Harry Potter and Neo Skywalker

Once upon a time, on a planet pretty much here..

There lives a gentleman called George Lucas. He wrote a very good story (on paper in long-hand), could not direct them very well, sort of invented CGI, and along with good friend Steven Spielberg (a more accomplished movie-maker), changed the face of Hollywood and global cinema as we know it.

For me (and maybe more of my ilk), used to the kind of cinema which the critics call kiddie stuff for grown-ups , studios call blockbusters, and we call thrilling fantasies, Star Wars is an engima. All the movies I have enjoyed since, ET, Superman, Spider Man, X-Men, definitely Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight, can potentially be attributed to Lucas Inc. He is supposed to have sounded the death knell for Martin Scorsese and his Raging Bulls. At a time when in India, Amol Palekar and Nasseruddin Shah were winning Filmfare awards at the expense of ruling deity Amitabh Bachchan, Rocky trumped Taxi Driver for the Oscars.

From the movie and the path-breaking technology point of view, the closest cinematic phenomenon I have seen to Star Wars in our times is possibly Matrix, more of Gita (the self-discovery of Neo) to Lucas' Mahabharata (the space fights and the clan feuds were supposedly borrowed from oriental mythology). However, the merit of Lucas' story is proven by how badly the Wachowski brothers tripped with their sequels. Lucas himself was then making relatively ordinary prequels, but the way he had twisted his original stories to marry the good against the Dark side with father versus son, also kept pace with the box-office acceptance of the characters (the sibling relationship of Luke & Leia makes their kiss in Empire Strikes Back so incestuous).

For my generation, against the power of the force of the 70s, we had the Pottermania, a combination of the Chosen One in a fight against the Dark Lord and his Death Eaters. Books are a far more evolved, and demanding form of popular art. I have hardly been a consistent reader, and my jobs have further eroded the little habits I had.

Harry Potter as a phenomena took off when I was still studying. I first noticed when a faculty member I held in some esteem mentioned that Rowling writes quite enchantingly (how apt). My initiation happened only through the movie, directed by Chris Columbus (his Home Alone with Macaulay Culkin was a huge childhood favourite), by when the best book of the series Prisoner of Azkaban had been released (ensuring Goblet of Fire was a pre-sellout), Pottermania had taken full effect, and JK Rowling possibly had the lucrative deal with Warner Bros in mind when finishing the remaining three books. With the successful release of the film, and to cater to the wider grown-up audience, the books kept getting darker. While in Chambers.. conveniently no one dies, Harry progressively starts losing one major character in increasing importance in every book since Goblet... (before the body-bags pile up in Deathly Hallows).

The Potter world, with its quidditch, transfiguration and magic, is made for the cinemas. The film series also takes a turn towards the eventual darker tone when the superb Azakaban was filmed as competently by Alfonso Cuaron (the child Emma Watson also turned in to a teenager and caught my imagination the first time). However, I was totally hooked only when David Yates' filmed the most voluminous Order of Phoenix so well. It introduced the 'prophecy' which fascinates me, of mutually assured destruction, of there being no winners in the battle between good and evil (dare say, the prophecy gets undue importance).

The release of the Order of Phoenix film coincided with the release of the final volume by Rowling, Deathly Hallows. And just like three decades ago, all rumours like Luke Skywalker betraying the Jedi cause and joining Darth Warder were laid to rest when Potter did not meet his end at the hands of the Dark Lord.

Though we had an early bird copy of the Deathly Hallows, I was strictly advised by competent authorities to read all the novels in sequential order. To be fair to Rowling, one could have picked up any novel from the middle and sort of followed the story. However, the excitement of figuring out a minor detail in the larger context (and admiring her imagination) would have been missing. Again to prove a point for books, one cannot say the same about the films. The film Half-Blood Prince will be impossible to follow to the rare uninitiated.

For me personally, Harry Potter is the latest addition to my quirky list of fascinating heroes: Arjun, Sherlock Holmes, Tintin, and James Bond. Rowling did not create high literature (thankfully, it was not Da Vinci Code either). What she did do was create a fascinating world, a world possibly not dissimilar to Frank Baum's in Wizard of Oz (another childhood favourite). To give it a dose of realism, the canvas she paints has an uncanny resemblance to our part of the world. Order.., with the lurking menace of Voldemort and the denial by the Minsitry, resembles India. Half-Blood Prince, with the Ministry out of control, is like Pakistan. And by the final ..Hallows,where the Ministry has fallen, the scenario is like Afghanistan.

Left to myself, the first Potter, or even the second one, was so usual that I would have never followed it up had I just read the books. However, Prisoner.. had me hooked. What sets Rowling's apart are the emotional high-points of her story. The basic theme is simple, 'to choose between what is easy, and what is right' (Dumbledore tells the students after Cedric's death; SRK used the same lines to his mother-in-law in DDLJ). While Potter's initial misfortunes sound like a Cinderella, when he finally visits his parents grave and the plaque at his cottage, you feel the pain of his uncontrolled tears. The stories rarely drag (except for some portions of the Quidditch World Cup, or the futile on-the-run camping in Deathly..). The saga does culminate in Harry's improbable triumph, with as much simplicity as Luke felt the Jedi force. But the real message is in the other famous line from the books, 'it is our choices that define us, not our abilities' (again Dumbledore in Chamber..).

The films have sort of measured up to the book, especially those directed by Cuaron and Yates. The later volumes meant lots of details needed to be skipped, or tinkered with, but overall added to the story. The romantic sagas were deftly handled (though must admit, in the latest ..Prince, Hermione's love comes across as a lot more one-sided, and Ginny's kiss a lot less spontaneous than in the books). If anything, the deaths of Black and Dumbledore do not really capture the loss for Harry as well. The book ..Prince ends on a despondent and hopeless note (as Baradwaj put it, how will Harry take on the real world experience of Voldemort). In the film, by doing away with the climatic duel, the futility and Harry's helplessness at Dumbledore's death is absent. I am sure in the final movie, some of the deaths (like Dolby's sacrifice which showcased Harry's unusual-ness as a wizard) would not even make it to the big screen.

