A Drifter's Diary

Global Integrity Report: India scores a middling 70

2010-03-05T11:32:00.000+05:30

An interesting report by Global Integrity (a not for profit organisation that generates information about governance and corruption trends around the world). In its score-card, India is at a moderate 70 scoring low on legislative and judicial accountability, civil service regulations, whistle blowing, rule of law and enforcement.

Why doesn't our government focus on good governance?

2010-03-01T19:57:00.000+05:30

Good governance is the buzz word everywhere except among the political classes! Is it because they don't have their ear to the ground or they just don't care? I think its a mixture of the two. There are some politicians who understand that the voters are fed up of bad roads, lack of electricity, lack of quality schools, lack of law and order in many parts of the country, malnutrition and hunger and are making efforts to remedy the situation in their own small way. Nitish Kumar in Bihar is a good example. However, the majority, across the spectrum, are mired in old mind-sets and caste politics. How do we put the message across to these politicians that their game is up? If they want to be re-elected, they have to perform. For this, there needs to be consensus building across the political spectrum to bring about reforms in the structure of our civil service, the back bone that is supposed to deliver the goodies allocated to the people. There also needs to be reform in the way political parties function internally as well as in Parliament. For this, we need to amend the Anti-Defection law and bring in inner party democracy. Lastly, law and order has to be strengthened. We cannot have sundry goons hijacking an issue on the threat of violence without any repurcussions -- be it Valentine's Day celebration or women going to pubs or even larger issues such as Telangana.

Aligarh Muslim University professor suspended for being gay

2010-02-20T13:37:00.000+05:30

The news of the professor from Aligarh Muslim Univesity was caught on camera having consensual sex with a man is indicative of a far larger problem in our society than homophobia (which is not to say it is not a problem in itself). The way the professor was caught through hidden camera (whether set by students or some news company) shows a basic contempt for individual choice, privacy and more importantly the law of the land. This means any group of people can dictate the mores in society based on their lifestyle choices if they have the backing of people in positions of authorities. You may say that this has been a trend for a long time between goons and politicians. But such behaviour is not expected from an institution of learning.

THE GLOBAL “GO-TO THINK TANKS"

2010-02-20T13:14:00.000+05:30

The University of Pennsylvania has published a global database of think tanks. You can access it here.

Controversy over Bt Brinjal

2010-02-11T18:10:00.001+05:30

Bt Brinjal is in the eye of the storm. While Jairam Ramesh has put a moratorium on its commercial cultivation, there is need to understand the issues at hand in more detail. Is the opposition to the plant valid? Is the Minister justified in ignoring recommendation from the Genetic Engineering Approval Council, which is a scientific body set up to govern genetically modified food? For more on the issue, please read the entry on the PRS Blog.

Focus on marriage, not so much on children

2010-02-11T18:06:00.000+05:30

Do parents who focus too much on their children have less happy and demanding kids? Apparently so. For more information, please read http://bit.ly/a6Ggnd

Ayan Hirsi Ali at Jaipur Lit Fest

2010-01-28T20:47:00.000+05:30

Jaipur Lit Festival included a surprise visit by Ayan Hirsi Ali. Here's an account of what she said

A tale of female bonding

2010-01-19T11:10:00.000+05:30

This article in Indian Express discusses the issue of female bonding beautifully exemplified by the real life case of Ruchika Girhotra (molested when 14 by SP Rathore a police officer) and Aradhana Prakash (the sole witness to the act).

We hear stories and get reams of paper about male bonding and male friendships but very little about female friendships. It is strange because in real life, female friendships seem to endure much more than male friendships which fizzle out quite easily.

Underwear makes the moral police see red (or is it saffron?)

2010-01-17T13:25:00.000+05:30

Apparently, women's lingerie is "obscene" in Madhya Pradesh!

Shopkeepers in Bhopal cannot display mannequins wearing women's underwear. Why, you may ask! The answer is because the Sanskriti Bachao Manch deems them to be obscene. You may then ask, who the f*** are they to decide on what is and is not obscene. There you have me flummoxed! I have absolutely no clue why they should get away with these decrees except that they seem to have the support of the state's BJP Chief Minister, Shivraj Singh Chouhan.

The side-effect of any kind of ban in India is the threat of violence and hooliganism. Most people comply with the dictats of such groups because they know the police would not come to their rescue when the hooligans attack. The police would not take any steps because these hooligans are backed by powerful politicians including the Chief Ministers.

In the midst of rising food prices, malnutrition, illiteracy and sundry other problems, why would politicians and their satellites think that anyone would care for such ridiculous moral policing? We need to seriously ponder over this question. Is there really a vote bank that gets all riled up about women's underwear? If so, who are these people? If there is no vote bank, then we need to ask what are the politicians getting out of such gestures? Is it a tactic to throw sand in the eyes of the voters to keep them occupied with inconsequential issues?

Unless, we look at these questions with a clear eye and expose this nexus, there is no hope for us.

Pakistan's school education in doldrums

2010-01-17T13:01:00.000+05:30

An interesting article in the Washington Post caught my eye.

We have all heard about the faulty history taught in Pakistan's public schools. But the effects of such teaching is being felt now. This should make us re-think our history textbooks which mostly teach the Marxist interpretation of history.

From From critical, very critical, very very critical, extremely critical to dead - Jyoti Basu RIP

2010-01-17T12:57:00.001+05:30

Finally, the CPI(M) patriarch is dead at the age of 95!

It might be churlish to crticise him on the day of his death, but his horrendous legacy in West Bengal cannot (and should not) be brushed under the carpet just to preserve the niceties. I don't know what Marx originally had in mind when he propounded his theories of Communism, but his followers have in most part left a legacy of bloodshed, violence, mass poverty, and corruption. Basu was no different. From a fairly well to do state, he took Bengal into the depths of poverty and despair that it is in today. So, like Kanchan Gupta, I cannot mourn his passing.

Sri Lanka: An Eyeopener

2009-06-12T22:00:00.000+05:30

We all have preconceived notions about various persons or places. To my mind, Sri Lanka was one of those places that Western tourists find fascinating for the cultural quaintness but otherwise like any other Indian town in the southern part of the country. It was vaguely on my to do list, mostly because a friend of mine was posted there but I had no sense of urgency about going there.

This May I was supposed to be going to Leh for a week (my room mate and I had been planning the trip since February) but the Gods had other ideas. At the last moment our trip got cancelled due to some unforeseen mishap in my room mate's office. Weirdly enough, around the same time, another friend's trip to Thailand got cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances. So there we were, two girls itching to get out of Delhi without any clue where to go.

After a series of discussions and hectic planning, we hit on Sri Lanka as a viable destination for a short trip within our budget and time constraints. My friend in Colombo was enormously helpful. She took care of hotel bookings.

We landed in Colombo at 2am. It was raining outside and we couldn't locate the driver who was supposed to pick us up and take us to the Taj Samudra. We located a post office and used the phone to call the driver (my friend had helpfully texted his cell number). Then followed a bizarre conversation with me trying desperately in English to explain to the guy (whose English was extremely limited) that we had arrived and were waiting for him. The driver: "You come at 2?" Me: "Yes, we are outside the airport"; Driver: "Outside? Me inside airport. You come at 2?" Me: We are standing at the Arrival." This went for a few minutes...finally my friend had a brainwave and said, "Mention that we'r waiting at the Post office." The moment I mentioned post office he brightened and said "I coming," and sure enough, the car and glided in 5 mins.

