Dhobi Ghat: A squandered opportunity

Dhobi Ghat must have been one of the most eagerly awaited releases in the past few years. Much of this has to do with the reputation that Amir Khan has over the years acquired with regard to the films that he chooses to act in or, of late, to produce. The pint-sized giant, whose fame seems to have reached far-off places, as evident from his inclusion in the jury of Berlin film festival, has indeed come a long way.
Even his worst critics would agree that he tries to be different every time he faces the camera. And ever since he has donned the producer's mantle, he has demonstrated remarkable courage in throwing his lot with projects like "Peepli Live" which would have otherwise not seen the light of the day in an age when NFDC has become defunct and the enigmatic monster called market is setting the new rules of the game.

One, however, wonders whether Khan would have liked to be a part of Dhobi Ghat had it not been the directorial debut of his wife. Whatever may be his shortcomings, Khan certainly has a keen sense of what would strike a chord with the audience. And that is one reason why his films are either blockbusters like 3 idiots or like "Peepli Live" and his own directorial venture "Taare Zameen Par" do well enough to recover the cost. One wonders whether he would be able to do the same this time.

It is not to say that Kiran Rao's debut venture is trash. It is more like a squandered opportunity, an unfulfilled promise. The opportunity and the promise to tell an engaging story.

It claims to be (!!!) telling the tales of four characters - an NRI who is in Mumbai on a sabbatical, an artist who is recovering from the emotional trauma inflicted by a recent divorce, a migrant from a distant village who does all types of menial jobs for a living while keeping hopes alive for making it big in the tinsel town and a young, chirpy, naive small-time woman who battles loneliness in the big city where her marriage has brought her and who, upon finding that the world is a bit too crooked for her, opts out of life. Each and every character, on its own, had the potential of developing into a beautiful story. But the makers of the film seem to have little patience with these. None of the characters is given enough scope to evolve. The inter-connection between the four characters appears more contrived than convincing.

The end product is a complete mishmash. Even those who are not die-hard admirers of Amir would say - this is not one would expect from a man of his calibre. 

We all know who killed Jessica, but who killed the movie?

