WHAT IS WRONG WITH US?

Saturday, 6 October 2007

WHO IS INTERESTED IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT?
Mood:

cool
Now Playing: ONLY POLITICIANS WANT TO DEVELOP THIS COUNTRY
When Arun Shourie said the government should not be in the business of running planes and trains and manufacturing bread, we voted him out. And then we also bulldoze anyone who seeks his legitimate right to buy tickets at the counter or travel in fast train. Because we don't have the maturity or the sophistication to understand or resolve national issues. Come to think of it, we don't even have the capability of administering the country the way the first world does.

Look at the recent survey reports emanating from Gujarat. Narendra Modi, inspite of being the most progressive chief minister, getting the largest amount of domestic as well foreign investments for his state (Maharashtra lags far behind) is now panicky over his prospects in the next elections. Minorities are baying for his blood for all the wrong reasons but what is shocking is that Hindus in Gujarat are not impressed with the stupendous economic agenda and the development that has taken place in the last five years in Gujarat. So Modi will now be forced to go back to Hindutva. Because as NDA and Chandrababu Naidu found out in the last general elections much to their chagrin that developmental issues can never be election issues even among the English-educated, white-collared, Amercanised Mumbai population. Even in Mumbai educated people who travel to the first world for every vacation are not sophisticated enough to put economic development as priority election issue. Can a Maharashtrian, to give an instance, give up the Marathi manus philosophy and vote on the basis of an economic agenda of a party or individual candidate? (Even as I write this standing at Dadar station waiting for a colleague a LIC official walks up to me seeking to enlist me as their agent. The second question he asks me is "are you a Maharashtrian?" Needless to say he is one)

Can someone from minority community vote for Modi on the basis of the economic development that has come about in Gujarat? Can a low caste Hindu vote for a high caste Hindu in BJP/ Congress party or a high caste Hindu vote for a non-BSP/ non-Dalit Panther party on the basis of the party's high economic growth track record. The depressing fact is that in India only the politicians are really interested in economic development and making India into a developed country. As only the politicians take hugely unpopular decisions towards economic development while we voters though make a big deal of economic growth, development and prosperity at the dining table, would ultimately vote for crass non-economic, parochial issues.

I have often noticed that every politician, irespective of the state he belongs, tries his best to take decisions in favour of reforms, disinvestment, privatisation, etc. He could be a Manmohan Singh, a Chidambaram, a Lalu Prasad Yadav, a Buddhadev Bhattacharya, an Arun Shourie, a Narendra Modi, a Chandrababu Naidu, a Jayalalitha, an A.K. Anthony. All of them are miserable failures at the hustings. The prime minister is still a Rajya Sabha member, not elected to the lower house because he still does not have a voter base even with the middle-class in this country, who are the biggest beneficiary of the reforms he initiated in 1991 and which he tries his best to plough on. I wonder if even the professional community of bankers, financial consultants, management top honchos, lawyers, journalists and stock market punters in Nariman Point would support him.

*************

Posted by Anil Nair at 6:46 PM

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Thursday, 4 October 2007

MOBOCRACY AND INDIANS
Mood:

bright
Now Playing: HOW EDUCATED INDIANS BEHAVE THE SAME WAY AS BIHARIS
Topic: OWN CONVENIENCE PARAMOUNT

In the past few weeks the lynching of robbers, rapists and assorted criminals in Bihar has made front page news. And predictably there have been middle-class outrage, severe editorials and a general sense of oh-Bihar-is-last-place-god-made exasperation. The middle-class love to point the forefinger at someone when we, all the while, know that the other three fingers are pointed towards us. I am shocked by this hollier-than-thou attitude. Let me first tell you some instances of how we highly-educated, highly-stylised, Americanised to the extent that we make sure to use the expletives we hear in Hollywood movies and who vacation in the developed world every year behave. We, the middle-class, deride India and its systems in favour of the clean and orderly West, almost as a refrain.

