Looking within...

When a society gives in to wanton pressure from a fringe group, and denies itself the right to introspect on the more horrific incidents of its past, it stands the risk of repeating them again. The right to introspect, the right to know and to realize the horrors of the past, is perhaps one of the most fundamental rights and duties of a civilized society, and that which should perhaps be defended to the best of its capacity.

An integral part of this right is the right to evaluate events in the past in the media, both print and celluloid. The celluloid media is perhaps the most effective one of the two, because of the immediate nature of its impact on the minds of viewers. The print media still remains a tad limited by its insistence that you be literate enough to comprehend the language of the presentation, a problem that celluloid rarely faces, as it is more in the lingua populi.
Over time, Indian cinema has evolved from a purely entertainment outlet to a combination of education and entertainment. While the latter genre is still woefully inadequate, and unlike Hollywood, indie films are still a rarity here, the situation is improving for the better, at the least. Films are being made on social topics, on topics that serve more to awaken the people, to make them aware of issues facing the nation etc. This isn't a new phenomenon; only, the habit had been discarded in between.

We have had films like Amu (on the 1984 Sikh massacres) and Black Friday (on the 1993 Mumbai blasts), which have attempted to investigate all angles of the issue concerned, and present a very disinterested view of the whole matter, a thing which is helpful as it encourages people to make their own conclusions. There will be elements within society who would rather not have so unprejudiced a viewpoint in the open, for it exposes their duplicity, their crazed intentions. They will threaten to destroy all those avenues that a honest film-maker may want to take to showcase his work, to showcase the truth.
And will we stand silent while truth is being so murdered? Will we watch while our society is being denied her chance to improve herself for the better by some worthless delinquents? I pray not, and yet I fear that is what is so very expedient for most of us. Time and again, what could have been an eye-opener was itself snuffed out, leaving us blinded to our faults, rendering us incapable of avoiding repeating the same mistakes again and again.

Parzania is possibly one such eye-opener, something that Indian civil society sorely needs. In the end, in the quarrels of creed, of race, and of community, the identity of the dead is not determined by his creed, race or community; the victim is sans identity; he is merely a victim of a devilish frenzy. We need to acknowledge this once and for all, and stop this maniacal charade of communalism, of parading one's religion as superior by denigrating the others. Don't those who indulge in the denigration of others realize that by pushing others in the mud, they aren't lifted to the skies; they stay where they were.
Let the State Government of Gujarat offer security and credible security to all those who are fearful for the safety of their theaters, should they display Parzania. Let it show for once that it is capable of upholding the rule of law. Let it show its resolve to combat the demon of Time by its horns, and help society to improve itself for the better.

Happy tidings...

Today seems to be a very nice day. I mean, not everyday does a nation suddenly receive such an infusion of confidence, such a recognition of its innate skills and capabilities, and such appreciation of the reforms that it has undertaken for the benefit of its people. Sure, the process has been long and arduous; sure, the road is still a long way away from the end, but the journey is made more worthwhile if the traveler knows that his efforts to undertake the journey will be, in the end, applauded, or at least credited to his name.

India started out her journey of economics on a slightly shaky foot, but the world was patient with her teething troubles. After all, it isn't always easy to emerge unscathed from nearly two centuries of subjugation. Statistics show that when the British came in India in 1600, India controlled 27% of global trade, but in 1947, she controlled barely 3%. The 1970's were disastrous, what with their focus on unbridled socialism and the license-system choking what little fluidity the economy possessed. For nearly 20 years, India bore the brunt of misplaced idealism, until the early 1990's when the deficit became too large to bear, and drastic steps needed to be taken.

To be fair, the Rajiv Gandhi government did start the process of economic liberalization, but there wasn't the same urgency which existed in 1990. So, in a flash, 20 years of hegemonic State control over every aspect of civic, industrial, and commercial activity were swept aside, and a new regime began its course. Fifteen years later, we see a new India, maybe not that developed, but definitely an improvement. The road is being traversed, slowly, but steadily, and in a definite direction.

And so, the upgradation of India's sovereign rating to investment grade by Standard & Poor is a major display of confidence of India's ability to sustain her pace of growth, and of her resolve to better the lot of her people. Now, Indian companies can grow better and more effectively, and conversely help the overall Indian economy to sustain, if not exceed, its current pattern.

The second piece of good news is the acclamation by the governmental regulator in the UK of Tata Steel's superior bid for the steel major Corus over it's rival, CSN's bid. Of course, this, per se, has nothing to do with showing confidence in India, because the sole considerations for evaluating the bids were monetary, not ideological. But it goes a long way to show that India Inc. has achieved in a big way the ability to challenge global giants, and actually attempt to swallow them up whole.

