotra are symbols of miscarriage of justice prevented by the people’s anger. In a democracy, there is nothing more unnerving for the conspirators and manipulators of the system than the wrath of the people. Things fall in place instantly, as though miraculously.
Was it ethical for former Chief Justice A M Ahmadi to accept the lifetime office as the head of the Bhopal Memorial Hospital Trust, funded by Union Carbide and created by orders of the Supreme Court whose verdict he himself delivered in 1996? The common man who is ignorant of the legal niceties might even think that the learned judge has created a post for himself and occupied it, with or without conferring favours to Union Carbide or its CEO Warren Anderson. His suspicion that grows stronger by each passing day needs to be addressed to set the record straight.
If Arjun Singh who was concerned about the safety of Anderson provided a safe passage for the corporate history’s most wanted CEO, did he tell his prime minister? Or did he keep the pm in the dark? If Anderson were to make a joyride through the streets of Bhopal to study the devastation caused by his monstrous Carbide, even the stones would have flung into action on their own. Sure enough, the mob would have lynched him, even the ghost of him if they spotted one.
To our politicians, the safety of one person who played dice with the safety of half a million is far more important. People are statistics, Anderson is not. Thanks to the electronic media and the new generation of voters who packed off the old guard, the idea of justice shall no more be the same. The people will demand and get justice. The political firmament of India is changing. Conspirators and manipulators, beware!