Let me tell you about Mumbaikars. About what happened last month when I bought my railway pass at the local railway station in Mumbai. I stood in the long queue for my turn to buy the quarterly pass with a lot of time at my disposal as I had started from home early. In Mumbai local train stations the railways have made provision for a separate queue for commuters who want to buy first class tickets at the second class counters. That day as usually seen a commuter walked straight to the counter to get a first class pass as he is entitled to. It shouldn't surprise anyone that there was a murmur of protest as the first class commuter's show of 'imbecility'.

But I was shocked to see the person behind me call out to the first class passenger and give him choicest abuses for seeking his privilege of buying a pass without standing in the second class queue. In the melee I joined the ruckus. As I was also buying a first class pass, though I was standing in the second class queue because I had ample time at hand, I supported the first class commuter much to the dismay of the second class commuters. There was not one among the second class passengers who wanted to follow the regulation. Even though every one of them could read the board put up at the counter which specified a separate queue for first class ticket buyers none believed in following rules. That as I have stated in my earlier blogs, does not behove us Indians to follow rules and conventions. Breaking rules is fashionable, macho and smart. go-getting Indians don't believe in niceties of following traffic signal, keeping to the lane or using pedestrian crossings, or even foot-over bridge for that matter. Only feminine (chutiyas, as we in Mumbai call them) follow such conventions. Also, we Indians have started to think that our own convenience is paramount, and others be bulldozed over. Our insistence and as often seen our visible pride over our great culture of treating people around you with affection and respect has remained good Hindu literature. The westerners without any such baggage of culture and heritage behave exceedingly courteous and accommodating in public. Often you find that westerners are good to a fault. When you are in any western country you can be sure that people would show such 'smart' behaviour. This leads to an obvious situation. Your guards are always down when in public. And that remarkably leads to lesser stress and aggression.

Standing in the queue, fighting for the first class passengers' rights I realised how we in Mumbai are very close descendants of Biharis. This is the mobocracy in our Mumbai. Though I have not been witness to any first class passenger being beaten up by second class commuters, from my earlier experience of being manhandled by passengers in first class compartment for boarding a Karjat fast local (read my earlier blog) I am sure that must be the order of the day.

The fact is that if Biharis are so barbaric we in Mumbai are no different as we all belong to the same breed. It is only that we or our earlier generation have migrated to Mumbai for better jobs. A few years ago Shiv Sainiks beat up Bihari boys at Kalyan station when they came to take the railway exams for jobs, and even the press supported the Sena's cause. When Biharis lynched robbers the Times of India front page report brazenly sympathised with the mob, justifying their cause saying that the lack of law and order breakdown led to such vigilante action! Wow!

The same day the Times of India carried a Mumbai city story of a pedestrian man-handled by robbers inside the public latrine just outside Churchgate station. When the victim freed himself and ran out of the loo the robbers chased him through the streets shouting "thief, thief". The people around, as usually seen in Mumbai, also joined the chase. The victim knew a MLA staying in the quarters on Madame Cama Road and made towards that binglow and in nick of time reached there before the huge mob behind his heels could lynch him. Only when the MLA friend intervened along with his security men the mob dispersed. Just think of it, what if it had happened to any of us who don't have high connections. We would have been not only wronged but we would have to pay for it by our dear life. So much for a mob's instant justice, which the media is extolling as people's justice. Very leftist, very socialist.

If the law and order machinery has fallen apart do we citizens want a professional force to take over. We want all kinds of reservations in the name of secularism, reiligion, caste and most importantly, language as seen in Mumbai, the most happening city in the country.

Second, in case of long queues which irritate and inconvenience commuters badly, do we citizens ask for privatising railways? Just think of the change that private and foreign players have brought in telecom and banking sector. Do we wait in the queue for telephones or for banking transactions any more. I remember in the 80s and early 90s going to the bank was a full day's job. See how much we in the middle class hate privatisation of inefficient PSUs. (read this: http://
in.news.yahoo.com/070920/48/6l0x7.html )

Posted by Anil Nair at 8:11 PM

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Sunday, 9 September 2007

CHUK DE INDIA
Mood:

smelly
Now Playing: Shah Rukh Khan's movie on nationalism restores losing pride
Topic: POSER ON PATRIOTISM
Hindi flicks, any movie buff would tell you, have changed a lot in the 21st Century. If they have been good, bad or tepid lately, though, is a matter of conjecture. But Chuk de India, the latest Shah Rukh Khan release, shows that Hindi film industry is not obsessed with inane issues or terrorist-are-victims-of-circumstances stories. Chuk de India will perhaps go down in the annals of Indian film industry's history as the most nationalist movie ever made.