The single biggest difference between Star Wars & Harry Potter films are the acting. In the former, apart from the then new Harrison Ford & well-established Alec Guniess, no actor managed to make his mark (Mark Hamill was particularly bad as Luke). However, Harry Potters have managed to get together an ensemble of fine British actors. Established names like Gary Oldman, Ralph Fiennes and Helena Bonham Carter have taken on crucial though low screen-time roles. Alan Rickman as Snape has been the stand-out performer. In the latest, Oscar winner Jim Broadbent is superb as Slughorn.

What has been fascinating to watch is the child actors grow, all of them including Draco & Neville. The leads were initially recruited only for the first three films, as they would supposedly have grown too big for their respective parts. However, thankfully, the filming over a decade has allowed the child actors to grow in the role suitably.

For me personally, a huge flaw in Rowling's romantic pairing was Ron & Hermione. They just seem too unlikely. In the latest film, the suspicions on Harry & Hermione' are cast again, only because they seem more obvious. The brilliant acting of Emma's Hermione and Rupert's bumbling Ron further adds to the disbelief in their long-term chemistry.

The problem with starting off as child actors is that one is not sure what would one grow up in to (the cute Kevin Arnold or Winnie Cooper from Wonder Years never really made it). As Burberry proves, it is difficult to believe Emma Watson (the best actor and the most reluctant star of the three) as the careless Hermione of the books. Rupert Grint, with his comic timing, is perfect as the reluctant Ron. If nothing else, while Daniel Radcliffe is the right Harry Potter, his weeping appears too wooden.

Rowling created a fantastic world, better than Lucas. In a couple of years, Yates will end it again. However, just to give me another memories of a Doordarshan era gone by, JJ Abrams came up with his Star Trek, taking me back on an enterprise to 'where no man has gone before'. Sigh, for childhood nostalgia!

P.S. For better reviews of Star Wars & Harry Potter, please read http://www.desipundit.com/baradwajrangan/.

P.P.S. Even by my standards, this post has been unusually long. Because of a mix of personal and professional reasons, I do not think I will manage to cope up with this blog too long. I will like to thank all readers for their patience. I hope to re-surface, sometime, in some form or the other.

Why I prefer Obama to Hillary

Today is International Women's Day, a phenomenon brought to India mainly by the smart marketing honchos at Unilever (when they associated Pond's with it) and their media agency, Fulcrum. On this pious occasssion, CNN-IBN had a special talk show hosted by Anubha Bhonsle, where apart from having an increasingly unbearably irritating Preity Zinta as a panelist (good job by the PR agency of Godfrey Phlips), they discussed some genuine women stories, like Bhanwar Devi.

Now apart from the professional necessity of being aware, I watch and read news mainly to push myself out of my comfort zone. For instance, when I saw Bhanwar Devi fighting a village's ostracisation for the last fifteen years (because she seeks justice against her upper-caste rapists) and raising her kids on 500 bucks ($12.5) a month, I got some perspective on my latest fad about how to afford the Skoda Fabia. Somehow, it gave a sense of my position on the wish-list queue.

But I am writing this not for the Women's Day, but because Senator Obama has managed to arrest the slide somewhat, and won Wyoming today. I usually am an inverted snob. And when I do not follow politics in India or South Asia, I definitely should not show any interest in the primaries of the Democrats, forget the US presidential elections. But it is difficult not to get swayed by the American commercial might, as to how their genuinely open democracy has taken to the genuinely democratic digital medium. After all, politics is ladened with dirty money and deeds everywhere, the Yankees somehow are that much so frank and casual about it.

The youtube elections have been captivating. And Obama is genuinely charismatic, may be as much as Hillary's husband. While both the Democratic candidates are actually not saying much (refer this brilliant piece, http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10766009), I prefer Obama.

My reason is simple. I think Hillary Clinton is a fake, a hypocrite. While her husband was going down on more women than there were on the Titanic (source: The Times of India), she was about to walk out on her marriage (similar to what Shanie's wife Simone did). But then she had her own political aspirations. She wanted to become a Senator, and then get back into the White House.

Hillary and Obama have ran a rather nasty personal campaign, and it is difficult to justify either. But what really got to me was when after agreeing to do so, Hillary refused to pose for the Vogue magazine. In an election fought on the new medium, it would have been an absolute first, for a presidential candidate to appear in a fashion magazine. But at the very last moment, Hillary Clinton thought doing this will be too elitist/glamorous/feminine. I anyway have strong thoughts about people reneging on commitments. Moreover, if these primaries are going pretty much as per vote-bank politics, Hillary Clinton basically rebuffed her core audience - the women (or the feminists).

The need to beautify oneself is universal, across genders. The choice of the individual is possibly how to go about it, and at what expense. So when an Aishwarya Rai takes two hours to adorn her makeup, her chubby hubby Abhishek also does need to groom a beard to disguise his double-chin. Moreover, her ex Salman has possibly given metro-sexuality a really bad name by taking his gait more seriously than her catwalk.

The American media does get into their leader's personal lives. For instance, in India, have we ever had our press trying to dig into who all did Vajpayee date, or MGR married? However, the good side of the American politics is then the President (or the leader) pretty much does the usual American things, like going for a jog in the morning and watching baseball games. Possibly, Hillary Clinton proved 'The Economist' right, that she actually does not have much of an agenda, even a feminist one.

P.S. And in all this hullabaloo, the Republicans have nominated John McCain who actually does have a serious agenda.

Identity, and whereabouts

I have been busy, criss-crossing this vast wonderful country of ours, soaking in the experience of meeting different people from different societies and walks of life, catching up on a few winks here & there. And as the juggernaut has just taken a short temporary break, I thought maybe put up my thoughts on a cussed topic where my morality has always been ambiguous.

