Vanity of Pakistan

However impotent he may be as a chief of a country(unofficially/but not really), there is one thing about Zardari to be appreciated: his art of rhetoric. Some quotes from his latest editorial
"...we need no lectures on our commitment. This is our war. It is our children and wives who are dying."
"...The situation in Pakistan, Afghanistan and India is indeed critical, but its severity actually presents an opportunity for aggressive and innovative action."
"...Assistance to Pakistan is not charity; rather, the creation of a politically stable and economically viable Pakistan is in the long-term, strategic interest of the United States."
In a single editorial he tries to convey a threat of militancy, ask for a charity(politically assistance), justify actions of government and army.

On the other hand, there is USA point of view from Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and columnist David Ignatius:
"All countries have armies, but here, an army has a country."
"...the Pakistani army, with its stockpile of nuclear weapons, may include officers linked to a terrorist attack on the country's neighbor."
"'s much more opaque than it is transparent... can sometimes be difficult to figure out who did what to whom..."

Apart from what has been said in above quotes, there is a lot that can be inferred from these two essays
1. Civilian society in Pakistan is just there to die either in hands of terrorist or in hands of its own army or in hands of USA.
2. Zardari needs to know the distinction between a corporate house and a state. He cannot make difference between opportunity to show talent or need of security to people.
3. Stable Pakistan is in interests of India not that of USA unless USA needs Pakistan for war with terrorism.
4. USA is unable to comprehend the inter-relation between ISI, army and terrorism in Pakistan.
5. USA is happy just to see just a deployment of some troops for USA's fight(not Pakistan's) on the face. It's unable to learn from sixty years of experience of India with Pakistan.
6. USA is still unable to detach Kashmir problem with that of contemporary form of terrorism.
7. I wonder if Pakistan is rogue state or a state at all...
8. India has another worry to add in its list now, US intervention in Kashmir issue.

Ayye Kancha!!

Come to think of it, if Academy jury sits down to select the one Indian movie out of one fifty [link] movies relesed in 2008 then what will happen. Half of the jury will go lunatic watching the same cliches and same banal stuff over and over in all those three-hour length movies. The other half will join LeT with a vow to annihilate whole of Bollywood (Mumbai) as if 26/11 was not enough.

Big B talks about the entertainment that Bollywood provides,"The commercial escapist world of Indian Cinema had vociferously battled for years , on the attention paid and the adulation given to the legendary Satyajit Ray at all the prestigious Film Festivals of the West, and not a word of appreciation for the entertaining mass oriented box office block busters that were being churned out from Mumbai. The argument. Ray portrayed reality. The other escapism, fantasy and incredulous posturing."

I guess his wits has failed him mercilessly in recognising the true sense of Cinema even after being the legend of Indian cinema(I myself thinks he is the most prestigious entity of Indian cinema). But with all due respect, sir, the problem is not the difference between creating fantasy or portraying reality. Matrix and LOTR and many more are out rightly fantasies but still they are recognised by Academy. But the point here is those are neither cliches nor are those simplistic like Bollywood movies. This is the first point of why Bollywood movies are not recognized.
Secondly, look at the recent choices of Indian entries for Oscars: Paheli, Rang De Basanti, Eklavya, Taare Zameen Par.
Look at the movies which got nominations[link]: Mother India, Salaam Bombay, Lagaan. Now think why those got nominations, were the commercial, or they were stereotypical or those were pieces of cinema free from cliches and commercial aspects.
One movie chosen was Lagaan. Of course it showed a lot of stereotypes of poor India, but think if the movie really was about those stereotypes or was it about the fight a bunch of peasants gave to sophisticated cricket of British. One can think more of Mother India and Salaam Bombay.

The point I want to drive is that if your movie has a potential to become a good cinema which can be watched over and again in coming decades(example Casablanca) then it will be definitely recognized. If you don't have potential to make that then stop quibblling about 'your streotypes' of the world and foreigner's stereotypes. I will say Bollywood industry has a huge potential to make better movies but lure of commercial success and playing safe is the easy refuse for them. But I believe the onus lies with Indian audience itself. Recent example is Ghajini. It is amazing how it created records of 200 crore without having a novel idea in the movie, without significant acting, even without good music and compositions. Anyway commercial escapism should in noway mean that you should expect an Oscar or Golden Globe award for it.

Of course he has a point when he says,"Conditions the world over are so similar. Perceptions differ, but the reality of life and existence, unchanged."
But 25% of the population living below $1/day [link] can not be ignored, Mr. Bachchan.
And by the way, a movie having link with reality or fantasy or stereotypes has no relation whatsoever with it being a good piece of cinema.