"No One Killed Jessica" is like an arrow that has been released from the bow without the bowman having any idea about where his target lay. The result is a powerful shot which loses its steam for want of direction, pun intended.
It is not quite clear what Raj Kumar Gupta was intending to do while making this movie. Was he aiming at retelling a story which most current generation Indians are too well aware of? Or was he intending at something more ambitious - placing a mirror before the neo-rich Indian upper middle class with all its contradictions and depravities? Or was the film meant for something more commonplace - providing a new lease of life to the now-forgotten husky-voiced actress called Rani Mukherjee?
It appears that the film is a shoddy combination of all the three which brings us back to the point from which we had begun. It is not to deny the film all its strong points. The fast-paced narrative that prevents the viewer from losing interest even though everyone knows what is going to happen next. The highly believable portrayals of characters one comes across in everyday life, e.g, a corrupt, cynical policeman who has not completely lost his conscience, socialites who seek to cover up their moral cowardice with a disarming naivete and mercenaries from lower rungs of the social ladder who may be ready to give a statement in a court of law in favour of the highest bidder.
And last, but not least, the ever-evolving talent called Vidya Balan who keeps offering surprises in terms of depth and variety with every new release. There have been media reports about Jessica Lal's sister Sabrina commending the movie for having "immortalised" her deceased sibling. Though privately she might be even more thankful for the empathy that Balan manages to effortlessly arouse for the aspiring model's elder sister whose own life has been ruined by the shadow of the crime committed by a spoilt brat in a fit of rage.
Unfortunately, the good things end there. And that is certainly not good enough for a movie. The case has been quite high-profile and fresh in people's minds and so there seems to be no immediate need for a fictional account to apprise the people of what happened on that ill-fated day. Yes, the film is a partly fictional, not so much because of the lengthy disclaimers at the beginning, but more so by virtue of the modifications that may have stemmed from the need to avoid unwanted controversy.
So we have Manish Bhardwaj, the son of a politician named Pramod Bhardwaj, as the prime accused in the case. The film does away with Manu Sharma and Vinod Sharma, perhaps justifiably so, whose names had been splashed across newspapers while the outrage against the killing was in full spate. Ditto for Shayan Munshi, the small-time actor who was the eye witness in the case but allegedly developed cold feet and turned hostile during the trial. However, despite the on-screen name Vikram Jai Singh bearing little resemblance to the real-life version,  the similarities are all too obvious for anybody to miss, including the alibi of not being proficient in Hindi put forward to wash hands off the statement given before the police. No wonder, there are media reports which say that he is peeved at the latest release. Similarly, Bina Ramani becomes Mallika Sehgal and yet the unflattering portrayal has reportedly left the socialite sulking, in stark contrast with her enthusiasm for watching the movie prior to its release and her reported complaints of not having received an "invitation" at a special screening.
So far, so good. Nobody would insist that people involved be named accurately even at the risk of inviting legal troubles. But the film does not fully succeed in terms of dealing with the issues it seeks to raise with due insight and sensitivity. Rani Mukherjee, with due respects to her anxieties of making a comeback, actually turns out to be an irritant. Though, honestly speaking, the failure here is more of the screenplay writer and the director than the actress herself. The banality with which the character of celebrity TV journalist Meera Gaity has been infused would make the most gullible viewer incredulous of her transformation into a crusader for justice. The dialogues delivered by her, replete with expletives, may embarrass some people and titillate others but are unlikely to create much impact as an "authentic" depiction of the way media persons talk and behave. The reason being the story is not about journalistic activism at all! A plain truth that the makers of the film seem to have forgotten mid-way.
Although the film is not bad, but it could have been much better had the director focussed on the more human and less-chronicled aspects of the story. The sequence where the murderer's high-profile politician father turns up at the victim's home to buy peace could have been given a much better treatment. But for Balan's outburst upon learning about the incident, this very poignant scene would have been one of the many forgettable sequences.
The chicken-heartedness of the elite class which refuses to cooperate in the trial despite claims of love  for the deceased young lady and sympathy for her family, deserved to be shown in greater detail. It was an occasion to underscore the pitfalls of a culture of unmindful opulence which keeps creating new problems without having the capability to solve the old ones.
The film would have done better to take this opportunity to have a fresh look at the relevance of the out-of-fashion quality of moderation, which holds the key to preventing such unfortunate incidents from taking place. Because once a crime of this sort is committed, no amount of punishment to the accused can heal the wounds. After all, it was not a cold-blooded murder. It was a result of the belief that you ought to be brash in order to prove that you are powerful.

"Ridiculously expensive", yet "worth the price"?