I read Amitav Ghosh' The Shadow Lines at a very imprssionable age, just when I was about to achieve the legal maturity to vote. The tale is a fabulous depiction of identity, and the resulting actions which appear totally believable in this compelling book. I do my bit of stereotyping - chinks, Biharis - what not, but I can honestly claim that I do not have a single casteist bone within (casteism is possibly the worst form of institutionally-sanctioned racism in the world, usurping the place of South African apartheid in the new century). Moreover, the stereotyping is often used in the context of humour, as is obvious from the Scottish and Sardar jokes which abound.

The problem is, because of socio-cultural factors, this stereotyping and the humour is ingrained into us. Mind you, we are not the best people to enjoy a joke, especially when it is on us. If you put in the context of religion or region, the situation becomes explosive. For instance, in the blockbuster DDLJ, SRK (playing a casual-about-life-loverboy) tells his lady-love that he was taking a leak in the church (when he was actually praying for her). The joke was in him taking a leak, not as to where he was answering his call of nature. Yet, Yashraj had to remove the offence caused to Christians. I use the example because it typifies the unique Indian problem, where Catholics in India wanted The Da Vinci Code banned, not withstanding its undeserved mega-success in the Christian world.

Nitin (alias Jonathan Brady) was (I sadly use the past tense as he is currently still unemployed) my favourite RJ. He came up with absolutely stunningly apt and funny insights on our daily lives, something which radio as a mass-medium is tailored for. He also ran a great imitation of MTV Bakra on Red FM, called Band Bajaana. While Cyrus possibly has a more inane sense of humour, both he and Nitin were perfectly capable of causing offence to the victims of their jokes. Even our leading superstar, Shahrukh Khan was not spared by Amar Singh, when in jest, SRK saw darindgi (sadism) in Amar Singh ji's eyes.

I considered Nepal the most out-of-job country, when an entire bunch of folks rioted on the streets, just because Hritik Roshan was quoted in a definitely fictitious interview that he did not like them. I cannot fathom a good enough reason why Hritik would say that. However, what is even more bewildering is for a entire nation to believe him, and stop all work to protest the thoughts of a young star from a neighbouring country (would it make any difference to us if Orlando Bloom, or even Tom Cruise, does not like Indians).

Nitin's offence is serious. I do not know the exact joke he cracked (apparently something about if Gurkhas becomes Indian Idols, who will be the security guards; the same stereotype has been used in movies like Hrishikesh Mukherjee's cult classic Chupke Chupke to commercials like Naturefresh using Sharmila Tagore and Soha Ali Khan). However, the issue was damning enough for a star RJ to lose his job. And I am not sure if he can make a comeback as easily as Dean Jones did.

However, the second recent incident of identity-abuse involved Andrew Symonds, who was booed when he became the 'Man of the Series' in the Future Cup. As misinterpreted by the Aussies, it is not actually a case of classical racism, as I am unsure how many Indians are actually aware of his aboriginal roots (and here I include myself). The incident was simply the unique Indian syndrome of mocking anything that is unconventionally different. Symonds carries himself like a tribal warrior, and he suffered the same fate which white women (easy lays) or South-East Asian tourists (see Munnabhai MBBS) can possibly vouch for.

I struggle to maintain my ambiguity in such instances, at what point does a good joke turn into offensive slander. The gentlemen in Mumbai above definitely behaved stupidly. Nitin was simply cracking a drawing-room joke. But I guess Mukul Kesavan asks us to correct our prejudices best.

Here’s a hypothetical circumstance. Tiger Woods is playing golf at the US Open. He sinks a putt, there’s a pause and the commentator, thinking he’s in a commercial break, says to his colleague, with the microphones on, “The nigger’s holed another one.” How long do you think that commentator would last on prime time? How many golf correspondents and commentators would characterise his comment as a ‘bit stupid’?

The Great Indian Democracy

Lord Meghnad Desai, once when comparing India to China, commented that India can only aspire to be a good democracy, never a great nation. There is a lot which is going wrong in China, but their sheer bloody-mindedness to ensure its 'peaceful rise' is absolutely commendable. As another scholar pointed out, the Chinese go ahead and act, making mistakes but rectifying them with suitable remedial action. Apparently in India, we will just not move ahead till everything is in perfect order, because our democratic political system does not allow any mistake to be pardoned.

As Amartya Sen says, Indians have always been argumentative; highly opinionated in my opinion. Yet, today, we, the supposed liberals, cannot simply argue on a lot of reasonable issues - reservations, minority rights and appeasement, adult content, homosexuality, and what not. But on the obvious things we need to act, the debate simply never ends - administrative reforms, judicial reforms, economic growth, poverty alleviation, infrastructure. Why should anyone have anything against the building of world-class airports is beyond me? Just stand in our immigration queue once, and you will figure out what Corporate Communication means.

Take caste-based reservations. The same were introduced by our Founding Fathers to correct the historic injustice meted out to the socially-ostracised backward castes. They were based on the 1931 Census, and were supposed to wither away in ten years time, a time-frame by when the wrong was expected to be corrected. However, as we all know very well, it has just dragged on, as it is a lot more convenient to get votes this way. No politician, however sane or intelligent (including our PM and FM) can publicly take a stand on Arjun Singh's joke on educational quotas (done apparently without his party's and madam's connivance, only to resurrect his political career). How can a India, supposed to take on China, try to impose caste-based reservations in the private sector.

The bending down to the mass-opinion, which by itself is going through a worrying dumbing down, is a phenomena replicated across sectors. In the 1970s and 80s, the parallel-cinema actors - Naseeruddin Shah, Amol Palekar - used to sweep the Filmfare Awards, restricting the ruling deity Amitabh Bachchan to few select awards in his unchallenged reign at the top. I am not for or against it, but now it is much easier for the actors working in the biggest hits of the year, to walk away with the awards. Similarly, we talk about the absence of all-India hits, and multiplexes have actually promoted niche cinema. Yet, today's biggest mass-media phenomena happens to be Ekta Kapoor. Based on my extremely superficial knowledge of the contents of her productions, I can only say that whatever little craft, little art, I have witnessed in her serials is absolutely shocking. And the style is imitated across serials, across channels.