Though the production values slacken at several places, the movie comes through as the most cogent vehicle to promote nationalism -- a bad word these days. The script has included so many messages for the countrymen and it has been done with finesse. Chuk de India also means Hindi film industry has come a long way from Manoj Kumar's melodrama and Sunil Dutt's understated performances. The fatigue over watching such movies perhaps gave Chuk de a slow start at the box office, but the hyperactive internet community of young Indians has given it the momentum to make it a formidable success. Running into fourth week the interest does not seem to flag.

The story of Chuk de India begins with Indian hockey captain Kabir Khan (Shah Rukh Khan) missing a goal and losing the game to Pakistan. Kabir Khan, like Amitabh in Kala Pathar, is called a traitor and faces brazen criticism of being a Pakistani mole in the team. He lives through the ignominy and even the media as well as his neighbours don't support him. Shah Rukh Khan appears highly motivated to play this role and he does wonderfully well. To retrieve his lost honour he approaches the Hockey Association with his proposal to make the women's hockey team worthy of the ensuing World Cup. When they don't entertain him he approaches the National Hockey Camp where he starts training 16 young girls who are state champions. Predictably, he goes on to coach them to victory in the World Cup.

The way director Shimit Amin handles the roles of the maverick players in the team has to be seen to be believed. Especially, Shah Rukh Khan's repeated instructions to his team members to play for the country giving up their regional biases sound so credible. With the regional political parties calling the shots at the Centre over the last decade, regionalism has become fashionable with language-based biases gaining legitimacy. In such circumstances there is the desperate need for movies like Chuk de India to make it abundantly clear that "nationalism comes first, your team-mates come next and if there are any feelings left, keep it for your state". Also, in these times when Islamic terrorism is gaining currency even in educated circles, movies like Chuk de India can prompt Shah Rukh Khan's millions of fans to realise that love for the country is above all other emotions.

The women hockey players in the movie have been chosen well, though they might look like a motley crowd of incongruous team-mates in comparison to the foreign teams playing against them. Kabir Khan's team gets the message of diversity of this country come through effectively. Vidya Malvade as Vidya Sharma, Sagarika Ghatge as Preeti Sabarwal, Chitrashi Rawat as Komal Chautala, Shilpa Shukla as Bindia Naik, Tanya Abrol as Balbir Kaur, Anaitha Nair as Aliya Bose, Shubhi Mehta as Gunjan Lakhani, Seema Azmi as Rani Dispotta, Nisha Nair as Soimoi Kerketa, Sandia Furtado as Nethra Reddy, Arya Menon as Gul Iqbal, Masochon V. Zimik as Molly Zimik, Kimi Laldawla as Mary Ralte, Kimberly Miranda as Rachna Prasad, Nichola Sequeira as Nichola Sequeira and Raynia Mascarenhas as Raynia Fernandes are appropriately chosen to represent various states.

What really hits the conscience of the viewers is the treatment meted out to the people from north-east and how people from the backward, yet richly naturally endowed states like Jharkhand, are considered as outcast or at best, as guests in this country. The girl players from north-eastern states bluntly tells the association official that they don't feel great to be be treated so. The girls from Jharkhand become the butt of jokes for others in the hip Delhi locality for their ignorance of English language. But their contribution to win the World Cup held in Australia makes for touching scenes. Almost every frame in the film draws heavily on the things that are wrong not just with Indian sports, but in our attitude, our language biases, our skewed political culture and our inability to look at the larger good of the country for the sake of personal good or religion. Shah Rukh Khan single-handedly brings the team members to fight for the country, and the relevance of it is not lost on the viewers.

