India 2014: What to Expect

As the results of India's marathon election finally started to come out, revealing that the Bharatiya Janata Party is going to form a government with a strong majority, my facebook feed got flooded with reactions from Indians from across the country and beyond. These reactions could be broadly classified into two types. Those that represented a sense of jubilation, an intense hope, religious almost, that the new government will transform India into a paradise of development; and those that reflected a deep anguish and panic, a fear that India will see an unhindered rise of fanaticism, communal strife and massive repression. While the first saw in the new prime minister of India some sort of a messiah with the power and will to magically solve all the problems that the nation faces; the second perceived in him an Indian Hitler: a personification of pure evil whose only mission is to butcher minorities and threaten the so-called "idea of India", defined by tolerance and multiculturalism. Such a bipolar characterization of reactions was not particularly surprising, given that the key figure around whom the election was fought and won had for the last ten years been one of the most hotly debated politicians of the country, and opinions about him have since then been highly polarized.  Presumably, the future, however, would lie somewhere in between. We would neither see a gigantic leap in terms of development, nor would we witness concentration camps.   

Let us begin with the narrative of development. The prime ministerial candidate emphasized repeatedly on how "development" was his top priority. Interestingly, very little detail was furnished on how this development was going to happen. The aspirations and expectations of the electorate in this regard are based mainly on the much discussed Gujarat model of development. However, while the PR team of the BJP did a phenomenal job in pushing propaganda through various channels of media to establish the idea of a near perfect Gujarat, akin to a Rama-Rajya, all relevant statistical data indicate that Gujarat is a mediocre state in pretty much all the metrics of human development. As Jean Dreze pointed out in a recent article, "If Gujarat is a model, then the real toppers in development indicators, like Kerala and Tamil Nadu, must be supermodels". Indeed, in all social indicators, including poverty, education, healthcare, malnutrition Gujarat ranks somewhere in the middle among the Indian states. It is only a leading state in terms of economic indicators like GDP per capita, but the fact that it does poorly in these social indices in spite of being a (relatively) rich state, raises big questions about the inclusiveness of its growth. If such a model is followed and implemented in India, it is therefore naive to expect any real improvement in healthcare, education or extreme poverty. 

But while the expectations of development are naive, unreasonable and unfounded, so are the fears of a Nazi takeover in India. It is a fact that the BJP has its roots in the RSS, an organization whose founding fathers drew inspiration from Hitler, but then the BJP itself has done little in recent years to indicate that it has any sinister motives to implement Fascism in India. It is worth noting that throughout the election campaign,  the leadership spoke almost entirely of its desire of ensuring good governance, of reviving economic growth and creating jobs, and of curtailing inflation. Issues like the Ram temple featured in the election manifesto, but were given insignificant importance in the campaign narrative of the BJP. In fact, this was the first election where the core Hindutva issues were largely neglected by the BJP throughout the campaign. It is also interesting to observe that in earlier elections, where communal issues did take centrestage, the BJP failed to gain as many seats. Clearly, the massive victory, then, could not be attributed to a growing fanaticism among polarized voters but to issues which where key to this particular election. It would be very unlikely, then, for the BJP too indulge in fomenting communal sentiments at this stage, because A) they don't need to as far as their pre-election promises are concerned; and B) they don't want to antagonize a large chunk of voters who supported them on election issues but are opposed to their social conservatism and religious agenda. Finally, the probability of a full scale riot or genocide happening in India is close to zero. To encourage something of that sort would be suicidal for the prime ministerial candidate, who would not only embarrass himself on a massive level, but also justify all the censure showered upon him by his critics; and jeopardize his chances for a second term. In all likelihood, the state will throw in all its power to stop communal strife from snowballing into high casualty riots. 

To summarize, in terms of social indicators our country would maintain status quo. There would be no significant improvement in healthcare and education, although there might be a minor reduction in poverty as a result of economic growth. On the other hand, India will not become a Fascist country, or a Hindu state, and the state itself will not get directly involved in persecuting members of any vulnerable community.  Instead, here are some of the things that probably will take place in India, as a result of these elections.

Markets would open up more in India, foreign investment in various sectors would be encouraged, more SEZs would be created, and tax cuts and benefits would be gifted to big corporations. Forced land acquisition might become common. An improvement in ease of doing business would presumably boost the economic growth and create more jobs for the middle class. It would also fill the already deep pockets of our Ambanis and Adanis. The government would be made smaller, in terms of number and size of ministries and possibly in terms of overall investment in the public sector. Some of the existing welfare projects aimed at the poorest members of the society might be scrapped, and new ones would not be introduced. This would also reduce government level corruption and wastage of taxpayers' money to some extent. Some of the less powerful politicians of the previous government would be prosecuted on corruption charges.

India's foreign policy would become more assertive, and in some cases mildly aggressive. This would be a shift from the soft state that India has traditionally been perceived as, especially throughout the last decade or so.  There will be no war, but there might be increased skirmishes at the border and escalation of tension with Pakistan and China. On the other hand, stronger relations would be sought with countries in South East Asia, Japan, the US and Israel. Relationships with Iran may deteriorate. Strong anti-terrorism bills would be passed, targeting both Jihadi elements and Maoist insurgents.