The question that appears as the title of this write-up has stemmed from the headline of an article published in the latest issue of a magazine. The article, the title suggested, promised to tell the readers about "5 Ridiculously Expensive Things That Are Worth Their Price". Now, a thing can be either worth its price or it can be ridiculously expensive. How can it be both? Perhaps the compiler wanted to suggest that these were costly items, ill-affordable, but justifiably so because of their quality and the reputation of the brand etc. One only wishes he or she had known that the use of "ridiculously" was lending the article itself to ridicule! Ironically, it is the magazine itself that turns out to be "ridiculously expensive", priced at Rs 100 per copy when most journals, printed inside the country, offer similar content at half the price! Perhaps, the publishers would try to defend themselves saying that their product is meant for people with fat purses and little time to read. Nevertheless, coming back to the starting point, this was yet another example of slipshod writing in general and slovenly use of words in particular.
Those involved in producing this article had lost sight of the simple fact that the headline would have been an eye-catcher even without the injudicious use of the adverb "ridiculously". If prefixing it with an adverb was at all necessary, the good old "highly" could have served the purpose. This is, however, just one example. Journals nowadays are replete with instances of words being put to use without much thought. The magazine referred to at the beginning of this write-up was the India edition of an internationally renowned journal. Another internationally-renowned journal, which unfortunately does not yet have a full-fledged India edition, seems to take immense delight in talking about the "ruling military government" in Myanmar, as if there could be a government in opposition too. Can there be a government that is not in power, or which, in other words, does not "rule"? What is the point in asserting that it is a "government" that is "ruling" as well?
When international publications are prone to such follies, how can our own journals, with their treasure trove of "Indianisms" lag behind? With annoying regularity, one gets to read about the "ruling BSP government in Uttar Pradesh" or the "ruling BJP government in Gujarat"? It has, perhaps, never occurred to the editorial staff of newspapers and magazines that a party can be called a ruling party only if it is in power! One wonders whether they are aware of the nuances like while talking about developments in the ruling party one ought to say "ruling BSP" or "ruling BJP" but when referring to the government itself, it has to be the "BSP/BJP government". Alternatively, "regime" could be used in place of "government". But saying "ruling" and "government" in the same breath makes no sense.
Another example of superfluous usage of adjectives comes to mind wherein a "tangle" is referred to and the reader is also additionally told that the tangle is "vexed" as well! Any discerning reader would remember having come across "vexed Kashmir tangle" and "vexed Ayodhya tangle". It does not require one to be a genius to understand that a tangle seizes to be a tangle if it seizes to be vexed! Hence we can have a "vexed issue" or simply a "tangle" but not a "vexed tangle".
There is a strong likelihood of some people getting rankled about this objection to improper use of adjectives and adverbs. "What is the fuss?", they might ask. However, in times when hopes for a better future are hinged in a large degree on advancements in communication technology, the basic element of communication - the word, written or spoken - can not be overlooked. Proper usage of words is not just for the purists' delight. It is essential to ensure that what one is saying does not lend itself to much misinterpretation. Misinterpretation can not be completely ruled out in any communication but judicious use of words can go a long way in reducing its possibility.

Journalism: Profession or Business?

          This note emanates from an innocuous query from a friend who wanted to know in which of the two categories does journalism fall. The friend happens to be working in close collaboration with the media and wants to know the answer from those of us who are themselves a part of the fourth estate. 

           Any activity which requires some specific skill and is performed for remuneration can be called a profession. This leaves no doubt about journalism being a profession. It undoubtedly requires specific skills - the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff while dealing with heaps of seemingly unnecessary information and the knack of piecing together apparently unrelated bits of information and presenting these in a way that would make sense to a layman. Moreover, although it would be unfair to look down on journalists as a mercenary class, there can be no denying that few of us would like to continue with our jobs if we stop getting paid!

           That leaves us with the question of the role of business in journalism. Business, a much-scorned term in societies with a feudal hangover, is an integral part of any human activity that is not aimed at charity. Journalism, as we know, can not be practised in a vacuum. Media organisations - newspapers, journals, TV channels etc.- are indispensable for any journalist who wants to practise his craft, be it as a full-time employee or a freelancer. Running these organisations require the four factors of production - land, labour, capital and enterprise. For this, business acumen becomes absolutely necessary. That is why media organisations are often owned by business houses. Where they are not, they usually have an indirect relationship with business by way of shareholding. These business houses may be profit-driven which may also get reflected in their handling of the media organisations as well. Nevertheless, this proves beyond doubt that journalism is essentially a profession which, however, needs the backing of business for its sustenance. 

             As a journalist, one can not help noticing the backdrop against which the query came. A lot of heat has been generated over the alleged involvement of some media big shots in a murky deal that has been hitting the headlines for quite some time. People who are unhappy over these happenings tend to say things like "journalism is no more a mission. These days it has become a business". That is a misleading explanation borne out of a sense of indignation. Journalism becomes a mission in societies facing huge crises. We saw it in India in the early 20th century when the struggle for independence was at its peak. We are again witnessing this in contemporary Pakistan, which is faced with a crisis of a different kind. Contemporary India, irrespective of what the prophets of doom may say, is not facing a crisis in the real sense of the word. There may be roadblocks that the nation, now on the rise, would definitely like to dispense with. When societies achieve a semblance of stability, the character of the press too undergoes a change. This has been witnessed world over and India is no exception.

