Notes to self

Movie of the week

2010-05-23T11:29:00.001-04:00

படம் : ஆயிரத்தில் ஒருவன்
இயக்கியவர் : செல்வராகவன்
வருடம் : 2010
கதைச் சுருக்கம் :
1279 -இல் சோழ நாட்டு மன்னன் பாண்டியர்களின் கையில் தோல்வியுற்று நாட்டை இழந்து ஓடுகையில் தனது வம்சம் வருங்காலத்தில் தழைக்க சில மக்களையும் சோழ இளவரசனையும் ஒரு ரகசிய இடத்திற்கு அனுப்பி வைக்கிறான். காலங்காலமாக சோழ மக்களும் இளவரசனும் அந்த இடத்தில் வளர்ந்து வருகின்றனர் . அந்த இடத்தை அடைவதற்கு பல தடைகளைத் (கடல், நரமாமிசம், வீரம், பாம்பு, பசி, புதை மணல், கிராமம் ) தாண்ட வேண்டும். பல ஆண்டுகளாக தொல்பொருள் ஆராய்ச்சியாளர்கள் அதனை அடைய முயன்று தோல்வி அடைந்தனர். சந்திரமௌலி (பிரதாப் போத்தன்) என்ற தொல்பொருள் ஆராய்ச்சியாளர் இவ்வாறு மறைந்தவுடன் அவரை மீட்டு வர இந்திய அரசு அனிதா பாண்டியன் (ரீமா சென் ) தலைமையில் ஒரு குழுவை அனுப்புகிறது. இந்த குழுவிற்கு மத்திய அமைச்சர் வீரபாண்டியனின் முழு ஆதரவு அளிக்கப்படுகிறது. அவருக்குத் துணையாக சந்திரமௌலி -இன் மகளான லாவண்யாவும் (மற்றொரு தொல்பொருள் ஆராய்ச்சியாளர் - ஆண்ட்ரியா ), ரவிசேகரனும் (குழுவின் பாதுகாப்பிற்கான காவல் படைத் தலைவன் - அழகம் பெருமாள் ), முத்துவும் ( குழுவின் கூலிப் பட்டாளத்தின் தலைவன் - கார்த்தி ) செல்கிறார்கள். அனைத்துத் தடைகளையும் கடந்து அனிதா, லாவண்யா மற்றும் முத்து சோழ மன்னன் (பார்த்திபன்) இருக்கின்ற இடத்தை அடைகிறார்கள். முதலில் மூவரையும் நரபலிக்காக சிறைப்படுத்தினாலும், அனிதா சோழ மன்னனிடம் முறையிட்டு அவனது நம்பிக்கைக்குப் பாத்திரமாகிறாள். அவளை நம்பி சோழ மன்னன் தனது வம்சத்திற்கு விடிவுகாலம் வந்து விட்டது என்று நம்பி சோழ அரசின் தலைநகரமான தஞ்சாவூருக்குச் செல்லத் தயாராகிறான். சோழ நாட்டு வரலாற்றில் விடிவுகாலத்தின் அறிகுறிகள் சொல்லப் பட்டிருந்தாலும் அவை எதுவும் நடக்காத பட்சத்தில் சோழ மக்களுக்குச் சந்தேகம் ஏற்படுகிறது. ஆனால், தங்களது அரசன் விடிவுகாலம் வந்து விட்டது என்று கூறுவதனால் அவனை நம்புகின்றனர். இறுதியில், அனிதா-வால் ஏமாற்றப்பட்டு சோழ மன்னனும் லாவண்யாவும், முத்துவும், சோழ மக்களும் சின்னாப்பின்னப்படுத்தப்பட்டு, எஞ்சிய மக்கள் இந்திய அரசால் சிறைப்படுத்தப் படுகின்றனர். தனது மக்களின் நிலைமையை பொறுத்துக்குள்ள முடியாமல் சோழ மன்னன் தற்கொலை செய்து கொள்கிறான். இந்த அமளியில் சோழ இளவரசனுடன் முத்து காட்டிற்குள் தப்பிச் சென்று விடுகிறான்.

அலசல் :
இந்த படத்தை இரு படங்களாகப் பார்க்கலாம். முதல் பாதியில் அனிதா தலைமையில் தொல் பொருள் ஆராய்ச்சிக் குழு பல தடைகளைத் தாண்டி சோழ மன்னன் இருக்கும் இடத்தை அடைகின்றது. இரண்டாவது பாதியில், சோழ மன்னனிடமும் அந்நாட்டு மக்களிடமும் அனிதா, லாவண்யா மற்றும் முத்து மாட்டிக் கொண்டதன் விளைவுகளை விவரிக்கின்றது.
முதல் பகுதி பல ஹாலிவுட் படங்களின் நகல் போல் இருக்கிறது. க்ளடியாடோர் (Gladiator ), இன்டியானா ஜோன்ஸ் (Indiana Jones ) மற்றும் பல படங்களில் இருந்து தாராளமாக கடன் வாங்கியிருக்கிறார்கள். ஆனால், ஸ்பெஷல் எபக்ட்ஸ் (special effects ) மீது நிறைய கவனம் செலுத்தாதனால் அவை நன்றாக இல்லை. பார்த்தவுடன் ஸ்பெஷல் எபக்ட்ஸ் தான் என்று கண்டு பிடிக்கும் அளவுக்கு சிறுபிள்ளைத்தனமாக இருக்கின்றன. முதல் பாதியில் அனிதா, லாவண்யா மற்றும் முத்து ஆகியவர்களின் பாத்திரங்களை நன்றாக செதுக்கி இருக்கிறார்கள். முதல் பாதியின் இறுதியில் இந்த படத்தை ஏண்டா எடுத்தோம் என்று தோன்ற ஆரம்பித்து விட்டது. மற்ற செல்வராகவனின் படங்கள் போல இந்த படத்திலும் கதை நாயகன் மற்றும் நாயகிகள் பாத்திரங்கள் அவற்றின் இலக்கணத்தை தகர்த்து எறிகின்றன. மூன்று பாத்திரங்களும் படத்தில் முத்து சொல்வது போல் 'பேசினா கூவ நாத்தம் நாறுது' போல் நடந்து கொள்கின்றனர். இந்தப் பகுதியில் ஒளிப்பதிவும் இந்த காலப் படம் போல் இருக்கிறது.
இரண்டாம் பகுதியில் கதை பெரும்பாலும் இருட்டிலும் மிக வேகமாக நகரும் கேமரா மூலமாகவும் எடுக்கப்படிருக்கிறது. செல்வராகவன் இந்தப் பாதியை படமாக எடுத்திருக்கலாம். ஒளிப்பதிவாளர் வெளிச்சம் காட்டும் போது, சோழ மன்னனின் மலைக்குகையும் சரி, அவனைச் சுற்றியிருக்கும் மக்களின் உடையும் நடையும் நன்றாக இருக்கிறது. இந்தப் பகுதியில் படத்தின் உள்ள முக்கியக் கதாபாத்திரங்களின் பெயர்க்காரணமும் கதையின் போக்கும் தெளிவடைகின்றது.
செல்வராகவன் படத்தின் இரண்டாம் பாதியை கல்கியின் பொன்னியின் செல்வன் கதையின் பாத்திரங்களைப் பயன்படுத்தி சொல்லி இருக்கிறார். பொன்னியின் செல்வனின் கதாபாத்திரங்களும் இந்த கதையில் வரும் பாத்திரங்களுக்கும் என்னுடைய ஓப்பீடு :
அனிதா - நந்தினி
ரவிசேகரன் - ரவிதாசன்
முத்து - வந்தியத்தேவன்
சோழ மன்னன் - ஆதித்த கரிகாலன்
லாவண்யா - குந்தவை
அமைச்சர் வீரபாண்டியன் - வீரபாண்டியன்
சோழ மன்னரின் அமைச்சர் - பெரிய பழுவேட்டரையர்
தொல் பொருள் குழுவின் வழிகாட்டி - பூங்குழலி (??? )
கல்கியின் கதையில் சோழர்கள் நல்லவர்களாகவும் பாண்டியர்கள் கெட்டவர்களாகவும் வருகின்றனர். அந்த கதை எழுதிய காலத்திற்கேற்ப (1940 - 1960 ) நல்லவர்கள் (சோழர்கள்) கெட்டவர்களை (பாண்டியர்கள்) வென்றார்கள். அந்த காலக் கட்டத்தில் தமிழ் கலாச்சாரத்தில் நன்மையே வெல்லும் என்ற நம்பிக்கையின் வெளிப்பாடாக பொன்னியின் செல்வன் அமைந்தது. சுதந்திரம் அடைந்த இந்திய நாட்டில் பொன்னியின் செல்வன் கதை தமிழ் கலாச்சாரத்தின் நன்மையைப் போற்றியது.
இந்தியா சுதந்திரம் அடைந்து 60 ஆண்டுகள் ஆகிய நிலைமையில், தமிழ் கலாச்சாரத்தின் நிரந்தர நன்மை இந்த படத்தில் கேள்விக்குறியாக இருக்கிறது. அவ்வாறு பார்த்தால், சோழ மன்னன் தனது மக்களிடம் நடந்து கொள்ளும் விதமும் பொன்னியின் செல்வனின் கதாபாத்திரங்களின் நடத்தையும் இன்றைய தமிழ் கலாச்சாரத்தைக் காட்டுகின்றன. மேலும், தமிழ் இலக்கியத்தில் பொன்னியின் செல்வனின் மூலம் உருவாக்கப்பட்ட சோழர்கள் நல்லவர்கள், பாண்டியர்கள் கெட்டவர்கள் என்ற எண்ணம் இந்த படத்தில் அடக்கப்பட்டிருக்கிறது. தமிழ் மன்னர்கள் நடை உடை பாவனையும் இந்த படத்தின் மூலம் யதார்த்தப்படுத்தபட்டிருக்கின்றன. தமிழ் மன்னர்கள் என்றால் எம் ஜி ஆர் மற்றும் சிவாஜி போல் நடை உடையிலும் எஸ் எஸ் ஆர் போல் பேச்சிலும் இருக்க வேண்டும் என்ற எண்ணத்தை இந்த படத்தில் கடைப்பிடிக்கவில்லை. காலங்காலமாக தமிழ் படங்களில் வரும் தமிழ் மன்னர்கள் திராவிட கலாச்சாரத்தைப் பின்பற்றி அதன் அரசியல் எண்ணங்களுக்கு ஒரு வாகனமாக இருந்திருக்கிறார்கள். இந்த படத்தில், அதே திராவிட இனத்தில் வரும் முத்து பாத்திரம் சாதாரணமான தமிழனுடைய நற்குணங்களும் கெட்ட குணங்களும் உடையவனாகக் காண்பிக்கப்பட்டு இறுதியில் சோழ இளவரசனின் காப்பாளனாக ஆகிறான். இதற்குப் பிறகு, சத்யராஜ் மற்றும் விஜயகாந்த் போன்றோர்கள் தமிழ் மன்னர்கள் போல் வேடம் போடுவதன் மூலம் தமிழ் நாட்டு அரசியலில் நுழையலாம் என்ற நிலைமை மாறலாம்.
முத்து அனிதா மற்றும் லாவண்யாவிடம் இன்றைய தமிழ் கலாச்சாரத்தில் நடந்து கொள்ளும் முறை பொன்னின் செல்வனில் வந்தியத்தேவன் நந்தினி இடமும் குந்தவை இடமும் 1940 - 1960 இன் தமிழ் கலாச்சாரதிர்கேற்ப நடந்து கொள்வது போல் இருக்கிறது.
படத்தில், கார்த்தி, ரீமா சென் மற்றும் பார்த்திபன் நன்றாக செய்திருக்கிறார்கள். இந்த மூவரும் இரண்டாம் பாதியில் பொன்னியின் செல்வனில் வரும் கதாப்பாத்திரங்கள் போல் நடிக்கின்றனர். ஆண்ட்ரியா சொதப்பியிருக்கிறார். நவீன தமிழ் கலாச்சாரத்தில் உள்ள பெண்ணின் பாத்திரத்திலிருந்து அவரால் வெளியில் வர முடியவில்லை.

Book of the week

2010-02-23T15:49:00.004-05:00

புத்தகம் : பேட் சமரிடன்ஸ்
வருடம் : 2009
ஆசிரியர் : ஹா-ஜூன் சங்
தொடர்வெளியீடு : எழுத்துப் பிழைகளைச் சரி செய்தல்

சுருக்கம் :
உலகப் பொருளாதாரத்தில், நாடுகள் அவரவர் நிலைமையை முன்னேற்றுவதற்காக வெவ்வேறு யுக்திகளை கையாள்கின்றன. இப்பொழுது, பல நாடுகளில், வெவ்வேறு அளவிற்கு சுதந்திர வர்த்தகம் (Free trade ) மற்றும் உலகமயமாக்குதல் (Globalization ) என்ற கோட்பாடுகள் பயன்படுத்தப்படுகிறது. இந்த இரு தூண்களைக் கொண்ட புதிய தாராளவாதித்துவம் (Neo Liberalism ) என்ற கொள்கையை உலகத்தின் வளர்ந்த (பொருளாதார ரீதியில்) நாடுகள் மிகவும் உற்சாகமாக, ஒரு வளர்ச்சிப் பாதையாக, எஞ்சிய நாடுகளுக்கு போதிக்கின்றன (காண்க : தாமஸ் பிரீட்மான் (See : Thomas Friedman )). சுதந்திர வர்த்தகத்தின் மூலம் வளரும் நாடுகள், வளர்ந்த நாடுகளின் செழுமை அளவை அடைய முடியும் என்றும் அதற்கேற்ப வளரும் நாடுகள் தங்கள் பொருளாதாரத்தையும் வர்த்தகத்தையும் மாற்றி அமைக்க வேண்டும் என்றும் வளர்ந்த நாடுகளின் பொருளியலாளர்கள் தங்களிடையே நிலவும் உடன்பாட்டைத் தெரிவிக்கின்றனர். இந்தப் புத்தகத்தில், சுதந்திர வர்த்தகம் மற்றும் உலகமயமாக்குதல் கோட்பாடுகள், வளர்ந்த நாடுகள் கூறுவது போல் இல்லை என்றும் அதனை வளர்ந்த நாடுகள் சொற்கேற்ப கடைபிடிப்பதன் மூலம் வளரும் நாடுகள் தங்களது வளர்ச்சியை முடக்கி விடும் என்றும் காட்டுகிறார்.
பைபிள்-இல் வரும் குட் சமரிடன் (Good Samaritan ) நடத்தைப் போல், வளர்ந்த நாடுகள் போதிக்கும் வர்த்தகக் கொள்கைகள் பின் உள்ள நோக்கம் வளரும் நாடுகளுக்கு உதவுவதாக இருந்தாலும், நடைமுறையில் வளரும் நாடுகளின் வளர்ச்சிக்கு முட்டுக்கட்டையாக இருப்பதை இந்த புத்தகத்தில் சுட்டிக் காட்டியிருக்கிறார்.

அலசல் :

ஒரு நாட்டு மக்கள் தங்களுடைய அத்தியாவசியத் தேவைகள் பூர்த்தி செய்தது போக எஞ்சி இருக்கும் பணத்தை வரிக்கும் சேமிப்பிற்கும் செலவிற்கும் முதலீட்டிற்கும் பயன்படுத்துகின்றனர்.
பணம் ஒரு நாட்டின் வளர்ச்சிக்கு முக்கிய பங்கு வகிக்கிறது. அந்தப் பணம் வெவ்வேறு வழிகளின் மூலம் அந்த நாட்டு அரசிற்குக் கிடைக்கிறது.

வரி (Tax) :
நாட்டு மக்கள் தாங்கள் சம்பாதித்த பணத்தை அல்லது மரபு வழியாக வந்த சொத்தை, அந்த நாட்டின் வளர்ச்சிக்காக ஒரு பங்கை அரசிற்கு வரியாகக் கொடுக்கலாம். இந்த பணம் அரசிற்கு நிரந்தரமான வருவாயாக இருக்கும். இவ்வாறு கொடுப்பதற்கு முன், மக்கள் அரசிடமிருந்து என்ன கிடைக்கும் என்பதை அலசுகின்றனர். ஜனநாயக நாடுகளில், மக்கள் தங்கள் அரசை தேர்தல் மூலம் தேர்ந்தெடுப்பதின் மூலம், அந்த அரசின் வளர்ச்சிக் கொள்கைகளையும் பணம் கையாளும் முறையையும் பற்றிய தங்கள் கருத்தைத் தெரிவிக்கின்றனர். அரசு, ஜனநாயகம் இல்லாத நாடுகளிலும் சர்வாதிகாரம் உடைய நாடுகளிலும், மக்களின் சம்மதம் இல்லாமல் அவர்களுடைய பணத்தின் ஒரு பங்கை வரியாக நாட்டு வளர்ச்சிக்கு எடுத்துக் கொள்கிறது. பொதுவுடமை உடைய நாடுகளில் அந்த நாட்டின் பொதுவுடமைக் கட்சியின் தலைமைக் குழு (Politburo ) அந்தப் பங்கை நிர்ணயிக்கிறது. மக்களிடம் இருந்து வரும் வரிப்பணம் போரவில்லை என்றால், அரசு மற்ற வழிகளைக் கையாளலாம்.
கடன் (Debt ) :
சில திட்டங்களுக்கு, அரசு தனது அதிகாரத்தைப் பயன்படுத்தி பான்ட் (Bond ) வெளியிடலாம். இந்த முறையில், மக்கள் அரசின் பான்ட்-ஐ வாங்கிக் கொண்டு அந்த பான்ட்-இன் மூலம் வரும் வட்டியை தங்கள் வரவாக ஏற்றுக் கொள்வார்கள். அரசு பான்ட்-ஐ வெளியிடும் போது, அந்த திட்டத்தின் வரவு செலவுக் கணக்கை விளக்குவதோடு, அந்த திட்டத்தினால் வரும் லாபத்தையும் அந்த லாபம் கைக்கு வரும் அட்டவணையையும் சுட்டிக் காட்டும். இதன் மூலம், அந்த பான்ட்-ஐ வாங்கியவர்கள் தங்களுடைய முடிவு மேலும் வரவை அளிக்கிறதா என்றும் வரவு அளிக்கும் வழிகளில் எந்த வழி சிறந்தது என்பதையும் அறிந்து கொள்ளலாம். அரசு, இந்த திட்டத்தை செயல்படுத்துவதற்காக செலவிடும் அரசு வளத்தை (Public expenses ), அந்த திட்டத்தில் லாபம் அடைந்த மக்களிடம் இருந்து வரியாக எடுத்துக் கொள்ளலாம்.
வெளிநாட்டுக் கடன் (Foreign Debt ) :
இவ்வழிகள் மூலம் பணம் சேரவில்லை என்றால், அரசு மற்ற நாடுகளில் உள்ள மக்களையையோ நிறுவனங்களையையோ குறி வைக்கலாம். வேற்று நாட்டு மக்களோ நிறுவனங்களோ தங்களுடைய முதலீட்டிற்கு ஏற்ற வரவு கிடைக்கும் என்ற நம்பிக்கை இருந்தால் தங்கள் பணத்தை முதலீடு செய்வார்கள். இதன் வீக்கம் என்னவென்றால், வேற்று நாட்டு மக்களோ நிறுவனங்களோ எந்த காரணத்தை கொண்டு அதிருப்தி அடைந்தால், தங்கள் பணத்தை திரும்பப் பெற்றுவிடுவார்கள். அந்த நாட்டு மக்கள் தங்களுடைய அரசு பணத்தை எவ்வாறு கையாள்கிறது என்பதை வரவு செலவுத்திட்டத்தின் (Budget ) மூலமும் நடைமுறையில் எவ்வாறு அது செயல்படுத்தப் பட்டிருக்கிறது என்பதையையும் அறிந்து கொள்ளலாம். வேற்று நாட்டு மக்கள் வரவு செலவுத்திட்டத்தைப் படித்து ஒரு நாட்டின் அரசு தன்னுடைய கையில் உள்ள பணத்தை எந்த திட்டங்களுக்கு பகிர்ந்து கொடுக்கப் போகிறது என்பதை அறிந்து கொள்ளலாம். நடைமுறையில் அவ்வாறு நடந்திருக்கிறதா என்பதை அறிவது கடினம். அந்த நாட்டில் உள்ள தகவல் நிறுவனங்கள் மூலம் அந்த விவரத்தை அறிய முடிந்தால் வேற்று நாட்டு மக்களுக்கு முடிவெடுக்க சுலபமாக இருக்கும். அந்தத் தகவல் கிடைக்கவில்லை என்றால் (அந்த நாட்டில் தகவல் நிறுவனங்கள் இல்லை என்பதனாலோ, அந்த தகவல் வேறு மொழியில் இருப்பதனாலோ, அந்த நாட்டின் அரசு தவறான தகவலை பரப்புவதாலோ) வேற்று நாட்டு மக்களுக்கு அந்த முடிவை எடுப்பது கடினமாக இருக்கும். வேற்று நாட்டு நிதி நிறுவனங்கள் இதில் கொஞ்சம் அதிக அனுபவம் இருந்தாலும், அவர்களுடைய நிலைமையும் கடினமானது தான்.
வெளிநாட்டு முதலீடு (Foreign Investment ) :
சில நாடுகள், வெளிநாட்டு நிறுவனங்களிடம் உள்ள பண முதலீட்டோடு தொழில் நுட்ப அறிவையும் ஒரு பரிசாகக் கருதி, அந்த நிறுவனங்களைக் கவரக் கூடிய வகையில் பல விதிகளை இயற்றி அந்த நிறுவனங்களை தங்கள் நாட்டில் முதலீடு செய்ய முற்படுவர். இவ்வாறு செய்வதன் காரணம், அரசாங்கம் தொழில் நுட்ப அறிவின் பயன் தங்கள் மக்களை சென்று சேரும் என்பது தான். காலப் போக்கில், அந்த தொழில் நுட்பத்தில் அந்த நாட்டு மக்கள் மிகவும் தேர்ந்தவர்களாக ஆகி, அதன் மூலம் நாட்டிற்கு பணம் சம்பாதித்து கொடுப்பார் (இது இரு விதத்தில் நடக்கும் - ஒன்று, அந்த தொழில் நுட்ப அறிவை அறிவதற்கும் செயல்படுத்துவதற்கும் தங்கள் நாட்டில் இருந்து பணத்தை வேறு நாட்டிற்கு அனுப்ப வேண்டாம், இரண்டு - அந்த தொழில் நுட்பத்தை மற்ற நாடுகளுக்கு விற்று தங்கள் நாட்டு அந்நியச் செலாவணியையும் மக்களின் வேலை வாய்ப்பையும் அதிகரிக்கலாம்). இது, பெரும்பாலும் கூட்டு முயற்சியாக (Joint Venture ) செயல்படுத்தப்படும். வெளிநாட்டு நிறுவனம், மற்ற நாட்டின் மக்களிடையே தன்னுடைய பொருட்களுக்கு ஒரு சந்தையை உருவாக்குவதற்காக இதைச் செய்யலாம். மேலும், ஒரு நாட்டின் தொழிலாளர் செலவை (Labour cost ) தங்களுக்கு சாதகமாக்கிக் கொள்வதற்கும் ஒரு வெளிநாட்டு நிறுவனம் இந்த முறையை பின்பற்றும்.
இவற்றிற்கு அப்பாற்பட்டு, ஒரு அரசின் பணத் தேவையைப் பூர்த்தி செய்ய பல நாட்டு நிறுவனங்களும் ஒப்பந்தங்களும் உள்ளன. இவற்றில் முக்கியமானவை, பொருளாதார உலகின் மூன்று தெய்வங்கள் எனக் கருதப்படும் இன்டர்நேஷனல் மானிடரி பண்ட் (IMF - International Monetary Fund ), வோர்ல்ட் பேங்க் (World Bank ) மற்றும் காட் (GATT - General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ) ஆவோர். இந்த மூன்று தூண்களும் புதிய தாராளவாதித்துவம் (Neo Liberalism) எனும் எண்ணத்தைச் சார்ந்தவை.
புதிய தாராளவாதிகள் (Neo Liberalists ) :
ஒரு நாட்டின் பொருளாதார சுகாதாரத்தின் நற்சான்றிதழை அளிப்பதற்கு IMF காரணமாக இருக்கிறது. ஒரு நாட்டிற்கு கடன் கொடுப்பதற்கு வோர்ல்ட் பேங்க் காரணமாக இருக்கிறது. இந்த இரண்டு நிறுவனங்கள், நிதித் தட்டுபாடுள்ள வளரும் நாடுகளுக்கும் பொருளாதார அனுபவமும் சொந்த நிறுவனங்களும் இல்லாத நாடுகளுக்கும் நிதி உதவியும் பொருளாதார செயர்பாட்டுதவியும் அளிக்கின்றன.
சுதந்திர வர்த்தகம் என்பது உலகின் உள்ள நாட்டு எல்லைகளைப் பாராமல் வர்த்தகம் எங்கும் பரவ வேண்டும் என்பதை வலியுறுத்துகிறது. ஒரு நாட்டின் அரசிற்கு அதன் எல்லைக்குள் நடக்கும் வர்த்தகத்தை ஒழுங்குபடுத்துவதர்க்குரிய உரிமையை அந்த நாட்டு மக்கள் அளிக்கிறார்கள் (ஜனநாயகத்தில் அது தேர்தலின் மூலம் அளிக்கப் படுகிறது. சர்வாதிகாரத்தில் அந்த நாட்டின் தலைவர் (கள்) அந்த உரிமையை மக்கள் சார்பாக எடுத்துக் கொள்கிறார்கள். ஜனநாயகம் அல்லாத பொதுவுடமை அரசமைப்பு உள்ள நாடுகளில் பொதுவுடமைக் கட்சியின் தலைமைக் குழு அந்த உரிமையை மக்கள் சார்பாக எடுத்துக் கொள்கிறது.). இதன் அடிப்படை ஒரு நாட்டின் அரசிற்கு தன்னுடைய ஆட்சிக்குள் உள்ள மக்களின் நலன் எதுவென்று தெரியும் என்பது தான். தன் ஆட்சிக்குட்பட்ட மக்கள் விருப்பப்பட்டால் பரிமாற்றம் செய்யப்படும் பொருட்களின் மீது நிறைய வரி செலுத்தி அரசாங்கம் தனது கஜானாவை பலப்படுத்தலாம். வெளி நாட்டு பொருட்களின் மீதுள்ள ஆர்வத்தினால் பணம் நாட்டை விட்டு வெளியே போகிறது என்றால் அதற்கேற்ப சுதந்திர வர்த்தகத்தைக் கட்டுப்படுத்தலாம். அதே நேரம், அரசாங்க அதிகாரிகள் லஞ்சம் மற்றும் சட்டவிரோதமான செயல்கள் மூலம் கஜானாவை காலி செய்தால் மக்களுக்கு அதிருப்தி ஏற்பட்டு அரசை அகற்றி விடலாம். நிறைய வரி கட்டினால் மக்கள் தங்கள் வாழ்க்கை நிலை முன்னேறவில்லை என்றால் அந்த வரி அளவை குறைக்க அரசாங்கத்தைக் கேட்டு கொள்ளலாம். அரசாங்கம் செவி சாய்த்து மக்களுக்கு தங்கள் நிலைமை மீது திருப்தி இருந்தால் அரசு நீண்ட நாள் ஆளும். மக்களுக்கு தங்கள் நிலைமை மீது திருப்தி இல்லை என்றால் அரசு அடுத்த தேர்தலில் வீழ்ந்து விடும். அரசின் கஜானாவில் பணம் குறைந்து விட்டால் மக்களுக்கு தேவையான பொதுச் சேவைகள் முடங்கி விடும். இதனால், மக்களின் அதிருப்தி அதிகமானால் அரசிடம் வரியைக் கூட்டச் சொல்லி முறையிடலாம். வரிக் கட்டுவதில் இஷ்டம் இல்லை என்றால் பொதுச் சேவைகளின் நிலையில் இறக்கத்தைக் காண வேண்டி வரும்.
அரசுக்கும் மக்களுக்கும் உள்ள இந்த பரிமாற்றத்தை மாற்றும் வண்ணம் சுதந்திர வர்த்தகத்தின் கொள்கை அமைந்துள்ளது. நாடுகளின் எல்லையைப் பாராமல் பொருட்களும் பணமும் கடந்து புழங்க வேண்டும் என்ற நம்பிக்கைக்கேற்ப ஒரு நாட்டின் முதலீட்டுக் கட்டுப்பாடுகளும் (Capital Controls ) வரி நிலவும் (Tax rate) எவ்வளவு குறைவாக இருக்க முடியுமோ அவ்வளவு குறைவாக இருக்க வேண்டும். இது ஒரு சில பொருளியலாளர்களிடையே பரவி இருக்கும் பகுத்தறிவுச் சந்தை தோராயக்கருத்தின் வெளிப்பாடாகும். IMF - உம் வோர்ல்ட் பேங்க்-உம் இதனைப் பின்பற்றி தாங்கள் உதவி செய்யும் நாடுகளின் முதலீட்டுக் கட்டுபாடும் வரி நிலவும் குறைந்தே இருக்க வேண்டும் என்று நிர்பந்திக்கின்றனர். இதற்கு சம்மதித்தால், உதவிக் கேட்ட அரசிற்கு குறைய வட்டியில் தாராளமாகக் கடன் அளிக்கின்றனர். மேலும், இந்த இரு நிறுவனங்களும் ஒரு நாட்டின் பொருளாதாரத்தின் சுகாதாரத்தை அளவிட்டு அதனை வெளியிடுவதன் மூலம் வேற்று நாட்டு நிதி நிறுவனங்களும் மக்களும் மற்ற அரசுகளும் தங்கள் சொந்தப் பணத்தை முதலீடு செய்யலாமா வேண்டாமா என்ற முடிவுக்கு வருகின்றனர்.
IMF மற்றும் வோர்ல்ட் பேங்க் நிர்பந்தங்களுக்கு இணங்க வரி நிலவைக் குறைக்கின்ற அரசு, தன்னுடைய வரி வருவாய் குறைந்த நிலைமையில், இந்த நிறுவனங்களின் மீதும் வெளி நாட்டு மக்களின் மீதும் மற்றும் வெளி நாட்டு நிறுவனங்களின் மீதும் வெளி நாட்டு அரசுகளின் மீதும் நம்பிக்கை வைக்கிறது. இவ்வாறு, மக்களின் தீர்ப்பு, பணத் தட்டுப்பாட்டினால் IMF மற்றும் வோர்ல்ட் பேங்க் -இன் தீர்ப்பினால் மாற்றி எழுதப்படுகிறது. மக்கள் தங்கள் நாட்டு நலனுக்காக அரசுக்குக் கொடுத்த பணம் நேர்த்தியான முறையில் செலவுச் செய்யப்பட்டால் அதன் பலனை அனுபவித்து வாழ்வார்கள். மேலும், அரசின் செலவு தவறான முறையில் சென்றால் அதனை கண்டிக்கும் முறையில் நடவடிக்கை எடுப்பர். IMF மற்றும் வோர்ல்ட் பேங்க் காட்டும் வழியைப் பின்பற்றுவதன் மூலம் தங்களுடைய வருங்கால விதியை தங்கள் கட்டுப்பாட்டில் இல்லாமல் வெளிநாட்டவரின் கட்டுப்பாட்டில் விட்டு விடுகின்றனர்.
புதிய தாராளவாதிகளின் கோட்ப்பாட்டில் பணமும் பொருட்களும் சேவைகளும் நாடுகளின் எல்லைகளைப் பாராமல் எல்லா நாடுகளுக்கும் பரவுவதன் மூலம் அவற்றின் உண்மையான விலைமதிப்பை அறிய முடிகிறது என்று நம்புகின்றனர். இந்தப் பார்வை, பகுத்தறிவுச் சந்தை தோராயக்கருத்தின் விளைவாக சில பொருளியலாளர்கள்இடம் ஒரு மதக்கருத்தின் உண்மை போல் ஒட்டிக்கொண்டுவிட்டது. அந்த நாட்டு மக்களின் துயரத்தை அகற்றுவதற்காக அல்லது நாட்டு நலனுக்காக அரசு இந்த பரிமாற்றத்தில் தலையிட்டால் (பணப்புழக்கத்தை முடக்கியோ பொருள் அல்லது சேவை மீது வரியை கூட்டியோ) அது சந்தையின் குறியீட்டைக் கலப்படமாக்கி விடுகிறது என்று இந்த பொருளியலாளர்கள் நம்புகின்றனர்.