Public funds would be spent on propagating Hindu nationalist ideology. This would be implemented through subtle changes in school curriculum by depicting Hindu glory; through promotion of Sanskrit, Indian astrology and Ayurveda, and through  more ostentatious displays of Hinduism in government activities. Funds would be earmarked for the protection of cattle. These influences, would mainly entail a softer version of Hindutva. The effects of a stronger version of the same would be felt as well, though not directly through government initiatives.

Groups that do not enjoy economic influence or political clout, or those who represent ideas that do not conform entirely to the doctrines of Hindu nationalism would be targeted and persecuted by fringe groups that adhere to a more extreme version of Hindutva. Target groups would range from religious minorities, homosexuals and Kashmiris, to the politically liberal. Vigilant groups and self-appointed moral police would feel encouraged, and incidents of rogues beating up people celebrating Valentine's day or women drinking alcohol would increase. Freedom of speech and freedom of press would both decline to some extent and critiques of the government or Hinduism would be attacked more severely and frequently; again not so much by the government itself but by fringe groups who would now enjoy some level of state protection.   These spurious attacks, however, would still generate further criticism from sections of the population, and at some point, the government would be forced to draw a line and put a check. Moreover, the BJP would be keen to not antagonize Muslims, knowing that the landslide victory would not have been possible without a considerable number of Muslims voting for them this time. 

All of these, needless to say, are mere speculations, and the truth will only become evident in five years' time. It can be guaranteed, however, that overall, India will continue to be the slow and sluggish elephant that it has been as far as change is concerned, since time immemorial; and neither would its problems go away, nor would its rich and diverse social fabric be destroyed.  Both India's problems, and the "Idea of India" are too deep-rooted to be obliterated by a single election. 

Adieu, Sachin!

The second test match of a seemingly unexciting home series against one of the weakest teams wouldn't normally be expected to bring one back to watching live test cricket after a hiatus of almost six years, that too in the middle of the night. It's slightly different, however, when the match happens to be the last in the career of a man who was by far the biggest star the game of cricket had ever seen. 

I grew up in a time, when, propelled by the World Cup victory, and through increasing commercialization and media coverage, the popularity of cricket was attaining a level of religious fervour in India. Live telecast of international matches on television brought cricket into the living rooms of the middle class, and it quickly became one of the biggest means of entertainment. 

The nineties in India were not a cheerful period. In a nation ravaged by abject poverty, rampant corruption and communal violence, frustration and disillusionment were widespread, and there was little to look forward to. When almost everything else about the nation was discouraging and sad, cricket became our only source of inspiration. The nation needed heroes. We did not find them among our morally bankrupt political leaders, but among our cricketers; and never ever was there a greater hero than Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar. 

There was no IPL in those days. The national team was the only team to cheer for. The passion for cricket got intermingled with zealous patriotism. We did not perceive the Indian cricket team as employees of the BCCI, or even as just a sports team to cheer for, but as representatives of a nation. As the most prolific member of that team, and as the only unchanging face in the squad for two and a half decades, Sachin Tendulkar became the man who bore on his shoulders the hopes and aspirations of a billion people. 

There were no expensive merchandise back then, or even if they were, they were not the means through which fans channelled their devotion. Our veneration was expressed through the excessive purchase of  bubble gums to collect the cricketers' cards that came for free, through posters and photographs collected from sports magazines and Anandamela, and through compilation of newspaper cuttings of scorecards in days when cricinfo was unheard of. If not a religion, cricket in India was certainly a cult, and Sachin was its central deity. The nation was united in the extolment of this man, and his flamboyant straight drives could bring smiles on the faces of a seven year old and a seventy year old with the same ease. 

For the 15 years or so that I avidly feasted on cricket, Sachin Tendulkar was the man to watch out for.  The fall of India's second wicket was always met with a huge cheer in home grounds, often much to the bewilderment of foreigners, for it marked the arrival of Sachin Tendulkar at the crease.  When there was a big target to be chased, we would often only watch as long as Sachin was batting.  Sachin's dismissal commonly resulted in the turning off of a few million television sets, with people grudgingly going back to their daily chores. 

We watched with awe how he amassed hundred after hundred, often under difficult conditions, when all his teammates failed; how he massacred the greatest bowlers of his times with his impeccable stroke play; and how he, often with single-handed efforts, saw India home, match after match. On tours overseas, when all the other batsmen faltered on fast, green wickets, Sachin Tendulkar stood his ground, firm and determined, and saved the nation's grace. We watched how he decimated the Australian bowling attack in Sharjah, how he went after Henry Olonga, how he danced down the wicket to Shane Warne in India and gave him nightmares (literally), and how he slaughtered the likes of Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis and Shoaib Akhtar at the 2003 World Cup. We also watched, often with tearful eyes, his vulnerability: matches where he could not make us win in spite of all his efforts: the world cup semifinal in 1996 on that sinister wicket, the Chennai test against Pakistan where he almost succeeded in leading India to an unlikely victory despite being in excruciating pain. 