We were finally on our way to the hotel. Night time Sri Lanka looked quite quaint with a charming old world feel to it. Suddenly, we were flagged down by a couple of army guys with AK 47s slung across. Both our hearts started beating faster and our throats were dry as the driver buzzed down the window. Surprisingly enough, the army guy very politely wished the driver good morning and asked something in Sinhalese (presumambly about us). The driver said something back and I heard the phrase Indian High Commission!! I had no clue what was going on. The army guy then very politely asked me for my passport as well as Sarita. I was freaking out a bit because while I have an Indian passport, Sarita's is American. If the driver was trying to pass us off as Indian high Commission staff, it might be a bit difficult to explain how one of us had an American passport!! The check went off without a hitch and we breathed a sigh of relief! I asked the driver why he mentioned the High commission. He said otherwise they might want to check our bags. Then he launched into a mini history of LTTE and its attacks.

From the airport to the hotel, it was a 45 min ride. But we were stopped by the army some 10-12 times. Each time the same story was repeated, each time we were let go with a quick check of our passports. while it was very scary to have guys with AK 47s slung on their back stopping us very few minutes, they were extremely polite and courteous in their behaviour towards us and the driver. We were quite impressed.

I was forced to be a Pappu

2009-05-07T21:41:00.000+05:30

Why was I forced to be a Pappu? Because inspite of trying thrice, I could not vote. Reason: my name was not on the electoral roll of three polling booths.

I have always been very proud of our democracy. It is actually one of the few things I admire about this country which is riddled with almost every possible social, economic and political evils. After today's experience, I am perilously close to giving into complete pessimism and cynicism.

I came home (Gurgaon) all set to vote yesterday. According to the RWA notice, our polling booth was supposed to be in F Block Community Centre, DLF City, Phase 1. We went there bright and early and was told to find our names on the electoral rolls. There were two booths, one set up by the BJP and one by the Congress. We started browsing through the electoral rolls (with five other people craning their necks trying to see if their names were in it too). Every page brought disappointment. Our names weren't there!! We asked the people at the booth how do we find out our polling booth. They were clueless...one guy tried to tell me it was the voter's responsibility to find this out!! No one even knew where the other polling booths were. Finally someone told us there was a polling booth in G-block also for Silver Oaks people. My father and I reached the place but again we were disappointed. the same story was repeated. No one knew where our names were, how we could find out which polling booth to go to, where the polling booths were located, etc. etc.

We came back home. I started searching on the internet. The Election Commission of India's website had the option of searching electoral rolls but it was not working. Then I tried calling the helplines on the Haryana Electoral Department (ceoharyana.nic.in). Someone picked up but instead of giving me any info just shouted at me that it was the wrong number and banged the phone. All the other numbers were either perpetually busy or just kept on ringing. The numbers are: 2224047; 2220860; 2220861. Finally, after searching on the net for hours, I figured our names might be in the Chakarpur Block A DLF Phase 1 polling booth. So at 3:30pm we trudged there in the heat but the same story was repeated. No one had any clue, our names were not on, etc etc. That's when we just gave up!! I have rarely been this disappointed in my country!!

In praise of democracy

2009-04-29T13:19:00.000+05:30

I recently read an article that said many Pakistanis were mad that their state was being called a failed state. The reporter interviewed some students who said their preferred form of protest was raising awareness through Facebook (a social networking site). The reason given was that they were women and it has become increasingly unsafe for women to participate in protests outside their homes.

Now, it seemed strange to me that these students did not realise there is a co-relation between their lack of safety and the failure of state. The very fact that the country is becoming more fundamentalist makes it more unstable and prone to failure. So a few people joining protest causes etc on Facebook is hardly going to make a dent in that country's path to destruction. The only thing it will do is mislead some people about the reality of Pakistan.

I have never understood how a country can be theocratic and claim to protect the rights of all its citizen equally. A theocracy is fundamentally unequal because it privileges one religion over all others. To top that, if religious laws govern the land, there can be no pretence of equality of any kind -- of the sexes, of religious minorities, of vulnerable sections. That is why the best form of government is a democracy with separation of church and the state. In a democracy there is space for dissent, unlike a theocracy.

A Wednesday: Good movie but...

2008-10-02T10:16:00.000+05:30

Harry Potter once stumbled across a mirror which reflected the deepest desires of the person looking into it. The images were so seductive that a person could spend the whole of his life just looking at it, so the wise Dumbledore warned Harry.

A Wednesday had a similar kind of effect on me. Rationally I know that vigilante justice is wrong. However, looking at the utter incapability of our police in nabbing terrorists, there is a small part of me that wants to cheer a person who would have the guts to do what Naseeruddin Shah does in the movie. A Wednesday is one of the best directed movies I have seen in a really long time. Neeraj Pandey's (the director)first attempt at directing makes me salivate for more goodies. Its terse, tight, and packs a punch. Of course, with actors such as Anupam Kher and Naseeruddin Shah playing the main roles its difficult to go wrong (although its been known to happen, remember Anupam Kher in some of the worst mainstream movies!)

Here, Anupam Kher as Inspector Prakash Rathod gives a fantastic performance. Cynical yet dedicated, he tries to negotiate with an anonymous caller who claims to have planted bombs in various places in Mumbai. A little into the movie, we realise that Naseeruddin Shah is the person who plants bombs. For the most part, he appears to be another of those deadly Islamic terrorists with an ordinary face who wants to wreak vengeance for his cause (whatever that might be). However, as the movie moves towards the climax, the plots twists into something else entirely. It turns out that Shah is not a terrorist but one who claims to be a representative of the Common Man a la R.K. Laxman. Tired of the incompetence of the police in ensuring safety for the common man, he takes it upon himself to destroy four dreaded terrorists. However, he knows the only way to ensure that they are killed is to blackmail the police into releasing the 4 terrorists and killing them himself.

The only slightly "filmy" part of the movie is where Shah launches into a diatribe against state incompetence and the vulnerability of the common man who has no religion, caste, creed or danger. Just ordinary citizens trying to go about their daily business.

What scares me is the topicality of the movie. The day that I watched the movie was a Sunday at PVR Saket. It was probably the first time that my friend and I managed to get tickets for the movie just 10 mins before the show. For that, we have the series of bomb blasts in Delhi to thank for. One could see the fear in people as they meekly submitted to thorough security checks and looked around suspiciously for any unclaimed packages lying around.

While no one disputes that the police are incompetent, they are also hampered by the fact that they get inadequate training, inadequate pay and manpower. Top it off with constant political interference and its a wonder that India as a country functions at all. It also does not help when every action of the police (even legitimate ones) is viewed through the prism of communalism. Instead of condemning the terrorists who kill, a number of members of the Muslim community and a number of activists claiming to be "secular" (without ever defining what exactly it means to them) or protectors of "human rights" (it begs the question, which humans, when they only seem to come out of the wood work after some terrorists have been nabbed), want to tarnish every action of the police. I think they don't realise that they are really not doing a service to the minority community. For good or bad, in a democracy, state is or should be the only agency that can use violence as a legitimate way of dealing with criminals. If they undermine the state, they are endangering all citizens of the country. No one is questioning the need for reforms in the state organs. That has been overdue for ages. But there is a difference between systematically denigrating the system of law and order in the country and agitating for reforms. Because at the end of the day, the best protection for any person can only come from the state, not from vigilantes of any type.

Jaane tu...ya jaane na: Breezy and light

2008-08-31T23:29:00.000+05:30

There are some movies that are deep, meaningful, serious and then there is Jaane tu...! This is a madcap story of two friends who gradually discover that they actually love each other. This theme of course has been done to death in many Hindi and English movies. However, Jaane tu's USP are its cute storyline and characters. Jai, played by amir Khan's nephew Imraan Khan and Aditi, played by Genelia D'souza are best friends who hang out with a bunch of oddballs from college. Jai is your quintessential non-violent type (his mom, played by Ratna Pathak Shah, insists that his dad was a strong beliver of non-violence) while Aditi is a hell raiser. Since both hang out together almost constantly, their parents assumes they are in love and broach the subject of marriage. The idea is instantly rejected by both who insist that they have no such romantic feelings for each other and embark on finding their respective life partners. While they do manage to fool themselves for a little while that they are actually in love with other people, they eventually realise that they love each other.