Producer Yash Chopra has got Salim and Sulaiman to compose the music for Chuk de India. The music might sound too loud like a jamming session, but for a movie on sports that is probably par for the course. The most difficult part of making a movie on sports though, lies in editing. Any slip in editing can have voluminous consequences, and some of the shots in Chuk de India with appropriate sound effects remind the viewer of Clint Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby. Also, the shaky camera during the fisticuffs in the cloakroom where the players vent their dislike for each other is almost like a Hollywood movie. The direction and editing by Shimit Amin are world-class. The director earlier worked as an editor before venturing into direction. Shimit had earlier directed the police encounter story Ab Tak Chappan for producer Ram Gopal Verma. And cinematographer Vishal Sinha has given him company here too in Chuk de India, though Sudip Chatterjee is the boss in this department. The story has been woven by Jaideep Sahni. The film has been shot at several locations in Australia including Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane for the World Cup matches scenes. To tell our readers to watch a Shah Rukh Khan movie because it is good might be a little presumptuous, but if you have not seen it yet, you will never know what you have missed.

Posted by Anil Nair at 10:02 AM

Updated: Tuesday, 11 September 2007 7:32 PM

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Saturday, 25 August 2007

NEW LIGHT ON GANDHI
Mood:

special
Now Playing: Mahatma with an estranged son
Topic: True Hindu

Few movies can recreate historical characters without a tinge of colour — it usually depends on which side of the divide are the film-makers. Gandhi, My Father, written and directed by Feroz Abbas Khan, is brilliant in telling a story. The under-lying theme of the movie is to show the tumultuous relationship Gandhiji had with his eldest son Harilal. Gandhiji has been a darling of the people and his philosophy of non-violence has endeared freedom fighters all over the world. Nelson Mandela had once attributed his success to Gandhian way of struggle to free South Africa from apartheid.

But Feroz Abbas Khan’s movie deals exclusively with Gandhiji’s personal relation with Harilal. Gandhiji refuses to educate his children or send Harilal to England to study law. Gandhiji ostensibly wanted his son to join him in the political movement to gain India’s Independence. Feroz Abbas Khan has to be credited for handling the sensitive subject so fairly that at the end of the movie it becomes difficult to take sides. You wouldn’t really blame Gandhiji for Harilal’s travails.

Gandhi, My Father is such a departure from the mainstream popular movies. Especially so because Hindi film industry has the propensity to take positions that can distort reality. The intention might be to take cinematic liberties to convince a largely ignorant people who don’t know the other side of the story. But as often seen the attempt might reek of immaturity and crudity. Like it happened with Sanjay Dutt starrer Lage Raho Munnabhai. Just to appeal to the yuppie crowd Munnabhai made a travesty of Gandhism.

For any follower of Gandhiji the brazenly told falsehood is hard to watch. The director of Munnabhai had once said that the movie was an attempt to make Gandhiji’s philosophy interesting to today’s generation! But just take one aspect of the Munnabhai—Mahatma. Gandhiji was a big proponent of sexual abstinence. The movie showed the Mahatma actually helping Munnabhai court a girl, take her in a ‘kissing car’ and take sex to logical conclusion. Mahatma Gandhi is known to have given up sex at the age of 40 and even kept away from physical relations with his wife. Can’t believe how can a Sanjay Dutt who is nearly 50 years of age get the Mahatma’s support in such licentiousness. That movie was made with the sole intention of saving Sanjay Dutt in the bomb blast case by peddling distorted version of Gandhism called Gandhigiri. The halo around Sanjay Dutt’s head failed to stick.

Producer of Gandhi, My Father Anil Kapoor does not seem to have any such agendas. Harilal Gandhi in the movie is shown at several places to be gullible enough to fail in business, crooked enough to swindle people and even convert to Islam when Muslim zealots try to make use of his rift with his father. Finally, Harilal comes back to Hinduism when his mother makes him see light.