Notwithstanding the jokes in social media that predicted a career lasting for eternity, Sachin Tendulkar's retirement was, of course, an inevitability. The fact that he could survive, nay dominate, close to 25 years of international cricket speaks volumes on his tenacity and perseverance. But all good things must come to an end, and so must the career of Sachin. Tonight as I watch the man bat for one last time in an international test match, I cannot help feel sad for having missed dozens of matches in the last six years or so, partly because of being in a different time zone, but mainly because the passion, enthusiasm and romanticism of boyhood and early youth had disappeared slowly over the years.

Perhaps, Sachin Tendulkar's retirement makes us sad and contemplative not only because we would never get to see him live in action, but also because he was a symbolic link between the present and the past, because he was like a living memory from a period otherwise only remembered through fond reveries along the streets of nostalgia. With him gone, a bit of our childhood is gone forever.  

Sachin Tendulkar leaves behind him a legacy comparable to few before him. We do not know yet the future of his records, or of his fame. Surpassing the runs and the number of hundreds he scored is going to be difficult, but not impossible. Perhaps there will come a day in our life times, when all these records would be broken, and new heroes would come to dominate the cricketing world. It is also possible, that some time in the not so distant future, test cricket would be deemed obsolete and rejected by the fans, one day internationals would become rare, and Twenty-20 would be the only form of cricket watched and appreciated. In such a hypothetical but not particularly unlikely future, the glory of the man who for over twenty years bore on his shoulders the hopes of an entire nation would be gradually forgotten. The happy memories that he leaves with the men and women of our generation, however, would last as long as we live; and we would, when we are old, frail and infirm, proudly tell our grandchildren that there once was a man called Sachin Tendulkar in this nation, and that we had seen him bat.   

Lest We Forget

It has been exactly a month since the incident. Culprits have been arrested, we hear. Attention of the press has predictably drifted to regular topics. The black circles have mostly disappeared from  facebook profile pictures; and status messages are no longer dominated by angry outbursts. Apart from a few protesters at Jantar Mantar; for most of us, concerned or unconcerned; it is back to business as usual.

This was neither unexpected nor unusual. It is as natural for us to be alarmed, appalled, upset and angry when something bad happens; as it is for us to forget and eventually move on. Sensational news gets us excited and charged up but only for a limited period. Our lives are far too complex, far too eventful, far too burdened with our own petty problems to let anything linger for beyond a threshold period. Except for those affected directly, unpleasant news gradually gets buried under layers of busy life; only to resurface when something unpleasant of a similar kind happens again. The fire that devastated a building on Park Street, Kolkata in 2010 was largely forgotten until a similar tragedy happened in AMRI a year and a half later. Memory of the terrorist attacks in local trains in Mumbai in 2006 resurfaced in public psyche when the siege of 2008 happened. The massacre of Aurora came back to haunt us after the shootings at Newtown. It would have been more beneficial perhaps if we had better memories; for if such issues continued to make us ponder; we would have continued to push for reforms long after the events ceased to be subjects of recent news; but that is not how society works. In that aspect, the incident of December 16 is not unique. Like everything else, the frenzy associated with it, too, appears to have been a passing phase.

There is, however a significant difference between what happened in Delhi that night and other disturbing news that bring forth public response. As much as a lot of us would like to think, the former was not an isolated tragedy; not a random act of insane brutality. Rape (and other forms of sexual violence and molestation; and subsequent torture and murder) is more prevalent in India (and indeed, the rest of the world) than one is perhaps inclined to believe. According to the United Nations, there are about 20,000 rapes reported per year in India on an average; for the period 2004-2010; and the number seems to be increasing steadily (22,172 in 2010). This, one must keep in mind, is the number of recorded incidents; and rape still remains the most unreported criminal offense in the world; more so in a conservative country as India. Add to that the fact that Indian law does not recognize marital rape as a criminal offense. Indeed, 20,000 per year, then merely gives a lower bound to the number of incidents; i.e., there are at least about 60 cases per day. When one adds to that, the myriads of cases of "eve-teasing" (which, by the way, happens to be a strange euphemism for sexual harassment ) that happens across the country everyday, one only begins to get a picture of the seriousness of the problem.

What happened on the night of December 16 was horrifying enough to say the least. What is even more horrifying is that rape is so common in our country that it is no longer an issue of significance at the national level. It does not make frontpage news; nay, news even; as long as the venue is not high profile or the incident does not involve sufficient savagery. Unlike lunatic gunmen, brainwashed terrorists or irresponsible building personnel; sexual offenders strike every day; and if even a tiny fraction of such incidents were to be covered by the press as news of prominence; it would but be hard even for a patient of the most severe amnesia to forget and ignore. It would then be exceedingly difficult not to accept that violence against women is a serious problem intrinsic to our society.

A great many of us seem to be deeply concerned about ensuring the greatest possible punishments for the perpetrators. Unfortunately, the level of enthusiasm is not as high when it comes to try and identify the root cause of the issue. It is in fact fair to say that there is a general lack of response in that direction. A number of statements have been issued by our leaders; both political and spiritual; and an overwhelming majority of them have placed the responsibility on victims; and indeed, on the liberalization of our society under "evil" Western influence. Western outfits, item songs in Bollywood movies, discos, women staying out after dark, free-mixing through co-education have all been blamed. One leader has made disparaging remarks about the protesting women, while another (who incidentally is female) has falsely accused one of the victims of being a prostitute (with the bizarre implication that raping a prostitute is justified). Sadly, there has been little effort to put these people in their respective places; nor have these outlandish remarks made by leaders been countered by an equal number of balanced, thoughtful remarks from their peers. Over all, there has been a conspicuous lack of a call for introspection from the ruling class.