When putting down the story in black and white, it sounds really cliched and dull. However, the movie is anything but that. It not only explores friendships but also focusses on parental relations and even the equation between a brother and sister in a very believable way. I really liked Aditi's brother, Amit's character. He is an introverted artist who behaves obnoxiously with Aditi's friends, especially Jai, because he and Aditi were best friends before Jai came into her life. The cameos by Ratna Pathak Shah, Naseeruddin Shah (in the role of Jai's dead father) and Paresh Rawal are a treat to watch.

However, it does reinforce the stereotype that a girl and a boy cannot be best friends without being in love. Hindi movies have come a long way (or at least some) from the traditional and melodramatic plotlines to showcase believable characters, non-traditional parents and friendships. But exploring the equation of a girl and boy being best friends without any romance involved remains a taboo for all directors.

The Indian Budget for Dummies

2008-03-01T12:20:00.000+05:30

Fiscal deficit, capital expenditure, gross domestic product, wholesale price index, excise duty...if you are like me (i.e. stumped by economic jargon), its likely that the Finance Minister's annual Budget speech leaves you reeling. Not because the fiscal deficit is rising or the gross domestic product has failed to deliver, but because of the onslaught of economic terminology bombarded at you. And if you are sitting with a bunch of economists listening to the Budget (again like me), its almost guaranteed that you'd feel like the world's greatest dummy! While people around you are making seemingly brilliant wise cracks about the Budget, you are desperately trying to remember the definition of Gross Domestic Product learnt during school economics classes some 15 years back.

So here's the Budget highlights for dummies:

a) More salary (yay): Not because your boss suddenly thinks you are brilliant but underpaid and decides to hike your salary but because the Finance Minister thinks you should get more money (the reason might just be a tad more complicated than the sudden illumination about your brilliance). And if you are a woman or a senior citizen you get to take home even more money!! Muah to Chiddu-:P

b) Debt relief (balle balle for farmers): The FM decided that farmers are special. Now what does that mean in budgetary terms? It means that you get to take loans from banks and the government repays them for you! Of course the FM seems to have forgotten that most farmers in India don't actually take loans from banks because of all kinds of procedural hassles...they take loans from money lenders who charge them exorbitant rates of interest. The actual people who take loans from banks are not the ones committing suicide since they are the relatively well off farmers. While I'm no economist (understatement of the year), even I can see that there is a logical fallacy in this. The people who are happy (other than the farmers who never paid back their loans) are the banks because they get their money back in full. And the most unhappy among the farmers would be the ones who foolishly scrapped and scrimped to pay back their loans. This, I think, is a textbook case of populism.

c) National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) gets universalised: The universalisation happened before. The Budget had to fund it. How did it do so? It went and stopped all other employment schemes and put in that money with a little extra into the kitty of NREGS. Now, I'm a little confused about the whole idea of employment generation through this scheme. While I am all for dignity of labour and right to employment, it seems a little self defeating to restrict the scheme's funding to unskilled labour. Essentially, what happens is there is money for people to dig up places but the moment a little more skilled work is required (which you would need if you are serious about building even the most rudimentary of things), the funding dries up (the Act stipulates the ratio of wage cost to material cost should be a minimum of 60:40. So proportion of funding for materials and skilled labour has to be less than cost of wage of unskilled labour!). Wow!! Even my non-economics oriented brain can see that this is not going to work. Also, given the level of corruption, these elaborate schemes are just a drain on tax payers money. Why doesn't the government use the money to provide better education and infrastructure so that the poor can acquire the skill to get employed and not remain at subsistence level??

This is all for now folks! Will write more later.

Taare Zameen Par: Finally, Bollywood shows a kid acting as a real kid

2008-02-08T16:11:00.000+05:30

Yes folks! Taare Zameen Par is that rare Bollywood film where a kid acts like he is a kid and not like a mini version of a melodramatic adult. I can count on one finger how many Bollywood films show children as they really are (the only movies I remember are Masoom and Anjali, which was a remake of a south Indian film). Anyways, Darsheel as Ishaan is your normal 9 year old....messy, naughty, bratty but still retaining the innocence of childhood.

So the first half of the movie where Ishaan day dreams through class and expresses himself through paintings is a treat to watch. Also, the portrayal of the pressures that schools and parents put on children whether they are good or bad performers is very realistic. However, the movie goes a bit downhill in the second half where Ishaan is sent to a strict boarding school to be whipped into shape. There is no lack in Ishaan's acting...he is superb as the kid whose vitality has finally been subdued by the repeated insults and trauma that he suffers from all sides. The reason is Aamir Khan and his desire to give the movie a happy ending. It would have been enough if he had succeeded in identifying the problem and convincing the parents and teachers that the child did not lack brains, he had dyslexia, a learning disorder that could be successfully overcome.

However, the movie goes into overdrive, showing Ishaan making rapid progress and in the final instance winning the painting competition. This movie would have been Oscar material if it could have retained the level of reality it had in the first half.

Om Shanti Om - Truly a Masterpiece

2007-12-16T12:26:00.000+05:30

Om Shanti Om (aka OSO) is a revealation. I expected a completely over-the-top albeit entertaining Bollywood Masala movie. It is all of that but much more too. I expected to be entertained but did not expect it to hold my interest as it did till the very end. I had truly underestimated the capability of Farah Khan (the director) and the magic of SRK (aka Shah Rukh Khan aka King Khan). The first half of the film has SRK playing a junior artiste and dreaming of becoming a star. But that is not his only dream. He also dreams of Shantipriya (Deepika Padukone), the superstar of that era(the 70s). Only SRK can portray the role of the intense lover with just that right dash of mushiness and intensity. I think the secret of SRK's success lies in the fact that his portrayal can send a chill (and thrill) down the spine of almost all women between the age of 15-50 and beyond. The film pokes good natured fun at the film industry, takes digs at the star power of surnames, parodies the mannerisms of stars -- all this without resorting to offensive jokes or vulgarity. The highlight of the first half though is SRK impersonating a South Indian movie star (presumably Rajnikant) to impress Shantipriya. Whether spouting gibberish or fighting a toy tiger or doing the sun glass flip of Rajnikant or saying "enna rascala Mind it" after every few minutes -- SRK is a riot!

As everyone knows by now, the story is of reincarnation ala Karz. So we have SRK and Deepika dying in the first half. The second half has SRK reincarnated as a super brat son of a famous star. The laughs continue with SRK playing roles such as Mohabbat Man and stars in "Apahij Pyar" as the lover who can't see, hear, speak, doesn't have hands or legs. But the second half is also when things start getting serious. SRK meets Mukesh Mehra, the psychopathic producer, superbly played by Arjun Rampal. He regains his past life memory and starts plotting revenge.

Farah has shown a deftness in directing that is commendable. There is overacting and melodrama where it works and exactly the opposite where it doesn't. So while Kiron Kher is the filmy mom, Rampal is chillingly understated. A word for the new actress, Deepika Padukone. She is excellent...beautiful, poised, vulnerable, and dignified. This is a definite must watch for all Bollywood lovers. It is not cerebral in any way but an excellent spoof on the industry.

Lagaa Chunri Mein Daag - A Journey of a Woman

2007-10-28T21:08:00.000+05:30

I have always loved Manna Dey's rendition of "Lagaa Chunri Mein Daag" in the movie, Dil hi to hai. The title track of Pradeep Sarkar's directorial venture, "Lagaa Chunri Mein Daag" has Shubha Mudgal crooning the song, interspersed with Mita Vashisht's poetry, "Manva mein mere toofan uthe madmast khadi hoon main". The choreography of the song is the high point of the movie.