As the notorious Mr. Chappell pointed out before parting, we cannot stick band-aid on cancer (and we do love doing it). The Blue Billion was baying for blood. So to pacify the nation, the BCCI President and our Agriculture Minister, Mr. Sharad Pawar, and his elected cohorts, went ahead and decided that the players should not be models anymore. And what more, the masses, and even the classes interviewed on English News channels, loved it.

Next time when I fail to meet my sales target, or my cousin does badly in his Annual School sports meet, I will ensure that we all stop watching movies. Helluva distracting from our professions, these dumbed-down expensive-to-watch Hindi movies, and they cannot even win that bloody Oscar once.

Cricket, Sports, Life, and the Country

"Be what you would like to change in the world" - Mahatma Gandhi.

To a great extent, our response to crisis, to disappointments, to unfavourable turns in life, define our characters and characteristics. In the face of adversity, some get more determined, some lose courage, some suffer medically, and some behave lumpen. As for me, I over-think, try to work harder, and now in the last year, write profusely. Any surprises, that my most vehement articles sound most confused.

On a world-stage, sporting prowess at the multi-discipline Olympic Games has usually been the final indicator of a country's global pecking order. And to prove that in spite of being the flavour of Davos, India still has a long way to go, is our single-medal performances across all the Games since Atlanta in 1996 (when China is pushing the United States in medal tallies).

In per capita terms, Australia is the best sporting nation in the world. Any why not? When they lost the Ashes in 2005 after a gap of eighteen years, there was a crisis in Cricket Australia. (I visited Down Under that year, and can tell you the folks are not the best losers). Yet, their cricket-aficionado PM John Howard called the result 'good for cricket', Ricky Ponting (not such a great captain for me, but a wonderful bat, possibly the best I have ever seen) decided to make himself and his boys the best cricketers they could be, and in a nation of 200 million (about Delhi-&-NCR), cricket experienced the fastest growth in participation for any mainstream sport, to have more than half a million registered players. Any wonder, within fifteen months, they reclaimed the trophy, with the first whitewash in eighty-five years.

The typical response in India is slightly different. Why? I will let Mukul Kesavan explain with key excerpts from a brilliant article he wrote in the October 2006 issue of the Cricinfo magazine.

Indians leave sport behind on the road to grown-up-ness. As a result their devotion to cricket is a form of vicariousness. This is true to some degrees of all kinds of spectatorship, but in countries where sport is participatory, this vicariousness is moderated by a practical understanding of the game and its challenges, by the empathy created by the experience, even if that experience was gained at a much lower level of skill.

Not having played in years (or ever), the fan has no understanding of the contingencies that can turn a match, no first-hand experience of defeat. He has a happy ending in mind, and when that doesn't come to pass.......

This sense of entitlement is nursed and fed and watered by television reruns which either show matches that India won (a relatively frequent occurence in the new century only, under Sourav Ganguly), or excerpt great Indian innings from matches that India unaccountably lost. The most satisfactory cricket match ever played is not listed by Wisden because it was played in a country that ICC doesn't recognise: the colonial India confected by Aamir Khan in Lagaan.

I remember having a very similar, though much less eloquent, debate with my college room-mates. If India was a country teeming with achievers in their respective fields, it would have been fine to be entitled to a happy ending. Please do check out Amit Varma's apt rebuke at http://indiauncut.com/iublog/article/indias-loss-to-sri-lanka/.

In today's Hindustan Times, Kadambari Murali says that top cricketers (who are the best paid sportspersons by a distance) earn less than their other relatively-equal glamorous counterparts, from India Inc. or Bollywood. And this when you possibly sacrifice your childhood, a normal family life, all for a possible working career where being active ten years can be considered successful. For a comparison, nature-&-destiny willing, I plan to professionally work for a longer time than my stay on Mother Earth so far.

Sports is said to build character, teach you about life, give you strength. The big marketers associate themselves with sports to associate with the right values, and connect with the right audience. It is unacceptable that Shining India remains acceptably competent in just one sport, where the hype is more for individual performances than team victories (ever wondered about Golf and Shooting?). Yet, I am not sure as to how many of the 300 mn. strong middle-class, who crib about the cricket team and the Olympic standings, will want their kids to play sports professionally. Maybe, it helps if the kid is good, and will get admission in a decent educational institute. But no-one will remember that before Nike advertised otherwise, the spirit of Olympics was all about participating.

I was never naturally blessed, except in chess and tennis to some extent. However, in a way somewhat similar to Mr. Kesavan, am trying to eke out some sort of living of professional sports. And I would be satisfied if in my lifetime, we actually manage to re-create the American sports scenario in the country. I am somehow sure the Chinese medals will follow!

Secularism in Hindi cinema has primarily been a Hindu’s responsibility

Reproduced WITHOUT permission from agencyfaqs, excerpts from a speech by Javed Akhtar, during the fifth Subhas Ghosal Foundation lecture at Mumbai, on ‘The Role of Secularism in Hindi Cinema’.

"Art is all about entertainment, but there’s a fine difference between art and circus. Cinema, although exaggerated, is relevant to the common man, and one can actually learn a lot about real society from Hindi movies. Dreams don’t offer realism either; but they are relevant nonetheless as they are often a reflection of our thoughts. In a way, cinema is like a relevant dream as well…on decoding it one can unearth the collective psyche of the society."

Having established the relevance of Hindi movies in society, Akhtar went on to outline the importance of characters in films, and how these are a mirror image of real life. He said that if one makes a list of Hindi film villains over the last few decades, he can actually learn everything there is to know about society’s evolution in India. "In the 1940s, we had the Zamindars as villains, which was a reflection of the actual state of affairs. In the 50s, this villain lot was replaced by the factory owner bully. In the 60s, however, the underworld don of big cities ruled the small screen as the bad guy. In the 70s, this underworld don became a hero. In the 1980s, the villain in a Hindi film was invariably a policeman or a politician – yet again a reflection of societal affairs. In the 90s, Pakistan became the villain. In the new millennium, we don’t have any villains; such characters in today’s movies frighteningly resemble us!"