Elected leaders by and large represent popular opinion. And it is this opinion, this attitude that is the most disturbing aspect of the situation. As long as our press does not deal these matters with the seriousness they deserve; as long as we continue to remain in our state of denial; and as long as we fail to accept that we are a part of a system that reeks of chauvinism and encourages sexual prejudice; we would continue to encounter such incidents. A mere acceptance of the situation would not immediately solve it; but one must identify the disease before even attempting a remission.

Shifting Patterns in Bollywood

Those who know me well would never accuse me of being a fan of Bollywood. In fact, the accusation has often been the other way round. I've been deemed an aantel (Bengali adjective that ridicules intellectuals) because of my conspicuous disinterest regrading the popular entertainment presented by the likes of Karan Johar and Shahrukh Khan. Nonetheless, there have been occasional moments in my life, too, when I have watched a Sholay or a Kuch Kuch Hota Hai with considerable attentiveness; or when I have glanced, albeit casually, to whatever was shown on the television. I continue at present too, to keep myself abreast of the headlines in the world's largest film industry; and the musings reflected in this particular piece are conclusions drawn from such observations; from the past and from the present.

Whoever has seen Bollywood movies of the eighties and early nineties would probably agree that a majority of the movies tended to relate to a certain socio-economic stratum. The good guys overwhelmingly came from a poor or lower middle class background; their economic condition varying from a state of absolute destitution to that of moderate scarcity; but never of abundance. The bad guy almost inevitably was the obscenely rich and devilishly crooked businessman; who would device the dirtiest of means to harass the poor.

The hero would often take the role of a Messiah of the poor; someone who stands up against smuggling trades of the villain; someone who resists bulldozers that the promoter sends to destroy slums; someone who grows up through hardship and deprivation and one day goes on to avenge the misdeeds perpetrated against his family and his people. We have seen Amitabh doing that role a million times. We have seen Mithun there. We have even seen how wealth corrupts character; through the experiences of one Raju in Raju Ban Gaya Gentleman, portrayed by a young Shahrukh Khan.

Since the economic liberalization of India in the nineties; there seems to have been a paradigm shift in that regard. The hero and his friends are no longer poor; seldom are they from the middle class. In contemporary Bollywood movies, the main characters are filthy rich! They are either sons and daughters of industrialists preparing to take over family businesses; or MBAs living in the US; or Engineers working in London. They are dressed in designer clothes; they have well-groomed bodies and perfectly gelled hair and they drink champagne. They visit Switzerland and Australia during vacations and they go to Spain for Bachelor Parties. The modern day hero, too, has his own problems; but unlike his counterpart from the past, unemployment or feeding a family is not one of them.

There certainly is a correlation between the shifting pattern in Bollywood movies and the pro-market economic policies; but there is more to it. It would simply be wrong, for instance, to assert that Indians have gotten significantly richer in the last twenty years; for they clearly haven't. The rich and poor divide, on the contrary has widened; inflation rates have soared; and it is a matter of controversy whether there has been any significant reduction in the percentage of people living below the poverty line.

There is data, that shows that the middle class has become somewhat wealthier. This has been accompanied by a high degree of increase in their aspirations and more importantly, in the attitude towards the rich. The rich are no longer a class of oppressive minority that amassed wealth through deception; rather, they are what the middle-class wants to be. The values that traditionally defined the Indian urban middle-class for a large part of the last century are vanishing; giving way to those that are more suited to a consumer-based economy. Outlooks are changing fast, and socialistic ideals of the past are withering away rapidly from the minds of people; to be replaced by a strong desire for materialistic pursuits: a desire to make more money, a desire to buy more things.

My contention is that it is this aspiration among the middle and upper middle class; this ambition to be rich; this desire of emulating the lives of the rich; that more than anything else, has brought about the shift in the socio-economic ambience of the Bollywood movie. For after all, Bollywood caters by and large to the taste of the middle class.

There could certainly be a host of other reasons and factors that are directly or indirectly responsible for this change. It would indeed be an interesting topic in sociological studies to investigate these effects.

The concept of "Akhand Bharat"

Recently (actually, about a month ago) I came across this article on the internet, where it was reported that the RSS has once again called for the re-emergence of an age-old concept, that of "Akhand Bharat".

The phrase "Akhand Bharat" literally translates as "Undivided India" and generally refers to a super-state of "Greater India" that encompasses the entire South Asia at its minimum and may include Afghanistan, Myanmar and even South-East Asia according to some definitions. The idea finds its bulk of supporters among conservative right wingers. It's often argued that the entire area has always belonged to India, and hence it's only natural that India should establish her political control over it. A cursory understanding of the subcontinent's culture and political history, however, would show that the concept makes little sense.

State boundaries change over time. Nations, ethnicities migrate. Demographics of regions change. It's an absurd idea to think that there exists some boundary for a country that is permanent.