How many times have we come across the same plot in Hindi movies: poor village girl coming to big city, not finding any work, getting hounded by big city wolves, resorting to prostitution? And Pradeep Sarkar chooses the same plotline albeit some modern touches. The usual kotha is replaced by fancy hotels and high rise buildings. Rani Mukherjee becomes a high class call girl, hob nobbing with the rich and the famous. Till Rani's transformation into a call girl the movie is quite watchable. But then it goes downhill. In his zeal to be politically correct, Sarkar has gone overboard trying to show the characters as modern and broadminded. Abhishek and Konkona as the love interest and the younger sister respectively have very little depth. The fun part of the movie is the chemistry between Kunal Kapoor and Konkona. The only believable character was Jaya Bacchan as Rani's mother.

Pradeep Sarkar had a brilliant cast but he chose to play it safe. This is film that could have been one of the landmarks of great cinema but ended up as a confused venture....neither hardhitting enough to appeal to the intelligentsia (or the arty type) nor commercial enough to appeal to the masses.

2007-10-27T22:48:00.001+05:30

Khoda pahad nikla chuha: Johnny Gaddar

2007-10-14T21:14:00.000+05:30

Thrillers and Hindi cinema are not a match made in heaven. Most of them are pathetic (that is not to say Indian cinema has not produced good thrillers...for reference watch Satyajit Ray's Sonar Kella or even the Byomkesh Bakshi series on TV). That's why I was completely hooked after watching Sriram Raghavan's earlier film, Ek Hasina Thi. It was an out and out thriller with an awesome ending. It had set a precedent for me in terms of genre. When I heard that Johnny Gaddar was Raghavan's film, I was scared. The track record of Indian directors when it came to sustaining the high of a first film wasn't great (think Ram Gopal Verma's Rangeela and then his latter films).

However, the film started with great promise. The atmosphere was perfectly set: pouring rain, a man opening a garage door, a gloved hand holding a gun and boom....blood everywhere. The film then begins in the form of flashback. Five business associates, Sheshadri (Dharmendra), Prakash (Vinay Pathak), Shardul (Zakir Hussain), Shiva (Daya Shetty) and Vikram (Neil Nitin Mukesh) plan a business deal to make a fast buck. Vikram decides to double cross the gang and run off with the money. His reason though is not purely mercenery. He wants to elope with Shardul's wife, Mini (Rimi Sen). An accident leads to murder and the chase to find the betrayer begins in earnest.

While the identity of the "gaddar" is no mystery, one somehow cannot believe that things are that simple. My friends and I kept trying to guess the real identity of the "gaddar". But as it turned out, there was no other "gaddar". It left me with a curiously unsatisfied feeling. "Khoda pahar nikla chuha". That's an apt epitah for the movie and that was also the reason why I was curiously uninspired to write a review of the film although I did enjoy it. However, the movie had its moments. The way the "gaddar's" identity is revealed to the last surviving gang member is a brilliant touch. That one scene shows that the director respects his viewers.

A word for the new comer, Neil Nitin Mukesh (he is Mukesh's grandson). He is a treat to watch. Although he doesn't revel in blood and gore, he kills without a qualm. For him, its just a logical step that he needs to take if he wants to succeed in running away with his lover. Each actor is good in his respective role although the only weak one is Rimi Sen. She doesn't really add much to the role and plays the stereotype of a damsel in distress on expected lines. Rasika Joshi as Pathak's wife is commendable.

Chak De India!

2007-09-25T22:30:00.000+05:30

Chak de India has convinced me that there is goodness in every person (or every production house). A film from the Yash Raj stable which (gasp!) unabashedly promotes women's empowerment, has no frothy romance and no hamming from SRK aka Shah Rukh Khan. Seems almost too good to be true, doesn't it, but Chak de India has it all and more. While the plot of the underdog team fighting all odds to win the big match is as hackneyed as they come in Hollywood, this is a first of its kind in India. There was of course Lagaan but that had a different sub-theme to it with the requisite star cast, songs, romance etc. Chak de just concentrates on hockey, a game which has been given the short shrift in India although we used to be good at it. It touches upon many contemporary issues: branding someone a traitor on circumstantial evidence just because he's a Muslim; treating women in sports with complete contempt; sexual harrassment; regionalism and parochialism. All of this makes Chak de sound like a preachy art movie but amazingly enough it is not. It is an exuberant movie which celebrates women. There are no preachy sermons about wifely dharma when Vidya Sharma (the team captain) is forced to choose her game over her husband's unjust demands nor does it brand Bindiya Naik (the most experienced player) as the vamp when she offers to sleep with the coach in exchange of retaining her captain's cap. Kabir Khan (the coach) turns her down gently but firmly without any excess melodrama and when he asks her help in winning a crucial match she gives her best. A special mention for Preeti Sabharwal, the girl who rejects her cricketer boyfriend's marriage offer because of his chauvinistic attitude and complete contempt toward the game. Though she is yet to evolve as a good actress, she did handle her role quite competently. However, the trio who steal your heart are Komal Chautala (Haryana), Balbir Kaur (Punjab) with their rough accents and Suimui (Jharkhand), the tribal girl who can't speak a word of English or Hindi but excels at the game.

However, the movie pivots around SRK. He holds your attention with his understated acting and his passion for the game. I think this might actually be one of his best efforts. Instead of romancing some chiffon clad heroine he excels as the tough, no-nonsense coach whose only goal is to lick the rag tag women's hockey team into shape so that he can blot out the ugly tag of "traitor". The music is hummable but nothing spectacular. It however gels well with the overall theme of the movie.

PRS goes to Parliament

2007-08-02T21:41:00.000+05:30

PRS organised a guided tour to the Parliament on August 1, 2007 for the core team, summer interns and the new MP interns. Although I have gone to the Parliament thrice before (twice to watch the Question Hour and once to meet a CP(I)M comrade), this was different. We had a guide who took us to both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha gallery as well as the chamber where joint sessions of Parliament are held. We learnt a whole lot of new things. First, the upholstery in the Lok Sabha is green because the MPs are elected by the public ie the grassroot! However, the guide had no suitable explanation of why the same was red in the Rajya Sabha (sign of royalty, maybe). The most interesting was the chamber where the joint session of Parliament takes place. It has the second highest dome (next only to the dome in Bijapur). Also, there are standing fans, which look like inverted windmills placed all over the room. Looks very high tech and slightly surreal. There were also pictures of all former Prime Ministers and other important leaders of the independence movement. Chakshu's excitement at Netaji's portrait got noticed and he (or was it Madhavan) got asked whether he was the "sanyal" on the list...the bong connection:) We then adjourned to Congress MP J P Aggarwal's office to partake of tea, sandwiches and biscuits.

Potternama

2007-07-28T23:18:00.000+05:30

The Potter bug is a bug like no other. Once bitten you remain smitten! There are also those who steadfastly maintain that there is no fate worse than being bitten by the Potter bug. You are either doomed to eternal infantilism (this is from the intellectual types who criticise the books as being childish, lacking in imagination and worst of all mediocre English) or to eternal damnation (this is from the religious right wingers who accuse Rowling of encouraging sorcery and other pagan rituals). Therefore, the question remains: Is Harry Potter’s popularity a figment of marketing gimmicks only or is there an engaging yarn hidden behind the hype?

I got introduced to Harry through a friend after I borrowed the first book (Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone) from her. I turned the first few pages and I fell in love. Although the intensity of that love has mellowed with time (especially after the first three books) it remains strong enough for me to care about what happens to Harry and his pals and also his enemies (what IS Snape’s story?). Harry’s life at Hogwarts is like a kid’s (and many adults who remain kids at heart) day dream come true! There’s action, adventure and fun mixed with just the right dash of personal problems to make life interesting. Harry is likable precisely because he is neither brilliant nor too holier than thou. For me, Harry also resonated a bit on the personal level since to some extent I am also a loner and never really fit in a crowd (unfortunately, for reasons that lie in my shortcomings than anything as exciting as Harry’s life).