I don't count Mittal's takeover of Arcelor as an achievement for India Inc., because Mittal Steel was never based in India, as in it was neither headquartered in India nor had any operations here. So, Tata Steel's gambit is a truly Indian maneuver. Sure, we have had plenty of major takeovers by Indian firms, e.g. Tetley by Tata Tea, Daewoo Motors' truck division by Tata Motors, and others. But this is perhaps the first time in history that a company ranked as 56th in its industry actually dared to and succeeded in acquiring control over another company ranked at no. 9. And that the Tatas did it, adds more sparkle to the celebration.

What can I say, but 'Viva L'Inde'!

Lessons unlearnt....

Today marks the 59th anniversary of the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by Nathuram Godse, and perhaps we haven't really learnt our lessons yet. It is sad that even after so many years, we have failed to grasp the basic cause of this act, and what we must be fighting against.

Mahatma Gandhi was a great man, there is no doubting that. I have the highest regard for him and his principles, not in the least because of "Lage Raho Munnabhai" (but, yes, maybe more accentuated by it). But even the greatest of saints, the most venerable of men, are wont to be ignored some time.
He never approved of the Partition in the first place. I quote him, "My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine is for me a denial of God.”

But, this Mahatma, this deliverer of freedom, was condemned when his followers acquiesced to partitioning, to drawing lines in the sand, lines based on creed, boundaries based on the differences in faith, in beliefs. He was condemned when those who would have accepted his leadership under the occupying British now would no longer acknowledge the primacy of his authority. He continued to be condemned each and every time when communal riots broke out, when the State incompetently stood by and watch the carcass of Indian civil society slowly burn away. And he continues to be condemned whenever a civil servant or a legislator indulged in corruption or in immoral activities, violating his creed of honesty and simplicity.

Nathuram Godse would assassinate him because he was against any breach of faith, even when the one to whom he wished our faith was unfaithful, even when such fidelity would only cause us grievous harm and pain. He would be assassinated because he rejected the doctrine that one is born into a religion, and is by default antagonistic to all others. But that was but death once.

What we have done, and what we continue to do to his legacy, to his beliefs and to his value systems, may kill him many times over. Simply placing floral offerings and singing at his memorial would not suffice to heal his wounds. If Nathuram Godse and his colleagues are to be charged with having killed the physical Mahatma, we, the Indians of his nation, are equally guilty of having destroyed the spirit of the Mahatma, if not completely, then at least in part.

But is all lost? I dare think not; rather, I hope not. India and Indians can perhaps better acknowledge that now it is imperative that we all live together, and that narrow sectarian divisions should not be cause for us to yell blue murder. It is imperative that we come to understand that violence must always be reserved for the end, as the most extreme of alternatives, to be used only if all other peaceful means of resolving the problem concerned have failed beyond reproach. Then the flame at Raj Ghat may burn a little brighter, then perhaps the half-naked fakir of Porbandar will rest in peace, amidst his children, in the land of his dreams.

Is The Nation Turning Its Back on The Father?

Asana Troubles...

I read in the newspapers today that a State Government has decided to make the practice of a Yoga asana, the Surya Namaskar, in educational institutions, voluntary, owing to objections from minority (read non-Hindu) communities in the State. The communities believe, and they are right to some extent, that the asana has religious connotations, as in it is intended to be seen as a respectful offering to the Sun, who is deified in Hinduism as the Giver of Life.

But the point here is that while the said asana has religious connotations, it isn't limited to just that. The Surya Namaskar is perhaps the best exercise that a growing child can be exposed to, and regular practice of the same is guaranteed to ensure that the child grows into a very healthy and well-balanced individual. Rejecting the exercise solely on the basis of its 'communal' association, without taking into consideration the health benefits derivable by its practice, is a dangerous idea, and even more foolish, to say the least.
Secularism is something that the Indian State is expected to cherish, and I have no objections to all that, because it is a nice idea to reject any particular faith primacy in State affairs. But I feel we are overdoing this idea. The State government concerned could have explained that if people have an objection to the nomenclature of the exercise, it can be changed for the purpose of the exercise, but as such the exercise should really be done, because it will benefit the children at large. They could have assuaged the concerns of the parents that their wards were being required to acquire quasi-religious education by pointing out that this exercise can be viewed as a part of physical education, and not as religious education at all.

Their decision to have announced the scheme as a purely voluntary one sadly escapes the main issue, and establishes a dangerous precedent, a precedent which could be used by anyone in the future to justify non-inclusion of a potentially beneficial course of education in the curricula solely on the basis that it originates from the tenets of a specific faith or community.
One hopes that better judgement prevails and the decision taken is reversed, if not for the sake of common sense, then at least for the children.

Reviewing the Quiz Masters...

It is often said that while the young have energy at their disposal, the elders have experience to prove their superiority. And perhaps, not without reason. While energy is perhaps a great thing to have if one wants to get something done in the best possible manner, experience helps direct that energy in the best possible direction.