On a more somber note, Akhtar spoke of a time which shook the nation: the year 1947. "India went through a trauma back then, but Hindi cinema couldn’t handle that and pretended it didn’t happen. For a very long time, Hindi cinema did not touch upon this topic." Further, he insightfully declared that for several years after partition, no film with a Muslim protagonist was made. Finally, in 1960, Chaudhvin Ka Chand came along which broke this trend, followed by Mere Mehboob, both of which has Muslim characters as heroes. "These films, to my mind, were dangerous, because they created Super Muslims or unreal Muslims". For instance, such films showed Muslims to be understandably pathans or nawabs living in large havelis, who talked only in poetic lingo, wore sherwanis all day long, indulged in Mujras/brothels, and sported beautiful women at their arms. This created a world that never existed. So then, one saw the era of two categories of Muslims. "The first was who we saw on cinema. The second was my neighbour – an owner of a cycle shop". This real life Muslim then started believing that his ancestors may have really led the kind of life shown on screen". As one can see, both these Muslims were far away from reality."

Secularism and religious tolerance in Hindi cinema is exclusively a Hindu’s responsibility. On secularism, Akhtar said that while we can have a Vijay getting saved by a 786 billa in Deewar, one is yet to hear of a Muslim character being saved by a Ganesh idol. "I haven’t seen a Muslim character play Holi in any film, although millions of them do so in real life. Further, while a goon can hide gold behind a Hindu deity, one can’t show a similar situation in a mosque, as filmmakers are afraid of hurting the sentiments of a minority".

On religious tolerance too, Hindus seem to shoulder the burden. "There are films on untouchables and child marriage, but rarely one on a social malpractice by a minority. The closest a film came to doing that was Nikaah (on the disadvantages of the Muslim divorce system), but that too was a personal story, rather than a community one. It all boiled down to one point: filmmakers know exactly what society can take, and what it won’t accept".

Hindi films haven’t treated Christians very well. A Christian has always been depicted as a good hearted drunkard, or the Mona Darling type (the vamps in Hindi cinema took on the form of Rita/Mona/Julie, who dressed and talked in a particular way). But then, heroines started wearing those kind of clothes, so the differences with the vamps sort of vanished.

Akhtar concluded on a promise of a better tomorrow. He placed faith in today’s young generation, as they possess a less tainted view of society, and are healthier than their parent generation, in that sense. This too, is reflecting in Indian cinema. Secular movies such as Rang De Basanti, Sarfarosh and Iqbal are finding their places in the hearts of Indians – three films which wouldn’t have been accepted in the 50s despite the roar of secularism that had erupted then.

MY Roundup for 2006 AD

As the heading of my blog denotes, this post is about MY Worldview. This implies not only my perspective, but much more importantly my exposure. This is about the world that I managed to witness, and hence have considered to comment on.
2006 was a year when the relatively late bloomer India truly and firmly arrived on the global mindscape. Personally, I also decided to draw my sphere of influence sharply, hence did not really follow subjects which I possibly cannot comprehend, and definitely can never influence (for instance, the Indo-US nuclear deal). For an highly opinionated person, that was a paradigm shift.

So here goes my recap of the Year 2006.

Person of the Year: The Time magazine got it totally right, as "many are wresting power from the few". 2006 will be remembered as the year a video site, youtube overtook many mainstream television channels and was subsequently gobbled up by Google for a valuation more than some of India's largest brick-&-mortar companies; Citizen Journalists on CNN-IBN broke impactful stories; and maybe, just maybe, along with many others, Abhigyan started blogging. Why US, "for seizing the reins of the global media, for framing the new digital democracy and for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game". Wow, way to go!

Event of the Year: The founder of Grameen Bank, Prof. Muhammad Yunus, winning the Nobel Prize for Peace (not Economics). In a year when the Pope, George Bush and Osama bin Laden did their bit to further the clash of civilizations, it was fantastic to witness a Muslim economist, who hailed from a backward country of Asia, and had devoted his life to empowering (not helping) the downtrodden, hog the limelight. And this with no mention of the stereotyping I have just done for Prof. Yunus.

Leader of the Year: Rahul Gandhi did not assume any formal position within the Congress party, yet did enough to promise a better tomorrow. By the end of the year, he was interviewing ticket-seekers in UP. Maybe, next year he will organise the Congress primaries.

If you have read Shashi Tharoor's From Midnight to the Millennium, the biggest disappointment in Rajiv Gandhi's case was he surrendered his destiny-bestowed opportunity to make a difference to India's polity. Rajiv literally inherited the PM's post, yet he was middle-class like most of us. Still, because of multiple reasons, he failed, quite miserably. Being an optimist, I think his son will finally right the wrong, and maybe also ensure that any future Colombian-born will not assume the mantle automatically.

Legislation of the Year: The "Right to Information Act", better than the still unproven "Rural Employment Guarantee Act".

Regression of the Year: Caste-based reservation in the private sector. As Ratan Tata asked, why not in the army? Maybe because the politicians will fear for their lives being guarded by a NSG commando present because of his inferior birth rather than superior merit.

Debate of the Year: To hang or not to hang Mohammad Afzal? I did not follow the case in its entirety, but believe that he is being executed mainly because there is no one alive to be executed. He is not innocent, but for the larger cause of Insaniyat in Kashmir, he should be instead sent for a life-sentence. I am somehow confident no one will hijack planes to rescue him.

Negligence of the Year: 18-year old Javed Ahmed escaped from a fire, that killed almost fifty people at the Meerut Trade Fair, unhurt. Yet, he went back to successfully rescue six kids trapped, suffering massive burns himself. He was kept alive for three days in a hospital at Meerut. Later, for better treatment, he was shifted to the Safdarjung Hospital in New Delhi. There, he succumbed to his injuries within nine hours, apparently due to lack of oxygen at the hospital.