Rowling of course has profited enormously from the series, becoming one of the richest women in the world. Her royalties add up to £365m while merchandising and film income take Rowling to £450m. The hype that surrounds each release of is nothing short of phenomenal. The marketing machinery leaves no stone unturned while targeting Harry’s fan base -- from midnight bookstore openings, trivia contests, costume contests, magic shows, essay contests in which the winner gets a trip to Harry’s homeland to ensuring that the books reach the fans on time. The buzz starts months before the book is released and as the D-Day nears fans work themselves up in frenzy.

While the gimmickry cannot be denied, could a book retain the interest of that many people (especially attention deficit children) if the books themselves did not have something worthwhile? This point has been debated threadbare by a large number of critics and fans. Critics contend that the books have very little literary merit in themselves. The stories are a clever patchwork of derivative clichés from a variety of children’s fiction -- science fiction, boarding school stories, Enid Blyton mysteries, and above all the universal appeal of good and evil. However, it does not answer the question why adults are equally fascinated by the books. According to A.S. Byatt, a well known novelist, adults read these books for comfort. While she finds redeeming qualities in books of other science fictions writers such Philip Pullman, Ursula Le Guin, Susan Cooper or Alan Garner, she condemns Rowling’s books as devoid of such merit. She calls it the substitution of heroism with celebrity and the levelling effect of cultural studies which has led to comparing the Brontës with bodice-rippers.

I agree with parts of Byatt’s criticism. Harry Potter is obviously not great literature. But I do not agree that the books lack imagination. While some may say it is not as imaginative as Ursula Le Guin or JRR Tolkien, I think it takes some talent to create a parallel world which is similar enough that one can feel at home in it and at the same time be as fascinatingly different from our “muggle” world as possible. If you can show me one person who would not like to be part of an universe where owls deliver letters or port keys can be used for long distance travel or talking hats sort you into the right house, where magic wands can produce beautiful petronases to ward off dementors or kill with the aveda kadevera curse – I would be ready to eat one of Bot’s magical sweets that taste like vomit or ear wax!

My problem with Rowling is not with the breadth of her imagination, I think she has plenty. I also don’t worry about why adults are not reading enough of Le Guin and too much of Rowling. Yes, Le Guin is excellent no doubt but she lacks a sense of fun, as does Pullman’s Dark Material trilogy. Except for Douglas Adams (Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy), who has the most amazing sense of humour and imagination, and to some extent Terry Pratchet there are few science fiction (SF) authors (or ones that I have read) who have written books where people crack jokes or have a have a whacky sense of humour or where the characters do not seem so burdened by the weighty task of saving the world from evil forces! I also do not subscribe to the idea that adults who read Harry Potter are regressing into infantilism. Every SF book in one way or the other is infantile. The stories do not just have imaginary people but completely imaginary worlds too. That’s as infantile as you can get. I would say SF does exactly what a child fantasizes. Whether it is to fight cosmic battles or to fight in a school “quidditch” match is a matter of semantics. For that matter, not just SF, every fiction is a product of the imagination of the author. They are about as unreal as you can get. So why not classify reading of any fiction as infantile or childish?

My problem with Harry Potter is slightly different. On the face of it, Rowling not only tries to uphold values such as honesty, courage, ability to stand for what is right, she also makes a strong statement against racism. Among the four houses of Hogwart School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, the Slytherin house with its preference for pure blooded witches and wizards is singled out as the villain. In the wizard world, pure blood does not equate with skin colour; it means that witches and wizards born of parents who are both wizards rather than “mud bloods” who are born of non-wizard parents. But that is about all the social commentary she makes though she does throw in some bits about acceptance of all magical creatures as equals and of the value of free-will. Where she falters is her caricature of women. The only strong female student is Hermione, who is a swot and has to win Harry and Ron’s approval by breaking rules. She does not seem to have any other female friends, in fact there does not seem to be female students of importance in Hogwarts. Among the professors, only Prof Mc Gonaggall is a strong female character although she defers to the superior wisdom of Prof Dumbledore, the headmaster. Prof Trelawney teaches prophecies and is a complete kook and a fraud. Only one of her predictions has come true in her entire life. And the only two students who cannot see through her fake prophecies are the Indian girls, Padma and Parvati Patel. Is there a particular reason Rowling made such a characterisation or am I just reading too much into it? But it seems to me a perpetuation of the stereotype of India being a land of astrologers, snake charmers and magic carpets!!

Also, all her key characters are white (there’s no ambiguity in that as physical features of all key characters are outlined). Since it’s a SF, she could have easily peopled her make believe world of witches and wizards with much more “colourful” people. Was she scared that too much multiculturalism would not appeal to her audience? The celebration of Christmas but of no other festival is also a dead giveaway that she is willing to go only that far in her effort to be inclusive.

While all these points do not deter the books from being highly entertaining, they do deter them from meaningfully challenging stereotypical notions of race, colour and ethnicity. Rowling’s imagination is good enough to have conjured an interesting parallel magical world. However, her marketing instincts (I would blame that since imagination does not seem to be the problem) stopped her from exploiting the true potential of her book. Instead of offering groundbreaking social commentary on many of our contemporary problems, these books remain at the level of children’s fiction enjoyed by adults for a rollicking ride without making us sit up and think!

Paris Je T'aime (Paris, I love you)

2007-05-22T23:03:00.000+05:30

There are some movies which we forget instantly and then are some like Paris Je T'aime, which linger on in our memories. The movie's unique selling point is its 22 directors. Each director has directed a short film (5 min) and all of them have been put together like a collage, the bits melding seamlessly with the whole. Because of the sheer number, one tends to forget a film or two but when reminded of them we instantly remember the story.

Even among all the brilliantly done films, Gurinder Chadha's clip stands out. It depicts a chance interaction between a white, Christian French teenager and a French Muslim girl. The beauty lies in the simplicity with which she shows how easy it is for two communities to exist if there is mutual tolerence and respect on both sides.

My other favourites were the miming couple, a tragi-comedy with a surprising ending, and the story of the Nigerian guy. In the first clip, the oddball pair find each other in a jail and live happily ever after, their story recited by their 10 year old son. The second clip was a story of a Nigerian guy who does odd jobs and dreams of asking a pretty black, French university student out for coffee. He gets knifed trying to chase the woman but she remains unaware till the very end (she doesn't even recognise him till he sings the same song which he used to sing while working at the parking lot where she parked her car). While the lyrics are incomprehensible, the song remains in your consciousness, soft as a spring breeze.

Some of the films also focussed on parent-child relationships, the most poignant being the young mother who leaves her baby at a day care to take care of a rich woman's baby. The scene where she sings the same lullaby to put both children to sleep reminded me of a scene in the old Hindi film "Sujata", where the young mother sings a lullaby (hawa dheere ana) to put both her baby daughter as well as the unwanted, orphan baby to sleep.

The aging couple getting a divorce or once famous film star couple trying to recapture their lost passion or the husband devastated by his wife's death although he was planning to divorce her -- all show different nuances of love.

The film ends with a clip about a middle aged single American woman who comes alone to Paris on a holiday, tries out her French on the natives (who answer back in English) , starts yearning for a companion and ends up falling in love with Paris nonetheless. It left me with a strange feeling -- would I end up like her, a nice but slightly pathetic creature for whom people feel sorry? I don't know why women are the ones who are depicted as these lonely, pathetic creatures who end up yearning for a companion in their middle ages. But I guess some stereotypes are hard to overcome even by the avante garde French directors!

There were some films which were plain incomprehensible -- especially the vampire love story and the Asian salon story -- but they are too few to matter. Watch the film for the sheer brilliance in terms of ideas, humour and poignancy.