The new KBC or Kaun Banega Crorepati show, the Indian variant of the 'Who Wants to Be A Millionaire' show, started on Monday amidst much fanfare. The host, Shahrukh Khan, is touted as the incumbent monarch of Hindi cinema, and perhaps this was supposed to be a great qualification for a quiz-show host. Sure, he's popular, ladies swoon over him, and films cross the thin line between being a box-office hit and an utter failure just by his presence in the leading credits.

But somehow his personality is not up to the requirements of the show. Or should I say, it is not up to the high standards that the audience must have come to expect of the host of the show, considering that the previous host was the ever-graceful and ever-charming Amitabh Bachchan. Mr. Bachchan is also an actor of great repute, but I doubt that even he could have pulled off the show only on the basis of his popularity as an actor. On the contrary, when he assumed the role as the host, his career was in the pits, his media company bankrupt, and creditors baying for his blood. So, what does this man do?

He becomes a quiz-show host. And not just another quiz-show host. No, he becomes the best host that India has ever seen, a host who not just quizzes his participant, but also empathizes with the participant's joys, sorrows, dismay, disappointment, excitement, and happiness. His humility, his manner of speech, while formal, was endearing to all age-groups, quite like the proverbial Uncle Joe. He wasn't just there to give out money; he was there to help you get the money.

It isn't that Mr. Khan is not helping participants become comfortable. He's doing a good job at that, only I think he's overdoing it. His insistence on hi-fying the participant after every correct answer is perhaps the best example of it. Besides, while Mr. Bachchan's style was likeable by everyone, be they of rural or urban backgrounds, Mr. Khan stands the risk of being seen as an urban yuppie, an upstart. While Mr. Khan is a sharp dude, he isn't as witty as his predecessor, and doesn't make the experience of watching the show as enjoyable. When one watched the show with Mr. Bachchan, one learnt a lot, not just by way of the questions, but by way of Mr. Bachchan's conversations. His style of addressing his audience was respectful, yet comforting. Mr. Khan's is friendly, yet jarring at times.

One hasn't read many criticisms of Mr. Khan's performance in the dailies, perhaps because he is such a big star, and maybe because it is said to be too early to comment on Mr. Khan's performance, and also because Mr. Khan bears the onerous responsibility of being compared with Mr. Bachchan. Maybe, but Mr. Khan knew the burden of the job beforehand, and cannot claim to not having been prepared enough. I still hope that he improves his style and maybe infuses his own brand of originality into the show, originality that goes beyond freezing the answer instead of locking it, and hugging the participant at the end of his/her journey in the show. Until then, Mr. Bachchan will remain the best KBC host ever in my eyes.

The promise of the future or the future of the promise...?

Over time, and perhaps having seen so much criticism over the developed world's lackadaisical approach towards environmental issues in general, best illustrated by the US' reluctance to endorse the Kyoto Protocol, it has come to be felt that while the developed world is happy to dispense advice on how to avoid using non-renewable resources, and in particular in the area of energy resources, it is content to just advise people and do very little on similar lines. Gas guzzlers and the lack of serious and practical caps on greenhouse gas emissions make any stand taken by developed countries on environmental issues a tad hypocritical, and reduce the level of importance that the world in general attaches to the matter.

And so, it is largely satisfying to see the emphasis that the Olympic Delivery Authority for London 2012 is placing on low carbon emissions, waste, and on the propagation of green transportation avenues. The Olympics is perhaps the best medium that any advertiser can seek, and considering that in today's health conscious world, sports play such an important role, any message that the Olympics will be seen to be giving out will stand a greater chance of being well-received.
While one finds plenty of governmental norms and regulations mandating environmental safeguards, and many even successfully being implemented, it is still a matter of concern that environmentalism is being seen as anti-development, and consequently as anti-progress. While I don't support development for the sake of development, it is imperative that we comprehend that the environment is not a static entity; rather, it is a dynamic being that changes its needs and requirements with time. While mowing down forests and bulldozing valleys is not my idea of progress, it is also the need of the hour that forests and valleys not be seen as impediments to the benefits that the locals can derive from development.

We need to educate and enlighten people that while development is all fine and good, the environment also needs to be conserved, primarily because development that may be justifiable today may not be so in the future. We need to study the track-records of those countries who have successfully managed to find the Middle Way between irrational developmental attitudes and zealous environmentalism, in order to comprehend how we may go about the task of preserving our environment, of making sure that our children, and their generations to follow, will be able to enjoy a quality life, and perhaps will thank us for our efforts in doing so.

The environment is not the holding or the possession of any particular generation; rather it is simply to be safeguarded by each generation for the next, to be preserved and nourished as a mother nourishes her child. Should we give our future a world denuded of its beauties and simply filled with concrete structures and tar roads, I fear we would be in breach of trust, and perhaps never again will a child trust his parent to be his well-wisher, his guardian.