Bluntly speaking - They are just movies for crying out loud!

I do not understand why movies are being given the importance of a dissertation? When the movie Uri was released, people were agog about it. It felt as if India had won a cricket match against Pakistan! The hype was so much, I was tempted to persuade K to go for the movie in a theatre. ( I am a human after all!)  Thank God, better sense prevailed (my logic was – if I watched Thor Ragnarok on Apple Tv, I should wait for the online version of Uri too) When I finally had the viewing pleasure of the much touted movie boy was I in for a massive disappointment!!!!!!! In the movie kuch bhi ho raha hai! An intern is making a prototype which is the main surveillance device. I wonder if the highly qualified DRDO scientists were on Instagram posting pictures while this intern managed to develop Garud! An officer who was on a desk job is reinstated onto a high profile mission – JUST LIKE THAT! No vetting, no fitness checks nothing.  “Tumhe ek team tayyar karni hai Vihaan” or something to the likes was quoted by the superior officer. Again I think more eligible folks were updating CV on LinkedIn. He goes on to lead a mission which has ridiculous twists and hey! also an helicopter fight thrown in for good measure. The movie was nothing but a feature length chronicle of newspaper snippets and theories proliferating in media.

If one goes through a fine tooth comb and presume it is all factual, there would be serious doubts on the security of armed missions and also the secrecy of armed missions. The surgical strike was a tactical mission and hence a lot of information about it must and should be confidential. It is thus appropriate that a lot of content of the movie was derivative. These thoughts are solely mine. I cannot label that because majority of the people like it, India is a country of jingoists. Or people who did not like it are anti-nationals.  As a movie, if it entertained audiences – it has served its purpose. That is what cinema is. It is a story. It is not a treatise. The screenplay writers are not experts in any field, they are story writers. If the story is not well told, if it fails to entertain audiences, it will not gain traction. That does not mean the movies need analysis under the lenses of patriarchy, feminism and other buzz words.

Given this I am bewildered at the critics and their pseudo intellectualism while analyzing something as temporal as movies! I see the world divided into two when reviewing Kabir Singh – that it reeks of misogyny and many other terms which need me to pick a dictionary. It is a movie! Like it or leave it. It is not an intellectual product. I hated the hugely successful movie Saathiya. I cannot fathom what made the lead character portrayed by Rani Mukherjee marry while in the middle of her doctoral education. There was no resistance from family, there was no rhyme or reason. I would bash that as “insubordination of an offspring”. There was a spew of “obsessive lover” stories in the late nineties like Darr, Agnisakshi, Anjam  and maybe many more. The highly successful movies Hum aapke hain kaun and DDLJ were I feel an epitome of patriarchy (if I speak like the current crop of critics) where the girl wasn’t even asked! We never had critics regurgitating words from a dictionary while reviewing those movies! If given a chance anyone can over analyse anything.

Movies get many things wrong. Pick any biopic and one can see glaring fictionalization to adequately entertain. Dangal would not have been the same without the fictional mirch masala. Movies stereotype blatantly and brutally. Some communities have been the butt of jokes since forever. If its funny it will be irrespective of the accent or the makeup of the person delivering it. Laugh and move on. A movie is a story, not a message – social or political. A movie is a story, not a commentary. It is a personal experience how you take it. If you are inspired, excited, spellbound or had a laugh – good for you. If you are offended, disgusted, disappointed or bored – again your problem, deal with it. There is no need to see either scenarios with glasses of social commentary, evocative discourse or anything remotely intellectual. Intellectualism does not reside in the silver screen. If you want to have deep thoughts and profound discussions – chuck the cinema and pick a book.

In the hope of peace

I had a lot of thoughts in my head. Lot of things to write about. But the news of the attacks on 14^th February kept hovering. The attack made me feel sad, as if something heinous had happened in my backyard. What haunted me most are the images of the families. I couldn’t  help thinking of the lives lost. The men hailing from villages in India, mostly join the forces as a source of employment. They are posted in the most remote and inaccessible places by government order – waiting for the tiny thread of making it back to family. 44 of them will never make it back. Sitting in the convoy one minute and disintegrated the next. The families will never see their sons again. Any death leaves one with a sense of loss. There is a void which is hard to fill. My heart goes out to families of the martyed security personnel. 