டேவிட் ரிக்கார்டோ (David Ricardo ) :

ஒரு நாட்டின் தொழில்நுட்பம் எளிமையான அளவில் கைக்கருவிகளை செய்யக் கூடிய அளவில் இருந்தால் அந்த செயல்திறனை அது மேலும் மேலும் மேம்படுத்துவதன் மூலம் அதன் உண்மையான மதிப்பை பெற முடிகிறது. அதே நாடு, அதிநவீன தொழில்நுட்ப அளவில் ஆற்றல் இருந்தாலும் மற்ற (எளிமையான) தொழில்நுட்ப அளவிற்கு இல்லை என்றால் அது அந்த அதிநவீன தொழில்நுட்பத்தைக் காட்டிலும் எளிமையான தொழில்நுட்பத்தில் கவனம் செலுத்த வேண்டும். இது சுதந்திர வர்த்தகம் மற்றும் உலகமயமாக்குதல் ஆகியவற்றின் அடிப்படையான ஒப்பீட்டுச் சாதகக் கோட்பாடு (Comparative Advantage Theory ) என்பதாகும். புதிய தாராளவாதிகளின் குருவாகக் கருதப்படும் டேவிட் ரிக்கார்டோ (David Ricardo ) என்ற ஆங்கிலேயப் பொருளியலாளர் கூறியது. இந்த கோட்பாட்டைக் கடைப்பிடித்திருந்தால் ஜப்பான் மற்றும் கொரியா போன்ற நாடுகள் 1940 மற்றும் 1950 களில் வேளாண்மைச் சமுதாயமாக இருந்து இருக்கும். ஒரு நாடு ஒரே தொழில்நுட்ப அளவில் தங்கி இருந்தால் இந்தக் கோட்பாடு பல நாடுகளுக்கு நடுவே நடக்கும் வர்த்தகத்தை நன்றாக விவரிக்கும். ஆனால், பல நாடுகள் எளிமையான தொழில்நுட்பத்தில் இருந்து அதிநவீன தொழில்நுட்பத்தை அடைகின்றன. புதிய தாராளவாதிகள் இதை மறந்து வளரும் நாடுகளுக்கு, இந்தக் கோட்பாட்டைப் பயன்படுத்தி, சுதந்திர வர்த்தகத்தையும் உலகமயமாக்குதலையும் போதனையாகக் கூறுகின்றனர்.
காட் (GATT ) :
புதிய தாராளவாதிகளின் எண்ணங்களில் மூன்றாவது காலாக இருக்கும் GATT என்ற ஒப்பந்தம் ஒவ்வொரு நாடும் ,உலகமயமாக்குதலின் பயன்களை அனுபவிக்க , கையெழுத்து இட வேண்டிய அங்கமாக வகிக்கிறது. இதன் மூலம் ஒவ்வொரு பொருள் மற்றும் சேவையின் அறிவியர்தனமான சொத்தின் (Intellectual Property ) விதிகளை எல்லா நாடுகளும் பின்பற்ற வேண்டும். இதன் மூலம் ஒரு பொருள் மற்றும் சேவையின் வடிவமைப்பை ( Patent ) அந்தந்த பொருள் மற்றும் சேவையின் கண்டுபிடிப்பாளர் பதிவு செய்ய வேண்டும். அந்தப் பதிவு அங்கீஹரிக்கப்பட்டப் பிறகு அவருக்கு குறிப்பிட்ட வருடங்களுக்கு உரிமை அளிக்கப்படும். இந்த நேரத்தில் யாரேனும் அந்த பொருளையோ சேவையையோ பயன்படுத்தினால் கண்டுபிடிப்பாளருக்கு பணம் செலுத்த வேண்டும். குறிப்பிட்ட வருடங்கள் கழிந்த பிறகு, யாவரும் அந்த பொருளையோ சேவையையோ பணம் கொடுக்காமல் பயன்படுத்தலாம். இதன் மூலம் கண்டுபிடிப்பாளர்களின் உரிமை காக்கப்படும். ஆனால், வளரும் நாடுகளுக்கு அதிநவீன தொழில்நுட்பத்தை கண்டுபிடித்து பயன்படுத்துவதற்குரிய பணமும் ஆற்றலும் சிறிய அளவில் தான் இருக்கும். மேலும், ஒப்பீட்டுச் சாதகக் கோட்பாட்டிற்கேற்ப ஒவ்வொரு நாடும் அதன் ஆற்றல் மற்றும் தொழில்நுட்ப நிலைமையைப் பொறுத்து பொருள் மற்றும் செயலைப் படைக்க வேண்டும். அவ்வாறு செய்யாமல், அதிநவீன தொழில்நுட்பத்தை கண்டுபிடித்து பயன்படுத்த எண்ணினால் அதற்குரிய பணத்தை கடனாகக் கொடுப்பதற்கு IMF மற்றும் வோர்ல்ட் பேங்க் தயங்கும். இன்று வளர்ந்த நாடுகள் என்று கருதப்படும் பெரும்பான்மையான நாடுகள் தங்களது வளர்ச்சியின் போது மற்ற நாடுகளின் அறிவியர்தனமான சொத்தை அவர்களின் அனுமதி இல்லாமல் பயன்படுத்தி பணம் சம்பாதித்தன.
காட் இல் சில தொழில்கள் சில நாடுகளுக்கு விதிவிலக்காகக் கருதப்படுகின்றன. இவற்றிலும் வளரும் நாடுகளுக்கு எதிராக விதிமுறைகள் இருக்கின்றன. வளர்ந்த நாடுகளில் உள்ள விவசாயிகளுக்கு அரச உதவி (State Subsidy ) கிடைப்பதன் மூலம் அவர்களது உற்பத்தித்திறன் வளரும் நாடுகளை விட பன்மடங்கு அதிகமாய் இருக்கிறது. வளரும் நாடுகள் தொழில்நுட்ப எளிமை, அந்நாடுகளுக்கு தேவையான அந்நியச் செலாவணியை கொண்டு வருவதில்லை என்பதால், விவசாயம் மற்றும் சரக்கு (commodity ) வர்த்தகத் தொழில்களின் மூலம் அதைச் சேர்க்கின்றன. வளரும் நாடுகளிடம் அரசு உதவி ஏற்கனவே உள்ள தொழில்களுக்கு, அதனை குறைக்குமாறு IMF மற்றும் வோர்ல்ட் பேங்க் வலியுறுத்துகின்றன. அதே சமயம், வளரும் நாடுகளுடைய அந்நியச் செலாவணியை அதிகரிக்க விவசாயம் மற்றும் சரக்கு வர்த்தகத் தொழில்களில் மூலம் முயன்றால், வளர்ந்த நாடுகள், தங்கள் விவசாயிகளுக்கு அந்த தொழில்களில் அரச உதவி மூலம், வளரும் நாடுகளின் பலத்தைக் குறைத்து விடுகின்றன. மேலும், தொழில்நுட்பத்தை மேம்படுத்த அறிவியர்தனமான சொத்தை பயன்படுத்த பல தடைகளை GATT விதிக்கிறது. இதனால், வளரும் நாடுகளின் நிலைமை கவலைக்கிடமாக இருக்கிறது.
சுதந்திர வர்த்தகம் ஏழை மற்றும் வளரும் நாடுகளின் பொருளாதார விருப்பத் தேர்வைக் குறைத்து விடும். சில தொழில்களில் வெளிநாட்டு நிறுவனங்களை வர விடாமல் தன்நாட்டு நிறுவனங்களை பாவிப்பது நாட்டின் பொருளாதார வளர்ச்சிக்கு நல்லது. அரசு நிர்வாகத்தில் உள்ள சில நிறுவனங்கள் நன்றாக வளர்கின்றன. வெளிநாட்டவரிடம் இருந்து எண்ணங்களை 'திருடுவது' ஒரு நாட்டு பொருளாதார வளர்ச்சிக்கு இன்றியமையாததாகும். சுதந்திர வர்த்தகமும் ஜனநாயகமும் இயற்கையில் பங்காளிகள் இல்லை(புதிய தாராளவாதிகள் சொல்வதற்கு மாறாக). சில நாடுகள் ஏழையாக இருப்பது அவர்கள் சோம்பேறியாக இருப்பதனால் அல்ல; அவர்கள் சோம்பேறியாக இருப்பது ஏழையாக இருப்பதனால் தான். குறைய அளவில் இருந்தால் பணவீக்கமும் அரசுப் பங்களிப்பும் பொருளாதார வளர்ச்சியை முடக்கி விடும். சில நேரங்களில், நிறுவனங்கள் நஷ்டத்தில் ஓடினாலும், நாளடைவில் அவை லாபத்தில் ஓடுவதற்கு வாய்ப்பு இருக்கிறது.
இந்தப் புத்தகத்தின் மூலம், சுதந்திர வர்த்தகத்தையும் உலகமயமாக்குதலையும் ஒரு நாட்டின் தலையாய வளர்ச்சி பாதையாகக் கொண்டிருந்தால் அந்த நாட்டின் வளர்ச்சி குறைந்து விடும் என்று பல புள்ளி விவரங்கள் மூலம் எடுத்துக் காட்டியிருக்கிறார்.

Book of the week

2010-02-04T10:15:00.319-05:00

புத்தகம் : ஹொவ் மார்க்கெட்ஸ் பெயில்
வருடம் : 2009
ஆசிரியர் : ஜான் காஸ்சிடி
தொடர்வெளியீடு : கூடுதல் புத்தகங்கள், எழுத்துப் பிழைகளைச் சரி செய்தல்

புத்தகச் சுருக்கம்:
2008 - 2009 வருடங்களில் அமெரிக்கப் பொருளாதாரம் கண்ட விபரீத நடப்புகளை, பொருளாதார வரலாற்றின் வெவ்வேறு கோட்பாடுகளின் மூலம் விவரித்திருக்கிறார். அமெரிக்காவில் கடைசி 80 வருடங்களில் காணாத பொருளாதார விளைவுகளுக்கு, சிலப் பொருளியலாளர்கள் நடைமுறை உண்மையை பொருட்படுத்தாது தங்களது சித்தாந்தத்திர்கேற்ப பொருளாதாரக் கொள்கைகளை கடைபிடித்தது தான் காரணம் என்பதை நல்ல விளக்கங்களோடு எழுதியிருக்கிறார். கடந்த இரண்டு வருடங்களில் அமெரிக்க பொருளாதாரத்தின் அவல நிலைமைப் பற்றி சில பொருளியலாளர்கள் முன்னமே எச்சரித்திருக்கிறார்கள். ஆனால், அவர்களது எச்சரிக்கைகள் உயர் பதவியில் உள்ள பொருளியலாளர்களிடையே எடுபடவில்லை. அமெரிக்கப் பொருளாதாரம் நன்றாகச் சென்று கொண்டிருந்ததால், தாங்கள் செல்லும் பாதை தான் சரியானது என்ற முழு நம்பிக்கையுடன் அமெரிக்க பொருளாதாரத்தை வழி காட்டிச் சென்றனர். அமெரிக்கப் பொருளாதாரம் (தற்காலிகமாகத்) தடம் புரண்டப் பிறகு, அந்த நிலைமையை நேர்படுத்த முயன்ற, நடைமுறை உண்மையை எடுத்துரைக்கும் பொருளியலாளர்களின் யோசனைகளை, அதிகாரிகள் புறக்கணித்து நிலைமையை மேலும் மோசமாக்கி விட்டார்கள்.

அலசல் :