            The moral turpitude, which rightly fills us with disgust, has not arisen out of business-minded media organisations' yearning for profit. The rot has its roots in a consumerist culture makes people believe that happiness can be achieved by maximizing possessions. When one tends to seek fulfilment in luxuries and extravaganza, one is bound to make attempts for achieving these by whatever means possible. And consumerism pervades through all sections of the entire society of which journalists too are a part. To expect higher standards of probity from journalists alone may not be unfair would not be realistic either. There can be a large-scale rise or fall in the levels of morality in a society. There can also be individuals who may stand out because of their exceptionally high or low levels of morality. But there can not be a profession in which all the practitioners would have similar ethical concerns.

Wherefore this ingenious piece of interior decoration?

 Friends, bloggers, countrymen! Lend me your eyeballs! I request you all to have a look at the image pasted here and help me, if you could, make sense of what appears to me unadulterated nonsense. Nobody would dispute that Barack Obama's India visit is a big story, to use the journalistic jargon. You may love, hate or be indifferent to the US, but you can not deny the significance of where its President goes and what he speaks. However, I am at once flummoxed as well as amused to note that this news channel, which promises its viewers to bring news at any cost, has chosen to splash a gigantic image of the American flag on the walls of its studio!!! I am not a jingoist and let me make it clear that I do not intend to express outrage at this act which may appear to the nationalists as an assault on the country's pride. But despite taking a neutral and brutally impersonal view of things, I am at loss to make out what these gentlemen are trying to convey by this ingenious piece of interior decoration. I am sure that these media professionals have enough knowledge of history to know that its economic imperialism notwithstanding, America has never tried to annex territories like all the major European powers did in past. I am also sure that they keep abreast of current affairs and hence know that in today's circumstances, colonization is virtually impossible. In that case, there could be no possibility of these esteemed newsmen acting in fear and anticipation of a possible capture of the Indian territory by the white nation led by its off-white President. Could it be some naive hope that the stripes-and-stars-clad rich daddy would indulge in some sort of fantastic charity and adopt the orphan draped in tricolour who has kept growing for half-a-century while refusing to grow up? I have no clue. If any one among you has, I shall be grateful if he or she takes the trouble to enlighten me.