I came to know of the attack via social media. Quite a lot is being expressed through these channels. I have been devouring a lot of articles, reports and analysis on the topic. One facet I have noticed via social media is that, the country seems to be riding on the backs of the recent movies Manikarnika and Uri. Both held Indian pride and Indian-ness at the forefront. I have not seen either of the movies, but I feel movies are as far from ground realities as possible. Something shot in a climate controlled studio in Mumbai is a far cry from the sub zero temperatures on a glacier. Referring to dialogues in movies as the solution, or a representation of what the armed forces think is a far cry from truth. There are videos of news being interlaced with dialogues by actor K K Menon who essays the role of an army officer are outright a ridiculous representation of the problem. The anger is understandable. But referring to something on screen as the right way is not something rational people should do.

Speaking of rationality there was a fair bit of misinformation as well. Strategically placed captions doing the rounds such as “the soldiers were going for holiday”, pictures of dogs wearing flags of Pakistan, that “terrorism has a religion” and a cry to abolish article 370 which seems to be the elusive solution. There is a video doing the rounds on social media where a Sardarji explains in great detail about the demerits of Article 370 and 35A. I am part of a whatsapp group by people from my college. When it was shared in the group, a local from Kashmir in the group said, “yes that would solve the problem to some extent, but there are deeper issues. It will not only take the abolition of an article in constituion to be resolved”. I then started seeing a lot of neutral reports. I do not think there is anything neutral in the world of media. But then, we have to go by the ones trying not to lean towards either side. I saw reports that confirmed there was a very strong anti India sentiment. India never did the referendum that was agreed in 1948. But if we go a step back, the then Maharaja of Kashmir Hari Singh did acede to India too in return of seeking India’s help in combating militants from Pakistan. The problem was left lingering in the British’s hurry to get out of the country.  The 1948 war did not resolve it and nor have the subsequent wars. It was never tackled properly by reign after reign of governments. The insurgency started with fuel in the form of men and material from Pakistan.  It has escalated over the decades and taken a different shape now where the youth from Kashmir are being radicalised. I pray it does not go to a time where both men and material are ingrown.

There have been all sorts of responses in the real world too. There was a protest organised in front of Pakistan High Commission by Indians in London.  I later saw a footage where a journalist (I think) was interviewing the protestors. He asked “ How do you justify army presence in Kashmir?” . To that my straight answer would have been “to protect the sovereignity of the country”. A nation cannot let militant outfits roam around without taking a combat position themselves. They are now walking on the streets of Kashmir, what is stopping them from moving on to Punjab or further south? He claimed he was from “India occupied Kashmir” and remarked “I do not see a single Kashmiri here, there are just Indians”. That made me wonder  do Kasmiris consider the part of Kashmir “with” India as “India Occupied Kashmir”? I read articles that stated that Kasmiris felt more affiliated to Pakistan or towards an independent nationlity. Leeds has a lot of Pakistani population. And many of the shops run by them have the name “Kashmir”. So does the average Kasmiri think he is not Indian? Then is it time that we heard that voice, and gave them what they are seeking? But this time with no strings attached. Not like the last instance when India went on to support the Maharaja in the hopes that he would acede to India. This time full independence with no strings attached, no help, no association. It seems like a simple solution. But it is tough to implement given the geo-dynamics. Pakistan does not have much to lose for it controls the sparsely populated, highly inaccessible one-third of the region. Though India might not be gaining a lot economically, the foundation of India holding on is that they would not want to set a precedent. Today it is Kashmir, tomorrow it could be any border state. It is natural for any nation or tribe to think like this. That is what is happening in the Brexit negotiations too. No one would be better off or worse off if its just Britain who leaves the European Union. But the EU does not want to set a precedent. Tomorrow it could be any nation asking to move out thus defeating the purpose of the organisation. The EU in all reality is a trivial issue – it’s a voluntary organisation. India’s problem is way more deep seated. As said by Sadhguru in a telecast, “it started very simply. It was a border dispute. And a nation is bound by borders. We have let a it linger for too long with a Line of Control.”

Coming back to the questions being raised by the person with the microphone in front of Pakistan High Commission, London, emotions were running high in the crowd and no one answered properly or rather the answers were just a lot of voices over each other. There were slogans of “Kashmir is a part of India”, “One nation” and so on, but no concrete response. It was truly representative of situation in India all the time. There are just so many voices over each other. We are never united. It is so easy to splinter us.

Now it is more necessary than ever to consolidate our thoughts and our actions.  We should have a plan – from the head. Not based on emotions, not based on vote banks, not based on petty politics. We owe it to all the lives lost in this long drawn battle over the decades. We owe it to the families who send their sons from other parts of India to fight for no-man’s land.

Are we not barking up the wrong tree?

Raise your son better if you want your daughter's safety. Like who died and made this the panacea for instilling safety of women ? And what about the women whose peers are sons who have already been raised. Women like my sister, my best friend, me? Ours is a lost cause eh? We have to live in the probable belief that our daughters will be safer? That's tad unfair isn't it?