இரண்டாம் உலகப் போரின் வெற்றிக்குப் பிறகு எஞ்சிய நாடுகளில் அமெரிக்கா செழிப்புள்ள நாடாக வலம் வந்தது. அதன் போட்டி நாடுகளான இங்கிலாந்து, பிரான்ஸ், ஜெர்மனி ஆகியவை இரண்டாம் உலகப் போரினால் சீர்குலைந்தும் பொருளாதாரம் அழிந்தும் இருந்தன. 1950 முதல் 1970 வரை அமெரிக்காவின் பொருளாதாரம் வேகமாக வளர்ந்தது. 1970 பிறகு அமெரிக்காவின் பொருளாதார வளர்ச்சி முன்னைப் போல் இல்லாமல் மெதுவடைந்தது. அதனை சரி செய்வதற்கு எடுக்கப்பட்ட எந்த செயல்பாடும் வளர்ச்சியை முடுக்கி விடாததால் அன்றையப் பொருளியலாளர்களின் செயற்திறன் மீதுள்ள நம்பிக்கை குறைந்தது. 1980 பிறகு 2006 வரை அமெரிக்கப் பொருளாதாரம் ஆரோக்கியமான வளர்ச்சிப் பாதையில் சென்றது. மக்களின் நலம் ஒவ்வொரு வருடமும் முன்னேறியதைக் கண்டு சிலப் பொருளியலாளர்கள் அமெரிக்கப் பொருளாதாரம் வருங்காலத்தில் நெடு நாள் வளர்ந்து கொண்டே போகும் என்று முன்கணிப்பு செய்தனர். இவர்களில் ஏற்படைவுச் சந்தை (efficient market ) என்று அழைக்கப்படும் தோராயக்கருத்தை தங்கள் வேதவாக்காகக் கொண்டச் சிலப் பொருளியலாளர்கள், அமெரிக்கப் பொருளாதாரத்தின் வளர்ச்சிக்குக் காரணம் அந்தத் தோராயக்கருத்து தான் என்று முடிவெடுத்தனர். அந்த தோராயக்கருத்தின் வடிவமைப்பு எல்லா காலங்களிலும் எல்லா நேரங்களிலும் எல்லா நாடுகளிலும் ஒத்து வரும் என்று அடித்துக் கூறினர்.
ஏற்படைவுச் சந்தைத் தோராயக்கருத்து என்பது 1940 இலும் 1950 இலும் ஆஸ்திரியாவைச் சேர்ந்த பிரெட்ரிக் ஹயெக் (Frederick Hayek ) என்னும் பொருளியலாளர்ஆல் பிரபலமாக்கப் பட்டது. ஒரு நாட்டின் பொருளாதாரத்திற்கு வர்த்தகமும் அது நடக்கும் சந்தையும் மிக முக்கியம் என்றும் அரசாங்கம் வர்த்தகத்தையும் சந்தையையும் ஒழுங்குபடுத்த முயல்வதன் மூலம் வர்த்தகம் முடங்கி விடும் என்றும் அது நாட்டின் பொருளாதரத்திற்கு நல்லதல்ல என்றும் எடுத்துரைத்தார். ஒரு சந்தை, அங்கு விற்கப்படும் பொருட்களும் அவற்றின் விலைகளின் மூலம், வர்த்தகர்களும் நாட்டு மக்களும், எந்த பொருட்கள் தேவையானவை என்றும் எந்த பொருட்கள் வேண்டப்படாதவை என்ற குறியீட்டினை அறிய முடியும் என்றும் கூறினார். அரசாங்கம் சந்தையிலும் வர்த்தகத்திலும் குறுக்கிடுவதன் மூலம், ஒரு சந்தையிலிருந்து வர்த்தகர்கள் அறியும் குறியீடு குழப்பத்தை விளைவிக்கும் என்றார். அவருடைய தோராயக்கருத்தில் அன்றைய அரசாங்க அதிகாரிகளுக்கும் பெரும்பான்மை பொருளியலாளர்களுக்கும் உடன்பாடில்லை.
ஜான் மய்னர்ட் கெய்ன்ஸ் (John Maynard Keynes ) என்ற ஆங்கிலேயப் பொருளியலாளர் எடுத்துரைத்த கோட்பாடை பெரும்பாலானோர் கடைப்பிடித்தனர். வர்த்தகமும் சந்தையும் ஒரு நாட்டின் பொருளாதாரத்திற்கு மிக முக்கியம் என்றாலும் ஒரு சில நேரங்களில் அவற்றின் செயற்பாடு மக்களுக்குச் சாதகமாக இல்லாதப் பட்சத்தில் அரசாங்கம் தனது (பணம் அச்சடிக்கும்) சக்தியை பயன்படுத்தி பொருளாதாரத்தை நிலைப்படுத்த வேண்டும் என்றும் கூறினார். பொருளாதாரம் நிலைப்பட்டப் பின் அரசாங்கம் தனது பங்கைக் குறைத்துக் கொள்ளலாம் என்று கூறினார். 1914 இலிருந்து 1918 வரை நடந்த முதலாம் உலகப் போரின் இறுதியில் வெற்றி பெற்ற இங்கிலாந்து பிரான்ஸ் போன்ற நாடுகள் தோற்ற நாடான ஜெர்மனி மீது வெர்சாய் (Versailles ) ஒப்பந்தத்தின் மூலம் மிகக் கடுமையான நிபந்தனைகளை விதித்தன. அந்த விதிகள் நியாயத்திற்கு மாறானவை என்று விவாதித்த கெய்ன்ஸ், அதன் விளைவுகள் ஜெர்மனியின் மக்களை மிகவும் பாதிக்கும் என்றும் அதனால் மற்றொரு போரில் ஜெர்மனி பங்கு கொண்டாலும் ஆச்சரியமில்லை என்றும் கூறினார். அவர் கூறியது போல் இரண்டாம் உலகப் போர் ஆரம்பிக்க ஜெர்மனி ஒரு காரணமாக இருந்தது. இரண்டாம் உலகப் போரின் பின் கெய்ன்ஸ்இன் பெருமை எங்கும் பரவி அவரது பொருளாதார எண்ணங்கள் மிகப் பிரபலமாயின.
இரண்டாம் உலகப் போரின் பின் அமெரிக்காவின் பொருளாதாரம் நன்றாக வளர்ந்து கொண்டிருந்த சமயத்தில் ஏற்படைவுச் சந்தைத் தோராயக்கருத்தின் ஆதரவாளர்களில் முக்கியமான பொருளியலாளரான மில்டன் பிரீட்மான் (Milton Friedman ) என்பவர் அதனை மக்களிடையே பரப்ப மிக்க முயற்சி செய்தார். அதே சமயத்தில், அமெரிக்காவின் புகழ்பெற்ற எழுத்தாளர்களில் ஒருவரான அய்ன் ரண்ட் தனது அப்ஜெக்டிவிசம் (objectivism ) சித்தாந்தத்தை மக்களிடையேப் பரப்பிக் கொண்டிருந்தார். இந்த இருவர் முயர்ச்சியினால் ஏற்படைவுச் சந்தைத் தொராயக்கருத்தும் அப்ஜெக்டிவிசமும் கலந்து ஒரு புதிய சித்தாந்தமாக உருவானது. பொருளாதாரத்தில் அதற்கு சிகாகோ பள்ளியின் பொருளாதாரம் (Chicago School of Economics ) என்று அழைக்கப்பட்டது. அது பொருளாதாரம் மட்டுமல்லாமல், ஒரு அரசியல் சித்தாந்தமாக உருவெடுத்ததிற்கு அய்ன் ரண்டின் பங்கு மிக முக்கியமானது. இந்த அரசியல் சித்தாந்தத்தின் சீடர்களில் ஒருவராக இருந்தவர் அலன் க்ரீன்ச்பன் (Alan Greenspan ). தனது சொந்த வாழ்க்கையில் அய்ன் ரண்டின் சீடராகவும் பொருளாதார எண்ணங்களில் மில்டன் பிரீட்மான்இன் தொண்டராகவும் இருந்தார்.
1970 இல் அமெரிக்காவின் பொருளாதாரத்தின் வேகக்குறைவைச் சரி செய்ய கெய்ன்ஸ் வரைப்படுத்திய கோட்பாடுகள் உடனடிப் பயனில்லாமல் போகவே மற்ற பொருளாதாரக் கோட்பாடுகள் அதற்கு பதிலாக பயன்படுத்தப் பட்டன. 1982 க்குப் பிறகு அமெரிக்க மத்திய வங்கியான பெடரல் ரீசெர்வ் (Federal Reserve ) தலைவரான பால் வோல்க்கர் (Paul Volcker )செயல்படுத்திய வட்டிக் கொள்கைகளினால் அமெரிக்கப் பொருளாதாரம் மீண்டும் நல்ல நிலைமைக்கு வந்தது. அப்போது ஜனாதிபதியாக இருந்த ரோனல்ட் ரீகன் (Ronald Reagan ) ஏற்படைவுச் சந்தை தோராயக்கருத்தை வேத வாக்காகக் கொண்ட பொருளியலாளர்களை தனது ஆலோசகர்களாகக் கொண்டிருந்தார். ஜனாதிபதித் தேர்தலில் தான் வெற்றி பெற்றால், வர்த்தகத்திலும் சந்தையிலும் மக்களின் வாழ்விலும், அரசாங்கத்தின் பங்கு நிறையக் குறைக்கப்படும் என்று வாக்குறுதி அளித்தார். அதற்கேற்ப, பால் வோல்க்கர் பெடரல் ரீசெர்வ் இல் இருந்து ராஜினாமா செய்தவுடன், ரோனல்ட் ரீகன் , அலன் க்ரீன்ச்பன் ஐ தலைவராக நியமனம் செய்தார். அலன் க்ரீன்ச்பன் தலைவராக இருந்த போதும் அமெரிக்கப் பொருளியலாளர்களில் பெரும்பாலானோர் கெய்ன்ஸ் இன் பொருளாதார எண்ணங்களை மதித்து வந்தனர். 1970 க்கு முன் கெய்ன்ஸ் இன் எண்ணங்களை எதிர்க்க மிகவும் சிறிய கூட்டம் இருந்தது. 1980 களில் அமெரிக்க பொருளாதாரத்தின் வளர்ச்சியைக் கண்டும், 1987 இல் அமெரிக்கப் பங்குச் சந்தையான வால் ஸ்ட்ரீட் (Wall Street ) இல் பங்குகளின் சரிவை க்ரீன்ச்பன் நன்றாகக் கையாண்டதைக் கண்டும், க்ரீன்ச்பன் மீதுள்ள மதிப்பு கூடியது. நாள் போக்கில் க்ரீன்ச்பன் தனது தலைமைப் பதவி மூலம் அவர் முழுதாக நம்பிக்கை கொண்ட ஏற்படைவுச் சந்தை தோராயக்கருத்தின் கை ஓங்கியது. நடு நடுவில் ஒரு சில நெருக்கடிகள் நேர்ந்தாலும், பெரும்பாலும் க்ரீன்ச்பன் தலைமையில் பொருளாதாரம் 20 வருடங்களுக்கு மேல் நன்றாகச் சென்றது. இதனால், ரீகனுக்குப் பின் வந்த ஜனாதிபதிகளான ஜார்ஜ் புஷ், பில் கிளின்டன் மற்றும் ஜார்ஜ் டபிள்யு புஷ் ஆகியோர் க்ரீன்ச்பன் சொல்படி நடந்தனர்.
அமெரிக்காவில் ஏற்படைவுச் சந்தை தோராயக்கருத்து பிரபலமாகுவதர்க்கு முன்னால் மில்டன் பிரீட்மான் மற்றும் அவரது கூட்டாளிகள் அண்டை நாடுகளில் தங்கள் சித்தாந்தத்தின் நடைமுறை வேலைப்பாடு பற்றி அறிய ஆவலாக இருந்தனர். அதன் விளைவாக, 1970 களில் தென் அமெரிக்கக் கண்டத்தில் உள்ள சிலே (Chile ) நாட்டில் ஜனநாயக முறையில் தேர்ந்தெடுக்கப்பட்ட இடது சாரிக் கட்சிகளின் அரசு அந்த நாட்டின் ராணுவத்தால் தூக்கி எறியப்பட்டவுடன் தங்களது பொருளாதார எண்ணங்களை அந்த நாட்டு புதியத் தலைவரான ஆகுஸ்டோ பினோஷே (Augusto Pinochet ) இன் முன்வைத்தனர். அவரும் தனது புதிய அரசின் முக்கிய பங்காக பொருளாதார மாற்றத்தை கொண்டு வந்தார். அதில் முக்கிய பங்கு விதித்த பொருளியலாளர்கள் சிகாகோ பள்ளியைச் சார்ந்தவர்கள் தான். அதன் விளைவாக, சிலேஇன் பொருளாதாரம் சின்னாபின்னம் ஆகி மக்கள் அவதிப்பட்டனர். தங்கள் எண்ணங்கள் நன்றாகச் செயல்படுத்தப் படவில்லை என்று சொல்லி மில்டன் பிரீட்மான் மற்றும் சக பொருளியலாளர்கள் அந்நாட்டை விட்டு வெளியேறினார்கள். சில வருடங்களுக்குப் பிறகு, ராணுவத்தின் பிடி தளர்த்தப்பட்டு, பினோசெட்இன் அரசு தூக்கி அறியப்பட்டவுடன் வந்த புதிய அரசு மக்களுக்கு ஏற்ற மாற்றங்கள் கொண்டு வந்தது. இன்று, சிலே mixed economy என்று சொல்லப்படும் கலப்பு பொருளாதாரம் என்ற பாதையை பின்பற்றுகிறது. அதன் மூலம், சில கொள்கைகள் கெய்ன்ஸ் இடம் இருந்தும் சில கொள்கைகள் மில்டன் பிரீட்மான் இடம் இருந்தும் கடன் வாங்கப்பட்டு, அந்த நாட்டுக்கு எது தேவையோ அதற்கேற்ப செயல்படுத்தப்படுகிறது.
2006 இல் முக்கியத்துவம் குறைந்த அடகுகள் (subprime mortgages ) உள்ள மக்கள் மாசத் தவணைகளை செலுத்த முடியாததால் பல நிதி வங்கிகள் தங்கள் கொடுக்கல் வாங்கல் கணக்குகளில் நஷ்டம் அடைந்தன. வீட்டின் விலை எப்பொழுதும் கூடிக் கொண்டே போகும் என்றும் தங்கள் வீட்டின் அடகை ஒவ்வொரு மாதமும் எல்லா அடகுதாரர்களும் கட்டுவார்கள் என்ற (மூட) நம்பிக்கையின் பேரில் வங்கிகள் நிறைய அடகுகளை கடன்பெறத்தகாத மக்களுக்கும் விற்றனர். சில வங்கிகள், இதனால் இக்கட்டான நிலைமையை வந்தால் அதன் விளைவுகளைக் குறைக்க புதிய விதமான நிதிக் கருவிகளை உருவாக்கினர். சாதாரணமாக, புதிய நிதிக் கருவிகளை ஒழுங்குபடுத்த வெவ்வேறு நிறுவனங்களை அமெரிக்க அரசியல் அமைப்பு அமைத்துள்ளது. இந்த நேரத்தில், சில அரசியல்வாதிகள், ஏழைக் கோட்டின் கீழ் உள்ள மக்களுக்கும் சிறுபான்மை மக்களுக்கும் இடையே வீட்டுரிமையை கூட்ட முற்பட்டனர். வீட்டுரிமையின் மூலம் ஏழைக்கோட்டின் கீழ் உள்ள மக்களும் சிறுபான்மை மக்களும் தங்களது சுற்று வட்டாரத்தின் வர்த்தகத்தையும் தங்களது வாழ்க்கைத் தரத்தையும் மேம்படுத்துவர் என்று கருதப்பட்டது. இந்த எண்ணத்தின் அனுமானம் அமெரிக்காவில் வீட்டின் விலை எப்பொழுதும் ஏறிக் கொண்டே இருக்கும் என்பது தான். புதிதாக வீடு வாங்கும் பொழுது சாதாரணமான அடகுக் கருவிகள் ஒருவருக்கு சரி வராமல் இருந்தால், புதிய நிதிக் கருவிகள் மூலம் அவர்களுக்கு அடகு கொடுப்பது வழக்காகியது. இதனைக் கண்டு கவலைப்பட்டச் சில பொருளியலாளர்கள் புதிய நிதிக் கருவிகளையும் புதிய அடகுக் கருவிகளையும் ஒழுங்குபடுத்துவதற்கு க்ரீன்ச்பன் இடம் முறையிட்டனர். தனது பொருளாதாரச் சித்தானந்தத்தில் மிக்க நம்பிக்கைக் கொண்டிருந்த க்ரீன்ச்பன், புதிய நிதிக் கருவிகளை வர்த்தகர்களும் சந்தையும் ஒழுங்குபடுத்தும் என்றும் அரசாங்கம் அதில் தலையிட்டால் புதிய நிதிக் கருவிகளை வர்த்தகர்கள் உருவாக்க மாட்டார்கள் என்றும் அதன் பயனாக சாதாரண மக்களுக்கு கிடைக்க வேண்டிய கடன் மற்றும் அடகுக் கருவிகள் அவர்களுக்கு கிடைக்காமல் போய் விடும் என்றும் கூறினார். அய்ன் ரண்ட் மற்றும் மில்டன் பிரீட்மான் இன் பாதிப்பு க்ரீன்ச்பன் ஐ அதிதீவிரமாகவே தாக்கியிருந்தது . கெய்ன்ஸ் முன்னாளில் சொன்னது போல் "பொருளியலாளர்களின் எண்ணங்களும் அரசியல் தத்துவவாதிகளின் எண்ணங்களும், சரியாயிருந்தாலும் தவறாயிருந்தாலும், பொதுவாக அறியப்படுவதை விட மிகச் சக்தி வாய்ந்தது. நிஜத்தில், உலகம் அதைத் தவிர வேறு மிகச் சிறியவற்றினால் விதிக்கப்பட்டிருக்கிறது. நடைமுறையில் மனிதர்கள், தாங்கள் எந்த வித அறிவியற்தனமான பாதிப்பு இல்லாமல் இருப்பவர்கள் என்று கருதினாலும், ஏதாவது மறந்து (அல்லது மறைந்து) போன பொருளியலாளர்இன் அடிமைகளாக இருப்பார்கள்"("The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist"). இது க்ரீன்ச்பன் அல்லாமல் கெய்ன்ஸ்க்கும் உண்மையாகப் படும்.
க்ரீன்ச்பன் இன் கொள்கைகள் அமெரிக்கப் பொருளாதாரத்திற்குத் தீங்கு விளைவிப்பவை என்றுக் கூறிய கூட்டம் நாளடைவில் ரொம்பச் சிரியதானது. இவர்களில் நூரியல் ரூபினி, ராபர்ட் ஷில்லேர், நச்சிம் நிக்கோலஸ் தலேப், ரோஜர் லோவேன்ச்டீன் போன்றோர் அடங்குவர். ஆங்கிலத்தில் சொல்லப்படும் பழமொழியான 'வெற்றியை போல் வெற்றி பெறுவது ஒன்றுமில்லை' ('Nothing succeeds like success ') க்ரீன்ச்பன்இன் கொள்கைகள் மீதுள்ள எதிர்ப்பு குறைந்து கொண்டே வந்தது. அதனை எதிர்த்தவர்களின் தத்துவத் தந்தைகள் என்று கருதப்படுவவர்களில் முக்கியமானவர்கள் ஹைமன் மின்ச்கி (Hyman Minsky ) மற்றும் பெநொஇத் மண்டேல்ப்ரோட் (Benoit Mandelbrot) என்ற பொருளியலாளர்கள்.
மண்டேல்ப்ரோட், நிதிச் சந்தைகளில் நிதிக் கருவிகள் மற்றும் பொருட்களின் மாற்றம், ஏற்படைவுச் சந்தையின் அனுமானமான காஸ்சியன்(Gaussian ) பகிர்மானம் (distribution ) இல்லை என்று சுட்டிக் காட்டினார். ஏற்படைவுச் சந்தைத் தோராயக்கருத்தை வேத வாக்காகக் கொண்டவர்கள் காஸ்சியன் பகிர்மானத்தை அனுமானமாகக் கொண்டதனால் நிதிக் கருவிகளுக்கும் அடகுப் பொருட்களுக்கும் கணிப்பதற்கு சுலபமாக இருந்தது. நிதிக் கருவிகள் மற்றும் அடகுப் பொருட்களின் விலையும் ஏறிக் கொண்டிருந்த வரை இந்த அனுமானம் நிதி நிறுவங்களுக்கு நல்ல லாபத்தைக் கொண்டு வந்தது. வீடுகளின் விலை சரிய ஆரம்பித்தவுடன், இந்த அனுமானம் மூலம் சம்பாதித்த நிதி நிறுவனங்களின் லாபம், நஷ்டம் ஆகக் காரணமாகி விட்டது. மண்டேல்ப்ரோட்டின் எண்ணங்களை அறிந்தவர்கள் நிதி நிறுவனங்களின் பங்கு விலை இறங்க ஆரம்பிக்கும் என்று யூகித்து அந்த தகவலை பயன்படுத்தி அந்தப் பங்குகளை ஷார்ட் (short ) செய்தனர். இவ்வாறு, அமெரிக்கப் பங்குச் சந்தைகளின் வீழ்ச்சிகளில் மிகவும் பணம் செய்தவர்களில் நசீம் நிக்கோலஸ் தலேபும், ஜார்ஜ் சொரோசும் அடங்குவர்.
மின்ச்கியின் திடமில்லாத நிதித் திட்ட தோராயக்கருத்து (Financial Instability Hypothesis ) அமெரிக்கப் பொருளாதாரத்தின் இப்போதைய நிலைமையை விளக்க உதவியாக உள்ளது. அதன் முக்கியக் கருத்து, ஒரு நிதித் திட்டத்தின் திடமும் வெற்றியும் அதன் அழிவுக்கும் சரிவுக்கும் உள்ள விதையை விதைக்கும் என்பது தான். ஒரு நிதித் திட்டம் திடமாக இருக்கும் பொது வர்த்தகர்களும் சாதாரண மக்களும் அந்த நிதி திட்டத்தினால் பயன் பெறுவதுடன் அதனால் செல்வமும் பெறுவர். நாளடைவில், அந்த நிதித் திட்டத்தின் பலவீனங்களை மறந்து தங்களது திறமையினாலும் புத்திக் கூர்மையினாலும் தான் தங்கள் வெற்றி பெற்றதாகக் கருதுவர். அதே சமயத்தில், நிதித் திட்டத்தை ஒழுங்குபடுத்த வேண்டிய அதிகாரிகளும் நிதித் திட்டம் நன்றாக வேலை செய்வதைக்கண்டு தங்களது கண்காணிப்பைக் குறைத்து விடுவர். இதனைக் கண்டு வர்த்தகர்களும் மக்களும் புதிய நிதித் திட்டம் என்றும் கவிழ்ந்து விடாது என்ற (மூட) நம்பிக்கையில் மேலும் மேலும் அபாயகரமான (நிதிச்) செயல்களில் ஈடுபடுவர். எல்லாம் நன்றாக செல்லும் பொழுது எல்லோரும் அவரவர் செல்வத்தை பெருக்கிச் சந்தோஷமாக வாழ்வார். சில அபாயகரமான செயல்களினால் ஏற்படும் சிக்கல்கள் கொஞ்சம் கொஞ்சமாக பெரிதாகி கடைசியில் நிதித் திட்டத்தை அழிக்கும் நிலைக்குக் கொண்டு வந்து விடும். பொருளியலாளர்களும் அரசாங்க அதிகாரிகளும் அபாயத்தைக் கண்டு அதற்கேற்ற மாற்று நடவடிக்கைகளை எடுப்பதற்குள் நிதித் திட்டம் மோசமான நிலைமைக்குச் சென்று விடும். 1980 இலிருந்து 2006 வரைக்கும் அமெரிக்கப் பொருளாதாரம் நன்றாகச் செயல்பட்டதைத் தங்களின் செயல்திறன் என்று நம்பிய பொருளியலாளர்களும் அதிகாரிகளும், அபாயம் தெரிந்த பின்னும் முன் போல் சிறியதாக இருந்து விடும் என்று அசட்டாக இருந்து விட்டார்கள். நிலைமையின் தீவிரம் தெரிய வரும் பொழுது பொருளாதாரத்தின் செயல்பாடு தீவிரமாகப் பாதிக்கப்பட்டு விட்டது.

யாம் படித்த (அமெரிக்கப் பொருளாதார சூழ்நிலையைப் பற்றிய) புத்தகங்களில் இது போன்ற புத்தகத்தை இனிதாவதெங்கும் காணோம்.