किस्सा बादशाह के तख़्त पर बैठने का

यह किसी मध्ययुगीन बादशाह के तख़्त पर बैठने की कहानी नहीं है. यह किस्सा है हमारे दौर के लालू जी का जो अपनी ज़िंदगी की सबसे अहम् लड़ाई लड़ते हुए नज़र आ रहे हैं. हमारे कुछ दोस्तों ने बहुत पहले यह इच्छा जाहिर की थी कि इस बात पर प्रकाश डाला जाए कि किंवदंती बन चुका यह नेता जब अपने राजनीतिक जीवन के चरमोत्कर्ष पर पहुंचा था उस समय की परिस्थितियाँ क्या थीं. आज वह माहौल नहीं है. और शायद इसी कारण आज से उपयुक्त कोई समय नहीं है जब अपने दौर के इस सर्वाधिक चर्चित नेता के जीते जी मिथक बन जाने की शुरुआत की कहानी को एक बार फिर से दिमाग में ताज़ा किया जाए.
यह तो हर कोई जानता है कि 1990 में जब लालू पहली बार बिहार के मुख्यमंत्री बने थे तब देश भर में मंडल आयोग की पृष्ठभूमि में एक ज़बरदस्त उत्तेजना का माहौल था. यह भी सच है कि उस दौर में राजनीति में पिछड़ी जातियों ने जोर-शोर से अपनी भागीदारी का दावा पेश किया था. बिहार में पिछड़ी जातियों में सबसे ज्यादा आक्रामक तेवर और आबादी यादवों की थी और इसी बिरादरी से लालू का भी ताल्लुक था. मगर, गौरतलब है कि 1990 के चुनावों के दौरान किसी ने नहीं सोचा था कि छपरा सीट से लोक सभा पहुंचा यह व्यक्ति सूबे पर शासन करने वाले हैं. लालू उस समय जनता दल में थे. बिहार तब अविभाजित था और विधान सभा में 324 सीटें थीं. जनता दल 122 सीटों के साथ सबसे बड़े दल के रूप में उभरा था. यह अलाग बात है कि बहुमत के लिए जितनी सीटें चाहिए थीं उनसे जनता दल कम से कम 41 सीट पीछे थी. उस कमी को तब आज के मुकाबले बेहतर स्थिति में रहने वाले वाम मोर्चा तथा अन्य छोटे मोटे दलों और निर्दलीयों के साथ मिल कर पूरा कर लिया गया. सबसे बड़े दल के नाते जनता दल को ही मुख्यमंत्री पद का दावेदार पेश करना था. कोई एक राय बन नहीं पा रही थी. जनता दल में पुराने समाजवादियों की लोबी ने भूतपूर्व मुख्यमंत्री राम सुन्दर दास का नाम सुझाया. नयी महात्वाकांक्षाओं से लैस एक अन्य वर्ग था जिसने उस समय दिल्ली में बैठे हुए लालू का नाम तजवीज किया. तय माना जा रहा था कि राम सुन्दर दास, जिन्होंने पिछले साल लोक सभा चुनावों में राम विलास पासवान को हराया था, मुख्यमंत्री बनेंगे. लेकिन उसी समय एक अजीबोगरीब घटना घटी. पुराने राजनीतिक बागी चंद्रशेखर, जो तब जनता दल के सांसद थे और बाद में चंद महीनों के लिए प्रधान मंत्री बनने की हसरत पूरी कर पाए, तत्कालीन राजनीतिक परिवेश में अपनी प्रासंगिकता अभ्व्यक्त करने को आतुर हो गए. उन्होंने एक दावेदार अपनी ओर से मैदान में उतार दिया - श्री रघुनाथ झा. जी हाँ, ये वही सज्जन हैं जो कि बाद में लम्बे समय तक लालू जी और उनकी पत्नी के अधीन काबीना मंत्री रहे. बाद में वे इतनी बार अलग अलग पार्टियों में अन्दर-बाहर होते रहे हैं कि अब याद रखना मुश्किल है कि आजकल कहाँ हैं. तो बहरहाल, झा जी के बारे में यह हर कोई, यहाँ तक कि चंद्रशेखर जी भी जानते थे कि उनका विधायक दल का नेता और अंततोगत्वा मुख्यमंत्री बनना तो संभव नहीं है. लेकिन इस घटना ने खेल ज़रूर पलट दिया. मैथिल ब्राह्मणों की एक खासी तादाद थी विधान सभा में जिन्होंने भाईचारा निभाते हुए झा जी के पक्ष में वोट डाल दिया. ऐसा माना जाता है कि झा जी की गैर मौजूदगी में उनके वोट राम सुन्दर दास को मिलते. बहरहाल, वोटों के इस विभाजन से राम सुन्दर दास पराजित हो गए और लालू के हाथ, उस समय अप्रत्याशित रूप से, मुख्यमंत्री की कुर्सी आ गयी. उसके बाद जो कुछ भी हुआ उस पर पहले ही लिखा-पढी हो चुकी है, दुबारा कहने की ज़रुरत नहीं है.

किससे ख़तरा है हिंदी को?