Scare of the Year: Ten airplanes to be blown up over the Atlantic. Thanks to the buggers, I was not allowed lip-gels on-board and had to suffer chapped lips in all my flight trips.

Middle-finger of the Year: Mumbaikars, the only genuine urbanites in India, happen to live in an inordinately cramped city with rotten infrastructure. Yet, the way the city bounced back within hours of the bomb-blast was absolutely commendable.

Paradox of the Year: India is Shining, and farmers in Vidharbha are committing suicide. It is fast becoming a cliche, but if we do not start taking Bharat along with India soon, no law-enforcement machinery in the world can stop more Anants from being kidnapped.

Brand of the Year: Nokia N-series, for making listening to music, capturing images, making videos, composing your own scores, surfing the web and sharing your world on the cellphone trendy and mass. This when most people I know (including me) only use cellphones for what they are meant for - talking and SMSing.

Movie of the Year: A clear-cut tussle between Munnabhai and DJ, and however much I loved Gandhigiri, as a pure cinematic experience, Rang de Basanti comes out tops (apologies for contradicting my own blog here). The song from the same, Roobaru, also happens to be my favourite musical composition of the year. However, the real influence of the movie came across when the India Gate candlelight vigil happened against the Jessica Lal ruling. Boy, life does imitate art!

Cinematic Performance of the Year: Joint winners - Leonardo DiCaprio in The Departed, and Saif Ali Khan portrayal of Shakespeare's Iago in Omkara.

Artist of the Year: Boman Irani , for the sheer versatility and authenticity he displayed in playing characters ranging from a Parsi (Being Cyrus) to a Sardar (Lage Raho Munnabhai).

Razzie of the Year: Aishwarya Rai, for Dhoom:II. So far, I thought she used to only giggle in a Greek accent when interviewed. Now, I realised that Aishwarya has ideas on looking 'like a girl' (by her own admission) too - to dress like JLO (in JLO's music videos with Ben), pout like Angelina (in Angelina's photo-shoots with or without Brad) and grimace like Rajesh Khanna (in Kaka's Anita Raj days). Trust our critics to rip apart a genuinely stylish remake of Don, and accept an unbelievably crappy flick like D:II.

Chemistry of the Year: A complicated woman by her own admission, Eva Green as Vesper Lynd was the most enchanting fictional character on screen. Both 007 and me melted.

The runner-ups were Capt. Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp), who had to pay with his life for falling for Elizabeth (Keira Knightley).

Most Entertaining TV Show of the Year: In a year when the boundaries between news, entertainment and reality television blurred, Karan Thapar's Devil's Advocate interview with Ram Jethmalani on CNN-IBN came out tops by a distance. Jethmalani had chewed up Sagarika Ghose in a previous interview, so TV18 sent an equal adversary in Thapar for revenge. See it to believe it.

Sporting Team of the Year: Cricket Australia. Ten out of Ten Tests won, beginning with making an ass of Graeme Smith in Sydney, and threatening to whitewash the short-term Ashes holders at Melbourne. Ricky Ponting declared he wanted to win the elusive Champions' Trophy, and what a surprise, managed to do so, even after Glenn McGrath had been pasted by Gayle in the Finals. However, the real challenge - for domination, not necessarily success - will begin now, when Warne and McGrath are no longer around.

Sportsperson of the Year: The only reason Roger Federer could not complete the near-impossible Grand Slam was an inspired Nadal in the second quarter of the year (who beat him three times during March-May). Later in the year, Federer had sort of managed to conquer his bogeyman, and was continuously giving Federal Express immense publicity for free.

Farewell of the Year: Michael Schumacher, a rare specimen who managed to combine the traits of Don Bradman (records and performance) and Douglas Jardine (sportsmanship) on the F-1 circuit.

Breakup of the Year: After squabbling across two centuries, as fans kept speculating as to what could have been, it seems we have now for sure seen the last of the 'Indian Express'. The Olympics Medal was not to be, and I just hope against hope I am still around writing about the couple in 2008 as the 'Comeback of the Year'.

Concern of the Year: Endulkar?

Wishing all a great 2007!

The Route to Eternal Bliss: Patanjali vs Devdas

State of the Nation: A MBA diagonistic

I have joined a new place on Monday, and I seem to have a lot of empty time on my hands currently. Hence, I decided to use this opportunity to use all my training to think "macro".

I have been thinking of the 'State of the Nation' for as long as I can remember. In fact, the thoughts have always been there, they just have kept getting refined with the passage of time and my gradual maturity (hopefully). So what I propose to do in my blog here is use a favourite MBA technique to analyze 'India', something which is called a SWOT analysis.

In line with the MBA-orientation, I will try to keep this piece crisp, and not indulge in the ramblings which I am really prone to.

"S" stands for Strength: Intellectual Capital

The strength of India, or Indians to be more specific, lie definitely in the mind. I guess what connects us as a nation the best is definitely the power of the mind. Our Olympics medal tally definitely denotes low athletic prowess, and the successful sports for us have been more mental - measured batting, spin-bowling, chess, shooting, etc.

There might be a brahmanical bias for academic/higher education in this statement, but the NRI community which dominates the arguably most-developed place in the world, the Silicon Valley, is a proof of our intellectual prowess. We would have possibly not achieved the respect we command wordwide, and the economic growth we enjoy (though it is primarily jobless growth to a huge extent), without this intellect, as represented by our high-end IT/technology success, our well-developed private managerial systems, and possibly the ability of our good students to be vibrantly active throughout their lives.

I can pick up specific communities which have done very well. The Jats are primarily a martial race, but the Sikhs, in spite of all the jokes abounding about them, are spritually very developed. The Kashmiris apparently have a Sufi culture, and while this does not do much for the mind, I think the positiveness of a faith can uplift the soul to a great extent. The Pandit Brahmans of Kumaon are literary doyens, and noone specifies this better than my favourite newcaster, Mrinal Pande. In her short stint with Star News (the previous NDTV-run version), rarely was she ever at a loss of a word in Hindi, or had to use an English equivalent expression. And although the Hindi was chaste, it never appeared artificial, so unlike the masala language used by the Hindi news channels of today.