அமெரிக்கப் பொருளாதார சூழ்நிலையைப் பற்றிய மற்றப் புத்தகங்கள் :
1 . டூ பிக் டு பெயில் (Too big to fail)
ஆண்ட்ரு ராஸ் சார்க்கின் எழுதிய இந்த புத்தகத்தில் 2007 முதல் 2009 வரை அமெரிக்காவின் பொருளியலாளர்களும் வர்த்தக தலைவர்களும் அரசியல் புள்ளிகளும் பொருளாதாரத்தின் சரிவை கட்டுப்படுத்துவதற்கு மேற்கொண்ட நடவடிக்கைகளைப் பற்றிப் படிக்கலாம். பொருளாதாரத் தத்துவம் அல்லாது அந்த இரண்டு வருடங்களில் நடந்த வெவ்வேறு நிகழ்வுகளை படம் பிடித்துக் காட்டியிருக்கிறார்.
2 ஷாக் டாக்டரின் (Shock Doctrine )
நோமி க்ளீன் எழுதிய இந்த புத்தகத்தில் ஏற்படைவுச் சந்தை தொராயக்கருத்தைப் பின்பற்றிய பொருளியலாளர்கள் தங்களது எண்ணங்களை பல நாடுகளின் பொருளாதார அமைப்புகளில் செயல்படுத்தியதன் விளைவுகளை விரிவாகச் சித்தரித்திருக்கிறார்.
3 . தி மித் ஆப் தி ராஷனல் மார்க்கெட்(The Myth of the rational market )
ஜஸ்டின் பாக்ஸ் எழுதிய இந்த புத்தகத்தில் ஏற்படைவுச் சந்தை தோராயக்கருத்தின் அடிப்படையான பகுத்தரிவுடையச் சந்தை (rational market ) என்பதன் குறைகளையும் அதனை உண்மையென நம்பி செயல்படுத்தப்பட்ட பொருளாதாரக் கொள்கைகளின் பாதிப்பைப் பற்றி கூறியிருக்கிறார்.
4 . இன் பெட் வி டிரஸ்ட் (In Fed We Trust )
டேவிட் வெசெல் எழுதிய இந்த புத்தகத்தில் அமெரிக்காவின் மத்திய வங்கியான பெடரல் ரிசெர்வின் பங்குப் பற்றி விவரித்திருக்கிறார். அமெரிக்கப் பொருளாதாரம் கண்ட பிரச்சனையைத் தீர்க்க அதன் தலைவராக அப்போது இருந்த பென் பெர்னான்கே (Ben Bernanke ) எடுத்த முடிவுகளையும் தான் தீவிரமாக நம்பிய ஏற்படைவுச் சந்தைத் தோராயக்கருத்தின் உதவியில்லாமையையும் இந்தப் புத்தகத்தில் நன்றாக விவரித்திருக்கிறார்.
5 . பூல்'ஸ் கோல்ட் (Fool 's Gold )
ஜில்லியன் டேட் எழுதிய இந்த புத்தகத்தில் அமெரிக்கப் பொருளாதாரம் கண்ட (தற்காலிகச்) சரிவுக்குக் காரணமாக இருந்த நவீன நிதிக் கருவிகள் உருவானக் கதையை நன்றாக சொல்லியிருக்கிறார். அமெரிக்காவின் பேர்போன முதலீடு வங்கியான ஜே பி மோர்கனில் ஆரம்பித்த அந்தக் கருவிகள் விரைவில் எல்லா நிதி நிறுவனங்களிடமும் சாதாரண மக்களிடையேயும் பிரபலமானதை விவரித்திருக்கிறார்.
6 . ஹவுஸ் ஆப் கார்ட்ஸ்(House of cards )
வில்லியம் கோகன் எழுதிய இந்த புத்தகத்தில் முதலீடு வங்கியான பியர் ஸ்டேர்ன்ஸ் (Bear Stearns ) புதிய நிதிக் கருவிகளை பயன்படுத்தி மிகுந்த லாபம் அடைந்ததையும் அதே நிதிக் கருவிகள் அதன் அழிவுக்குக் காரணமாக இருந்ததையும் மிகவும் பரபரப்பாக விவரித்திருக்கிறார்.
7 . தி ட்ரில்லியன் டாலர் மேல்ட்டோவ்ன் (The Trillion Dollar Meltdown )
சார்லஸ் மோர்ரிஸ் எழுதிய இந்த புத்தகத்தில் புதிய நிதிக் கருவிகள் எப்படி வேலை செய்யும் என்றும் அவை அமெரிக்கப் பொருளாதாரத்தை எப்படி கீழே கொண்டு வந்தன என்பதைப் பற்றியும் எழுதியிருக்கிறார். வெவ்வேறு நிதிக் கருவிகள் எவ்வாறு சில நிறுவனங்களுக்கு லாபம் வாங்கித் தந்தன என்பதையும் அதே நிதிக் கருவிகள் சில நிறுவனங்களை எப்படி அழித்தன என்றும் நன்றாகக் கூறியிருக்கிறார்.
8 . ப்றேடிக்டப்லி இர்ராஷனால் (Predictably Irrational )
டேன் அறிஎலி எழுதிய இந்த புத்தகத்தில் பகுத்தரிவுடையச் சந்தை என்ற அனுமானம் நடைமுறையில் ஏற்காது என்பதை நடத்தை உளவியல் (Behavioural Psychology ) மூலம் விவரித்திருக்கிறார். ஏற்படைவுச் சந்தை தோராயக்கருத்தின் முக்கிய அனுமானமான பொருட்களின் குறியீட்டின் தவறை இந்த புத்தகத்தில் உள்ள வெவ்வேறு பரிசோதனைகள் மூலம் அறிந்து கொள்ளலாம்.
9 . இர்ராஷனால் எக்சுபெரன்ஸ் (Irrational exuberance )
ராபர்ட் ஷில்லேர் எழுதிய இந்த புத்தகத்தில் 2000 ஆண்டில் அமெரிக்காவில் இணையத்தை மையமாகக் கொண்டு உருவாக்கப்பட்ட நிறுவனங்கள் பல லாபம் பார்க்காமல் அழிந்து போன கதையையும் அதனால் அமெரிக்கப் பொருளாதாரம் தற்காலிகச் சரிவு அடைந்ததையும் நன்றாக விவரித்திருக்கிறார். இந்த புத்தகத்தின் இரண்டாம் பதிப்பில் அமெரிக்காவின் வீடு மற்றும் நில விலைகளின் சரிவுப் பற்றி எழுதியிருக்கிறார்.
10 . வென் ஜீனியஸ் பெயில்ட் (When Genius Failed : The Rise and Fall of Long Term Capital Management )
ரோஜர் லோவன்ஸ்டீன் எழுதிய இந்த புத்தகம் அமெரிக்காவில் 2006 இலிருந்து 2009 வரை முதலீடு வங்கிகளின் அழிவை, 10 வருடங்களுக்கு முன் லாங் டெர்ம் காபிடல் மானேஜ்மென்ட் (LTCM ) என்ற நிதி நிறுவனத்தின் வளர்ச்சியிலும் அழிவிலும் சொல்லியிருக்கிறது. LTCM நிறுவனம் அழிந்தால் அதற்கு கடன் அளித்த மற்ற நிதி நிறுவனங்கள் (ஜே பி மோர்கன், மோர்கன் ஸ்டான்லி, கோல்ட்மன் சாக்ஸ், சிடிக்ரூப், பியர் ஸ்டேர்ன்ஸ்) மிகுந்த நஷ்டம் அடைந்தும் அமெரிக்கப் பொருளாதாரத்தின் உயிர் நாடியான கடன் சுத்தமாக ஸ்தம்பித்து விடும் என்பதாலும் அந்த நிதி நிறுவனங்கள் அமெரிக்க மத்திய வங்கியின் உதவியோடு LTCM நிறுவனத்தை உயிர்ப்பிக்க முயற்சி செய்தன. அதில் அவை வெற்றியும் பெற்றன. ஆனால் LTCM நிறுவனம் அதற்குப் பின் மூடப்பட்டது. அதனைக் காப்பாற்ற முயன்ற நிதி நிறுவனங்களில் பியர் ஸ்டேர்ன்ஸ் ஒன்று மட்டும் தன் பங்குக்குரிய பணத்தைக் கொடுக்கவில்லை. அதனுடைய விளைவு 10 வருடங்களுக்குப் பின் 2008 இல் பியர் ஸ்டேர்ன்ஸ் தனது உயிருக்குப் போராடுகையில் மற்ற நிதி நிறுவனங்கள் அதற்கு உதவிச் செய்ய மிகவும் தயங்கின.
11 . தி ப்ளாக் ஸ்வான் (The Black Swan )
நசீம் நிக்கோலஸ் தலேப் எழுதிய இந்தப் புத்தகத்தில் பெரும்பாலான நிதி நிறுவனங்களின் பங்குத் தரகர்கள் சாத்தியமாகக் கூடிய நடப்புகளின் மூலம் லாபம் பார்ப்பதால் சாத்தியமில்லாத நிகழ்வுகள் வரும் பொழுது அவர்களுடைய பணயங்கள் மிகுந்த நஷ்டத்தை கொண்டு வரும் என்பதை விளக்கியிருக்கிறார். அந்த எண்ணத்தின் மூலம் 1987 இல் அமெரிக்கப் பங்குச் சந்தையின் சரிவில் நிறைய லாபம் செய்ததையும் தெரிவித்திருக்கிறார்.
12 . ஸ்மார்டேஸ்ட் கைஸ் இன் தி ரூம் (Smartest Guys In The Room )
பெதானி மக்லீன் எழுதிய இந்தப் புத்தகம் அமெரிக்கப் பொருளாதாரம் பற்றி முழுதாக இல்லை என்றாலும் அதில் புகழுள்ள மணியாகத் திகழ்ந்த என்றான் (Enron ) நிறுவனத்தின் எழுச்சியையும் வீழ்ச்சியையும் சித்தரிக்கிறது. என்றான் இன் தலைமையில் உள்ளவர்களில் முக்கியமானவரான ஜெப்ப்ரி ச்கில்லிங் (Jeffrey Skilling ) என்றான்-ஐ நடத்திய விதம் அய்ன் ரண்ட்இன் அட்லஸ் ஷ்ரக்ட் கதையில் வரும் ஹான்க் ரியர்டேன் பாத்திரம் நிஜ வாழ்வில் ஒரு அமெரிக்க நிறுவனத்தின் தலைமையில் வந்தால் அதன் அழிவு எப்படி ஏற்படும் என்பதை நினைவூட்டுகிறது. சமீபத்தில் அமெரிக்கப் பொருளாதாரத்தை ஆட்டிப் படைக்கும் முதலீடு வங்கிகளின் நடத்தை புகழ் பெறுவதற்கு முன் என்றான்இன் நிதி உக்திகள் 10 வருடங்களுக்கு முன் வலம் வந்தன என்பதை நினைவூட்டுகிறது. என்றான் அழிந்த பின் அதனுடைய தணிக்கையாளர் ஆர்தர் ஆண்டர்சன் புகழின் உச்சியிலிருந்து சுவடு தெரியாமல் அழிந்து போனது போல் சமீப சம்பவங்களில் புகழ் பெற்ற முதலீடு வங்கிகளான லேஹ்மான் பிரதேர்ஸ் (Lehman Brothers ), பியர் ஸ்டேர்ன்ஸ் (Bear Stearns ), மெர்ரில் லின்ச் (Merrill Lynch ) புகழ் உச்சியிலிருந்து சுவடு தெரியாமல் அழிந்தன.

கெய்ன்ஸ்-உம் ஹயெக்-உம் தங்களது தோராயக்கருத்தை விவரிக்க ஒரு கானா நிகழ்படம்

Copyright © 2010 Kunthavaiyin Kaathalan

Book of the Week

2010-01-29T16:34:00.002-05:00

புத்தகம் : அட்லஸ் ஷ்ரக்ட்
வருடம் : 1957
ஆசிரியர் : அய்ன் ரண்ட்

கதைச் சுருக்கம் :
ஒரு காலத்தில் அமெரிக்காவில் முதலாளித்துவமும் பொதுவுடமையும் (capitalism and communism ) இரண்டு பொருளாதாரத் திட்டங்களாக எதிருக்கு எதிர் இருந்த பொழுது சொல்லபடுகின்ற கதை. முயற்சியும் திறமையும் கொண்ட தொழிலதிபர்கள் பலர் அரசாங்கத்தால் முடக்கப்பட்டு தங்களது வியாபாரத்தை விட்டு விட்டு மறைகின்றனர். இதைக் கண்டு அச்சுருகின்ற சில தொழிலதிபர்கள் அரசாங்கம்பால் சாய்கின்றனர். இவர்களில் ஜேம்ஸ் தாக்கர்ட், ஹொரேஸ் புச்பி மொவேன் போன்றோர் குறிப்பிடத்தக்கவர்கள். மீதிய தொழிலதிபர்கள் (சிறிய கூட்டம்) அரசாங்கத்தை எதிர்த்து தங்களது திறமையையும் புத்தி கூர்மையையும் மட்டும் நம்பி தங்கள் வியாபாரத்தை நடத்திச் செல்கின்றனர். இவர்களில் தக்னி தாக்கர்ட் (ஜேம்ஸ் தாக்கர்டின் தங்கை), ஹான்க் ரியர்டேன், பிரான்சிஸ்கோ அன்கோனியா குறிப்பிடத்தக்கவர்கள். அரசாங்கம் பொதுவுடமை கொள்கைகளை பின்பற்றி மக்களின் தனிவுடமை உரிமைகளைப் பறித்து விடுகின்ற நேரத்தில் நாட்டின் நிலைமை மோசமாகிறது. அரசாங்கம் பக்கம் உள்ளவர்கள் செய்வதறியாது இருக்கையில் தொழிலதிபர்களின் தலைவனான ஜான் கல்ட் தனிவுடமையின் பெருமையையும் அதனால் மக்களுக்கு வரும் நன்மையையும் எடுத்துரைக்கிறான். தங்களைச் சுற்றி நடக்கின்ற அநியாயங்களை கண்டுக் கொதிப்படைகின்ற மக்கள் அரசாங்கத்தை வெறுத்து ஜான் கல்ட் தலைமையில் உள்ள தொழிலதிபர்களிடம் அதிகாரத்தை அளிக்கின்றனர்.

அலசல் :
அய்ன் ரண்ட் தனிவுடமைச் சிந்தனையின் தீவிர செயல்பாடான லிபர்டர்யநிசம் (libertarianism ) கடைபிடித்தவர். லிபர்டர்யநிசம் என்பது ஒரு பொருளாதாரத்தின் வெற்றிக்கு தனி மனிதப் பங்கே முழுதும் அவசியமானது என்றும் அரசாங்கத்தின் பங்கு அறவே இருக்கக் கூடாது என்பதும் ஆகும். அரசாங்கம் ஒரு நாட்டின் பாதுகாப்பிற்கும் சமுதாயத்தில் சட்ட ஒழுங்கு நிலை நாட்டுவதற்கும் மட்டுமே வேண்டியது என்பதும் அதனுள் அடங்கும். தனி மனிதரின் புத்தியும் திறமையும் கடின உழைப்பும் பொருளாதாரத்தை வெற்றிப் பெறச் செய்யும் என்ற நம்பிக்கையும் அதனுள் அடங்கும்.
அய்ன் ரண்ட் அப்ஜெக்டிவிசம் (objectivism ) என்ற தத்துவத்தை உருவாக்கி அதனை தன் வாழ்க்கையிலும் கடைப்பிடித்தவர். அதன் பாதிப்பு இந்த கதை முழுதும் பரவி இருக்கிறது. அமெரிக்கப் முன்னாள் ஜனாதிபதியான ஜார்ஜ் டபிள்யு புஷ் 'நீங்கள் எங்களுக்குச் சகிதமாக இல்லையென்றால் எங்களை எதிர்த்து நிற்கின்றீர்கள் (If you are not with us , you are against us )' என்று சொன்னது அய்ன் ரண்டுக்குப் பிறகு 50 வருடம் கழித்து பின்பற்றுவதாக உள்ளது.
இந்த கதையை கற்பனைச் சித்திரம் என்று சொல்வதற்குப் பதிலாக தனது சித்தாந்தத்தை கதைப் பாத்திரங்களின் செயல்பாடுகளில் விவரித்திருகின்றார் என்று சொல்லலாம். இதனால் கதாப் பாத்திரங்கள் வாழ்க்கைப பற்றி படிப்பவர்களுக்கு நிறைய விவரம் அறியாமல் போகிறது. ஆனால், ஒவ்வொரு பாத்திரத்தின் பொருளாதார, தார்மீக, அறிவியல், பகுத்தறிவு மற்றும் மத நோக்கம் படிப்பவர்களுக்கு நன்றாகத் தெரியவருகிறது. அய்ன் ரண்டின் வாழ்க்கைக் கண்ணோட்டத்தை இந்தக் கதை தெள்ளத்தெளிவாகக் காட்டுகிறது.
'ஜான் கல்ட் என்பவன் யார் ? (Who is John Galt ?)' என்ற கேள்வியின் மூலம் கதையின் பாத்திரங்கள் தங்களது நோக்கத்தை வெளிப்படுத்துகிறார்கள்.
அப்ஜெக்டிவிசத்தின் முக்கிய அம்சங்கள்:
பொருளாதாரம் : தனிவுடமையையும் தனி மனித உரிமையும் போற்றினால் தான் மக்கள் வாழ்வு பயனுள்ளதாகவும் வாழத்தக்கதாகவும் இருக்கும். அரசாங்கமும் அதன் கொள்கைகளும் அதன் ஊழியர்களும் அதன்பாற் சாய்ந்த தொழிலதிபர்களும் விஞ்ஞானிகளும் பேராசிரியர்களும் பதிப்பாசிரியர்களும் நீதிபதிகளும் தொழிற்சங்கத் தலைவர்களும் மக்களின் பயனுள்ள பொருளாதார வாழ்கையை வீணடித்து நாசமாக்குகின்றனர். தனிவுடமையின் மூலம் ஒவ்வொரு குடிமகனு(ளு)ம் தனது மதிப்பை உணர்ந்து அதனைப் பயன்படுத்தி வெளி உலகோடு பொருளாதாரம் செய்வார்கள். வியாபாரி தனது வியாபாரத்தில் புழங்கும் பொருட்களின் மதிப்பை அறிந்தவனா(ளா)ததால் அவனே (ளே) நாட்டு மக்களின் லட்சியம் ஆவான்(ள்).
தார்மீகம் : அவரவர் திறமைக்கும் புத்திகூர்மைக்கும் ஏற்ப அவர்களது வாழ்க்கை அமையும். திறமை குறைந்து உள்ளவன்(ள்) வாழ்க்கையில் வெற்றி பெற்றால் அவன்(ள்) சிறிய நேரத்தில் மேலும் திறமையும் புத்திகூர்மையும் உள்ளவனி (ளி)டம் தோற்றுப் போவான்(ள்). அரசாங்கம் திறமை அதிகம் இல்லாத மக்களுக்கும் தொழிலதிபர்களுக்கும் உதவியும் பாதுகாப்பும் கொடுப்பதினால் அவர்கள் தங்கள் மதிப்பை அறியாமல் வாழ்கிறார்கள். தனது மதிப்பு அறிந்தும் அதனை மற்றவர் உதவியின்றியும் தயவு தாட்சிண்யம் இன்றியும் அடைந்தவர்கள் இதனால் கடுமையாக பாதிக்கப்படுகிறார்கள். தனிவுடமைக் கொள்கைகளைத் தங்களது திறமையும் புத்திகூர்மையும் உழைப்பும் படைப்பாற்றலும் புதுமை படைக்கும் ஆற்றலும் மூலம் தார்மீக ரீதியில் நம்பி வாழ்கையை வாழ்கிறார்கள். அதனைக் கடைபிடிக்காத மற்றவர்கள், வெற்றி பெற்றவர்களின் உழைப்பை உறிஞ்சும் அட்டைகளாக கருதப்படுகிறார்கள்.
அறிவியல்/பகுத்தறிவு : கதையில் உள்ள பாத்திரங்கள் அறிவியலையும் பகுத்தறிவையும் வெவ்வேறு விதமாக அணுகுகிறார்கள். அரசாங்கம்பால் சார்ந்த விஞ்ஞானிகள் அறிவியலின்/பகுத்தறிவின் பயன் பொது மக்களைச் சாரும் என்றும் அவை இரண்டும் பொது மக்களைச் சென்று அடைய வேண்டும் என்று விரும்புகின்றனர். தனிவுடமைப் போற்றும் விஞ்ஞானிகளும் தொழிலதிபர்களும் அறிவியலும் பகுத்தறிவும் தனி மனித உரிமைகள் என்றும் அவற்றின் மதிப்பு வியாபாரச் சந்தையில் என்ன விலை மெச்சுகிறதோ அதுவே உண்மையான விலை என்றும் நம்புகின்றனர். இந்த கதையில் அப்ஜெக்டிவிசம் பின்பற்றுபவர்கள் அவை தான் தங்களது வாழ்கையின் வெற்றிக்குக் காரணம் என்று திடமாக நம்புகின்றனர். ஒரு பொருளோ எண்ணமோ திட்டமோ மக்களிடையே எவ்வளவு பிரபலமாக இருந்தாலும் அதன் மதிப்பு அறிவியலின் மூலமும் பகுத்தறிவின் மூலமும் அறிய முடியவில்லை என்றால் அது மதிப்பில்லாதது என்று நம்புகின்றனர். அறிவியலும் பகுத்தறிவும் மேல் உள்ள அதீத நம்பிக்கையினால் மதத்தை ஒரு தடைக்கல்லாகவும் மக்களின் வாழ்வை வீணடிக்கும் செயலாகவும் கருதுகின்றனர்.
மதம் : மக்களிடையே பிரபலமாக இருந்தாலும் மதம், மனிதனின் முன்னேற்றத்திற்கு தடையாகக் கருதுகின்றனர். கதையின் பாத்திரங்கள் பெரும்பாலும் அமெரிக்காவில் இருப்பதால் கிருத்துவ மதத்தின் பலவீனங்களை சுட்டிக் காட்டியிருக்கிறார்கள். பெரும்பாலான மதப் பிரிவுகள் பாலியல் உறவை, மகப்பேறு பெறுவதற்கன்றி, பாவமாகக் கருதுவதால் இந்தக் கதையில் அப்ஜெக்டிவிசம் கடைப்பிடிப்போர் மதத்தை வீணாகக் கருதுகின்றனர். ஒவ்வொருவரும் தங்கள் உடம்பின் சக்தியையும் அழகையும் முழுமையாக அனுபவிக்க எந்தத் தடையும் இருக்கக் கூடாது என்று நம்புகின்றனர். மேலும், அறிவியலையும் பகுத்தறிவையும் முடக்கும் சக்தியாகவும் பாலினப் பாரபட்சத்தை பரப்பும் சக்தியாகவும் மதங்கள் செயல்படுவதால் அப்ஜெக்டிவிசம் பின்பற்றுவோர் அதனை தீய சக்தியாக பார்க்கின்றனர்.
அப்ஜெக்டிவிசத்தை கடைப்பிடிக்காதவர்கள் இந்த கதையில் வாழ்க்கையில் நோக்கமில்லாமல் வெற்றி பெறத் தெரியாமல் அரசியல் தலைவர்களுக்கும் தொழிர்ச் சங்கத் தலைவர்களுக்கும் கைக்கூலிகளாக வலம் வருகின்றனர்.
கதை, நேர்க்கோடு போல் சென்றாலும் அப்ஜெக்டிவிசம், அறிவியல், தனி மனித உரிமை மற்றும் பகுத்தறிவைப் போற்றியும் அரசாங்கம், ஊடகம், மதம் மற்றும் பொதுவுடமையை இழிவுபடுத்தியும் சொற்பொழிவுகள் நிறைய இருக்கின்றன. அதனால் படித்து முடிக்கும் பொது கதையின் முதலில் நிடந்த நிகழ்வுகள் மறந்து போகின்றன.அமெரிக்காவில் நடக்கும் கதை என்றாலும் அதன் அரசியல் சாசனத்தைப் பற்றி அறியாமல் எழுதியது போல் தோன்றுகிறது. கதையில் வரும் நல்ல கதாபாத்திரங்கள் எல்லாம் சிரிக்காமல் வாழ்கையை மிகக் கறாறாக வாழ்கிறார்கள். மேலும், நல்லவர்கள் நிறைய பேர் தங்க நிற முடியும் நீல நிற கண்களும் (blond and blue eyed ) உடையவர்களாக இருக்கிறார்கள். கதை எழுதிய நேரத்தில் அமெரிக்காவின் குடிமக்கள் பெரும்பாலானோர் அவ்வாறு இருந்ததன் காரணமாக இருக்கலாம். ஆனால், கெட்டவர்களில் இவ்வாறு சொல்ல கூடியவர் எவரும் இல்லை.
பத்து வருடம் முன்னால் படித்து இருந்தால் இந்த கதை எனக்கு ரொம்ப பிடித்து இருக்கும். வியாபாரத்தையும் அறிவியலையும் பகுத்தறிவையும் போற்றி மதத்தையும் அரசாங்கத்தையும் சாடி எழுதப்பட்ட கதையை மிக்க ஆர்வத்துடன் படித்து அதனால் என் (அப்போதைய) நடத்தையை மாற்றி இருப்பேன். இப்போது படிக்கும் பொழுது கதையில் உள்ள பாத்திரங்கள் யதார்த்தத்துக்கு மாறாக நடப்பது போல் இருக்கின்றன. அதை உணர்ந்து அய்ன் ரண்ட் ஒரு சில கதாப்பாத்திரங்கள் மூலம் அந்த எண்ணத்தை விளக்கியிருக்கிறார். ஆனாலும் நல்லவர்கள் எல்லாம் எப்போதும் நல்லவர்களாகவும் கெட்டவர்கள் எல்லாம் எப்போதும் கெட்டவர்களாகவும் வருவது 1950 இலும் 1960 இலும் வந்த கருப்பு வெள்ளை தமிழ் படங்களில் வரும் கதாப்பாத்திரங்கள் போல இருக்கிறது. நேரம் இருந்தால் அட்லஸ் ஷ்ரக்ட் தமிழில் எடுக்கப்பட்டால் நடிகர் நடிகைகளை தேர்ந்தெடுப்பது பற்றி எழுதலாம். அவரது பூர்விகமான ரஷ்யாவின் பொதுவுடைமை கொள்கைகளின் மேல் உள்ள வெறுப்பு இந்த கதையில் நன்றாகத் தெரிகிறது. நல்லவர்களின் நடுவில் ஒரு அரசியல்வாதி கூட இல்லாதது விசித்திரமாக இருக்கிறது. ஒரு நாட்டு மக்களின் தரத்தை அவர்களது அரசியல்வாதிகளின் மூலம் அறிந்து கொள்ளலாம். இந்த காலத்தில் அமெரிக்காவில் அப்ஜெக்டிவிசத்தை ஒரு மதத்தின் முக்கியத்துவம் கொடுத்து மக்களிடம் வலம் வரும் அரசியல்வாதிகளுக்கு அது ஏமாற்றமாக இருக்கும்.
அய்ன் ரண்ட் இந்தக் கதையில் அமெரிக்க மக்களின் பண்பையும் திறமையும் மிக மெலிவாக எடை போடுகிறார். அதுவும், கதை எழுதிய பொழுது அமெரிக்க உலகப் போரில் வெற்றிப் பெற்று உலகின் இரண்டு வல்லரசுகளில் ஒன்றாக வலம் வந்து கொண்டிருந்தது. அப்படிப்பட்ட நாட்டின் வெற்றிக்கு மக்களின் திறமையும் ஒரு முக்கியக் காரணம் என்பதை இந்த கதையில் இருந்து தெரிந்து கொள்ள இயலாது. பெரும்பாலான அமெரிக்க மக்களை முட்டாள்களாக பாவிக்கிறார். ஒரு சிறிய அமெரிக்கக் கூட்டம் திறமையும் புத்தி கூர்மையும் இருந்தாலும் எஞ்சிய குடிமக்களின் கையில் அவதிப்படுவதாகக் காண்பிப்பது கதையிலும் சரி நிஜ வாழ்க்கையிலும் சரி, அப்ஜெக்டிவிசத்திற்கு நல்ல விளம்பரமாக இல்லை.