अब जबकि "हिंदी दिवस" को बीते हुए एक सप्ताह बीत चुका है, तो ऐसे में इस बेचारी सी लगने वाली प्यारी सी भाषा के बारे में बात करना बेमौसम का राग छेड़ने जैसा लग सकता है. लेकिन सरोकार यदि सच्चे हों तो वे सदाबहार हो जाते हैं, उन्हें मौसम के अनुकूल होने या न होने की परवाह नहीं रह जाती. वैसे भी शमशान में जाकर तो वैराग्य की क्षणिक अनुभूति सबको हो जाती है लेकिन सत्य को आप तभी जान पाते हैं जब जीवन-मरण का प्रश्न आपको रात-दिन मथने लगता है. 
हर साल जब "हिंदी दिवस" की औपचारिकता निभाने का समय होता है तो इस बात पर "गंभीर बहस" छिड़ जाती है कि हिंदी को ख़तरा किन चीज़ों से है. यह बहस कितनी गंभीर होती है इसका अंदाजा इसी बात से लग जाता है कि अधिकांशतया लोग इसी निष्कर्ष पर पहुँचते हैं कि हिंदी को अंग्रेज़ी से ख़तरा है जो कि "शासक वर्ग की भाषा है". एक झलक में बड़ा दमदार तर्क लगता है - भाषा अगर अभिजात्य-वर्ग का संरक्षण प्राप्त कर ले तो उसका पलड़ा भारी हो जाएगा. फिर याद आता है कि किसी मुंह फाड़ कर खड़े नरभक्षी राक्षस के रूप में पेश की जाने वाली अंग्रेज़ी की एक समय अपनी जन्मभूमि में क्या गति थी? ज्यादा नहीं, एक शताब्दी पूर्व तक, अँगरेज़ अपनी अंग्रेज़ी से काम तो चला रहे थे मगर सरताज का दर्ज़ा उन्होंने दे रखा था फ्रेंच को, जो कि उस देश की भाषा थी जिसने सदैव इंग्लैंड को "दुकानदारों की धरती" जैसे तिरस्कारपूर्ण विशेषणों से नवाज़ा था. उस दौर के इतिहास और साहित्य से परिचित कोइ भी व्यक्ति यह जानता है कि अंग्रेजों का अभिजात्य वर्ग अपने बच्चों के लिए फ्रांसीसी आया रखने के लिए बेताब रहता था ताकि उनकी आने वाली पीढी फ्रांस की जुबां और वहां की नफासत को बिना उस मुल्क में रहे ही आत्मसात कर सके. 
इसके परिणाम क्या-क्या हुए इसकी तफसील में जाने का यह अवसर नहीं है लेकिन यह तथ्य सर्वविदित है कि आज अंग्रेज़ी तो दुनिया के कोने-कोने में मौजूद है, मगर अंग्रेजों को किसी समय, शायद, हीनभावना से भरने वाली फ्रेंच अपने मुल्क से बाहर - बेल्जियम जैसे अपवादों को छोड़कर - न जानी जा रही है न समझी जा रही है और न बोली जा रही है.
तब ऐसे में क्या यह माना जाय कि एक दिन हिंदी की कीर्ति-पताका संसार भर में लहरायेगी और अंग्रेज़ी इसके सामने बौनी पड़ जायेगी? कदापि नहीं. अंग्रेज़ी का क्या होगा इसकी चिंता करने के लिए दूसरे लोग हैं. लेकिन जहां तक हिंदी का सवाल है, इसको ख़तरा है, मगर किसी दूसरे देश की भाषा से नहीं अपने लोगों के संस्कारों से!
संस्कारों से हमारा यह तात्पर्य नहीं है कि हिंदी बोलने वालों को अपनी भाषा के लिए झंडा उठाकर नारा लगाना चाहिए. ये संस्कार हिंदी बोलने वालों में आवश्यकता से अधिक मात्रा में हैं और उनके समाज और उनकी भाषा का अपकार ही कर रहे हैं. संस्कारों से तात्पर्य है उस प्रवृत्ति से जिसके कारण हिंदी बोलने वाले लोग अपने शब्द भण्डार का गला घोंट रहे हैं! कहते हैं आदमी के भी कभी दुम हुआ करती थी. जब आदम-ज़ात ने पुश्त-दर-पुश्त उसका इस्तेमाल करना छोड़ दिया तो वह निकलनी ही बंद हो गयी. यह सही है या गलत, पता नहीं, लेकिन यह तो हम सभी जानते हैं कि किसी चीज़ को नष्ट करने का एक आसान उपाय है कि उसको व्यवहार में लाना छोड़ दिया जाए. जाने-अनजाने हिंदी बोलने वाले अपनी भाषा के साथ यही कर रहे हैं!