China has this ridiculous idea of claiming all territories that were included in its greatest ever extent (and the Chinese do distribute maps showing vast lands of sovereign countries included in China ), but that doesn't mean that India too should be compelled to exhibit the same stupidity. The same region has been ruled by different kingdoms in different eras. If China can claim Central Asia, so can Mongolia! If India can claim Afghanistan, so can Iran, or even Macedonia, for that matter! :P

The truth is, while India has existed as a cultural/ geographical entity for several millennia (with, of course a great deal of internal diversity); India as a political entity didn't exist before the establishment of British Rule in 1857.

Also, while Afghanistan and South East Asia have been parts of Indian empires; there never was a time when both were the parts of the same empire. When the Mauryans had Afghanistan, their empire did not even include the Southern fringes of the Indian peninsula. Indian dominance in SE Asia reached its peak during the time of Cholas at a time when Northern India was divided in pieces.

At all times, the hills of North East Asia remained mostly independent. From the Mauryans to Mughals, Indian empires didn't capture any territory beyond the plains of Assam.

At certain points of time the sphere of Indian cultural influence did include an area from Central to South East Asia; but that influence did not come with military force. Cultural hegemony once upon a time is a bad argument for supporting expansionism.

And anyhow, adding more to the already large and rather diverse country is definitely not something to look forward to. The Republic of India has too many problems of her own to add some more from her current neighbours.

Slumdog Millionaire: A Review

Given the Indian television's well known tradition of telecasting highly patriotic movies on August 15, Slumdog Millionaire was a peculiar choice. Nevertheless, I didn't have much to complain, for I had time to kill, and watching a feel-good romantic comedy seemed a decent means to do so. Moreover, it helped me refresh my impression of the film, the idea of writing a review of which I had been toying with for a while. Without any more deliberation therefore, let me proceed to do the same.

This was the third time I saw the movie and the first time I saw the dubbed Hindi version. The first time I saw the movie was soon after its release in December 2008, and I must confess that I was carried away by the larger than life fairy-tale like appeal. Later, I was gradually influenced by the widespread criticism of the movie, largely in India; and decided that it wasn't, after all, that good a movie. When I saw it for the second time, earlier this August, I was more critical and had the intention of judging it with an objective outlook. When I saw it last week, for the third time, I watched it not because I wanted to judge it, but because I knew that I like it.

Very few of my readers would perhaps be unacquainted with Slumdog Millionaire; especially after the extraordinary frenzy it created at the 2009 Academy Awards. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, a summary of the storyline is provided. The movie narrates the remarkable life story of one Jamal Malik, who, beginning from the humblest of backgrounds, surpasses all conceivable obstacles to fulfill his dreams. The story starts with Jamal, now a tea-seller, being on the verge of winning the top prize of 20 million Rupees on a national quiz show that's being telecast on live television. It then goes flashback to show how he was taught the answers to each question by life itself, along his journey that started from the slums of Bombay and took him through several dark alleys that society has to offer. The movie finally ends with Jamal bagging a double jackpot; i.e., winning the prize money and finding his long lost love, Latika.

Nothing remarkable about the central story of the protagonist rising to fame, fortune and meeting his destiny against all odds. Though a cliched concept (especially in Bollywood), a nice execution and fresh faces for the three major characters, made it a movie worth watching. What was novel though, was the idea of the game show; and the connection between each question and some incident in Jamal's life, often tragic; through which he knew the answer to the question. Jamal's journey through the game show, from the first question to the last; in turn takes the audience on a parallel journey, along the path of his life. It also takes us on a journey through the dark alleys and by lanes of our society that we often fear to flash a torchlight into; and would rather remain oblivious to the existence of.

Much criticism has been directed towards the dark and disturbing depiction of India that Danny Boyle projects in the movie. It is undeniable that the projected picture is not quite positive. It would appear as if India is a land of hopeless and hapless people who dwell in slums, lose their families in communal violence, end up being beggars or in the flesh trade; or if they are luckier, in the mafia. The Indian society that one sees in this movie is a filtered society; it has been reflected through a lens that had its focal points on the nadirs of the system. All the tragedies depicted in the movie are realities in India; but there still remains more to reality than such tragedies. Every society has its shadows, some perhaps darker than those of others; and what we see in this movie are but those dark patches. It would be unwise to take this depiction as a representative of the complete picture. A romantic comedy should be taken as a romantic comedy and not as a documentary.

There are three major characters in this story: Jamal; his brother, Salim and Latika; whom we have already mentioned. Jamal is the quintessential hero, his character endowed with almost all the virtues that tradition ascribes to the perfect man. He's caring and compassionate, he's fierce to anyone (eg, Salim) who offends his lady-love, he's smart, not just street smart but intelligent, he's a good and quick learner and above all, he loves Latika rather intensely. He also has a very strong, perhaps stubborn determination. It is this stubbornness that makes him splash through a puddle of crap to get an autograph of a movie star; it is this stubbornness that enables him to find Latika in Bombay and it's this same aspect of his nature that leads him to her at the final moments of the movie. Of course, he gets generous help from luck, or "destiny" as he would rather call it; as if to exemplify the old saying of fortune favouring the brave.