Movie of the week

2010-01-25T15:55:00.001-05:00

படம் : அவதார்
வருடம் : 2010
இயக்குனர் : ஜேம்ஸ் கேமரன்

கதைச் சுருக்கம் :
எதிர்காலத்தில் ஒரு வர்த்தக நிறுவனம் (RDA) அனப்டேனியம் (unobtanium) எனும் விலை மதிப்புள்ள உலோகத்திற்காக ஆல்பா சென்டுரி (Alpha Centauri) நட்சத்திர அமைப்பைச் சார்ந்த பண்டோரா (Pandora ) எனும் உலகைக் குறி வைக்கிறார்கள். பண்டோராவில் வசிக்கும் ந'வி (Navi) மக்கள் வாழும் பூமிக்கடியில் அனப்டேனியம் குவிந்து கிடப்பதால் அவர்களை அப்புறப்படுத்துவதற்கு RDA திட்டமிடுகிறார்கள். ந'வி மக்களை அறிவதற்கும் அவர்களிடம் பேசுவதற்கும் RDA நிறுவனம் தனது ஊழியர்களை பயன்படுத்துகிறது. விஞ்ஞானம் முலம் ஊழியர்கள் ந'வி மக்கள் போல் வேடம் கொண்டு அவர்களுடன் பழகுகிறார்கள். ஊழியன் ஒருவன் இறந்து போகவே அவனது தம்பி, ஜேக் சல்லியை மாற்றாக அனுப்புகிறார்கள். ஜேக் சல்லியின் திறமையும் ஆர்வத்தையும் கண்டு அவனை ந'வியிடம் வேவு போகச் சொல்கிறார்கள். ஜேக் சல்லியின் மேல் முதலில் சந்தேகம் இருந்தாலும் ந-'வி மக்களில் ஒரு இனத்தின் இளவரசியான நெய்திரி சொல்லுக்கு இணங்க அவனை தங்களுக்குள் ஒருவனாக ஏற்கின்றனர். ஜேக் சல்லி தன் மேல் ந'-வி மக்களின் நம்பிக்கையை பயன்படுத்தி அந்த உலகின் ரகசியங்களை RDA நிறுவனத்தின் பாதுகாப்பு அதிகாரியிடம் பகிர்ந்து கொள்கிறான். காலப்போக்கில் நெய்திரிக்கும் ஜேக் சல்லிக்கும் வளரும் காதலினால் அவன் ந'வி மக்கள் பக்கத்தைப் புரிந்து கொள்ள வருகிறான். RDA நிறுவனத்தின் பாதுகாப்பு அதிகாரி இதை அறிந்து பண்டோராவை அழிக்க திட்டமிடுகிறான். இந்த சண்டையின் எந்த பக்கம் வெற்றி பெறுகிறது என்பதை மீதிக் கதை சொல்கிறது.

அலசல் :
படம் நிறைய நேரம் (2 மணி நேரம் 45 நிமிடம்) ஓடுகிறது. படம் நன்றாக இருந்தால் இரண்டே முக்கால் மணி நேரம் ஒரு பொருட்டாகத் தெரியாது. தமிழ் படத்தில் உள்ளது போல் பாட்டு டான்ஸ் இல்லை என்பதால் தியேட்டரில் கொஞ்சம் தூங்குவதைத் தவிர வேறு வழியில்லை.
படத்தில் கதையை விட ஸ்பெஷல் எபக்ட்ஸ் பிரம்மாண்டமாக இருக்கிறது. 3D இல் பார்த்ததால் நன்றாகவே இருந்தது. வேறு எங்கோப் படித்தது போல் கதையில் கொஞ்சம் கவனம் செலுத்தியிருந்தால் படம் பார்ப்பதற்கு நன்றாக இருந்திருக்கும்.
ஜேம்ஸ் கேமரன் படம் என்றால் புதுமை இருக்கும் என்ற எதிர்பார்ப்பு இருப்பதால் அவருடைய இயக்கம் ஒரு விதத்தில் கமலஹாசனின் நடிப்பைப் போல் ஆகி விட்டது. புதுமையாக இருக்க வேண்டும் என்ற காரணத்தைக் கொண்டு கதையை கோட்டை விட்டு விட்டார்கள்.
படத்தில் எனக்கு பிடித்த பாத்திரம் என்றால் RDA நிறுவனத்தின் மேல்நிலை அதிகாரியான பார்கர் செல்ப்றிச் (ஜியோவன்னி ரிபிசி) தான். இந்த உலகத்தின் மோசமான நிலைமைக்கு காரணமாகச் சுட்டிக் காட்டப்படும் பணப் பேராசை கொண்ட வியாபாரியின் உருவத்தை நன்றாகக் கண் முன் நிறுத்தி இருக்கிறார். கடைசியில் அந்த பாத்திரத்தையும் ஜேம்ஸ் கேமரன் சொதப்புவது இந்த படத்தின் இறுதிச் சித்திரவதையாக அமைகிறது.
படத்தில் எனக்குச் சுத்தமாகப் பிடிக்காதது ந'வி மக்களின் சித்திரம் தான். இயற்கையோடு ஒன்றி வாழும் குழந்தைகள் போல் காட்டப்பட்டிருக்கிறார்கள். குழந்தைகளுக்கு ஜுரம் வரும். சளி வரும். ந'வி மக்களிடையே வாழும் பொது யாருக்கும் எவருக்கும் எப்போதும் உடம்புக்கு வருவதில்லை. பூமியிலிருந்து சென்ற படை அவர்களது ஆரோக்கியத்தின் ரகசியத்தை அறிந்து கொண்டு அதனை ஒரு மருந்தாக தங்கள் மக்களிடம் விற்றிருந்தால் அனப்டேனியத்தை விட நிறைய பணம் பண்ணியிருக்கலாம். அந்த பாத்திரப் படைப்பின் ஒரு தீவிர செயல்பாடாக ந'வி மக்கள் மரத்தின் இலைக்குள் தூங்குகிறார்கள். பூமியில் மரத்தின் இலையில் தூங்கினால் கொசு கடிக்கும். ந'வி மக்களிடையே கொசு என்பதே இல்லாமல் காட்டியிருக்கிறார்கள். ந'வி மக்களின் பிணி எல்லாம் பூமியிலிருந்து சென்ற படை செலுத்தும் நவீன ஆயுதங்களால் வருகிறது. இயற்கையை மதித்து வாழ்பவர்களாக சொல்லப்பட்ட அவர்களுடைய கதை நவீன விஞ்ஞானத்தின் முகத்தில் கரி பூசுவது போல் இருக்கிறது. பூமியிலிருந்து சென்ற ஊழியர்கள் எந்த விஞ்ஞானத்தின் உதவி கொண்டு ந'வி மக்களிடையே உலவுகிறார்களோ அதன் பயனை மறந்து ந'வி மக்களின் கடவுளான எய்வாவிற்கு புகழாரம் சூட்டுகிறார்கள். கடவுளுக்கு புகழாரம் சூட்டுவதற்கு பதில் அறிவியலின் பயனை ந'வி மக்களிடையே போதித்தால் அவர்களது வாழ்க்கை முன்னேறும். நவீன ஆயுதங்கள் ந'வி மக்களை சின்னாபின்னபடுத்தும்போது அடிபட்டவர்களை குணப்படுத்த விஞ்ஞானம் பயன்படும். மேலும் அந்த நவீன ஆயுதங்களை எதிர்கொள்ள பண்டோராவுக்கு ஏற்ற நவீன ஆயுதங்களை தயார் செய்யப் பயன்படும். கடைசி யுத்தத்திற்கு ஜேக் சல்லியின் தலைமையை ஏற்பதாகக் காண்பிப்பதன் மூலம் ந'வியின் விஞ்ஞான அறிவின்மையின் முடிவைக் காட்டியிருக்கிறார்கள்.

இந்த படத்தின் மூலம் பணத்தாசையும் நவீன ஆயுதங்களின் மோகமும் இயற்கையை எப்படி அழிக்க முடியும் என்பதை காட்ட முயன்றிருக்கிறார்கள். கடைசியில், அதே பணத்தாசையும் நவீன ஆயுதங்களும் சில சமயம் இயற்கையை காக்கவும் பயன்படும் என்பதை சொல்ல மறந்து விட்டார்கள். ஒரு படத்திற்கு ஸ்பெஷல் எபக்ட்ஸ் எவ்வளவு முக்கியமோ கதையும் அந்த அளவு முக்கியம் என்பதை மறந்து விட்டார்கள்.

மாற்றுக் கதை :
RDA நிறுவனம் தனது ஊழியர்களை ந'வி மக்களின் வேடத்தில் அலைய விடுவது போல் மற்றொரு நாட்டில் உள்ள நிறுவனம் தனது ஊழியர்களை ந'வி மக்களின் வேடத்தில் ஏவி விடுகிறது. படத்தின் இறுதியில் இரண்டு நிறுவனங்களுக்கு இடையே நடக்கும் தாக்குதல்கள் மெய்நிகர் நிதர்சனத்தில் (virtual reality ) நடக்கிறது. ஒரு சிறிய தவறினால் இந்த தாக்குதல்கள் இரு நாடுகளுக்கு இடையே போராக உருவெடுக்கிறது.

Movie of the week

2010-01-14T15:29:00.002-05:00

படம் : யோஜிம்போ
வருடம் : 1961
இயக்குனர் : அகிரோ குரோசவா

கதை சுருக்கம் :
ஜப்பானில் ஒரு சிறிய கிராமம் இரண்டு ரவுடி கும்பலின்(ஒன்று - உஷிடோரா, மற்றொன்று - செய்பெய்) பிடியில் சிக்கியிருக்கிறது. அந்த ஊரில் உள்ள குடும்பங்களும் வியாபாரிகளும் இரண்டு கும்பல்களுக்கு பயந்து வெளியில் வர மறுக்கின்றனர். இரு கும்பல்களும் அந்த ஊரின் அரசு ஊழியர்களை தங்கள் கையில் வைத்துக் கொண்டு மக்களைக் கொடுமைப்படுத்தி வருகின்றனர். ஒரு சமுராய் அந்த கிராமத்திற்கு வருகிறான். இந்த இரு கும்பல்களின் அட்டகாசத்தைப் பற்றிக் கேட்டு அதற்கு ஒரு முடிவு கட்ட திட்டமிடுகிறான். அவன் நினைத்ததை அடைகின்றானா இல்லையா என்பதை படம் காட்டுகிறது.

அலசல் :
படத்தின் ஆரம்பத்தில் சமுராயின் அணுகுமுறையும் அந்த கிராமத்தின் அவல நிலைமையும் நன்றாகக் காட்டப்பட்டிருக்கிறது. அவனுடைய நடை அவன் எதிரே எந்த தடங்கல் வந்தாலும் அதை எதிர்கொள்ளும் தைரியத்தை காண்பிக்கிறது. படத்தின் இறுதிக் கட்டங்களில் அந்த தைரியத்தின் மூலகாரணம் தெரிய வருகிறது. வழியில் ஒரு அப்பாவுக்கும் மகனுக்கும் நடக்கும் சண்டையும் ஊருக்குள் சமுரைக்குத் தண்ணீர் தரும் கணவன் மனைவியின் நடப்பும் மூலம் அந்த ஊரில் உள்ளவர்களின் நிலை நன்றாகத் தெரிகிறது. அந்த ஊரின் உள்ள உணவகத்தின் உரிமையாளரின் வறுமையும் அவனுடைய அண்டை வீட்டில் உள்ள சவப்பெட்டி உரிமையாளரின் செழுமையும் ரவுடி கும்பல்களின் ஆதிக்கத்தைக் காட்டுகிறது. வெவ்வேறு நடப்புகள் மூலம் அந்த ஊரின் மோசமான நிலைமை நமக்குத் தெரிய வருகிறது.
இரண்டு ரவுடி கும்பலிடம் நேரே மோதாமல், புத்திசாலித்தனமாக அவர்களிடம் மோதுவது நன்றாக காட்டப்பட்டிருக்கிறது. அவர்களை விடச் சமுராய் வாள் வீச்சில் திறமைசாலி ஆனதால் தன்னுடைய வீரத்தை அவர்களுக்கு பேரம் பேசுகிறான். இதன் மூலம் அவனால் இரண்டு கும்பல்களின் பலத்தை அறிந்து கொள்ள முடிகிறது. மேலும், இரண்டு கும்பல்களுக்கும் காசின் மேல் உள்ள ஆசை அவனுக்கு தெரிகிறது. (ஆங்கிலத்தில்) காதலிலும் போரிலும் எதுவும் நியாயம் என்பதைக் கொள்கையாகக் கொள்கிறான்.
அவனுடைய திட்டத்தின் வெற்றிக்கு அவனுடைய வாள் வீச்சுத் திறமை அடித்தளமாக அமைகிறது. அந்த திட்டத்தில் மண் போடுவது போல் ஒரு கும்பலின் தலைவனின் தம்பி (மற்றொரு சமுராய்)ஒரு துப்பாக்கியை ஊருக்குள் கொண்டு வருகிறான். (ஆங்கிலத்தில்) குருடர்கள் நாட்டில் ஒற்றைக் கண்ணன் அரசன் போல், துப்பாக்கி உள்ள கும்பலின் கை ஓங்குகிறது. துப்பாக்கிக்கு எதிராக வாள் வீச்சு எடுபடாததால் வாள் வீசும் சமுராயின் திட்டம் தடம் புரள்கிறது. வாள் தன்னிடம் இருந்து போன பின் தன்னுடைய தீரத்தைப் பயன்படுத்துகிறான்.துப்பாக்கி உள்ள சமுராய் தன் அண்ணனுக்காக, அவன் செய்யும் அந்நியாயத்தைப் பொறுத்துக் கொள்கிறான். வாள் வீசும் சமுராய் நியாத்திற்காக தன்னை பணயமாக வைக்கிறான்.இரண்டு சமுரைக்கிடையே உள்ள வித்தியாசத்தை நன்றாகக் காட்டியிருக்கிறார்கள்.
ஒரு கதையை எப்படி சொல்ல வேண்டுமோ அப்படி சொல்லியிருக்கிறார்கள். சமுராய் குறியீட்டின் பெருமையை இந்த படத்தின் மூலம் நன்றாகக் காட்டியிருக்கிறார்கள்.

Dasavatharam - Incompetence multiplied 10 times

2008-06-15T10:18:00.006-04:00

***************************Spoiler alert********************

Dasavatharam is a movie that is the perfect example of 'kurangu kayil poomalai'(garland in the hand of a monkey). The movie starts extremely well and then degenerates into wild goose chase among ambiguous story lines. It is difficult to point out the story of Dasavatharam because there are too many of them to count. The movie itself becomes a vehicle for Kamal to grandstand and he does it well, ably assisted by the director, K.S. Ravikumar. This is another nail in the coffin of Kamal, the 'great' actor. I have seen unbridled egotism and vanity in tamil movie industry (See Rajinikanth, Vijaykanth et al) but this movie shows Kamal to be head and shoulders above the rest. For kamal fans, this will be another demonstration of the actor going to great lengths to innovate in the ossified environs of tamil cinema. For kamal detractors, this will be another movie that shows all that is wrong with Kamal. He overacts and spreads himself thin by acting in 10 roles, some of which overturn the story itself.

Synopsis:

The movie starts in 12th century when Kulothunga Chozhan, in his fanaticism for Saivism, is putting vaishavite followers to sword and destroying vaishnavite places of worship. Kulothunga Chozhan considers Vaishnavism as hereticism and wants to snuff out its existence. He asks Rangarajan Nambi to renounce Vaishnavism and betray their leader, Ramanuja. When Nambi refuses ( in spite of common sense entreaties from his wife), he is promptly tied to the ananthasayana idol in the temple and drowned in the sea. Nambi's wife kills herself. The scene then shifts to US where a synthetic biotechnology scientist has successfully developed a lethal toxin. He comes to know his boss and his colleague plan to sell the toxin for money. Pursued by them and FBI, he spirits away the toxin to India. Rest of the story is about what happens to him and the toxin.

Thoughts:

The concept behind the movie is interesting. My guess is that the idea grew from the newly discovered Pallava ruins, near Shore Temple in Mamallapuram after the 2004 tsunami. The movie lays the groundwork by starting with the 12th century scenes that explain how the idol got to the sea in the first place.
The execution (except for the 12th century scenes) is amateurish, haphazard and completely defeats the underlying concept of the movie. Kamal (and K.S.Ravikumar) come across as conceited, incompetent captains of the enterprise that is rumoured to have cost 70 crore rupees. Aascar Ravichandran (numerology nutcase ?), the producer of the movie should be ruing the day he gave the go ahead to the project.
What starts as a good idea degenerates into an over-the-top celebration of Kamal, the already overrated actor. The story is forgotten (and in some places, actively muddled with) as the imperative to show Kamal in 10 different roles takes over. After the movie, I was hard pressed to remember most of the roles because they didnt have the detailed character development. The make up was generally horrendous and distracting. I never thought I would see someone beating Ajith's makeup in Citizen but Kamal has done it. The makeup looks as if Kamal wanted people to know that he was making this much effort for the movie. A good makeup wouldnt have served as a distraction to the story.
Selection of K.S.Ravikumar as the director for the movie should have signalled its fate. Ravikumar is excellent is bringing a movie to the market that has all commercial elements of tamil cinema. He is not someone known for originality and given the idea behind this movie, it needed lots of it.
Kamal is very much to blame for such a bad movie. If he is considered to be a great actor, he should also know that the actor is there to move the story along. The story shouldnt become a vehicle of adulation for the actor. In this movie, Kamal has achieved it, albeit at a heavy cost to the producer.
Then, there is the standard fare of any kamal movie, put downs of caste and religion. What would have been good in a socially conscious movie like Unnal mudiyum thambi comes across as haughtiness in this movie. As someone who agrees with him on the evils of caste and religion, I was surprised he chose that route in this movie. It made the movie more torturous and unbearable.
I could only make some comparisons between the 10 roles and the actual ten avatars of Vishnu.
Nambi - Based on his death in the sea and subsequent reemergence after the tsunami, I am assuming this is kurma avataram. The role, in my estimation, the best within the movie because of the seriousness associated with it. Whether it is the argument between him and Kulothunga Chozhan or refusing to renounce vaishnavism in his reply to his wife (played by Asin), the role is very well defined as the fanatic who holds to religion even in the face of certain death.
Ramaswamy - This is the synthetic biotechnologist. My guess is that he signifies rama avataram. There are enough hints in the character other the name. He conducts experiments on a monkey called hanu (after hanuman).
Fletcher - He is the ex-CIA spy who is after Ramaswamy. The makeup is terrible even though the accent is pretty good.
Bush - I think he represents Kalki avataram given Bush's view on armageddon and end of the world. There are some potshots at Bush's intelligence. If they had made that effort towards the make up, it might have been better.
Balram Naidu - The experience of watching dasavatharam would have been really bad if it wasnt for this character. Given the name, he can be slotted as balarama. It is in his portrayal as the RAW officer that the movie gets into lighter territory. I guess the character made things so funny because it portrayed most of accepted stereotypes of telugu speakers among tamils.
Avatar singh - I dont know what this character was doing. The only reason I can find is that Kamal wanted to cover sikh base in the viewing public.
Patti - I have no idea what this character was doing other than to serve as an example of what is wrong with the movie. Terrible make up, incomplete character definition.
Kalifullah - I have no idea what this character was doing.
Japanese guy - Maybe Kamal wanted to compete with Rajnikanth for the japanese fan base.
Boovarahan - He is the leader of dalits who opposes the sand mafia. Based on the look and the way he dies (leg injury), I assume this is krishna avataram.

Other actors are overshadowed (by the egotism of kamal and incompetent direction of K.S.Ravikumar) throughout the movie.
Asin plays 2 roles, one as the wife of Nambi in 12th century and other as the love interest of Ramaswamy. She is completely wasted in both roles. In the first role, she spends her time whimpering and the second role, she comes very close to the annoying roles Jyothika used to play in her career.
There are also famous actors/actresses used in insignificant roles. Nagesh, K.R.Vijaya are just some of them.
Napoleon does very well as Kulothunga Chozhan. He chooses to play a cooler (and obviously more powerful) fanatic compared to Kamal's wide eyed, frothing-at-the-mouth fanatic as Nambi. In the whole movie, his is the one role I considered as well defined and well-acted.

The movie could have stayed away from expounding on rationality, especially towards the end. They didnt move the story and stuck out like a sore thumb. I appreciated and agreed with the sentiments behind those lines but they didnt belong in the movie.

Songs to keep me moving

2008-02-26T13:42:00.007-05:00

I grew up listening to tamil movie songs (not because I wanted to but because I had a brother and sister who were certifiably music crazy in their younger days). I like running and have found that some tamil songs are peculiarly suited to pumping up the adrenaline during the run. I dont carry iPod or wear headphones when I run. I listen to the songs when I am not running, enough times, that I can remember the whole song. I didnt get to see most of the songs until after I got to college and even when I saw them, it was only the music and words that mattered. As a result, most of these songs include horrendous acting as a rule. All of the songs focus on the individual and use flowery language and violence. Lots of songs feature Rajni as he usually acts in roles that are designed to satisfy his fans and have no relation to reality. This set of Rajni songs are very effective at energizing me during my running. After all, what better way to pick myself up than through songs that border on delusion ? The songs that dont feature Rajni are usually the ones where the lines of the song perform the motivating job very well.

Vetri nichayam - Annamalai

This is the only song I know that works all the time, for me whether I am running a mile or 20 miles. I even finished my first marathon, with a foot injury, replaying this song in my head. I dont have any particular friend or relative in my mind, only things that annoyed me. Add to that, thalaivar's voice (To me, SPB is thalaivar, not Rajni) is just perfect, especially at the end when he finishes strong with 'Unnai vendraen'. The song has a flow and manic focus on work that allows me to visualize succeeding at the target distance for the day.

Arjunar villu - Gilli

This is one of the newer songs in the list which is perfect for any workout, not only running. The picturization is good. The only drag is Sukhwinder Singh's murder of tamil but the song has grown on me so much I dont hold that against it.

Ovvoru pookalumae - Autograph

The lines speak for themselves. Music is very very ordinary but the lines are worth their weight in gold. Especially, at the interlude of the conductor at 4:15. One of the very few songs that explains effort in very much common sense terms but does it so well, without recourse to god or supernatural or violence, that even the lack of fast music beats is not felt.

Vetri kodi kattu - Padayappa

The repeating refrain is very very effective in this song. This is the song in the movie where Rajni becomes wealthy by the end of the song. It is very similar in tone to Vetri Nichayam but here the song diverges into some unnecessary areas before coming back to the motivational piece(the repetitive portion that starts after 'vetri kodi kattu').

Agaram ippo sigaram ippo - Sigaram

Beautifully sung by SPB with very meaningful lines. I didnt get to watch this song till mid-90s so my like isnt based on the picturization(not that it would have helped). To me, the line 'Vaanodu mudivum illai, vaazhvodu vidaiyum illai, inrenbathu unmaiyae, nambikkai ungal kaiyilae' probably makes my day whenever I replay this song in my head. The lines are very well written, meant more as appreciation of an relationship than as a motivating song.

Tholvi nilayena - Oomai Vizhigal

Truly bad acting is defined in this song(Thankfully, Arun pandian failed as an actor in tamil movies. Else, it would have been terrible for movie fans). The lines are pitch perfect for motivation(the song starts slow and increases in tempo at the end) as it deals mainly with self-respect, growing out of fear and holding onto one's principles.

Ethir neechal - Ethir neechal

The song plays during the titles of the movie. The lines are good, as could be expected from that era tamil movies. It is pretty straightforward in terms of putting in effort against status quo.

Sanga Thamizhachchi

2007-11-30T16:30:00.000-05:00

I watched 2 tamil movies, Mozhi and Ammuvagiya Naan, last week. I had read good reviews for both of them and been planning to watch them for a long time.

Mozhi is about the relationsip between an aspring musician, played by Prithviraj and a deaf mute girl, played by jyothika (in her last acting role). Prakashraj, as another aspiring musician and Swarnamalya, as friend of jyothika round out the movie's main cast. Jyothika grows up with her grandmother, as self-willed and independent, after her father deserts their family and her mother dies soon after. Her experience with her father also leaves her very suspicious of males, in general. Prithviraj happens to see her kick a drunken husband in public, for beating his wife and is impressed with her. He promptly falls in love with her and his ardour doesnt diminish a bit after he finds out about her deaf muteness. He works himself into her good graces, with lots of help from Prithviraj and Swarnamalya characters, even though she is oblivious of his true intent. When she finds out, she withdraws into a shell and refuses any consideration from him. The end of the movie is about how everything gets resolved and everyone goes home happy.

As far as actors go, Jyothika completely dominates the proceedings with her portrayal of the deaf mute character. As someone who hates her brand of acting(exaggerated roll of eyes, constant jerking motion of head in all directions to every situation), I was pleasantly surprised at how well she played the character. Towards the end, the 'bad' jyothika did come out once in a while but her overall performance was commendable, especially given this was her last movie. Prithviraj plays the normal hero role and doesnt have that much of a weighty character defined for him. Prakashraj, on account of being the movie's producer, tones down his irritating brand of acting and acquits himself well. Swarnamalya fits in like a glove in her role of the widower, who helps Prithviraj gain and maintain access to Jyothika's character.