So women who have borne sons and now have the additional responsibility of raising them well (lucky me with two girls, I can raise them however I like). I feel, the problem lies somewhere else. In my humble opinion these might bring about an iota of difference. 

1. Increase culpability - Eveteasing, molestation, abuse, rape - increase their culpability. And to enforce this increase the culpability of the law enforcement agencies.  A more 'innocent until proven guilty' approach would be helpful in this respect. If a woman can report and see the consequences of her action, every woman will be emboldened. If a man is reported against and faces the consequences, it will set an example to his homies that some actions are illegal. No amount of conscience rapping will do the job. It's a cheap thrill for many. They feel they can do something and get away with it. They do have maa-behen at home. But that lady walking on the steeet or sitting on the window seat is not maa-behen. So with her anything goes. Till - we have the laws to make sure that no, anything does not go. 

3. Police power - 1 cannot be effective if the police force is incompetent without an accountability. Most of the time the police is lethargic when responding to cases of abuse. At other times they engage in victim blaming. Again , both these actions should be culpable offenses.

2. Light it up - Light up the streets, the alleys, the by lanes. The roads that are not too bright, are avoided. But for some that might be the only way home. Lurching in the darkness are the breed of scum for whom abusing is a woman gives them a high. If we shine the light and make cctv cameras rampant there might be some hope. There is a study which states that the consciousness that one is being watched reduces the occurrence of crimes. But then this goes hand in hand with point one. If a crime is committed, make sure that the resources are utilised to bring the perpetrators to book. 

3. Make sex available - well sex is still a taboo. People in India reach puberty around the same time as the rest of the world, but can avail 'sex' mostly after parental consent. If it was more available in the form of an established industry, relationship or even through the medium of toys and appendages - I feel it could bring about a lot of change. If it was a freely discussed subject like dandruff or downloading movies, it would make it much safer for girls. Girls would not be shame faced to tell their parents that the uncle next door brushed against her in a 'weird' way. And there might be a chance to nip it in the bud rather than her waiting to get to college and out of the neighbourhood.

Yes - lot of other things will help. Pepper spray, martial arts and self defence training, a sock filled with an unused bar of soap, presence of mind. Raising your sons right - well it might help. 

Bluntly speaking - all the generalisation about working/Staying at home

Last month there were 2 popular forwards doing their rounds on Facebook. I take all the forwards on any social networking site with a pinch of salt. They are much to my amusement only. But these 2 - apart from amusing me, also angered me.

One of them was about Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook COO stating 'Choosing a partner is the most important career-decision a woman can make'. The second was about a post by a dad stating that he could not afford his Stay-at-home-mom (SAHM) wife, because her contributions were monetarily superseding his earnings. Predictably the former forward was most happily posted by working women and the latter by SAHM moms! 

The pattern, the generalisation, the whole tone of the both the articles angered me (I am not sure how much truth the articles hold) . And I have got to get it out.

First let me tackle my own kind - the working women. I think they are being supremely narrow minded when they are setting the be-all and end-all of their career as their husband. Yes husband's are important. There is nothing more gracious than a husband who shares house work, since the woman is sharing the accounts. But then is the husband the responsible party for the woman's career?! That is what is technically called a Single Point of Failure. So if we ascertain the single point of failure as the husband, flipping the reasoning, he would be the single point of success as well. How many women would be ok to give the credit of all their success - career wise - to their husband? Guess very few! We would love to take some accolade for our drive, motivation, hard work. If that works for a successful one, that works for every one. Women themselves are solely responsible for their careers. Children, family, husband - all play a role. Then it depends how we handle , or want to handle each of them. When my child was unhappy at daycare, I was on the verge of quitting. Something stopped me, and today both she and I are doing good. Had I quit, things would have panned out differently, but that would have been because of how I handled things. I can assure, my husband would have supported me either way. It was my call.

Another angle of it is most women are considering scenarios of the present generation only. I am a third generation working woman. My grandmothers used to work too! I have many grand-aunts who used to work. All my aunts work. I have seen many situations where they faced opposition from husbands, in laws - what is the need to work? Those were not the days of insatiable wants. But they worked - to improve their overall state, to engage in something fulfilling. They ended up etching a career for themselves and getting the approvals of dissidents. Where there is a will there is a way. It is very easy to pin everything on a single person. And everyone loves a scape-goat! 