Latika's character is quite straight forward. It's apparent that she loves Jamal dearly. She still recognizes him instantly after seeing him after ages. We are not told if she, too, had an urge to find him after the two were separated. But then, given the circumstances she was going through; it would be too much to expect that on her part.

Jamal and Latika's characters, though very consistent, are typical. It's the conflicting and realistic characters like that of Salim that interest us more. This young man grew up with Jamal in the slums, went through similar hardships, and while his younger sibling more or less remained on the track of honesty, he considerably strayed away. Given the tragic incidents that the boys had to endure in their childhood, Salim's slip into the underworld, or his actions with respect to Latika are nothing unusual. What was interesting was that in spite of all his dishonest and ungentlemanly acts, he still retains a humane side. After having abandoned his brother and having lead the latter's girlfriend to dishonour, it's Salim himself that helps reunite the lovers, killing his gang leader and sacrificing his own life in the process.

There are a bunch of errors in the movie. The most glaring of them is that the Indian equivalent of the millionaire reality show is not aired on real time. It's shot several weeks in advance, so the climax cannot possibly happen in reality. Nor do the quizmaster, or the host has any stakes in the prize money. His trying to mislead Jamal, and then calling up the police, and the subsequent torture carried out by the police are all very absurd. The linguistic transition that the three protagonists go through; namely the transition from rustic Bombay-style Hindi to fluent English doesn't make sense. The Hindi dubbed version was better in this respect because it seemed more realistic to have the main characters speaking in Hindi throughout.

I didn't quite like the name. The word slumdog isn't used commonly in Indian English so I checked the internet. It appears that no dictionary has any entry for the word!

Director Boyle says,

"For us, Slumdog was always a very affectionate term because … it was a hybrid, a mixture of underdog and rooting for the underdog, and obviously he comes from the slums.”

Affectionate or not, I personally found the word derogatory and offensive.

Even though the music wasn't the best of A R Rahman I've heard, it still was one of his bests. And that was one deserving man getting the gold statuette.

In spite of fallacies, cliched concepts and other limitations, what makes it a good movie is the message of hope that it carries. The central belief that I-would-succeed-no-matter-what-happens is something very refreshing and positive in these days when hope is often so scarce.

Was it a good movie? I thought it was, else I won't watch it thrice.

Did it deserve a bagful of oscars? I'm no expert, but I'd say, not really.

Events That Defined the History of India - Part-2

Ok, so now we're getting into the second half.
And here we go again:


11. Shankaracharya and Advaita Vedanta ~ 800 AD:

The revival of Hinduism and its formation in the way we know it today began to take shape during this time. Shankaracharyya, Madhava and Ramanuja played an important role in eliminating other contemporary schools of thought and consolidating what would become the mainstream Hinduism. An already declining Buddhism would gradually be absorbed into mainstream Hinduism in the centuries that would follow.

12. Rajendra Chola's Rule - 1012-1044 AD:

While Northern India was being ravaged by the hordes of one Sultan Mahmud of Ghazani, an Afghan invader who plundered the country in seventeen raids, South India saw one of its greatest rulers on the throne of the Chola Empire. Rajendra Chola's empire directly held Deccan in almost its entirety and thrugh his ambitious naval campaigns he spread his influence across South East Asia.

13. Second battle of Tarain - beginning of the Delhi Sultanate - 1192 AD.

After the fall of the Pala Empire, Northern India was once more in disarray and the power vacuum was finally filled up by the Turko-Afghan ruler Muhammad Ghauri. Ghauri who was defeated in an earlier battle against the Rajput King Prithwiraj Chauhan, came back to defeat Chauhan and rapidly spread his empire across the plains of Northern India, establishing the first Islamic Empire in India.


14. Second battle of Panipath- Rise of Akbar - 1556 AD.

Humayun was routed by the prolific Afghan Sher Shah Suri, and the prospect of Babur's descendants were appearing grim. At Panipath, the Mughals make a comeback lead by Akbar the great and recapture Delhi. In the course of time, Akbar would expand his empire across India, establish a strong system of governance and his rule would be later remembered to be the high point of the Mughals in India.

15. Aurangzeb's Death:- 1706 AD Beginning of the end of the Mughals

Aurangzeb expanded the Mughal empire to its greatest extent, but his negative and communal policies lead to rising dissents across India, notably among Shikhs, Jaaths and Marathas under Shivaji. The Empire would collapse in a few decades.

16. Battle of Plassey:- 1757 AD.

The British win their first war in India through treachery and backstabbing and capture the rich province of Bengal in the process, thereby establishing the foundation of British India. What follows in the next few years is a systematic depletion of wealth and oppression of the highest kind; something that would lead to the infamous Bengal famine.

17. Third Battle of Panipath:- 1761 AD. Decline of the Marathas.

A regional power that could have been India's last hope against the British face a crushing defeat in the hands of Ahmad Shah Abdaali, the Afghan warlord. Once again, a decisive battle is fought at Panipath, and once again, the defenders are on the losing side.

18. The Great Mutiny, 1857:-

First nationwide armed resistance against British authority. Hindus and Muslims jointly revolt against British authority and an army revolt snowball into a nationwide uprising, perhaps the first of its kind in India. Once the mutiny is crushed, India is brought under the direct rule of the British Monarch, thereby bringing an end to East India Company's rule.