He goes on to say, "But look how rapidly all that is changing. Retrospectives in Paris and New York. Dedicated TV channels running Hindi cinema on prime timings. Premiers at Leiscester Square, the home of all Hollywood royalty, thronged by hundreds on the street in cold biting weather."

Another piece!! By all this do you mean to say that Hindi cinema is serving good cinema? Or you are just re-iterating the fact that commercial success of Indian cinema is being taken noticed of (Of course every business man in his right senses would want to be part of it). Or few good movies that come out every year are helping to change the image of Indian cinema.

He is on blog!!

Most of people might already know. But this should serve as reminder.

Advani has now his own blog. [link]

This is simply awesome. Will got to know the thoughts and feelings of spearhead of BJP on daily basis. Lets see what he has to say...

In defense of Slumdog Millionaire

Slumdog Millionaire is over-rated as well as misinterpreted.

First of all it is a lovely movie with great drama. It has transcended the usual happy ending scenario movies. It has really delivered a great play altogether to show how a man can win against adversities in this cruel world(not so cruel). But in the end, in my view, as USA is all going ga-ga over it, it doesn't desrve that much also. The rating at imdb, I think, is over-rated. The main reason for being over-rated is I think the dire state of USA right now. Every movie which has been about hope and change has been over-rated. Take 'The Dark Knight' or 'Wall-E' for instance. Both are great movies, no doubt in that, but they certainly have been called more greater than those actually are. Both movies touched top ten in imdb at certain point. I won't give both movies that much rating that they can be in top 10.

Some people have loved this movie for showing a very great 'realistic' visual of Mumbai-slums, well first of all the movie has shown only negative aspects of a metro city of India. Though no lie has been made yet reality is not 'complete' in this movie and on top of that reality is stretched to too extreme. Even for showing slum-life who think this is the best movie, I will point out a movie called Salaam Bombay made in 1988. The genuineness Mira Nair could achieve in her movie, I don't think Danny Boyale could go at par with that even after 20 years.
Some people loved it for being a movie that has transcended love stories. This is what I found really weird. Because as far as this movie goes, it has nothing which can be comparable to Pretty Woman or Titanic in that category and there are classics like Casablanca. And these reference movies mentioned are just Hollywood movies, you can find a lot of Bollywood movies out of thousands of melodrama and love flicks for which Bollywood is most famous and I assure you thousands will be far better love-stories than this one.

Now a lot of people have criticised it for having shown a too much of a dark side of India. Well, as it is, the movie certainly has gone beyond boundary about India. But remember it's a fiction. Fiction almost always have come with an exaggeration of general world events that actually happen to be real. This movie is no different.
The laughter of Audience when Anil Kapoor(host of game-show) mocks our hero is not what happens in reality at Indian game-shows but it does not means that it is made to signify the negative aspect of India towards apathy towards poor. But the essence of movie in showing it such a way is that it is a sarcasm on reality shows where audience does what it is told on sign-boards. It is exaggeration on aspect of game-shows not mockery of poor.
Other a few events like jumping of boy into shit-load to get autograph of Amitabh, also has nothing to do with dark sides of India and such. This is Boyale's signature of taking comic scenes into extreme. If you don't believe me, watch Danny Boyle's 1996 masterpiece Trainspotting, in which Renton puts himself pathetically (yet artistically) into the worst toilet in Scotland for two pills of drugs.

The movie is a fiction but one entagled with truths and facade of reality unlike Bollywood movies which contain plethora of fantasy in scene, dialogue, songs and everything of movie. There is difference between three, you see, fiction, fantsay and reality.


When you are riding a tiger there will always be a risk of being clawed upon by tiger.
Maybe it was conscience or maybe all doors were closed for Ramalinga Raju that he had to resign. Long stories are being written on how a treacherous animal he is and all that. Few days ago the person who was one of biggest stories of Indian corporate success is now a sham on the face of India.
I just want to explain one thing:
Have you ever wondered that was it Satyam trying to rescue Maytas or was it Maytas trying to rescue Satyam?[link] And it turns out later is true. Satyam would have bought Maytas giving a worthless value to Raju's son thus filling up Satyam's blank balance books. His son would have been happy to sacrifice all his hard work but saving his father's ass. And if that is true, it transpires that Raju was actually doing a favor to Satyam with the sacrifice of his son's property.
Imagine if his plan would have succeeded then Satyam would have finally got clean books and diversified assets. Raju would have cleansed his sins and all would have been well with his corporate governance. He would have been success story for many more years to come.
But no, that was not to be. The same investors who reaped benefits for years from Raju's decisions, now interrupted him for the single most right thing he set to do. And now guess what who is regretting most after Satyam has come crashing down - Raju or those investors?

If I am any judge I will give clean chit to Raju for at least showing courage to face the tiger.

Note: In no way I am implying that he did a great job following those malpractices. Following malpractices or not, is not the point.