Now for the cost of not being able to afford a SAHM. I have not heard anything more ludicrous than this! Attaching a monetary value for a mom feeding, giving bath, ensuring naps, changing diapers, et al. First of all, if the dad should get a fact correct - you attach a value to an economic service.  Parenting is not an economic service. If it was taken at that, you would need to attach a value to the first trimester of nausea, the second of bloated-ness and the third trimester of sleepless-ness and general discomfort. And pray do not ask me the price of enduring labour, or going through the recovery of a Cesarean section. Mind you - woman do lose their lives in child birth. I am sure if this dad accounted all that costs - that would have been an effective contraception against any progeny. 

What a SAHM does, is on her own volition. Adding it up - it is a voluntary activity. There is no price attached to a voluntary activity. If it is involuntary, which means, she was not fit for a job market, then again, she had no scope in engaging in any lucrative economic activity anyway. (I  know that sounds harsh!) It is fool hardy to attach a monetary value for child care activities - be it by a working woman or SAHM. It is ok to attach it to a child care worker, since he/she is enabling someone else to earn(i.e. the mother) - by producing goods or services. Hence they are a secondary service in their own regard.

Leaving the solid economic concept line,  I feel you cannot attach a price tag on everything. Can we attach a price to what our parents did for us? Can we attach a price on the worry our grandparents feel if they hear we are travelling and have not called back in the past 2 hours? Can we attach a price on the satisfaction on helping a stranger find the way, offering a seat to an elderly, letting a lady with a screaming child ahead in the queue? If we can, then am afraid all hope is lost for humanity!  

Well.... these are entirely my opinion, and I would love a healthy argument on either stems. But nothing emotional about it - I would love purely analytic arguments please :) 

Bluntly speaking - Kids

Roomie dear allegedly checks my blog site every single day and gets mighty disappointed not finding anything new. She even said, 'The Book thief had become the blog thief' :D Well said! I have been meaning to write something, anything at all. But my head was as empty as a null object (Excuse the atrociously bad joke, I am an object oriented programmer :P ) 

I am a very strong opinionated person. I think I started writing my posts, because I did not feel many people in the world could stomach my spoken word :D But then somewhere down the line, I veered away from venting much of my pearls of wisdom. Since there was nothing ground breaking happening anyway, I thought, might as well spread some shock and awe and reveal my ground breaking thoughts ;) 

Disclaimer before the reader proceeds : The thoughts are entirely my own. I would encourage a healthy hearty debate. I would love some in fact. But in good spirits of course :) 

Let me pick up something I have been having a lot of conversation about lately - kids. One aspect that I regularly see myself defending is why have kids? I was not a great fan of kids. I loved the bubbly, vibrant sorts who would get along with any stranger. But who does nt love those kids who perform to the crowds? I quite like kids now that I have had one of my own :D 

When asked why have kids, my rational, scientific mind says - because it is biologically natural to have kids. It is nature's dictum to try and improve our gene pool and produce the next generation. That is why I am a big proponent for cross cultural, cross ethnicity kids - mix the genes, make them stronger! I feel it is not only physically natural to have kids, it is emotionally natural too. Like the logical synapses of the mind enrich when we learn a new trade or pick a new skill. I feel the emotional circuits gets enriched when we have one additional person to love , to care. Why does gardening or looking after a puppy make one feel so good? Its the love and care that we put into something that gives us an intangible gratification. Imagine the gratification when you see something you have created out of your own self smile back, hold your finger, kiss your cheeks! It is surreal.

During the organic chemistry days, I remember, a lesson about covalent and ionic bonds. Without boring readers from other faculties (as if my topic was not boring enough :S ) , bonds are what tie elements together. A covalent bond is where some electrons are shared between elements, while ionic ones are where one elements lends some electrons and the other borrows some. Both result in a relationship - a bond. A covalent bond is way stronger than an ionic bond. Logical is nt it. A relationship based on sharing is stronger that one based on give and take! Look at that - science showing us the way :D With children I feel couples get the electrons to share. Some argue that, they have everything going swell. Why would they need  children to strengthen a bond. I do not say that kids strengthen a weak relationship or can mend bridges. They are an reinforcement to an already strong tie. Honestly, I have not seen a couple who have consciously decided to stay away from children, not being pulled towards puppies, kittens or the likes. The desire to nurture and rear is too natural.

I also feel, kids are a link to the previous generation. They not bind us to our parents. They see a miniature of their kids in their grand kids. In fact, the lack of day to day responsibilities, makes them look at grand kids as even more engaging exercise. Most talks veers towards the young ones, but then, that is so much more satisfying.

There is one last argument with which I would rest my case. I have met more people who have regretted not having children, than who have repented having them. So go on... parenting is worth it.

PS. I do not judge or cast aspersions on anyone who has chosen not to have children for whatever reason. It is after all a free world.