Bheja fried, boiled or sunny side up?

2007-05-06T19:31:00.000+05:30

With a name like Bheja Fry, one wouldn't need to take too wild a leap of the imagination to peg it as a comedy. However, the question to give one sleepless nights is what kind: would it be a tacky David Dhawan-Govinda type comedy with inane storylines and silly humour or a whacky, Rahul Bose (remember Jhankaar Beats and Pyaar ke Side Effects) type comedy with tongue-in-cheek humour!

Luckily for us, director Sagar Ballary gives us an honest to goodness comedy of errors. The movie, lacking star power, depends solely on an interesting storyline and good acting (hallelujah to that!) to carry it through. And carry it does on the able shoulders of Rajat Kapoor as Ranjeet Thadani and Vinay Pathak as Bharat Bhushan. Thadani and his friends have a passtime, a bit cruel but mostly harmless fun. They invite a quirky but not too bright personality to a Friday dinner and entertain themselves with his antics but do not let on that he's the designated joker. Yes, welcome to life of the rich and the bored! Thadani is a director of a music company with oodles of money (mostly black) and Bharat Bhushan is an Income Tax officer with one abiding passion: Bollywood songs and trivia and unknown to him, he is the designated joker for that Friday's dinner. What happens next is a series of mishaps because of which Thadani is forced to spend the Friday evening with a sprained back, an absconding and possibly unfaithful wife (played by Sarika) and Mr Bharat Bhushan. In his quest to locate his wife, Thadani makes the mistake of elisting Mr Bhushan's help. A comedy of error follows where Thadani is forced to befriend his wife's first husband (and incidentally his one time friend, played by Milind Soman!), invite another Income Tax officer, Asif Merchant, to his house in order to get an address of a pirated CD seller and get slapped by his "nymphomaniac" girl friend!

If there was one flaw, it was the absolute caricaturisation of Asif's character (played by Ranvir Shorey). But I couldn't get a handle on what the caricature was based on. However, the rivalry between Asif and Bharat Bhushan over India-Pakistan cricket matches was a treat to watch. While the politically correct might take offence and accuse the director of pandering to the Hindutva brigade by showing Asif as a Pakistan team supporter, the more discerning would hopefully see the humour in it. The fact that Bharat Bhushan and Asif are also best of friends and Bhushan characterises Asif as one of the most honest and keen eyed officers in the IT office might act as hints.

But, all things considered, its a nice, fun and above all intelligent movie. May their tribe increase!

Should I feel guilty?

2007-05-06T19:26:00.001+05:30

One day my boss told me if there is a deadline then it’s my duty to stay at office till 11 in the night to finish it. When I told him, there were logistical problems because I lived in Gurgaon which is an hour from my work place and very unsafe to boot for anyone traveling at night, his answer was ‘but we provide a cab for you!’ Mind you, the cab is just hired from a local taxi stand (not a company owned or employed cab or driver). But apparently, for the boss, it’s totally safe for a woman to go in such a cab at 11 pm from Delhi to Gurgaon! When I objected, he looked suitably startled and said, ‘but you can’t expect me to drop you home.’ I was so taken aback by his attitude that I started wondering if I was over-reacting.

The next day, walking down the road on my way to lunch at a nearby place, I had to pass a group of men sitting around a table at a roadside food stall. Nothing happened. In other words, no one whistled, tried to grope or even sing an obscene song. They just leched by undressing me with their eyes. But that’s business as usual on Indian streets. You learn to ignore such looks with a feeling of relief even while your skin crawls….at least they didn’t try to grope me or pass an obscene comment or try to follow me.

That same day, I was sitting after office hours reading a book and waiting for my father to pick me up. Other colleagues had left for the day. The place was in darkness except for the floor I was sitting. Suddenly, it occurred to me that I was alone in the building with a couple of office boys (night guard and one or two other workers). The first thought that came to my mind was ‘what if they see me alone and try something funny?’ Yes….even in my mind I used the word ‘funny’ as a euphemism for rape. I immediately got up, switched off my computer and went downstairs to wait for my father on the road….and felt relieved that I had the presence of mind to avoid a potentially unsafe situation.

Again, the question came to my mind. Am I over-reacting? But then, I started thinking about it from a different angle. What if I had remained in the room and had got molested or God forbid raped? Would I then be told that I was stupid to have not realized the danger of sitting alone in an almost empty office? That I should have taken reasonable precautions for my safety with the implication that as I had not done so, I somehow deserved the molestation or rape.

I realized that in our society one half of the population has no idea what the other half has to endure. Or even if they do, they choose to ignore it. To my boss, it was unreasonable of me to refuse to work late at night even when he was providing me with transport. But, if I did use the transport and something ‘bad’ (another euphemism for rape!) happened, society (by that I mean family, friends, police, court, general public….) would automatically blame me for being stupid enough to have taken a cab alone at night.

It is a dilemma that, I believe, all women face, especially in a society like India where modernity has yet to lose its reputation as a corrupter of morals. If women want to be taken seriously at the work place, making “excuses” about safety or family emergency is akin to committing hara-kiri of their career. On the other hand, if in their quest for professional glory (or just to keep themselves from being fired), they do ignore personal safety or a family emergency, they are seen to epitomize modernity in all its ugliness. Of course, that happens only if the woman is unfortunate enough to get molested, raped or killed. Instead of blaming the perpetrator of the act, the blame is heaped on the woman. What was she doing so late at night at that part of the town? Why was she taking the bus/auto/cab so late at night? These are the questions that are asked furtively and not so furtively.

I don’t know if changes will happen in ten or twenty years time or even in my lifetime. But change it must for a society to be called truly modern and egalitarian, where both men and women have equal right to safety and equal right not to be blamed as a victim for “encouraging” the perpetrator.

Impressions of Alwar (cont.)

2007-04-29T12:16:00.000+05:30

Cities in India are a study of contrasts - high rise buildings beside dilapidated slums; latest cars beside bullock carts; six-lane flyovers go hand in hand with pot-holed lanes; children begging at streetlights while flabby children of rich parents munch on a packet of Lays and a coke. All this and more exist side by side in the cities. Villages, it seemed to me, more a study in lack of contrasts. The mud houses and the concrete buildings of the schools and the panchayat had the same look of hopelessness. Although the mud houses were the more flimsy of the two (since it looked like they could get washed away with a one good downpour), at least they were well-kept and spotlessly clean. The concrete buildings, on the other hand, were dark, dingy and dusty. The children could barely read, if at all. The dry ration kept at the Anganwadi Centre as part of the Mid Day Meal Scheme tasted like saw dust (as Raghav, being 6 years old and not inhibited by any kind of political correctness, very aptly put it, "no taste"). There was one female teacher present at the first school with whom Priya and I spoke to after inspecting the loo (that kind of broke the ice)! She drew a pretty sad but I think accurate picture of the state of education there. According to her, the school had a high drop out rate, especially for girls. Social vices were rampant such as drinking. Children were pulled out of school for months during harvest season or if parents had to leave in search of employment. When or if they were re-enrolled they had to start from scratch. Boys were sometimes pulled out and sent to better schools or for higher education (the school was only till Class 8). No such luck for girls. College was a distant dream for them since even among the boys only a handful went to college. Therefore, the stranglehold of poverty and social attitudes seem to be the biggest hindrance to progress of any kind. I also think that for these people education (or the mechanical way it is imparted in our schools) does not hold value because it does not translate into jobs or a better way of living.

I came away with a feeling that things would not change for these people until something drastic was done. The place is a few hours (3 hours) from Delhi but seems like a completely different world and era. Except for the teacher, an Anganwadi worker, and an ANM we did not speak to any village woman. As we walked through their clusters of houses, they just stared at us with expressionless faces. Some of them would return a smile shyly if we smiled at them. It reminded me of our annual visit to the zoo as kids. The difference here was the animals did not show half as much curiosity as we did for each other even though we were all the same species!