The Pandits of Eastern UP and Bihar again are primarily scholars, and tend to excel in what remains one of the toughest and most stupid exams to crack, the UPSC entrance exams for the Indian Civil Services. While the reasons for their success are not entirely intellectual, it takes some power in the mind to even attempt the exam (maybe this is just a lame excuse from a guy whose credentials meant he should have attempted the exam, but never managed to muster the courage to do so). More important from Bihar are the middle-caste people. In a rampantly casteist society, the Brahmins have usually occupied the dominant strata of society - the religious trusts & temples, and the Government services. With the rise of opportunities in the private sector, the Brahmins were too lazy to exploit them, and this meritocratic slot was occupied by the other castes. Again, it might be basis a limited sample, but in my school hostel, the guys who topped and occupied the top slots at the premier engineering colleges of the country were these middle-caste Biharis.

On the other hand, the Bengalis are famous for their bhadralok culture - either they are Amartya Sen or Satyajit Ray, but they do tend to excel in a wide variety of intellectual pursuits. I am sorry but I cannot comment on the North-East part of the country very well ( and this is a very sad and racist fact), but from my limited knowledge about the region, these guys are great at producing cutting-edge music. The Assamese especially tend to be very creative, albeit lazy, folks.

If we move to the West, the Gujjus & the Marus are famous for running entire economies, from Las Vegas to Dibrugarh. The Gujjus dominate Bombay also, and the non-Gujju Bombayites are very professional people, unless they become Shiv Sainiks or something of the same ilk.

Bill Gates calls South Indians the second smartest-race in the world after the Chinese, and while I am in no position to pass my judgement on that comment, I agree that South Indians (of all the four states) are an extremely refined culture. Since the decline of Ancient India (primarily my Aryan perspective of India), the Dravidian section of the country has functioned as a very developed civilization, establishing trade and diplomatic relations with almost the entire Asian belt. In the recent past, for modern India, this re-discovery of the Asian roots was also promoted and propogated by a South Indian intellectual only, PV Narasimha Rao. In fact, I think if Dravid land was to secede from India, alongwith Gujarat and Bombay-Pune, it would be close to a first-world country, condemning us Rest of Indians to the third world status for the rest of the millenium. The only issues I see in South India are militant casteism and a fanatical hero-worship culture.

"W" stands for Weakness: Muddled Thinking

There is a famous saying, "the more things seem to change, the more they remain the same". As a nation, we are great strategists, but when it comes to implementation, we seem to seriously lag behind. And in a strange paradox, this I think arises from our inherent intellectual strength. We seem to be driven so much by dogma and ideology, that unless the course of action agreed upon appears right to us, we simply desist from giving it our full-hearted support. The Communists are a prime example of this, very bright and honest people with a genuine desire to bring about positive changes for the weaker section of the society, but simply unable to either move forward or allow others to do so, all because they are trapped in their own revolutionary thinking and tactics.

For us to move forward as a country, the biggest social challenge remains the same as at the time of independence - widespread and crippling poverty. And all our gains are not because, but in spite of, the state initiatives. The simple failures of our delivery mechanisms have been very well-captured by a host of economists, and we have not managed to explore a more efficient system, only because we are not clear of how to go about it. The co-existence of hunger-led deaths and rotting buffer grain stocks in this country means something is seriously amiss. And while we are good in high thinking, we lack the clarity to implement the same using plain common sense.

"T" stands for Threat: Population Un-control

We have trebled our population in the last sixty years. We were always a people-plenty country, but we are going horribly wrong with it now. We will soon overtake China in the race, and while experts talk about the pressure on resources, to me, the simple pressure of human beings on each other can cause an implosion. Indians tend to be very versatile, always ready to explore short-cuts, and the primary reason is we want to avoid competition (whatever might be the posturing). In terms of sheer numbers, my competition for my place in the world is immense, and it would make sense for me to avoid competition by taking easy, naughty, illegal, whatever means.

Economists say growth is the best antidote to poverty, and population control. Moreover, most of the developed world (apart from the US) and China is either facing or will face a labour-scarcity problem. India, with its young age-population, is expected to buck the trend, and continue on its rapid-growth path, which I think is bullshit. The problem is we are simply adding quantity, not quality. In fact the addition happening is of the wrong type. So whatever poverty-conquering development we are witnessing simply fails to register, because we keep adding more of the poor, be it in urban areas or the countryside. And the solutions to conquer population explosion fall prey to our weakness, a lack of clarity on the best way of going about things. We need to invest in job-creating development, primary education, healthcare, and women's welfare. But all these fall at the altar of implementation.

"O" stands for Opportunity: Ancient India

I am a history-believer, and of the firm opinion that it repeats itself. I will possibly put up my thoughts in a subsequent blog as to why the USA should be a model country for us, but for the time-being, if we simply accept the fact, our ancient thoughts, philosophy and systems were very close to what all America stands for today.

I am a soft Hindu, but my Swantantra-party type beliefs were hijacked by Congress, and the Hindu party BJP converted itself into a party of lunatics. I agree Hindutva is a way of life in the sub-continent, and thoroughly disagree with RSS' interpratation of the same. Traditionally, all our scriptures talk of and promote individualism, something on which the entire American system is based on. Individualism means being responsible for your own actions, be it in terms of career, romance, thoughts and belief, and it are these traits which bring about genuine democracy. The success of a civilzation is measured on the freedom to choose, and individualism helps you in making those informed choices, instead of having it imposed by your parents, teachers, government, whoever. While it might cause some disruptions in society, I have no doubts it this re-discovery of our roots which will help us claim our rightful position under the sun.