The film poster explains vividly that: To people he (Gandhiji) was a father; To his son he was a father he never had! Akshaye Khanna, who plays Harilal Gandhi, is good in some situations but his inexperience shows at others. He does not come up to the brilliance of Saif Ali Khan in Omkara or Irfan Khan in Maqbool. But the rest of the team such as Bhumika Chawla as Harilal’s wife Gulab Gandhi, Shefali Chhaya as Kasturba Gandhi, Daniel Janks as Henry Polak all do wonderfully well in the period film situations. But as the focus is on Darshan Jariwala as Mahatma Gandhi and Akshaye Khanna as Harilal, the rest of the cast pale into insignificance. The cinematography by David Macdonald is unusually good for shots which bring out silhouettes with palpable feelings—like the scene in which Gandhiji, counsels his son under a tree with the setting sun behind. The same scene reoccurs quite a few times and the viewer starts to understand the widening gap between the protagonist and the Mahatma. The only setback is the projection of the Mahatma as a family man. It would have been good if Gandhiji had been shown having a hands-on involvement in the freedom struggle which had decidedly changed his priorities in life. At the end Gandhiji poignantly states: “The greatest regret of my life…two people I could never convince — my Muslim friend Mohammed Ali Jinnah and my own son Harilal Gandhi.” Mahatma will remain mahatma.

Posted by Anil Nair at 12:30 PM

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Sunday, 29 July 2007

PM is right when he says CEOs' salaries have to be rationalised
Mood:

suave
Now Playing: EXCUSE ME, I AM WITH THE PM ON THIS!
Topic: MPs earn disgustingly low

Recently I received a mail from a close friend trying to raise a stink over the prime minister's statement to rationalise CEOs' salaries in this country. Read my reply at the end of this copy.

Have a look at this

Salary & Govt. Concessions for a Member of Parliament (MP)

Monthly Salary : 12,000

Expense for Constitution per month : 10,000

Office expenditure per month : 14,000

Traveling concession (Rs. 8 per km) : 48,000 ( eg.For a visit from kerala to Delhi & return: 6000 km)

Daily DA TA during parliament meets : 500/day

Charge for 1 class (A/C) in train: Free (For any number of times)
(All over India )

Charge for Business Class in flights : Free for 40 trips / year (With wife or P.A.)

Rent for MP hostel at Delhi : Free

Electricity costs at home : Free up to 50,000 units

Local phone call charge : Free up to 1 ,70,000 calls.

TOTAL expense for a MP [having no qualification] per year : 32,00,000 [i.e. 2.66 lakh/month]

TOTAL expense for 5 years : 1,60,00,000

For 534 MPs, the expense for 5 years :
8,54,40,00,000 (nearly 855 crores)

AND THE PRIME MINISTER IS ASKING THE HIGHLY QUALIFIED, OUT PERFORMING CEOs TO CUT DOWN THEIR SALARIES.....

This is how all our tax money is been swallowed and price hike on our regular commodities.......

And this is the present condition of our country:

The image

855 crores could make their life livable !!
Think of the great democracy we have.............
PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO ALL REAL CITIZENS OF INDIA ..
but,
STILL Proud to be INDIAN

i know hitting a delete button is easier.......bt.......try 2 press fwd button 2 make people aware of it!

Frankly my friends, I don't understand what is this ruckus about? The prime minister only said that the CEOs’ salaries have to be rational. Which no one can deny. The CEOs and the top echelons of a private sector company enjoy perks and salary as if it is nobody’s business. The highest annual salary paid in this country to CEOs is in the vicinity of $8-million in cash, that’s a cool Rs32-crore per year (Rs2.6-crore a month!). It’s quite propagandist to send pictures showing people standing in the queue at ration shops. Do you see any of the CEOs there? Probably they are queuing up at the SUV showroom. And the perks for CEOs are unaccountable… private jets, five-star hotel stay, holidaying in Switzerland and what have you. The MPs are the CEOs of this country. If for managing a company you get Rs2.6-crore a month, can you imagine how much should the salary of the CEO of this country be? And to say MPs are illiterates and hence should be not paid high sums is like saying all illiterate entrepreneurs like Dhirubhai Ambani should have been stripped of their wealth as they were uneducated. No one is barring educated people from joining politics and going to Lok Sabha to earn a Rs1-lakh salary + perks.

Rather I would join a campaign which says every employee of a successful company should get equal share in profits and hence salaries in corporates should be rationalized. A watchmen or a peon cannot get a Rs15,000 salary while the CEO gets a Rs2.6-crore salary. So kindly pass on this mail to as many friends you have. It is just a matter of natural justice!

Cheers!

Anil Nair

Posted by Anil Nair at 1:29 PM

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Newer | Latest | Older

«	October 2007					»

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31