Tamil movie treatment of disabled characters in general and ,deaf mute characters in particular, has usually been characterised by an extreme sense of pity and condescension, as evinced by hero mouthing the usual cliche dialogue of 'Vaai paesaadha, kaadhu kaelaadha ponnukku vazhvu kodukka poraen'(example would be cheran's porkaalam). Director Radha Mohan has taken care to clarify that point in this movie, making the male characters claim that they are not providing a helping hand out of pity as much as they are willing to share the future with their respective partners. In doing so, he has gone against exploiting, shamelessly done by directors of earlier tamil movies, disability and widowhood for melodrama.

The movie also makes fun a whole host of of tamil movie cliches. The opening sequence of rich girl falling for poor guy for the first 2 minutes, is delightful as both Prithviraj and Prakashraj make fun of the music interludes that would play in the background as the charade plays out on the screen. The opening scene also succeeds in upending the long lived tamil movie myth of suffering musicians, looking for recognition. Here, Prithviraj and Prakashraj characters are assumed to be reasonably well-off, enough to afford a flat and car in chennai. The pernicious stereotype of music hero struggling for opportunities to display his musical genius, is laid to rest at last(Ajith in Mugavari didnt have the harmonium dangling from his neck as Bhagyaraj from andha ezhu naatkal did, but he was just as grating). The portrayal of drinking(and subsequent puking) by Prakashraj is more in line with experiences of people growing up, compared to the the holier-than-thou attitude tamil movies take with respect to drinking. Even the whole concept of falling in love is dealt with in an offhand manner as Prithviraj lists out what generally happens when they have found 'The One'(A light will glow on the top of your head and music will play). Tamil movies of the last 20 years(since, Alaigal Oyvathillai and Vazhvae Maayam) have treated love as something equivalent to religion, as one worthy of extreme piety and unquestioning admiration. The sooner more movies debunk that notion, the better. The character development of some of the ancillary roles is done well, especially that of the maths professor.

On the negative side, the whole movie could have done with some more polish. The story was very well made but the sorroundings somehow looked as if they belonged to a TV serial. If it werent for the songs, the whole movie could have been made into a 13 week serial, as opposed to the current megaserials.

The movie portrays female characters the way very few tamil movies do, that of someone independent, fearless and wise. After all, the sangam treatment of ideal woman as one with the four attributes could partly be responsible for the despicable position of women in tamil society. As per this ideal, an ideal woman is one who has achcham(fear), madam(innocence), naanam(shyness) and payirppu(modesty). Looking at tamil movies, it is a miniscule number that go against this stereotypical characterisation of females in them. Even if they provide for their heroines to be brave, they would make sure she exhibited the other attributes in good measure(countless vijayashanti movies). Mozhi goes against the first three attributes while leaving modesty alone. After all, the tamil movie cliche sorrounding karppu(chastity) is the vilest of them all. However, compared to the huge pile of tamil movies that portray their female characters as extension of sangam heroines, Mozhi is a pleasant adventure.

The other movie, Ammuvagiya Naan, is about rehabilitation of a commercial sex worker in a monogamous marriage. Ammu, the protagonist played by Bharathi, is sold to a neighbourhood establishment a.k.a brothel owner by her poor and drunken father, after her mother dies after delivery. Ammu grows up in the brothel and once she attains adulthood, expresses interest in being a commercial sex worker. She charges high rates to her clients and generally thinks quite well of her profession and not as anything shameful. Enter Gowri shankar, played by Parthiban, a novelist looking for a new story after failing twice to win recognition at the national level for his novels. He is interested in finding about lives of commercial sex workers for his next work. He takes a liking to Ammu and requests her participation. She is amused and agrees to participate. After spending some time with her, he requests her hand in marriage and after some bumps, they get married. The novel gets published and is up for a national award again. One of the authors on the award committee is a regular at the brothel who had been rebuffed by Ammu earlier, on account of his extreme perversions. He demands his pound of flesh from Ammu in return for a favourable opinion on the novel. The response of Ammu and Gowri Shankar forms the rest of the movie.

The movie sets up the argument between monogamy and prostitution in terms of security. The director tries very hard not to judge the commercial sex workers(and he is mostly successful at it) and points out the lack of security for them, especially as they get older. Even when the movie shows Ammu's adopted mother, the owner of the brothel, accepting Gowri Shankar's offer of 45 lakhs in the form of his house deed as security for seeking Ammu's hand in marriage(otherwise called dowry), it self-corrects it later when she returns it back to him. In his view, monogamy seems to be the desired ideal in this world, that would provide the security and care while at the same time addressing the demands for sex. He uses the four attributes of ideal woman in a different manner compared to Mozhi. In this movie, Ammu is fearless,independent, not shy and not modest when it comes to sex. There is a scene when Ammu is growing up when she notices other workers lining up for clients inspection. She proceeds to join the workers and is disappointed when she is not picked.The director undercuts her assurance by using Gowri Shankar to highlight the fact that she is innocent, afraid, dependent and modest when it comes to 'real' life, the life outside the four walls of the brothel. He portrays Ammu's enjoyment of sex in the brothel arising out of her sheltered upbringing within the four walls. And it is left to Parthiban's character to educate her on the benefits of being a dutiful wife, doting and dependent on her husband. The immediate respect she gets as Gowri Shankar's wife, in front of the police officer, who a few days back, treated the workers in the brothel in the meanest way possible, is an illustration of that tactic. As is Ammu receiving harsh treatment in the hands of Gowri Shankar's sister who has her hopes on getting Gowri Shankar married to her daughter. The director maintains a consistent line of progressiveness in Gowri Shankar throughout,
making him stress the need for higher education for his sister's daughter instead of marriage.

The humour in the movie is very understated and usually has to do with misunderstandings arising from Ammu's past profession. To his credit, the director has kept clear of putting in an item number, given tamil movie directors have found ways to inject vulgarity even where it is not needed.

Bharathi who plays Ammu completely dominates the movie. She takes on the role with glee and delivers very well. She deals with different emotions of her character very well. Parthiban underplays his role and creditably performs as Gowri Shankar. The other characters, be it the sex workers or Gowri Shankar's relatives are portrayed with lots of sympathy and not at all as caricatures, except maybe Gowri Shankar's sister.

Ammuvagiya Naan is about how (tamil) society respects a woman that learns the importance of and adheres to, the four attributes of the sangam age ideal, notwithstanding the eons of time that have passed. And the more tamil movies take baby steps towards addressing the horrible imbalance in treatment of female characters, the more they compensate for it by sticking to ancient ideals of womanhood, reality be damned.

What do males on hindu right want ?

2007-09-23T20:13:00.000-04:00

I finished reading Martha Nussbaum's The Clash Within - Democracy, religious violence and India's future. I heard about it during a discussion on sepiamutiny and the initial discussions made me want to read it. By the time I got through the book, I was disappointed at the bungling explanation of a common sense approach to religious fundamentalism and democracies' response to it. As the book progressed, it got progressively difficult because of the simplistic analysis and wholesale focus on the importance of humanities for the human development.
The book is written for american and european audience as an introduction to importance of religion in indian society. The theses covered as part of the book include
1. Case study of Godhra riots
2. Rebut 'clash of civilizations' forwarded by Samuel Huntington and
3. Importance of religion to democracy

To buttress her credentials, the explanation,"long-standing professional relationship with India makes her an excellent guide to its recent history", on the flap of the book cover definitely helps. References to Amartya Sen dont hurt either. I only wish she would have taken that more seriously to give a better view of religious violence in India.

Some positive things about the book include,
1. Very good retelling of cause behind godhra riots and clear denunciation of the crazed fanatic Narendra Modi. She could have gone into a deeper explanation of the participation of different castes in the riots instead of lamenting their participation and just hinting that they might have been bought off.
2. Attempt to engage with the different arms of the hindu fundie movement including VHP, RSS and BJP. This is sullied by a jaundiced view she brings to the psycho analysis of the interviewees that ends up sounding like hatchet jobs on most of them. So, Arun Shourie(BJP) is unnecessarily harsh on all religions while at the same time lending legitimacy to BJP's hindutva policies, K.K.Shastri(VHP) is a dirty old man and Devendra Swarup(VHP) is a male chauvinist. The one contrast to all of them is Gurcharan Das, shown as someone who is a religious hindu but is not a certified nut job as the other three. He gets off with minimal psycho analysis(no one is spared the psycho analysis treatment) and when he ventures to paint Arun Shourie in positive terms, she calls Gurcharan Das naive.
3. Good coverage of the indian diaspora's role in targeting academics who wish to study hinduism, its symbols and its adherents. But, this is tarnished by simple mistakes like referring to Rajiv Malhotra as the owner of sulekha.com (Page 247, "The chief antagonist behind these attacks is Rajiv Malhotra, a very wealthy man who lives in New Jersey and heads the Infinity foundation, which has made grants in the area of Hinduism studies. Had Malhotra decided to focus his energies on giving scholarships to students and graduate students in this area, he would greatly have enhanced the profile of Hinduism studies nationally. But in recent years most of his energy has been focused on Internet attacks against Doniger and scholars associated with her, on his website sulekha.com. Malhotra's voluminous writings show a highly aggressive, threatening personality."). But she does a very good job of sticking up for Romila Thapar, Wendy Doniger and others(they escape the psycho analytic scalpel too) while attacking efforts to promote revisionist history by the hindu organizations abroad and at home.
4. The central thesis that each civilization carries within it people who are open to foreign influences and those who are fearful of it and the resulting interactions among them determines how a democracy sees itself with respect to religious violence.

Given my disappointment with the book, I could only see overwhelmingly negative points including,
1. Prescription to the clash within a civilization. While the identification reflected common sense, the solution was wholly unsatisfactory. Her solution that Gandhi's approach towards religion and Tagore's approach towards education will provide salvation to religious violence in India is half baked. Gandhi, for all his religious moderation wasnt able to prevent the horrifying violence of partition that was mostly driven by religious passions. She approvingly talks of " Gandhi believed that self-rule in the political sense must grow out of self-rule in the psychological sense;only by mastering the urges to dominate in ourselves can we become the sort of citizens who can live respectfully with others on terms of equality, and only by producing self-mastering citizens can a nation remain free from external domination. The events in Gujarat support Gandhi's contention. ". While the idea of self-mastery leading to more respect between people sounds reasonable, to trace it to religious moderation requires a leap of faith. Especially the kind of religious moderation as practiced by Gandhi ignored the real advances made by science and looked on religion as the panacea. And Gandhi doesnt get mentioned when she discusses the restrictions on right to proselytize in India.
2. Her insistence on wider availability of Tagore's emphasis on development of critical faculties in public education. It ignores the compexity in implementing educational curriculum in a country as diverse as India. Rote learning is the bane of many a school child in India and the sooner it gets reduced, the better. But, her point that Santiniketan and Tagore's approach as the solution across India doesnt take into account the original failure of Tagore to spread his approach beyond Santiniketan. She contrasts the use of Jana Gana Mana as appealing to a higher ideal of humanity when compared with Bande Mataram that exhorts its singer to pledge devotion to motherland. But, she ignores the strong use of admiration of mother sentiment by different social and political movements. After all, MGR captured power in tamil nadu by targeting them successfully and tamil politicians routinely swear fealty and loyalty to tamil language while describing it in mother or other female terms. To me, the analysis of Bande mataram was eye opening because I always thought it was a good song and I am not the typical hindu right male. Far from it. Her description of Tagore's approach seems clouded by her association with, and admiration of, Amartya Sen. So, Amartya Sen's mother, Amita Sen has the book dedicated to her with glowing tributes to her achievements in the artistic sphere and is held up as the example of what students in India have missed out on throughout the book. Poor us! And Amartya Sen pops up with sage quotes of his own once in a while.
3. Backhanded compliments to Nehru on his achievements with regard to industrial, science and technology development. She recognizes Nehru for his commitment to secularism, democracy but faults him for "failure to create a liberal, pluralistic public rhetorical and imaginative culture whose ideas could have worked at the grassroots level to oppose those of the Hindu right". And somewhere else, she blames Nehru and congress for "neglecting the cultivation of liberal religion and the emotional bases of a respectful pluralistic society". She identifies lack of stress on humanities and too much emphasis on science in Indian education system as one of the causes of religious violence. The same Nehru who pushed the reforms in hinduism with Ambedkar is held up for not cultivating liberal religion. Her negative coverage of Nehru's contribution sounds very convenient when tied to her narrative of hindu right as one uninterrupted movement developing for a long time.
4. The whole book treats the hindu right as building strength for last 50 years and flowering in the last 10 years. That muddles the reality where there were times when hindu right wasnt powerful and places where they still have difficulty getting or maintaining a toe hold. The ascendancy of hindu right can be blamed partly on the confused and ineffective policies with regard to religion of the congress party and partly on the discipline and cohesiveness(as she rightly points out) of its different units. Her treatment of sikh killings of 1984 is different from godhra riots even though they were driven by political masters intent on killing people of a different religion. Rajiv Gandhi is let off the hook for his comment after hearing of sikh killings, "When a tree falls, the ground shakes". The book would have improved its appeal if it treated the religious massacres that happen periodically in India as just that, religious madness. The treatment of religion by congress also gets a passing reference. After all, congress has played its part in fanning religious madness with its mixing of politics and religion. While angry symbolism of Ram by BJP is rightly panned, she lets congress off the hook for playing into the hands of religious politics through telecast of ramayan. After all, Doordarshan those days was controlled by the central government and they would have had to approve the narrow rendering of ramayana as was shown on the television screen.
5. The obsessive focus on psycho analysis of the typical hindu right male - someone who raped women in Godhra riots, killed people and asserted cultural superiority over anyone who doesnt agree with his view on India as a hindu nation. While I can see some merit in the increased sense of victimhood on the part of hindu male(my speculation based on my interactions with my friends), she takes it to extreme levels with explanations like this - "Something like this paranoia, this refusal of compromised humanity, infects the rhetoric of the Hindu right and indeed, may help to explain its continuing fascination with Nazi ideas. The woman functions as a symbol of the site of weakness and vulnerability inside any male, who can be drawn into his own mortality through desire. The muslim woman functions doubly on such a symbol. In this way, a fantasy is created that her annihilation will lead to safety and invulnerability- perhaps to "India shining", the campaign slogan that betrays a desire for a crystalline sort of domination. Only this complex logic explains, I believe, why torture and mutilation are preferred to abduction and impregnation. Or even simple homicide. Only this logic explains the fantasy of penetrating the sexual body with a large metal object. Only this logic explains, as well, the frequent destruction of women by fire, as though the world cannot be clean until all vestiges of the female body are obliterated from its face.". While the hindu right does have fascination with Nazi ideas, to extend the explanation to the slogan of "India shining" is a leap that cannot be justified. But, in this book, she isnt focussed on balanced view even if it happens to be about an extremist viewpoint. It is not only the hindu right that has a fascination with Hitler. There have been tamil movies that treat him as an admirable figure. The view of this subset in India of females in general and muslim females in particular sounds inconsistent sometimes. At some points, she refers to the tendency of hindu right to treat them as object and assert a sense of control over them. At other points(as in the one above), she refers to the tendency of hindu right to reduce sexuality of the female to oblivion. Either they are an object or they are a sexual being whose sexuality has to be removed.
6. Betrays a negative view of science, technology and capitalism in general while treating religion as good. So, Chandrababu Naidu suffers collateral damage as BJP's partner for promoting Andhra within "India shining" through foreign investment while doing nothing about the condition of the rural poor. She would do well to check the progress report of previous governments, at centre and state level, on alleviating rural poor's misery. Religion, hinduism or islam, is good but there are few bad apples who hijack it for their own ends sounds hollow from her when one sees the havoc it has wrought in India.
7. Reluctance to pull up other religions for their madness. So, "islamic fundamentalism has no grip in India despite discrimination and even persecution" as if the existence of discrimination and persecution justifies turning fundamentalist. At another place, she explains the poor situation of muslims is due to persistent discrimination which, to me, is taking things to the extreme. I am sure there are indignities and discriminations suffered by muslims in India but that doesnt mean other religions dont suffer or that it is an admirable feature of religious people to turn fundamentalist because they are being discriminated against. If that is the case, India might as well wind up its court system and let people turn fundamentalists to resolve religious discrimination. Even if I am not a muslim, it is difficult for me to accept there is persistent discrimination. And where there are violent acts involving muslims, she takes care to mention the organization that caused the violence has both hindus and muslims. So, the bombay blasts in 1993 was conducted by gangs in mumbai that had both hindus and muslims. To my recollection, the way it was covered at that time, was as a religious response to the destruction of Babri masjid mosque.

There are some issues she raises with education which anyone educated in indian schools wouldnt find out of place. The spelling mistakes and errors sounds bad when reading it on this book. Her use of feminist ideas shed some light on why some people do the things they do but she ignores the part rabid women play among hindu fundamentalism.

On the whole, the book puts forward a common sense approach to analyzing religious violence in demcoracies and proceeds to flesh it out poorly and sometimes, comes across as too heavy on psychoanalysis. Given the author's background, it might have to be expected but it doesnt add any value to the discussion on religious violence in India.

Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi - Review

2007-08-31T23:08:00.000-04:00

1969 was the year Indira Gandhi came onto her own in congress quashing the efforts of the 'Syndicate', the older guard that had put her in power with dreams of manipulating her from behind the scenes. Her success in showing them to be inept political strategists ended with Indira marginalising them and concentrating power in her personality, ably assisted by a close circle of advisers and bureaucrats. With smashing success in 1971 with the formation of Bangladesh, she pursued that goal relentlessly with progressively cynical power grabs. That pursuit ended with the promulgation of emergency and successfull curtailment of basic rights and habeas corpus of indian citizens. As emergency proceeded on its cruel path, Indira relied more on Sanjay, her elder son for advice and strategy. As is the case usually in india with free loading sons of politicians, Sanjay got drunk on power and brought dictatorial policies to fruition under the benign hand of her mother.
This movie deals with the period from 1969 - 1976 through the trials and tribulations of 3 characters in the movie Siddharth(KayKay Menon), Vikram(Shiny Ahuja) and Gita(Chitrangada Singh). Each character has different ideals and respond differently to the changing political landscape. Siddharth is the faux revolutionary enabled by a cushy living provided for by his father, a retired judge all the while looking for an ideology to hang his hat on. He blames his father for having compromised socialist ideologies to get ahead and goes around crashing rock-n-roll parties(the characters study in Stephens College in Delhi) with exhortations to think of the masses and paying homage to the idols of indian communists, Mao and Che. Vikram is the opposite, son of a father who is a congress worker following gandhian and socialist ideals(which is emphasized throughout the movie till we are screaming for the director to stop), who has seen what the prevailing ideology has wrought in his family and focusses on getting rich any which way he can. Gita is a transplant from England who is in love with Siddharth for his professed ideals and anguished cries at not being able to achieve egalitarian paradise in India.
The movie starts with homage to Naxalbari movement with its red salute and Siddharth's almost religious fervour at being on the frontlines. As time goes on and the political class becomes more opportunistic(from the austere and sacrificing earlier generation), Vikram's stock zooms while Siddharth stumbles confused looking for direction. He finds it in agitating for rights of lower caste people in Bhojpur in Bihar(even though the voice over slips and refers to Bhagalpur, unconsciously referring to the place of hindu muslim carnage in mid 80s). Vikram develops his contacts and becomes a successful businessmen adept at playing every side of politics. The one constant is Siddharth's love for Gita and Vikram's unrequited pining for her. Gita gets married to a finance ministry bureaucrat all the while carrying on a solid affair with Siddharth, trying to help him find his footing in his search for utopia. She gets an attack of conscience and decides to ditch the bureaucrat for Siddharth even at the cost of throwing away the posh life of a delhi socialite for the sorry life of a bhojpur social worker. This is when the movie goes into reverential mode of following the social workers as they fight to get rights for lower castes, oppressed by the upper castes and the government machinery. As Siddharth and Gita burnish their socialist credentials, Vikram gets enmeshed in the power structure that is portrayed as the oppressor in the movie.
As emergency is promulgated, the assumptions of Vikram get a severe jolt and he finds his father jailed with no recourse to prevent it. Gita and Siddharth get into trouble and Vikram steps into rescue them. Siddharth's father pulls strings and gets him out while Vikram realises the folly of having a socialist gandhian father during emergency. He gets caught on the wrong end of the law and pays severely for it.
In the end, Siddharth realises he isnt upto the hard life of a life long revolutionary and goes overseas. Gita stays back in the village tending to Vikram.
The movie is aimed at the set of people who are interested in politics in India but are removed by language barriers and urban sensitivity to take part in it. However, the entire movie is in English with some local dialects thrown in when the action shifts to rural scenery. It would have been more powerful had it been in local languages with some English thrown in. The way the characters talk, it is very difficult to identify with their angst or their difficulties when they chose to do stupid things. With my bias for tamil movies, I couldnt help comparing the storyline to Palaivana rojakkal(about the repression of press freedom) and Iruvar(especially the scene when proxies for MGR and Karunanidhi's characters debate over the future direction of public policy. Growing up poor, MGR wants government to provide food while Karunanidhi, being the son of a tamil teacher, wants to improve tamil language. The proxy for MGR's character suggests the lack of problem with food while growing up, allowed proxy for Karunanidhi's character to dream of language and other stuff). Iruvar made the point far more eloquently and moved on.
This movie does start with references to Naxalbari and moves onto Indira announcing emergency across the country. It then moves on the dreaded Sanjay period when people are dragged into forced sterilisation camps and the full power of the state is on display. Towards the end, the movie gives up the pretense of addressing political issues and focuses only on the characters themselves.
Coming to the acting, both the male actors did very well with Shiny Ahuja completely upstaging everyone else but that could be because of the depth of his character. KayKay Menon tries but most of the time comes across as a wimp than a firebrand revolutionary. Chitrangada is the worst of them all. She is pretty and uses expressions well sometimes but falls short big time when the scenes become heavy.
The movie could have been made into a serial but as a movie, it falls short of being passable. It can be classified as an attempt but there is so much pretention in it that it is hard to take it seriously even though there is a dearth of good political movies in India.

Democracy only in name

2007-07-06T23:50:00.000-04:00

Anyone growing up in India gets used to the fact that it is a democracy that gives its people the right to express and associate themselves. It is a matter of pride for them. The real life drawbacks in its application within India, while demoralising, serves to remind us of the ideal.

So, I was surprised to read about the requirement for a political party in India to swear allegiance to the "principle" of socialism to be registered with the election commission. Without registration with the election commission, there is no chance of contesting elections and effectively, this shuts the door on the right to express oneself and associate with fellow citizens, freely.

Till 1989, the only economic system that I knew was socialism. The textbooks I used and teachers I had, extolled its virtues without a fair discussion of alternatives. So, to me, communism was a success and socialism would make India better (which usually meant, beat pakistan in cricket). And then, came the fall of berlin wall and dissolution of USSR. It shook my faith in what I was taught and provided me an abject lesson in the error of ingesting information without scepticism. Add to it, the currency crisis in 1991 that led to liberalization of indian economy, my disillusionment with socialism was well under way. I didnt know much about capitalism except what I read from business magazines. So, for a long time, I didnt particularly care what economic system was followed as long as I had some way of living a comfortable life. As time has passed, I have realized that socialism was a worthless bill of goods that should have been consigned to the dustbin of history a long time back (analogy mouthed by Kamal Hassan's character in Varumaiyin Niram Sikappu when hunting through a garbage dump). As is true about every indian divorced from the legal reality in India, I realize now I am completely out of step with respect to the indian constitution and its legal framework.

The preamble to the constitution of india is very clear.

"WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to
secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty- sixth day of November, 1949,do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION."

Only on further reading, did I realize the words socialist, secular and unity and integrity of the Nation were inserted during the poisonous regime that infected indian democracy under Indira Gandhi. These changes were part of the infamous forty second amendment to the constitution. There were a whole host of changes as part of that amendment that cemented the socialist nature of the state. It is instructive to remember this amendment was passed during emergency. The amendment also placed directive principles of the state above fundamental rights of its citizens. The language in the amendment reflects the heady arrogance of unchecked state power as can be seen below.