19. Foundation of the Muslim League in Dhaka, 1906 :-

While Bengalis participate in a mass movement against the partition of the province of Bengal on the basis of religion, apprehension about Hindu dominance grows within a section of the Muslim society as they form a political organization. This event would gradually polarize the population along religious lines and would later lead to the birth of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,

20. Independence and Partition, 1947:-

An unarmed old man speaking of peace leads a nation to her freedom. Amidst the tragic scenes of mass migration and communal riots that kill and displace millions, two new nations are born out of British India; two countries that would remain hostile to each other for years to come and would face each other in several wars, both open and covert.

Events That Defined the History of India - Part-I

Tough task. Here are my picks.

I started this as a single blog but then as it became too long I decided to split into two instalments.

1. The arrival of modern man: 70,000 to 50,000 BCE

An extensive analytical study done on the mutations of the Y-chromosome establish that some 70,000 to 50,000 years ago, the first homo sapiens, or modern man, set his foot on the land that would later be known as India. This marked the beginning of an amazing journey that our nation would make in aeons to come.

2. The coming of the Aryans: 2000-1500 BCE

The next big event would be Aryan migration. Even though the Aryan migration theory is still disputed among some circles there is ample evidence to suggest that Aryans or Indo-Europeans weren't descendants of the earlier tribes that had settled in India ages ago. Rather, they appear to have been a branch of nomadic tribes that originated somewhere in Central Asia and set out in search of lands to inhabit.

3.Battle of ten kings: dates: UNKNOWN

The earliest war that finds mention in Indian literature, the battle of ten kings, as described in the Rigveda was a war fought between the Bharata tribe, lead by King Sudas against a confederacy of ten other tribes somewhere in Punjab; possibly by the banks of river Iravati (Ravi). The Bharatas emerged victorious and their supremacy was established over the greate Punjab region.

4. The earliest composition of Mahabharata: 9th-8th century BCE (?)

A civil war of the Kurus spread all over Northern India and gave rise to one of the greatest epics ever written in human history. The war of Kurukshetra marks the junction of the age of legends and the age of history in the Indian context. The epic, though grows beyond a story of war and emerges as an encyclopaedia of Ancient India itself; and along with the Ramayana constructs the basis of Indian moral values.

5. The spiritual revolution: 6th century BCE

A spiritual revolt against Brahmanian orthodoxy and corruption took shape in the form of some 40 odd Naastika movements, the most prominent of which were Buddhism and Jainism. The authority of the Vedas was challenged vehemently, and the events that unfolded left a deep impact on Indian society in centuries to come.

6. Emergence of Magadha as the Indian superpower under Mahapadma Nanda: 4th century BCE

This would eventually lead to the formation of the first Pan-Indian Empire under the Mauryas. Though it started in Buddha's times with Bimbisara and Ajatashatru; it was Mahapadma Nanda who extended the empire across the Gangetic plains and Central India, vigorously uprooting numerous minor kingdoms. By the time of Alexander's invasion (323 BCE), Magadha under Mahapadma's descendants was already a formidable power which even the Greeks weren't keen on taking on.

7. Kalinga war: 261 BCE

It wasn't Ashoka's coronation (273 BCE), but this war fought in modern day Orissa that gifted the land with perhaps the greatest ruler that it would ever see. Ashoka, once a ruthless ruler, underwent a radical change and started preaching the doctrine of love; establishing a most benevolent system of administration and sending his peace missions to the furthest corners of the known world. Ashoka's territory after the Kalinga war also was the greatest pan-Indian empire ever, in terms of area, extending upto and including modern day Afghanistan.

8. Chandragupta II's reign: 375-413/15 CE

Every culture identifies a golden age in its course of history which marks a culmination of art and literature. For India, the most popular forerunner for this coveted spot is the rule of the Gupta Dynasty, the most prominent part of which is marked by the reign of Chandragupta II. Also known as Vikramaditya, this emperor and his court of poets and artists have attained legendary status.

9. Invention of zero and the decimal system: 5th century AD (?)

Needs no further elaboration as far as its importance is concerned with respect to Science in general. Aryabhat, the scientist generally credited with this invention was also the first person to propose the theory of a heliocentric solar system as opposed to the traditionally accepted geocentric one, about a thousand years before the "Copernican Revolution".

10. Invasion of white Huns: 477 AD

Though the Hun invasion was baulked by the Gupta emperor Kumaragupta, it greatly weakened the Gupta Empire, and lead it to its steady collapse afterwards. The ruthless Huns would however gradually dissolve in the ocean of Indian population and would later be embraced into mainstream Hindu society as Rajput tribes.

============ End of Part I ============

Perception of Indians

Many of my friends have often asked me about the general perception of India and her people in Canada. The following is an attempt to summarize the same.

I have lived in Canada for almost eight months now. I get to interact with people from many countries here; not just Canadians. In fact most of the people I meet are non-Canadians: and are of diverse ethnicities, that include Chinese, Arabs, Iranians, Indonesians, Europeans.

The general awareness about India and her culture isn't significant, which is somewhat understandable. For instance, people (except those from the sub-continent) find it strange that our country has so many different languages and find it rather hard to believe that not all people speak or understand a single language. They will ask if these are really different languages, or just dialects/ accents of the same language.