Impressions

2007-04-22T00:04:00.000+05:30

What sets rural India apart from urban India? Leaving aside all the usual cliches, what struck me most was the quiet hospitality that villagers show to any person from the city. We would never reciprocate such dignified courtesy that easily. While I've no romantic notion of an idyll Indian village a la Bollywood movies, our office trip to a couple of villages in Alwar reinforced this view.

The purpose of our visit was to get first hand knowledge of how various government schemes, routed through Anganwadis, health centres, schools and panchayats, work in reality. We, at PRS Legislative Research provide research assistance to MPs. Therefore, it is essential for us to have some first hand knowledge of the workings of government schemes and institutions.

We visited two schools, an Anganwadi centre, a panchayat and met, among other people, an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife, Primary Health Centre doctor and a number of Panchayat members and a couple of Sar Panches. While the government is pouring more money on the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) scheme than on other schemes (the Panchayat gets Rs 12 lakh for SSA and around Rs 10 lakh for all other projects), there was little evidence of improvement. The schools were in dilapidated condition with barely any facilities and the children were barely literate. The contrast with a private school in a city is so stark that one instinctively feels guilty. Guilty that we have so much opportunities while these children through an accident of birth is forced into a life of no opportunites and almost no hope of a better future. It is so frustrating to hear that while money is coming in, there is hardly any proper utilisation of such funds. Apparantly, some of the money was used to build a second room for the principal while the need was for classrooms. The almost painfully transparant hoax was the computers. They were displayed for our benefit still in their plastic covers and one of them not even connected to the CPU. The fact that they actually thought that we would be impressed by the computers spoke volumes about how the government ensured compliance from schools.

Amidst such depressing realities, certain funny incidents stand out. A kid crawling up and falling sound asleep on Madhukar's lap. Madhavan's expression when a 4-year-old started bawling while he was trying to put a tika on his forehead as part of the enrolment ceremony. Priya stating in her American accented Hindi that she's from U.P. Me struggling to avoid going inside a toilet that I had said I needed to use two minutes back (the problem was not that I actually needed to use it but I had said so only to check the availability and condition of the loo).

(To be continued)

NRI Week in Movies: Water and Namesake

2007-04-21T23:01:00.000+05:30

Water and The Namesake are completely unrelated except for the fact that both directors are expat Indians. Water was directed by Deepa Mehta (of Fire and Earth fame). I don't know whether controversy dogs Mehta or Mehta dogs controversy -- both Fire and Water earned the ire of religious extremists in India. Fire, because of its theme of lesbian love in a middle class Indian family and Water, because of its depiction of widows. While I have no truck with the religious extremists of any kind, the story of Fire seemed tacky in the extreme. Except for the two lead female characters, everybody else seemed like parodies of perverts. The saving grace were Shabana and Nandita Das's acting skills.

With Water, it seems the other way round. It had a fairly strong storyline but the acting was abysmal. A piece of wood has more expression than the two main leads (Lisa Ray and John Abraham). However, the lack of acting skills of Ray and Abraham were made up by Sarala (who essayed the role of Chuhiya, the child widow) and Seema Biswas (as the dignified and motherly widow who acts as Chuhiya's protector). There is no denying that widows in India had a raw deal and kudos to Mehta for highlighting it (although she's definitely not the first or the best) but the quoting of random scriptures without context was jarring. Now the question of authnticity -- the reason for portraying Gandhi as a saviour or more aptly a catalyst of change on the issue of widows could be two fold -- either Mehta lacks knowledge of history or she used the most recognisable figure in the Western world when it comes to India. On this, I have only one thing to say -- at least she didn't try to show a white man riding to the rescue of the widows!!!

The Namesake was a different ballgame altogether. Its based on the semi-autobiographical novel by Jhumpa Lahiri and boasts of great actors such as Tabu and Irrfan Khan in the main roles. The movie is a leisurely exploration of a couple's relationship with each other as well as their children. Maybe because its somewhat autobiographical, it refreshingly does not have a cause or an agenda to promote. Therefore, there is no drama over the arranged marriage nor does it show the husband as a monster or a saint. They are just your garden variety couple who comes to the US to make a better life for themselves. There is no grand love story but a gentle exploration of the relationship as it grows and matures.

The book is more focussed on Gogol, the son and his trials and tribulations as a second generation Indian-American. The movie balances both relationships well. Kal Penn as Gogol is phenomenal. His transition from a bratty American teenager to a mature young man is extremely believable and strikes a chord. Who hasn't encountered such kids in their families?? However, the sister gets much less screen time. Its not so much the fault of the director as the book since it focusses mostly on Gogol. A very watchable movie as it depicts the lives of so many NRI Indians without stridency or sycophancy.

Honeymoon Travels Pvt. Ltd.

2007-03-14T21:48:00.000+05:30

This is just a random post. Nothing much has been happening except work and more work. Watched Honeymoon Travels Pvt. Ltd. Though it was a fun movie and definitely worth a watch. For a first time director, this was a fair attempt at walking the middle ground. Shabana and Boman as usual were phenomenol in their portrayal as the elderly couple on their honeymoon. But my favourite were the Bong couple: Kay Kay and Raima. Kay Kay's Partho as the quintessential Bong guy (intellectually open yet traditional in outlook) was a treat to watch and so was Raima as Mili. I liked the touch of feminism in her as she rediscovers herself as a free spirit. The only jarring note was the so-called "Super hero" couple!!! They were just downright silly. The gay theme seemed a little forced. It seems to have become mandatory for progressive film directors to include gay characters (whether they are needed or not)! I have always wondered what happens if a guy is attracted to a straight guy. How does he deal with it? Hopefully, with all the experiments that are going on in Bollywood, some director would take it upon himself or herself to explore this theme. The rest of the characters were adequate (Amisha Patel as Pinky the spoint Punju brat, Dia Mirza and company). Hope to see more of this type of fun cinema...may their tribe increase in Bollywood!

On Shaoli Mitra's "Nathaboti Onathbot"

2007-02-11T19:09:00.000+05:30

After a long time, watched a really interesting Bong play. A play called "Nathboti Onathbot". Its a well known play (at least among Bengalis) by Shaoli Mitra (daughter of Shambhu and Tripti Mitra, the doyens of Bengali theatre). The play is a feminst interpretation of the life of Draupadi. It questions many established orthodoxies:
(a) Why did Kunti allow Draupadi to be married off to her five sons? Although the popular myth is that she did not know what her sons had brought, she could easily have rescimded her order. She did not because she realised that Draupadi was too beautiful to not awaken desire in all her sons which could lead to conflict. Instead of treating Draupadi as a human being, she allowed her to be treated as a thing, a pice of meat (to put it crudely).
(b) While the decision to marry her off to all five brothers was being made, no one even thought of asking her what did she want!!! Although, Hindus tout the Swamvar as a sign of women's emancipation (in those times), the very fact that she had no choice in this matter shows the hollowness of the claim.
(c) Was Yudishthir a real Dharma Putra? Although the shastras forbade games of chance such as dice he agreed to play the game. Not only play the game but decided to put up not only wealth and kingdom but also his brothers as collateral!!!! When he lost all of them (including himself), he pledged Draupadi (obviously without her permission as she was considered his property) and lost her too! When Draupadi was dragged to the court by her hair, he never raised any objections....neither did any of the other brothers except Bhim. The only people to have protested were Vidur and Vikarna (one of the Kaurava brothers).
(d) Was the Kurukshetra war a dharm yudh in the true sense of the term? Both sides played tricks on each other, unfairly deceived their opponents and killed them. While it is understandable that Kauravas would resort to such tactics, the fact that Pandavas also do them with equal panache shows that in reality there was nothing to distinguish between the two.
These are some of the main issues that she raises through her acting and its amazing to watch. For nearly two hours one is mesmerised by her performance.
I just had one small problem. While she has highlighted the plight of Draupadi extremely well, she is not as perfect and blameless as she has been portrayed. Bringing these points up would not have detracted from the story one bit. Instead, it would have humanised her a bit from just being a victim of circumstances and male avarice.
Although she mentions it in passing, Shaoli never explains why Draupadi did not want Karna to win the swyamvar. Now, one can question the very nature of a swyamvar saying its demeaning for a woman to be seen as a prize to be won after performing a task. On the other hand, if that is the rules of the game (winner gets the princess) then she did not play fair. She did not want to marry Karna so even though he was capable of passing the test, he was not allowed to take it. This actually soured Karna towards Draupadi. So, while it is true that he played a pivotal role in her humiliation, it was not totally without basis.
Also, she could have learnt the art of protecting herself rather than depend on her husbands to do so all the time. That might have given her more confiedence. Now, this might sound to some like too much new age feminism, however, it was not entirely unheard of. We have the story of Chitrangada who was not beautiful but was adept at the art of warfare. So why not Draupadi?
Anyways, Shaoli's performance was fantastic and the questions she raises about the role of a woman, a wife and a mother remains pertinent even today.