आजकल एक गीतकार महोदय फिल्मों में काफी नाम कमा रहे हैं. नाम है प्रसून जोशी. उन्होंने एक प्रसंग का कहीं उल्लेख किया कि एक गाना उन्होंने लिखा था जिसमें एक जुमला था - "सट कर बैठना". उन्हें बड़ी कोफ़्त हुई इस बात से कि विशुद्ध देशज शब्दावली से युक्त इस जुमले को न फिल्म का निदेशक समझ रहा था, ना संगीतकार, न पार्श्वगायक और न ही वे अभिनेता/अभिनेत्री जिनपर गीत फिल्माया जाना था. थक-हारकर उन्होंने "सट कर" को "पास-पास" से बदल दिया. हो सकता है यह किस्सा  जोशी साहब ने मनचले किस्म के पाठकों के चेहरे पर शरारती मुस्कान लाने के लिए गढ़ लिया हो. मगर इसमें कोई दो राय नहीं कि धीरे-धीरे ऐसा लग रहा है जैसे कि आम बोलचाल के तमाम शब्द हिंदी से गायब होते जा रहे हैं. अपने व्यक्तिगत जीवन से एक उदाहरण लेते हैं. एक बार किसी अपार्टमेन्ट में जाना हुआ और जिनके घर जाना था उनका फ्लैट नंबर था इकतालीस. एक तड़क-भड़क वाले सज्जन, जो उस विशाल इमारत में एकमात्र प्राणी की तरह नज़र आये थे, नज़र आये तो हमने उनसे पूछा किधर है. नंबर सुनकर उन्होंने पूछा - इकतालीस मतलब थर्टी वन या फोर्टी वन? हमने उनके लिए तर्जुमा करके अपने गंतव्य तक पहुँचने में ही खैर समझी लेकिन यह विचार आज तक मन में उमड़ता है कि हम खादी बोली की बात करते हैं, ऐसे लोगों तक पहुँचते-पहुँचते क्या यह बोली सर के बल खादी नहीं हो जाती?
और  हमारी ज़िंदगी में वो एकमात्र उदाहरण नहीं था जब हमने पाया कि लोग संख्याओं को हिंदी में बता पाने की क्षमता खो रहे हैं. और यह भी एक कटु सत्य है कि लोग केवल हिन्दी की संख्याओं से ही नहीं, रंगों और रिश्तों से भी अनजान हो चले हैं. अक्सर आप लोगों को बोलते सुनेंगे - फलां मेरा कजिन है. हिंदी में मौसेरा, चचेरा, फुफेरा, ममेरा जैसे आसान और असरदार शब्द हैं जो आपके "कजिनपने" को परिभाषित भी कर देते हैं लेकिन आप उसका इस्तेमाल नहीं करना चाहते. जब आप सिस्टर-इन-ला कहते हैं तो क्या यह स्पष्ट हो पाता है कि आप भाभी का ज़िक्र कर रहे हैं या साली का या सलहज का? क्या अंकल में चाचा, मामा, मौसा, फूफा जैसी स्पष्टता है? नहीं. फिर भी इन शब्दों का व्यवहार आप नहीं करेंगे. 
उसी तरह से लाल, सफ़ेद, नीला, हरा, जैसे आसान और मीठे शब्दों के बावजूद आजकल कपडे इत्यादि खरीदते समय इन शब्दों का व्यवहार करना वर्जित है! आप रेड की बात कीजिये, ब्लू बोलिए, व्हाईट कहिये, रंग न बोलकर कलर बताइये! कई बार इस प्रवृत्ति के हास्यास्पद परिणाम दिखते हैं. एक बार सब्जी मंडी में सुना - भैया एक किलो पोटैटो दे दो! सब्जी वाले के चेहरे से साफ़ झलक रहा था कि वो नहीं समझ पाया. उंगली के इशारे से अंदाजा लगाकर आलू तौलकर दे दिया. समझ में नहीं आता कि एक दरिद्र सब्जी-विक्रेता पर "इम्प्रेशन" जमाकर लोगों को क्या मिल जाता? 
हम नहीं कहते कि जो शब्द अंग्रेज़ी से लिए गए हैं उनके हिन्दी विकल्प ढूँढने की हास्यास्पद कोशिशें की जाएँ. सिगरेट को धूम्रपान दंडिका कहा जाए या ट्रेन को लौह्पंथगामिनी बताया जाए. मगर जो शब्द हमारी रोजमर्रा की ज़िंदगी का हिस्सा रहे हैं, उनको हम क्यों त्याग रहे हैं? हिंदी को सबसे बड़ा ख़तरा इसी प्रवृत्ति से है.