People are also not much cognizant of our cultural diversity. I had a heated argument with this guy from Kyrgyzstan who argued that Kazakhstan has more diversity than India. This guy was my office-mate and sat next to me. His point of view was that the diversity of India is only at a micro level, and not at a macro-level; and therefore it is perceptible only by Indians themselves; while to foreigners our culture seems quite homogeneous. He would talk about the caste system (which he thought was all-pervasive), and arranged marriages, and people who he thought looked very similar (and therefore were ethnically identical, according to him), and languages that sounded similar to him (he had heard us speak in both Bangla and Hindi). Of course he hadn't read much about India and his opinion was mostly based on a bunch of Bollywood Movies and a handful of Indians he had known. And he is the kind of person who turns a debate into a monologue; without letting anyone answer his points. I was initially somewhat irritated at his, should I say "arrogant ignorance", but then again, he can't be blamed either, because there apparently isn't a conscious effort on the part of those who promote India, to sufficiently emphasize our diversity to the outside world.

People, especially most Asians (Asians refer to all Asians here and not just East Asians; refer to a previous entry in this blog if you are wondering why this is clarified) do know about Bollywood and are interested in it, though they have this idea that all Bollywood movies have a dozen song sequences where the hero and the heroine sing and dance and go around trees. They also think that Indian movies don't expose women much, and a couple of Chinese guys had their jaws dropped when I showed them the "Beedi Jalaile" video on youtube. And that Tamil song where Prabhudeva dances (titled great Indian dance or something similar and available on youtube, with an astoundingly high view count) is very well known. The University actually offers a course on "Bollywood Dancing" alongside Salsa, Ballet, Tango and Mambo and it attracts several students of different national and ethnic origins.

There are some people who think that all Indians are born with Singing and dancing skills. Of course people don't know much about movies in regional languages or non-main stream Hindi movies. Most think "brown" girls are hot, which makes them wonder why Bollywood heroines are mostly of fair complexion. Some people also confuse the words "Hindi" and "Hindu". People know that Cricket is the most popular sports in India though their knowledge in this field is rather limited; though they believe that a single match necessarily played in five days.

Another misconception is that almost all Hindus (and all Brahmins) are vegetarians (I found this misconception even among some Pakistanis and Bangladeshis); and that beef is not available in India. "Indian Cuisine" (which is basically a selective combo of North and West Indian cuisine) is very popular and the Indian Restaurants attract a lot of customers. They also think that Indian food is excessively spicy, but they like that. "Chicken Tikka Masala", the national dish of Great Britain is popular here as well. My floormates gave me a strange look when they found me cooking lentils (Daal) in the common kitchen; they hadn't seen anything like that before. One Chinese guy asked if it was some curry.

Almost everyone has heard the name of "Calcutta", and instantly connect Mother Teresa (and probably abject poverty, though they won't say it) to it; though nobody knows the city's new name, "Kolkata", nor do I mention it, to avoid confusion. Some Europeans and central Asians pronounce it as "Kaal-Kootta" (which sounds like Kaalo kootta, meaning Black Dog in Bangla). Other well known cities are Delhi, Bombay (not Mumbai), and Bangalore. And they have heard of Taj Mahal. Well, at least most of them.

Despite a few misconceptions, most appreciate India as one of the earliest and greatest civilizations in the world, and our culture as one of the most outstanding. They also are aware of India' s recent economic boom and some consider her a superpower in the recent future. Most people like India and Indians and do not harness any negative feelings against us, barring may be, a few Pakistanis (though certainly not all of them, most of them are friendly and nice). Even in case of those Pakistanis, the grievance usually is against the Government of India and its Army, and not the common people.

India

Seven months ago, when I was in India and was preparing myself for a new life at the other side of the planet, I was somewhat vaguely aware of the things that I would be missing. I was certain that I would miss the company of my family and friends, the people with whom I used to spend the most of my time. I knew I would miss Bengali food: the daily dose of daal-bhaat-torkari-maachher jhol and the mouth watering sweetmeats of my land, not to mention the amazing street food delicacies of my city. I did realize that I would also miss, among other things, reading the Bengali daily in the morning while relishing a cup of the most refreshing tea, or taking those exciting auto-rickshaw rides across the city through peak traffic; or getting drenched in the monsoon downpours when umbrellas just don’t work; or jostling with sweaty crowds on a packed up minibus; or getting enchanted by the mystifying glow of the setting sun on a rain-soaked evening.

And I am missing all of those that I speculated.

But in addition to all that, I am missing something more. Something which includes everything else previously mentioned; but of which all that merely constitute a small part. Something I was probably too naïve to realize while in India.

I am missing India. I am missing her sounds, her sights, her touch. I am missing her divine smile reflected on a billion faces. I am missing the caressing touch of her refreshing winds. I am missing the fragrance of her flowers. I am missing the soothing smell of her soil.

I was of the opinion that nationality is just an artificial identity of an individual.

Now I know that it isn’t; at least for me. The love for my country is something that lives and breathes in every drop of blood that is pumped from my heart. The urge to see her emanates from the very core of my soul.

I always knew that I loved her.

I never knew that I loved her so much.