On Mani Ratnam's "Guru"

2007-02-10T19:17:00.000+05:30

Watched Guru today. It was entertaining in its own way but one expects something more from a director of the calibre of Mani Ratnam. I have not watched his Nayakan which everyone has assured me is one of his best ventures but I have watched his other movies like Roja and Bombay. While both movies were good, there is something simplistic about his stories. The characters were generally unidimensional and he generally had one central theme that he flogged endlessly.

Now coming to Guru. I don't know why I had expected it to be a little different but seeing that a movie like Guru is essentially targetted at a multiplex audience I would have thought that Mani Ratnam would make the movie with a little more sophistication or depth. Earlier, mainstream Hindi movies were extremely pedestrian so anything a little more sophisticated won a lot of accolades. But the past few years have seen the rise of an emerging new class of directors who are ready to make good cinema. They are on interesting themes, not preachy like the previous "art house" movies and deal with a lot of middle class issues. Therefore, the audience have also started expecting a certain standard, especially from good directors. We don't expect anything other than silly candy floss romances from a Karan Johar (although his Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna did try to break the mould of the happy "bhartiya parivar" a bit) or a Suraj Bharjatya or a David Dhawan. But Mani Ratnam is a cut above these guys. So the expections are also higher.

First, the songs. They were a complete misfit. The problem with them was not that they were bad. The problem was they were inappropriate. They neither moved the story forward nor were situational. If the essential theme of the movie was the romance between Guru and Sujata then they would still be acceptable. However, the theme was much more complex. It tried to highlight the essentialilty of a businessman in a country.

Second, the movie is supposed to be about the life of Dirubhai Ambani (although Ratnam has been denying it steadfastly!!!). I can't comment on this aspect as I don't really know much about Ambani's life except the most superficial information. Based on that there does seem to be a resemblance. However, one thing struck me. The movie's uncanny resemblance to a book by Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead. In the book, Howard Roark, the hero wins a case in court by refusing to refute any of the charges against him. The movie also has a scene where in an inquiry against Guru's so called questionable means, Guru refuses to put up a defence and ends up winner! The reason both Roark and Guru refuse to put up a defence is because both in their own ways thought the system itself was flawed and to succeed one had to break those rules. Now, Rand's books are generally set in a fictionalised U.S. on the verge of communism. The movie however is a very real and strong statement against India's license-raj system. That to me was a huge surprise. The importance of the movie lies there rather than whether it was Ambani's lifestory or any other businessman's life story. It was I think the first movie that explicitly denounces the license raj system and implicitly absolves all businessmen of their wrongdoings since apparantly it was the system that made them give bribes, break tax laws, import quotas etc. And all this was being done to empower the common man as sharesholders (which the common man could buy through public issues). In the process, the movie made the rest of the characters opposing Guru seem either naive (Madhavan as the journo) or stubborn (Mithun as the editor) or plain corrupt (the IAS officers).

If Guru is seen as a movie to promote economic reforms it does a good job. However, if it is supposed to be a story of a real businessman, it does not do the trick. Are businessmen as virtuous and great as they are shown? Are they as courageous as shown? Is moving towards a capitalist system such a great idea or should we have a welfare state? There are lots of questions the movie leaves unanswered...

Party Pooper

2007-01-30T20:08:00.000+05:30

I could already feel a headache coming on. Parties, I decided for the umpteenth time, was not my cup of tea. The combination of loud music, the smell of smoke, high pitched laughter of overly made up scantily dressed girls and the sight of strutting men always made me feel out of place and old.

As I stood in a corner near the door waiting for an opportunity to catch my friend’s eye so that I could tell her I was leaving, someone whispered in my ear, “Should we sneak away from this madding crowd?” Startled out of my wits, I turned around and gazed into a pair of chocolate brown eyes gleaming with mischief. Flustered, I said slightly incoherently, “I..uh..sure let’s go out.’

The blast of cold air that hit our faces felt good after the oppressive heat in the room. Initial small talk gave way to more meaningful conversation as we found out each others likes and dislikes. The man was witty and interesting, a distinct change from the typical party going crowd.

My watch seemed to have finally heeded my urgings and was moving with amazing speed. The man offered me a lift home and I accepted unhesitatingly. As we neared my place, an uneasy silence filled the space inside the car. Neither of us wanted the evening to end but somehow nor did we have the courage to take the next step.

What happened next was a blur. One moment I was stepping out of the car the next I was sprawled on the pavement. The roar of a bike grew fainter by the minute. I had been mugged and robbed, my gold chain and locket torn from my neck.

He was perfect in the role of knight in shining armour to my damsel in distress. Of course outwardly both of us acted shaken and angry at the incident but inside there was a sneaking sense of relief. We wanted to spend time together without breaking the conventional dos and don’ts and it seemed fate had handed us the opportunity on a platter.

That’s how I met Sam, my future husband. We were married after a month in spite of a lot of misgiving from my friends. Both of us were ecstatically happy that we had at long last found love. After our honeymoon, we settled into comfortable domesticity. There didn’t go a day when I didn’t thank the Almighty for bringing the two of us together. I felt it was our fate, our destiny.

I found the envelope quite accidentally. I must have brushed against it inadvertently while cleaning up my side of the cupboard. Oh did I forget to add he was obsessively neat? Everything in its place and a place for everything was his motto. Almost without realizing what I was doing I opened the envelope and took out the piece of paper. There was my detailed biography on that paper and at the end the word trust fund was underlined in bold. I had never told Sam about my trust fund which my grandmother had set up before she died.

The envelope slipped from my nerveless fingers and slid to the ground. Out of it slithered a gold chain and a locket. The same one that had been stolen on the night I had met Sam.

My bubble of happiness was well and truly burst.

In Pursuit of Peace...

2007-01-30T20:02:00.000+05:30

I scaled the heights of mountain tops
And plumbed the depth of seas;

In search of that elusive dream called peace
But never could hold it within my grasp;

As I returned weary at heart
My eyes lit on a blade of grass;

Glistening with a single drop of dew,
Streaked with bright rainbow hues,

My feet stopped on its own accord,
As I drank in the wondrous creation of God,

A tiny voice whispered in my mind,
"Is this the peace you were searching for?"

It dawned on me then in a lightning flash,
That all the world's beauty lay reflected in a tiny splash,

Likewise, the peace I was seeking so desperately,
Lay within my heart if I could but feel it.

Let's start blogging

2007-01-30T19:36:00.000+05:30

Finally got around to creating my own blog. The impetus was partly boredom and partly a desire to try out this new medium of communication. Let's see how often the writer's bug strikes!