Watching Sachin at Gadaffi: Part IV - The Crossing Back

During our return journey, we had decided to play it safe and land up really early at the border. We kept an ambitious target of leaving at seven, and actually managed to do so by eight. I decided to give more time to myself to digest the 400 grams of fish I had consumed the last night, and so skipped breakfast. We had booked a cab to go to Wagah, and again this meant four of us had to sit in the back-seat. In the cab, our leader started suffering from cramps in his legs - a more severe form of pins-&-needles. After fidgeting for some ten minutes, he decided to stop the car, and just got down to loosen his legs a bit. When that didn't work, he just jogged a bit to get the circulation back. Hence we were witness to a fairly strange sight with a man jogging on the highway and a cab following him from behind. When he also realised that this might be looking odd, he asked us to go and park our car 100 metres ahead and he would run to it. He finished off his 100 metres lap in a jiffy and wanted to continue the game, maybe to regain full strength in his legs, till all of us lost patience and asked him to stop the game and continue with the journey.

We reached Wagah from the Pakistani side at 0830 hours, and were greeted with sparse crowds. The immigration clearance happened in possibly ten minutes flat, and the Pakistani side made it a point to ask us whether the process this time round was a lot more convenient or not. It was impossible to negate that, and when the gates opened at around 0930, BSF also was in a PR overdrive. There was a banner welcoming back all Indian cricket-lovers, arrangements done for tea and coffee, and ten custom posts in the open for immigration clearance. Before the gates had opened, we had formed a queue which had about twenty people. A young guy landed after that, and again tried to create a ruckus by forming another queue - 2X2 in his language. I guess it is again an Indian trait, with so many of us around, we just do not have the patience to actually follow the rules and maintain discipline in such a scenario. Besides, the Pakistanis are used to a police state, so possibly are a lot more disciplined.

We were back in our country at around ten, and our leader made it a point to say 'Shukriya' to all the custom men. Our train from Amritsar was at five in the evening. Hence, the next step was to book a hotel for half a day where we could have just dumped our luggage. Again, the leader was quite insistent on the railways cloak room, but this time I managed to convince him as to how we just might need a bathroom also during the day.

We checked into a very shady hotel, where we could have only stayed if we did not have to stay there. And since we had time, the next destination was to witness the tourist-spots of Amritsar - Jallianwalla Bagh and the Golden Temple. Jallianwalla was the first halt, a tiny non-descript ground which possibly noone would have ever got to know but for a crazy general's depraved idea of law & order maintenance. The ground is just before the Golden Temple, and there is a narrow passage leading into it. Inside, a park and a memorial has been created, which is in a state barely acceptable, though still better compared to our other smaller monuments. What is touching are the plaques which have been put up, they genuinely have captured the essence of what had happened here, and the sheer barbarity of a man to do what he did. The Martyr's Well has been cordoned off, and in the compound walls, the bullets fired to stop people from scaling them, have been pointed out.

So in such an emotional state, we moved to the Golden Temple - the holiest place for the Sikhs. It is a sprawling complex, with the main temple situated in the middle of a man-made lake. There are gurudwaras all around, and the overall structure made of marble, with gold added wherever needed, is visually quite appealing. Besides, the main keertan which is being played via a loudspeaker, is quite soft and soothing, unlike most of the songs played in our jagarans. The temple is so holy because it houses the Adi Granth, the main book of the Sikhs. It is here that their religion was codified.

To visit the main temple, you need to go in with some prasad. Again, to specify the egalitarian nature of the religion, one can give any money, he will get the same amount of prasad. The prasad is a halwa made of atta in pure ghee. The queue of the visitors to the main temple is about 100 metres long, and while all my friends decided to go in, I skipped the opportunity. I would like to believe that for me religion is an extremely personal thing and hence I would rather not undergo the rituals, but I think the real reason is I just do not have the patience to stand and wait for my turn with God. Jallianwala Bagh was enough for me to discover my spirituality, and I waited for my friends by just seeing the goldfish play in the clear waters of the lake (above).

Sikhism - like Buddhism and Jainism - started off as a reform movement for Hinduism. One of my good friends is convinced that Sikhs are one of the most maliceless and genuinely honest people. In fact, while we see them in Delhi as being fairly aggressive, I guess thats truer for Punjabi Hindus. In fact, in Punjabi villages, non-veg food is also not consumed very much. I guess thats the reason why Pakistan manages to produce so many mutton-consuming fast bowlers while we struggle to unearth anyone who can beat Razaaq in the speed game.

We decided to have lunch at the famous Golden Temple langar. This concept of seva is one concept which any true relgion should capture. The basic idea is equality and service, and any person can simply walk in anytime of the day and have a simple meal of rotis, dal and sabzi. This facility is open twenty-four hours a day, and is run totally by volunteers - who do the cooking, serving and cleaning. If I ever have the means to actually build a temple, I will surely incorporate this seva-bhaav into that. There is a famous tea also served, cooked on charcoal fire, but I guess that was towards the evening so we could not have that.

After doing the holy rounds, we finally decided to do what had been missing from the entire trip so far - a round of drinking. We asked an auto wallah to take us to a decent bar, and he took us right to the other part of the town. The manager had some problems in entertaining us as the place was booked for a private party. However, he asked us to sit in a small coffee-shop on the first floor, and when the waiter came to take our order, we realised there was no liquour available in the place. They had lost their licence, and instead they would take our order and get the booze from the nearby thekaa. The only money they would make in the transaction is through the snacks we have. Our leader was a teetotaller, two people reported sick and hence abstained, and the rest of us managed to gulp down some beer and vodka, even managing to carry some vodka for the train journey.

The return journey was in a Shatabdi so was much more decent than the Qualis trip. At an overall level, the trip was like one of those which become great after you have undertaken them. We never realised we were having so much fun, till we came back and started discussing as to how much we actually enjoyed. Anyways, we reached Delhi at 2300 hours on Valentine's day, and by the time I slept at 0030 hours, I had realised I would be a goner in office for the remaining three days of the week.