"THE CONSTITUTION (FORTY-SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 1976
Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Constitution
(Forty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 1976 (Bill No. 91 of 1976) which was
enacted as THE CONSTITUTION (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976
STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
A Constitution to be living must be growing. If the impediments to
the growth of the Constitution are not removed, the Constitution will
suffer a virtual atrophy. The question of amending the Constitution
for removing the difficulties which have arisen in achieving the
objective of socio-economic revolution, which would end poverty and
ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity, has been engaging
the active attention of Government and the public for some years now.

3. It is, therefore, proposed to amend the Constitution to spell out
expressly the high ideals of socialism, secularism and the integrity
of the nation, to make the directive principles more comprehensive and
give them precedence over those fundamental rights which have been
allowed to be relied upon to frustrate socio-economic reforms for
implementing the directive principles. It is also proposed to specify
the fundamental duties of the citizens and make special provisions for
dealing with anti-national activities, whether by individuals or
associations.".

Only thing missing above is Indira taking out the portion on objective of socio-economic revolution, replacing it with 'garibi hatao'.

For all his faults, Nehru's intellect wouldnt have allowed him to exercise the unimaginable power his daughter exercised. There are unofficial claims about how Nehru wrote a letter, when he was prime minister, to the editor of a newspaper warning against giving too much power to himself. It also points to the difference between the Nehru and Indira. To my knowledge, Nehru was a socialist through and through but he didnt go so far as to enshrine it in the constitution even though he could have if he wanted to, in 1950. His daughter was far more petty in her exercise of political power and showed up socialism for what it was, an empty slogan that assured India was on its way to ruin. But then, Nehru lost the war with china while Indira won one against Pakistan. The aura of invincibility might have convinced Indira to go for it. It is also the first time the machinery of state is explicitly stated to be of greater importance than the people it is supposed to serve. It is an unfortunate legacy we still live with.

Some other 'gems' in our constitution that indirectly espouse socialist nature of the state include(from Directive principles of state policy):

Article 38 - State to secure a social order for the
promotion of welfare of the people.
- The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the
people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may
a social order in which justice, social, economic and
political, shall inform all the institutions of the
national life.
- The State shall, in particular, strive to minimise the
inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in
status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but
also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or
engaged in different vocations.

Article 41 - Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain
cases.
- The State shall, within the limits of its economic
capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the
right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of
unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of
undeserved want.

Article 43A - Participation of workers in management of industries.
- The State shall take steps, by suitable legislation
or in any other way, to secure the participation of workers in
the management of undertakings, establishments or other
organisations engaged in any industry.

Article 43 - Living wage, etc., for workers.
- The State shall endeavour to secure, by suitable legislation or
economic organisation or in any other way, to all workers,
agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage, conditions
of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of
leisure and social and cultural opportunities and, in particular, the
State shall endeavour to promote cottage
industries on an individual or co-operative basis in rural
areas.

Article 47 - Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of
living and to improve public health.
- The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the
standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health
as among its primary duties and, in particular, the
State shall endeavour to bring about
prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes
of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to
health.

Article 48 - Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry.
- The State shall endeavour to organise
agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific
lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and
improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of
cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.

Article 51A - Fundamental Duties.
- It shall be the duty of every citizens of
India
- to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and
collective activity so that the nation constantly
rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement.

In addition to the constitution, the representation of people act of 1951 governs who can contest the elections in India. As part IVA - REGISTRATION OF POLITICAL PARTIES(Registration with the Election Commission of associations and bodies as political parties) states,

"The application under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of the memorandum or rules and regulations of the association or body, by whatever name called, and such memorandum or rules and regulations shall contain a specific provision that the association or body shall bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, and to the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy, and would uphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India."

The above part seems to have been passed in 1989, based on references provided. I am not sure who pushed this through but given the "stellar" group of politicians we had at that time(V.P.Singh, Rajiv Gandhi, Advani et al), it isnt a surprise there wasnt any objections raised. The meltdown in foreign exchange reserves was still 2 years away.

The number of amendments to indian constitution also means it has become unwieldy. There is a good argument to be made that a party wishing to follow libertarian policies can sign the pledge to be socialist and maintain a schizophrenic existence. It only needs to worry about its identity the day indian voters understand what their rights are and get ready to demand it. However, it doesnt augur well for the democratic nature of indian polity that the constitution requires allegiance to a discredited economic system. While good arguments can be made for the other items in the list, socialism sticks out like a sore thumb. The current indian economy has moved away from socialism (mostly) and it would come as a surprise to the youth of India that their prosperity is assured by economic policies that bear no relation to what is enshrined in the constitution. A day might come when politicians would want to go back to socialism and the constitution would provide them with every justification to do that even if it means crushing the dreams of a bright future.

Bad architecture

2007-07-03T09:48:00.000-04:00

I watched Sivaji over the weekend when it was screened in a theatre close to Ashburn. As someone who considers Rajnikanth to be a brilliant businessman with minimal acting ability, I went in with very low expectations. Add to that, it was being directed by Shankar who is very good at spending huge sums of money on his movies with very little to show for an effective story. The movie didnt even surpass the minimal expectations.

The movie opened with a short trailer for an animation movie
Sultan produced by Rajni's daughter. It once again goes to show how much of a good businessman he truly is. As he ages, the style elements he pioneers will not sit well on him(Even if it does, those who follow it will be a narrower segment). Switching to animation allows him to portray a limitless range of gimmickry and style leveraging his movie persona that is not possible for him in his advanced age in movies. The challenge from younger actors also means that Rajni has to pass the baton to someone else like MGR did in his day and animation would provide him a second lease of life away from snickering of general public that MGR encountered in his doddering years. I am wondering whether Kamal will be smart enough to understand the power of animation. Rajni has used animation within his movies before(Raja Chinna Roja) and shouldnt have difficulty tasting success given his fans include children. The lack of acting skills when compared to Kamal also makes it a great option for Rajni. It just might be that Sultan might beat Marudanayagam to the punch and Kamal might be left holding debts while Rajni (once again) reigns at the box office. The quality of the trailer was very good and I am looking forward to it.

Sivaji's Story:
Rajni plays a NRI(a system software architect given his target audience comprises of software engineers who grew up watching his movies back in India and are now spread all over the world ready to splurge on his movies) who returns to india with a boatload of money and a desire to 'give back to the country'. He proposes to open a one stop shop for educational and medical needs that doesnt charge people for its services. He runs head long into a power broker, played by an ineffectual Suman, whose business empire(and political clout) would be threatened if Rajni's plans take off. He falls in love with Shriya after seeing her at a local temple. Rajni jumps through innumerable bureaucratic hoops only to find his project stopped by political machinations. After losing all his possessions in the bargain, he vows to strike back at Suman and the corrupt political system. How he goes about it forms the rest of the story.

Analysis:
Shankar has built a production house out of successful movies that show one person fighting against the corrupt system (bureaucrats, businessmen and politicians) and generally winning the battle at the end. Movies like Ramana did a classier job in portraying one man's fight against the system while at the same time accepting the need for a support structure for the operation's success. I would have thought the presence of Rajni would preclude any reasonable presentation of the concept. I was right on that but surprisingly, that is more Shankar's fault than Rajni's. Overall, the movie makes for terrible viewing.

One staple of a Rajni movie for a long time has been sequences showing how he becomes rich in the course of one song(Annamalai, Padayappa). It would have been great if Shankar had given some thought to that portion. Instead, the route Rajni takes here has a whiny feel to it. The solution is something that will be welcomed by Rajni fans mainly because of a lack of healthy scepticism about their thalaivar. However, it flies in the face of what Shankar wants to convey in the film. The solution to the problem of unaccounted-for cash assets (a.k.a 'black money') that Rajni hits upon sounds acceptable to me only if I can consider Rajni's character to be exempt from moral considerations of right and wrong in the context of the movie. Shankar offers the wimpy way out of 'If his competitor(with support from the system) is doing something morally wrong, why not Rajni too ?'. Instead of rooting for the hero because of the undeniable feel good effect on seeing him getting his revenge(through becoming rich), I was left wondering, at the lack of differentiation between his character and Suman's except for them being slotted on opposite sides in the screenplay. Shankar's movies generally run on this tension in hero's portrayal(Indian 'thaatha' being upholder of rules who however has to break them to clean up the system, 'Ambi' in Anniyan being the righteous lawyer who breaks rules to implement innovative forms of torture from Garudapurana etc.). At least Anniyan had good justification('Ambi' suffering from multiple personality disorder was a very believable reason) for maintaining the tension. Sivaji or, for that matter, Indian has none. Shankar might have figured the popular base for Rajni and Kamal are blind enough to overlook the discrepancy and I think he has been proven right going by the reception of the two movies.

Usual Rajni characters start from lower economic strata in the society(generally content with their station in life) and end up far higher at the end of the movie, while bemoaning the sacrifices that come with single minded devotion to that journey. Prime example would be Annamalai or Nallavanukku Nallavan even though Padayappa had a variation on the theme(where he starts being rich, loses it all and comes back on top again). Sivaji is similar to Padayappa but has none of the verve of the latter(I hate Padayappa but am a fan of those songs in Rajni movies).Here, we have none of that. The focus in always on the larger goal of building colleges and hospitals but in so doing, Shankar also sacrifices the emotional identification with Rajni's character (from seeing him and his family struggle) his movies of past have leveraged. Some of Shankar's movies too, have precisely used the same imbalance to become big hits. Gentleman was a big hit precisely because it dealt with educational challenges for lower class whereas Sivaji deals with lower class people as peripheral characters in the story. It might signal a break in whom Rajni is targeting or it might just be temporary diversion from Shankar.

As he has become more successful, Shankar has constantly found new, outlandish ways to stage fights in his movies. Anniyan set a new standard in nonsensical fights just for the sole purpose of showing one. Sivaji follows the trend and the slowness of Rajni(with advancing age) made the fights a nightmare to get through, for me. Shankar has compensated by slowing down the frames at certain points in the fight but it still couldnt prevent me from pitying Rajnikanth's agility in the movie.

The romance portion was horrendous, to put it mildly. The fact that Rajni continues to play much younger roles than what his age demands has been rankling me for quite a long time. As much as Shankar tries to hide the age on Rajni through make up, it shows(except for the last 15 minutes. I am wondering why Shankar didnt use that get up for Rajni earlier in the movie). Shriya doesnt have to act that much and she doesnt even try.

The disturbing section of the romance portion was the open ridicule of darker skin(That tamils are recent masters at practicing colour discrimination might be one reason). Rajni has always referred to his skin colour in his movies, using the discrimination to his advantage. The heroines, in his movies, are generally fairer than him and he has used it to target his core audience of youth in tamilnadu(If someone as dark as me can get a fairer girl, you can too. You just have to learn to do cigarette(or with Sivaji, gum) flips.Learning to smoke it makes you cool too). Here, Shriya uses his colour as an ostensible reason for turning him down(which, given his prior movies, isnt a surprise). The portions where Rajni tries to turn himself white were mildly funny even though nowhere close to what he is capable of as a comedian. After that, what was intended as humour was sickening. That Solomon Pappaiah is roped to do this portion is even more despicable, given his general standing in tamilnadu as moderator of television debates and literary commentator. He is a neighbour to shriya and after she turns Rajnikanth down on account of his colour, he keeps offering his two daughters( younger than shriya and darker than Rajni) to Rajni who proceeds to turn them down, with the director leaving us in no doubt the rejection is because of their dark colour. The only message that was conveyed through that sequence was that darker you are, the lesser attraction and appeal you have(that is, if one can discount the horror of offering those young girls for marriage). To have it in a Rajni movie was even worse. This is an actor and personality who holds absolute sway over tamil movie fans who treat his movies as fit for family consumption. Audience in the theater were actually laughing at the sequence. This isnt some uncouth rural tamilnadu 'keeththu kottaai' patrons but moderately well heeled, supposedly well educated tamil expats. His prior movies have always used the darker shade of skin as positive reinforcement(for the most part). The perception of dark skin advocated in this movie is hurtful and unbelievably stupid that will add onto the negative consequences of being dark in tamilnadu for some time to come(Not that, it already isnt a big issue with tamil culture).

*******Spoiler alert - Dont read if you dont want to know plot twists and turns**************

The electric shock sequence in jail which leads to Rajni's escape is juvenile and incomprehensible. Does he know how much electric current is enough to still his heart without completely stopping it ? Plus the movie doesnt specify a time frame within which the switch happens so how does one know CPR will even work ?. While Shankar gives a clue in earlier portions of the movie(where the kid at the construction site gets saved by CPR) as to where Rajni's character gets the idea from, to use it as a plot point without reasonable devotion to the preparation, shows Shankar's laziness.

Rajni has targeted two of the most successful icons of tamil moviedom and co-opted their brands into his image. The movie name is the namesake of Sivaji and the character at the end of the movie takes on the name of M.G.Ravichandran with someone even claiming the name is actually MGR. He has sequences in the movie where he acts out Sivaji in Mayakkam Enna and MGR in Azhagiya Tamil Magal Eval songs. Just as the younger crop of heroes like Dhanush use Rajni's image to bolster their fan base.

As someone who has CPR training(but has let the certification elapse), I was glad that they highlighted its effectiveness. A Rajni movie is a far better vehicle to create awareness of CPR in tamilnadu than a dedicated government program run by bureaucrats with no idea as to how to portray it. Shankar follows up the discussion of multiple personality disorder in Anniyan with CPR here. At least for his effort in creating awareness, he should be commended.

Shankar showed that he is good if he is left to his own devices instead of directing an actor with larger than life image. The sequences in the jail leading to the climax were very well executed and would have been even better if not for the obvious compromises Shankar makes for Rajni, the superstar.

Performers:

Rajni looks good in his role once I accepted the unbelievable premises behind it. He has tried to look a lot younger than what he actually is but the age does show in other ways, in his body movements and the one and a half chin(there wasnt quite a double chin). The punch lines were definitely delivered well.

Suman was the wrong choice for the villain role. If Shankar wanted to convey a certain calmness and menace in Suman by making him wear sunglasses all the time, it just made him look out of place. Even the guy who played the inspector(who also played Peikkaaman in Virumaandi) would have done much better in Suman's place.

I had high expectations for Vivek but he was good only in patches. Some of his jokes were just statements of the obvious that fell flat in delivery. It might be that Vivek made a conscious decision to downplay comedy so as not to overshadow Rajnikanth. So, he gets to shower Rajnikanth with praises which, to me, sounded not much different from what ADMK does to JJ.

Shriya performed her role of dumb tamil heroine character well. She doesnt have to do anything other than being eye candy for a much older hero and she does what is expected of her.

Conclusion:

Befitting their thalaivar's priorities(money first, performance later), the people who screened the movie charged $15 for admission which I was willing to pay as I figured I was due for a Rajni induced torture, 3 years after Baba. In comparison to Baba, Sivaji was much better but that isnt saying much. The movie was long but towards the end, it started looking like an OK tamil movie after having been in the gutter for most of the time. Shankar's production house comes out with very good movies like Kaadhal, Veyyil and 23aam Pulikesi. Sivaji is a blot on its track record even though the collections of the movie will top all the other three put together.

It is good to be the king

2007-06-29T10:20:00.000-04:00

History of the World Part I makes fun of history(biblical, roman and french) in a delightfully crass manner. Seeing that movie has always made me think about lack of such movies in tamil.

Tamil historicals were always so full of themselves, insisting on the righteousness of the king and putting every two bit tamil king on a pedestal, most of the time because he happens to be of tamil heritage. To be fair to them, the audiences liked it which only made the directors even more insufferable. As much as I love Veerapandiya Kattabomman, to see Sivaji shout his way through most of the movie does get unbearable. It would be a great day when Kattabomman's story is told in a far more restrained manner. I dont think there have been comedy tracks in tamil movies about the portrayal of kings in them. The past few years have seen comedy tracks targeted at portrayals of different characters in older tamil movies(Vivek's brilliant mockery of Parasakthi scenes in Palaiyaththamman).It is to the credit of Shankar and Simbudevan that they take on that task in Imsai Arasan 23aam Pulikesi and come out unscathed, for the most part.

Story:

The story is a simple and funny take on the Sivaji's old movie, Uththama Puththiran(which I read recently, was 'inspired' from Man in the Iron Mask). It is about the exploits of a palayakaaran(r?), Pulikesi, played by Vadivelu. He rules a fictional region called chozhapuram in the year 1771 when British have made significant inroads into India through East India Company. He is an extremely incompetent administrator, given to capricious decisions and cavorting in the andhapuram(royal garden) most of the time. Unbeknownst to him, he has an identical twin who was separated at birth due to the machinations of their evil uncle the rajaguru, played solidly by Nasser who also is the power behind the throne. The rajaguru toys with pulikesi as he is also his guardian after the death of pulikesi's father, played by a barely recognisable Nagesh. The rajaguru sets the policy of the kingdom as one of assistance to the british, much to the discomfiture of the old queen, pulikesi's mother played by manorama, and sorrounding palayakkaarars. The twin(aptly named Ugrapuththan) grows up in the outskirts of the kingdom and becomes a fearless man of action and education, everything pulikesi is not. He uses the aall-maarattam technique practiced for eons in tamil cinema and becomes the king. How he deals with the resistance from British and the rajaguru forms the rest of the story.

Analysis:

The name of the characters themselves point to the eventual success of the movie. Even though it takes place in 1771, the story treats its characters without slotting them in a specific period. It proves to be a great tool for the satire that runs throughout the movie. So, Ugrapuththan gets his education from Nalanda even though historically the university is long gone. For people with exposure to historical literature in tamil, pulikesi is a name associated mainly with Sivakamiyin Sabatham(SS) and the association is not that flattering(Literary fans in Kannada might take strong exception to that, from what I have heard). Add to that, the rajaguru in this movie matches closely with Naganandi, the villainous character in SS, in dress and skills(He doesnt use snakes though like Naganandi). The only difference I can think of is the actual relation with the king. The name of the kingdom is chozhapuram that references the setting for the other famous kalki novel, Ponniyin Selvan(PS). The characters of the twins are very well delineated. We know the sympathy of the director lies with Ugrapuththan even though it is Pulikesi who provides the laughs. Pulikesi is incompetent, in love with intellectual sophistry(beautifully illustrated in comic sequences involving a riddle and the royal guard's slip up in praising him). Ugrapuththan, as the name itself suggests, is a man of intelligent action(as opposed to most tamil movie heroes). He is the epitome of the director's wish for an ancient tamil king(well educated, well versed in fighting skills, suitably enraged at foreign occupation, in love with tamil, on the side of common man). The director has assumed that there is a desperate demand for making reasonably well made movies on historical novels in tamil literature and his characters attest to that. The success of the movie also means that the director was well justified in his assumption. This might be the first movie that has dared to approach SS and PS in this manner. Compared to the claims by maniratnam and Kamal, an unknown director has made a well deserved attempt, even if it is tangential, at best, in approaching the two novels.

The starting scene of the movie itself gives a taste of what is in store, as has been pointed out in other reviews. Not many tamil historicals start with a caption identifying a random lizard in the palace as 'aranmanai palli'(palace lizard). From there, the movie takes aim at most of the holy cows as portrayed in tamil cinema. There are the captions around andhapuram that show the director casually applying present day concepts to erstwhile royal institutions. The one notable exception that goes untouched is the extreme devotion to a particular brand of tamil, at any point of time, within tamil culture in contravention of historical evolution of that language. That is understandable given the movie is targeting literary fans for its success. You cant make your movie a commercial success(especially in a culture that doesnt look too kindly on mockery of its sacred symbols) if you make fun of the very thing you primarily share with your audience.

However, the director has a field day with other holy cows.

Cricket comes in for some good, even if minor, treatment. It targets only tendulkar(represented by a player who has a '10' on his bloodied shirt) and dravid(whose post match interview style is mocked). The prize check that is bandied about in cricket matches is mocked too.

It takes aim at the caste consciousness that is part and parcel of tamil culture. Pulikesi's method to prolong caste divisions(encouraged by Rajaguru) fits in perfectly with the way his character has been developed. Even the difference between the castes ties into pulikesi's portrayal as someone who is more at home with language and its use than resolving the issue at hand.

The painting sequence is another where the director takes a dig at historical representations of royal personages. What we have is only the figures and paintings about a specific king and that is only part of what actually happened.

The director also makes fun of the craze for foreign beverages, mainly pepsi and coke. Given the strict limits on attack ads in india, the movie calls them 'kapsi' and 'akka cola'. The method of manufacture, even if exaggerated, makes us think as to what chemicals go into the drink.

The most hilarious ones are sequences that call out government employees for their incompetence, laziness and lack of work ethic. That they are being upbraided by a lazy and incompetent king is just icing on the cake. The movie even has reference to the laughable ordinance that provides tax breaks for tamil movies with tamil movie names, infamous TADA , child labour and low quality of manufactured products.

Tamil movies in historical genre dont use themselves as reference. They take themselves very seriously, a hangover from being the vehicles of social change in their earlier incarnation. The aranmanai josiyar's response to the dilemma of who, among the identical twins, inherits the throne is priceless for its careless humour that is rare in that genre.

As far as the negative points go, the end of the movie was prolonged through the needless ten commandments pronouncement. As expected, they had things that the present day indians would like to see their government execute. The romantic interludes could have been dropped as they didnt have any bearing on the movie as such. Some of the solutions(especially like the one on soft drinks) were not well thought out. The sequence involving the poets' description of pulikesi, I didnt find any reason for its presence. It seemed to go against the character definition of pulikesi even though the explanations were funny. The sets in the movie looked flimsy. One would have expected much better sets from a movie produced by shankar. Maybe, he reserves it only for his movies and scrimps on money for other directors under his banner.To me, the first 30 minutes of Devadhai set the standards for representation of architecture of ancient tamil kingdom which no tamil movie(to my knowledge) has come close. Devadhai as a movie was horrendous but the first 30 minutes were etched beautifully.

Performers:

Vadivelu plays the role of twin brothers and pulls it off handsomely for the most part. He is at home as Pulikesi given it leverages his talents at physical comedy. There were times I squirmed at the lack of gravitas in Ugrapuththan as a serious king but on the whole, he does a commendable job. Nasser does very well as Rajaguru even though he would have sleepwalked through this role anyday. Other characters do their job including Seeman(playing the commander disgruntled with pulikesi and rajaguru at their support for british), Nagesh(playing pulikesi and ugrapuththan's father), Manorama(playing pulikesi and ugrapuththan's mother),V.S.Raghavan(playing aranmanai josiyar to great effect), 'Vennira Adai' Murthy(as the palace official who brings up Ugrapuththan), Illavarasu(who plays the pliant minister to Pulikesi very well).

The movie is impressive, overall, given the paucity of such offerings in tamil cinema. It is also a pioneer in showing that tamil movies can be smart and funny if they try. There are tons of subjects for ridicule and mirth and it is a testament to the intellectual bankruptcy of tamil movie directors that even an initial effort in revisiting history takes a long time to materialize.

Snake oil salesman

2007-06-19T14:44:00.000-04:00

I attended a talk on Naturopathy given by a practicing naturopathic doctor from India who was visiting the US. We(myself and my brother-in-law) showed up past the appointed time in the hope the talk wouldnt have started under indian standard time rules. That wasnt the case and by the time we took our seats, the talk was well under way. Five minutes later, my attention to the talk took a nosedive.

He spoke clearly and unhurriedly. He mentioned how the naturopathic system is built on concepts expounded in vedas and uses the five elements(ether, water, fire, sunlight and earth). I was surprised to hear the reference to ether instead of air. Ether reminded me of secondary school classes on early scientific theories that were discredited long back.

As someone who has veered into the science and evolution camp and stayed rooted there, I was dismayed when he followed it up with how God's creations on this earth in the forms of plants and vegetables represent vital tools of naturopathy. Given naturopathy, as described by him, was religiously inspired, it was only to be expected the whole meat section was left out(even if there are murmurs among indian historians that there might have been meat consumption in earlier times among hindus). Modern diet has its food pyramid and I cant understand why meat is left out by naturopaths. The difference is especially glaring when we take into account modern medicine has a system of testing and verification(even if it sometimes fails in the hands of unscrupulous drug companies) while naturopathy has no scientific evidence to back up its claims of cure. The moment I heard him referring to vedas, I couldnt help but remember a quote I read from Nehru's Discovery of india.

"Looking at scripture then as a product of the human mind, we have to remember the age in which it was written, the environment and the mental climate in which it grew, the vast distance in time and thought and experience that separates it from us. We have to forget the trappings of ritual and religious usage in which it is wrapped, and remember the social background in which it expanded. Many of the problems of human life have a permanence and a touch of eternity about them, and hence the abiding interest in these ancient books. But they dealt with other problems also, limited to their particular age, which have no living interest for us now."

It, to me, accurately captures the tendency on the part of numerous cultures to treat their ancient medical traditions on par with scientific cures without subjecting them to equivalent scrutiny and scepticism.

He also contrasted naturopathy from conventional medicine by pointing out the latter focusses on illness alone and not on the whole well being of the body. To me, it sounded as if he was comparing only the failures in modern medicine to (unsubstantiated and miniscule) benefits of naturopathy. He insisted that lots of ailments people suffer nowadays had to do with the unreasonable expectation of curing everything with a pill. At least on that point, I agree with him. During this phase, he made some sense when he pointed out everyone's propensity to use pills to suppress uncomfortable symptoms instead of treating the root cause. However, the way he phrased it, sounded as an unfair knock on modern medicine given it was only a part of the bigger picture(that included harried parents, spoilt kids, overwrought doctors, greedy insurance companies and so on).

He also pointed out how eating habits nowadays are completely out of line with what the body needs. He insisted that naturopathy was better suited to this specific issue as it places severe restrictions on diet. He mentioned how fasting could be used to provide relief to the body. It seemed like he was taking it too far when he pointed out the efficacy of fasting for a whole host of ailments, major and minor.

He then described how he became a naturopath carrying on the work of his grandfather and father. He mentioned he had cured quite a few ailments when people had given up on conventional medicine. He then threw the floor open for discussion as it looked like most of the listeners were splitting their attention between the talk and the food that was constantly streaming into the hall.

The initial questions were a series of softies that were a combination of testimonials and restatements. I was surprised to see the lack of scepticism among the audience that somehow seemed to be lapping it all in. For my part, I raised the question on the exclusion of meat from the tools of naturopathy(as practiced by the doctor). His answer was wholly unsatisfactory as he insisted that human body would be better off sticking to vegetarianism. To back his claim, he pointed out an experiment conducted by some university on the difference in endurance between deer and tiger. From what I remember, he said tiger was able to run only 2 miles while deer could run 22 miles. By the time, he was finished with his answer, I had so many follow up questions that I didnt know where to start. After the talk, one of the listeners came to me and tried to enlighten me on the similarities in intestines between humans and herbivores(examples he used were buffalo and deer) and pointed it out as one reason(the other was bhagavad gita) eating meat is unhealthy.

The doctor mentioned naturopathy could be used in lieu of modern medicine which elicited a surprised response from the questioner as to its efficacy for curing cancer and AIDS. To consider naturopathy as a replacement for modern medicine sounded, to me, like the height of idiocy. Given the doctor's insistence that he doesnt use diagnostic tools in treating the patient, his observation that , for some reason, cancer patients after biopsy seem to fare worse in his hands than those before sounded very irresponsible.

On the whole, the questions stayed on the supportive side and his answers seemed to play into current preconceived notions of naturopathy among hindus. Given it is portrayed as derived from vedas(making it seem indigenous and sanctioned by hinduism), majority of hindus wouldnt find it too difficult to accept it, dubious credentials be damned. The testimonials were from people you would expect to exercise at least a smidgeon of scepticism. These were medical sales people, biochemists(from their own admission) and medical billing professionals.

I can see some uses for concepts he talked about in the speech. Dietary restrictions and rest and recovery are some, I think, common sense options for a sick person. However, to portray naturopathy as the alternative to modern medicine displays either a profound degree of ignorance or wilful misrepresentation.

To me, the whole evening was an eye opener. This was the first time I attended a talk by a naturopathic doctor and it was all I hoped for and then some more. I am sceptical of cures through ancient traditions for serious ailments like AIDS or cancer. The talk only deepened my scepticism about naturopathy.They can be used if there is no other way out for the patient and even then, only to treat minor sicknesses. I did get to have great food brought in by the audience.

Inventing democratic india

2007-06-16T23:15:00.000-04:00

Indian history textbooks treat Nehru as someone who didnt do any wrong, a status that is accorded equally to Gandhi. That the nehru-gandhi dynasty has had a stranglehold on the government has only helped extend that perception. The image of him as the benevolent leader, striving for the good of his people, has been encouraged through movies as well. Reading his Discovery of india, he comes across as someone very comfortable with the idea of india and its people on an intellectual level but not too much at home on an emotional level. He gets his message across when it comes to the plural nature of indian society and ability of democracy to serve and further it. He is also very convincing when it comes to reasons behind his preference of scientific thinking and attitude over religion in public and private life. I was surprised to see him offer an opinion to the effect that science at some point will encroach on the playing field of religion and be successful at it.

However, his clear thinking becomes muddled when he analyzes international alliances and capabilities and weaknesses of countries. The effects of suffering under colonial rule shows up in most of his views. He showers china with profuse praise that comes across as nothing more than naivete, with very little basis in realism. It might have been idle speculation at that time but his refusal to see china for what it was and not allow asian camaraderie to color his opinion is surprising. He compares america and russia and somehow points to russia as the vanguard of the new age even though he sees dynamism and strength of america as hope for future. He rightly sees european nations as nothing more than feuding economies who were bent on destruction. However, he prefers to gloss over(or worse still, justify some excesses and curtailing of liberties) in soviet union at that time while at the same time, finding fault with communists in india for their rigidity. To my knowledge, there wasnt much difference between the communism followed in russia and india at that time.

Some selected quotes,

On democracy for India

"I was prepared to trust that wide electorate far more than a restricted one, based on a property qualification or even an educational test. The property qualification was anyhow bad; as for education it was obviously desirable and necessary. But I have not discovered any special qualities in a literate or slightly educated person which would entitle his opinion to greater respect than that of a sturdy peasant, illiterate but full of a limited kind of common sense."

On drawbacks of religion

"Religion, as I saw it practised, and accepted even by thinking minds, whether it was Hinduism or Islam or Buddhism or Christianity, did not attract me. It seemed to be closely associated with superstitious practices and dogmatic beliefs, and behind it lay a method of approach to life's problems which was certainly not that of science. There was an element of magic about it, an uncritical credulousness, a reliance on the supernatural."

"Religion merges into mysticism and metaphysics and philosophy. There have been great mystics, attractive figures, who cannot be easily disposed of as self-deluded fools. Yet mysticism(in the narrower sense of the word) irritates me; it appears to be vague and soft and flabby, not a rigorous discipline of the mind but a surrender of mental faculties and a living in a sea of emotional experience. The experience may lead occasionally to some insight into inner and less obvious processes, but it is also likely to lead to self-delusion."

"But I do not believe in any of these or other theories and assumptions as a matter of religious faith. They are just intellectual speculations in an unknown region about which we know next to nothing. They do not affect my life, and whether they were proved right or wrong subsequently, they would make little difference to me."

"Spiritualism with its seances and its so-called manifestations of spirits and the like has always seemed to me a rather absurd and impertinent way of investigating psychic phenomena and the mysteries of the after-life. Usually it is something worse, and is an exploitation of the emotions of some over-credulous people who seek relief or escape from mental trouble. I do not deny the possibility of some of these psychic phenomena having a basis of truth, but the approach appears to me to be all wrong and the conclusions drawn from scraps and odd bits of evidence to be unjustified."

"Buddhism and Jainism were certainly not Hinduism or even the Vedic dharma. Yet they arose in India and were integral parts of Indian life, culture and philosophy. A buddhist or Jain in India is a hundred per cent product of Indian thought and culture, yet neither is a hindu by faith. It is, therefore, entirely misleading to refer to Indian culture as Hindu culture."

"It has always seemed to me a much more magnificient and impressive thing that a human being should rise to great heights, mentally and spiritually, and should then seek to raise others up, rather than that he should be the mouthpiece of a divine or superior power."

"Looking at scripture then as a product of the human mind, we have to remember the age in which it was written, the environment and the mental climate in which it grew, the vast distance in time and thought and experience that separates it from us. We have to forget the trappings of ritual and religious usage in which it is wrapped, and remember the social background in which it expanded. Many of the problems of human life have a permanence and a touch of eternity about them, and hence the abiding interest in these ancient books. But they dealt with other problems also, limited to their particular age, which have no living interest for us now."

On benefits of science

"Often, as I look at this world, I have a sense of mysteries, of unknown depths. The urge to understand it, in so far as I can, comes to me; to be in tune with it and to experience it in its fullness. But the way to that understanding seems to me essentially the way of science, the way of objective approach, though I realise that there can be no such thing as true objectiveness. If the subjective element is unavoidable and inevitable, it should be conditioned as far as possible by the scientific method."

"Yet I am convinced that the methods and approach of science have revolutionized human life more than anything else in the long course of history, and have opened doors and avenues of further and even more radical change, leading up to the very portals of what has long been considered the unknown. The technical achievements of science are obvious enough: its capacity to transform an economy of scarcity into one of abundance is evident, its invasion of many problems which have so far been the monopoly of philosophy is becoming more pronounced."

On Soviet Union

"The practical achievements of the Soviet Union were also tremendously impressive. Often I disliked or did not understand some development there and it seemed to me to be too closely concerned with the opportunism of the moment or the power politics of the day. But despite all these developments and possible distortions of the original passion for human betterment, I had no doubt that the Soviet Revolution had advanced human society by a great leap and had lit a bright flame which could not be smothered, and that it had laid foundations for that new civilization towards which the world could advance. I am too much of an individualist and believer in personal freedom to like overmuch regimentation. Yet it seemed to me obvious that in a complex social structure individual freedom had to be limited, and perhaps the only way to read personal freedom was through some such limitation in the social sphere. The lesser liberties may often need limitation in the interest of the larger freedom."

To me, he comes across as an idealist whose enduring legacy would always be the vision of democratic india that protects its minorities, guarantees free expression, strives to treat all religions equally(in spite of their harmful effects on people) and allows its people to determine who represents them. No less is his success in establishing institutions that are the pillars of democracy. His faults include his foreign policy debacles, his blind trust on goodwill of china and economic choices. I am grateful Nehru became the leader of a free india instead of Gandhi. He comes across as a leader India was lucky to have even though we are still paying for some of his faults.

Confessions of a NPR junkie

2007-06-11T12:49:00.000-04:00

I first started listening to NPR by accident in 2000. I was driving long distance and was fiddling with the radio dial in my car when I hit upon some program about world news.
Since coming to US, I realized that most of the news I could get was local. Growing up in India, it is the exact opposite. Local news occupy the bottom of the ladder(buried inside the paper). International news(like American elections or british royalty) end up on prime real estate. It took some time to get used to the local news after coming here but the repetitive drone was uninspiring which might be why indian newspapers dont cover local news that much. I would try to get my hands on international news publications as much as possible which, with internet, was easy. However, I still couldnt get news or analysis on radio when I was driving somewhere. I ended up listening to the music stations blaring songs which I couldnt understand and music I could care less.After I found it, I would listen to NPR for some time till the danger of sleeping at the wheel became too dangerous to ignore. I would then switch to a music station at random to save other drivers. The amount of listening steadily increased and by end of 2000, I was listening to NPR everywhere I drove(with merciful breaks for Ravens games on radio during NFL season). At home, I resolutely stuck to my collection of tamil music and local television news. As someone who likes driving a lot, I listened to NPR much more than any other program.
I dont know when the switch happened but slowly, NPR took over the home front as well. I was getting tired of listening to tamil songs at home and TV news was as bland as ever. Initially, I set it as the wake up station and very soon, it was blaring in every room.
I get up with BBC World Service and when I leave for office, I am in the middle of Morning edition. For good measure, I curse the local public radio station anchor for coming up with a category 'local news'. I already get enough of it from the commercial stations and I dont see why public radio stations have to follow the same route. If it is the fund raising period, I make sure I have my iPod ready as I stop listening to NPR for the entire period. I understand the financial needs for public radio stations and why they do the fundraising. I am a member of WAMU and have volunteered in fund raising drives in years past. But, the repeated requests and updates about fundraising dims my attraction for NPR and I treat it as time off. I dont get to listen to NPR after I reach office and when I drive back, it is again BBC World Service followed by All things Considered. Once I reach home, I switch NPR on at home and there it remains, till around 10 when I decide enough is enough and turn the radio off. There was a time, this past year, when the two public radio stations I get, WETA and WAMU, both broadcast similar programs on the same day which didnt make any financial sense. Thankfully, they realized it and WAMU now broadcasts news and analysis while WETA sticks to classical music(which I dont listen to, anyway).
I love most of the programs on NPR except for Speaking on Faith and some music programs they run during off peak hours. Speaking of faith, for me, is too cloying and I dont like programs extolling the minimal virtues of religion anyway. The dislike of music programs is primarily due to my lack of appreciation for different forms of music. If NPR came up with a music program on tamil gaana, I would tune in every time.
My favourite programs on NPR are:
Car Talk - I am not good at fixing cars(or even maintaining one) but that hasnt stopped me from listening to this gem of a show. A radio call in show conducted by brothers Tom and Ray Magliozi about cars and car repair, most of the time it is about life and how not to live it. They dont take themselves seriously in the show and hence, their gags are funnier. NPR being the bastion of serious programming, Car Talk is one of the few that relieves the tension of listening to serious news and analysis all week.
Wait Wait Dont tell me - A news quiz show that makes it worthwhile to follow the sad and boring news of the week. It is a pleasure to listen to Peter Sagal or Roxanne Roberts come up with a funny turn of the phrase. The questions in the quiz show are very basic but it is the clever use of phrases in framing the news that makes this show very good.
Prairie Home companion - This is a variety show that takes place in a fictional town of Lake Woebegone on the prairie and comes with lots of midwestern and lutheran references. It maybe the humorous way in which lutheran aspects are referenced but I dont hold that against it as much as Speaking of Faith. It might also be that Prairie home talks about the behaviour of lutherans and not about their faith per se.

Then there are the usual suspects of news and talk programs including the Kojo Nnamdi show, On point, Fresh Air and Diane Rehm show . I sometimes get turned off by the last 2 shows about some topics because of the way they handle it but for the most part, they are good.

Growing up in tirunelveli, I was always around the radio, listening to news or movie songs or cricket commentary. Some of my favourite recollections include the afternoon news broadcasts from Saroj Narayansamy as I ate my lunch before hurrying back to school or listening to tamil songs as I cleared up the weeds around my house or listening to absolutely awful cricket commentary of india getting beat in yet another series. Once I went to college and started working, the link to radio was lost, replaced by ever present TV. I have now reconnected with radio after a long time.

Thulli thirintha kaalam

2007-06-05T12:55:00.000-04:00

The song Veyilodu Uravadi Veyilodu Vilayaadi from Veyil brought back memories of games I played as a kid. I studied well but I loved playing outdoors more. I wasnt good at most of the games but the exhilaration and adventure more than compensated for my incompetence.

Some outdoor games include:
Pambaram(a.k.a spinning top) -

The top I used is different from the one in the picture in that mine had grooves on the bottom v-side. I truly sucked in this game. The only way I knew how to spin the top was with the elaborate but slow release from hand(Tie the cord starting from the bottom of the pambaram towards the top and around it. Release the inverted pambaram in a forward motion). This action was ill suited for serious games involving pambaram. The best mode of delivery was releasing the pambaram in a whiplash action from the top(after tying the cord around it). One game involved players standing around a circle and trying to break their opponents pambaram when it is spinning. A circle is drawn and players are expected to put their pambaram in the centre of the circle. The gullible ones are usually chosen by a preliminary procedure. Before the game, everyone is asked to spin their pambaram and catch it in the palm of their hand when it starts spinning. Those who do it last(or who fails to make his pambaram spin) keep their pambarams in the circle. Given my skill level, I usually lent my pambaram to a relative who way better in it than me(and it stood me in a good stead for a very long time). If there was no one available who could play well for me, I refused to participate instead taking a ringside view. The intent of the game is to break the pambaram or at the least, get them out of the circle. The person who came first in the preliminary selection is asked to go first. One always made sure the iron tip at the bottom of the pambaram was sharp. The contest could get quite heated as the funds for pambaram purchase came usually from parents who didnt quite see the game in the same way their kids did.

Goli(a.k.a Marbles) - The version of goli I played had 13 holes. Coming to think of it, we could have made it 18 if golf hadnt gone there first. The order of precedence was determined by us throwing our golis from a specific point to a line drawn in the sand. Whoever threw nearest to the line, got to go first. You started from behind a line and tried to get the marble inside the hole. You could also use yours to hit your opponent's and deprive him of position. This was especially useful if both of you were close to the hole and you werent especially interested in playing nice. If I remember it correctly, it took a long time for the game to get over.

Gilli

It probably qualifies as a dangerous game. It involves hitting a small, oblong wooden piece(sharpened at its ends) with a cylindrical wooden piece. Even though it is usually played between teams, I played it on an individual basis. Needless to say, I was bad at it. The first individual(we chose it by toss of a coin) placed the smaller, sharper piece across a hole in the ground and used the larger piece as leverage to scoop it from the ground. After hitting it, he would place the larger piece where the smaller piece used to be. The opposing individual would try to catch the smaller piece when it was in the air. If he was successful, then he would take strike and the whole thing would start from the beginning. If he didnt catch it, he would throw the smaller piece towards larger piece to try to hit it. If he was successful, then the strike would go to him. If he wasnt successful, the first individual will continue. The smaller piece is made to jump into the air by hitting on its edges with the larger piece. When it is airborne, the smaller piece will be hit as far as possible using the larger piece. Some times, you are allowed to better position the smaller piece for a monster hit by tapping on it when it is airborne(It provides a much better sense of control over the range and direction of the hit). The measurement of the distance provides the score for the individual who hit it. The distance is measured using the larger piece as a measuring stick. The danger in the game comes from possibility of injury to eyes from the sharp edges of the smaller piece.

Seven stones - My favourite of them all mainly because of the running and skill involved. It is a team game with no upper bounds for number of people which made it perfect in our school. I lived 5 minutes from school but my love for this game made me go to school an hour early in the morning and stay late after school. It might be this game that made my mother pass on laundry duties for my own clothes by 6th standard. By the time the classes started, we were sweating like pigs. I think I played this game from 6th to 12th standard.

To me, the game represents the first time I can pinpoint, with clarity, the horrifying and pernicious effects of caste even among kids. There have been subsequent instances I have noticed it but this was the first. In 7th standard, we formed 2 teams, informally identified as Brahmins and Non Brahmins because of the caste make up of each team. There was very minimal crossover between the teams and a non-hindu student was free to choose between the two. This was serious stuff for kids of this age and I remember how we used to keep track of the score throughout the year. It sometimes spilled over onto other activities but the rivalry wasnt as heated in other spheres. The fact that the game allowed for physical violence to be inflicted on your opposition, no doubt added to the tension. My 7th standard year was especially noteworthy for a very long string of unbroken games. By the end of that year, I think we pulled back from the adversarial posture and got back to being normal friends. But, the damage was done and when I played the game again after my 12th standard exams, I was very relieved to play just the game without the negative baggage.
Game: The game itself is pretty simple. A circle is drawn in sand and seven flat stones(flatter the stones are, the less interesting the game is) are placed on top of each other within the circle. One team tries to collapse the pile of stones by using a tennis(or rubber) ball from around 6-7 feet afar(usually behind a line drawn for this purpose) and then try to reassemble it while the other team tries to take out every person on the other team using the ball before they can complete the assembly. The line through the middle of the circle(parallel to the throwing line) represents the boundary between the teams even though the fielding team can have people all around the throwing team. One team chooses to throw first and the other team gets to field. The choice is usually decided by toss of a coin. Each individual from the throwing team gets 3 chances to collapse the pile of stones. Underhanded throws are not allowed. But, in a nod to present day chuckers in cricket, side arm action is permitted and sometimes encouraged. The fielding team usually catches the ball and aims to prevent the throwing team from re-arranging the pile. This is usually done by hitting the members of the opposition with the ball. It is not rare to find people getting hit in strange or vulnerable places in their body. The game gets over when the throwing team can assemble the pile successfully or the fielding team can get all the members of the throwing team out.
Strategic considerations: The strategies for the teams vary.

(i) Usually, throwing teams have 2 of their flexible, fast runners standing very close to the pile even before the throw is made. This allows them more time to re-assemble the stones as quickly as possible and make their escape. The flexibility is crucial as these members are usually surrounded by a good 3 - 4 members of the fielding team. There have been instances where people have escaped from under that by all kinds of tricks and fake moves. Their other members are spread out behind the fielding team as insurance against close-in members getting out very soon. The fielding team usually has a sure handed catcher immediately behind the pile while its faster runners wait in a ring outside the throwing team members.

(ii)The throwers have different methods to catch the fielding team off guard. He can throw the ball as fast as he can towards the pile and find that the ball has beaten the fielding team giving him precious time. But, it might so happen that the pace of the ball might scatter the stones wider and make the task more difficult as there is no rule against fielding team physically harassing the throwing team members the moment the pile collapses. Some throwers prefer to hit the ground just before the pile and take the pace off the ball thereby allowing the pile to collapse within the circle but that might mean the fielding team has an easier time hitting the throwing team members. Some throwers try to focus on the top of the pile and take off 2 or 3 stones at high speeds so that the close in members can assemble them in the short time they get before the fielding team recovers the ball. This usually is successful when the thrower has a good side arm action. Some others try to 'hit the deck' with the ball towards the base of the pile so that the stones collapse within the circle while the ball takes an awkward jump above the fielders' head.

(iii) The intention of the fielding team is mostly to get the stronger members of the throwing team out of the field before focussing on the weaker ones. Normally, tag teams of fielders can be very effective in cornering throwers trying to get to the pile from the outside. Once there is an advantage in terms of numbers for the fielding side, the deal usually gets sealed unless the throwing team members can come up with sneak attacks on the pile.

(iv) The strength of the throws from the fielding team when they hit the throwing team members is usually hard and stinging. If there is previous enmity between the 2 teams, the hits can be brutal with the exposed(or particularly vulnerable) regions being the targets. Luck sometimes can run out for teams if the ball happens to fall into water. The hit is usually very painful as it is delivered close quarters when the person is running away.

French cricket: Sometimes, the craze for cricket did not match our resources. The guy with the SS bat or the cricket ball(after all, in south tamilnadu, we were true cricketers who insisted on playing with brand name cricket bats and leather cricket ball, not the tennis ball that I later found to be the mainstay of chennai cricket) might be unhappy that we didnt give him the opening batsman or bowler slot and so he would sulk at home while we assembled at the ground. Out of that grew demand for this type of cricket which was simple in its execution and very indian in nature inspite of its name. There are 2 teams as in normal cricket but here the bowling was replaced by throwing. There was no stumps or pads. The batsman stands inside a circle with his legs close together with a bat ready to receive throws(in tennis ball) from the bowler who stands about 6 - 7 feet afar. The fielding team usually sorrounds him. The bowler is only a namesake as any fielder can throw, from any direction, at the batsman after the first ball. The batsman cannot get out of the circle. There is no running involved and hence, no non-striker. Runs are scored by batsman hitting the ball thrown at him and rotating the bat around him. One rotation of the bat counts one run. The cricket rules on boundaries applies here too. If, in a hurry to make runs, he loses control of his bat, he gets out. The opposition might be kind enough to get the bat back to him and allow him to play. Once he gets out, the next batsman comes in. The way to get the batsman out are as follows:

(i) Ball hits the batsman under his knee, front or back,
(ii) He hits the ball in the air and a fielder catches it.
(iii) The batsman steps out of the circle. Some sticklers to rules take this
very seriously.

Aaviyam This was a game I played very infrequently as a result of which I remember very few aspects of it. I vaguely recall jumping over the backs of other kids while announcing the type of jump.
Then there was the team games of Kabaddi and cricket which are very well known, at least within India.

Grit and grime

2007-06-02T17:52:00.000-04:00

The mass of tamil movie releases over an year stick to accepted staid formulas. They revolve around the superstardom scale(In terms of marketability, Rajni, Kamal, Vikram make up the top tier followed by Ajith, Vijay at the next level with the emerging heroes following closely behind(Bharath, Arya, Dhanush). The bottom of the barrel is represented by ageing has-beens including Sarath Kumar, Karthik and Vijaykanth who show an utter lack of sensibility in choosing scripts and desperate attempts to fit into their own preconceptions of a tamil hero with complete disregard for movie audience tribulations).
Then there are the movies that presumably break new ground in conception but fail in execution. Usually, these are attempts by new directors looking to break the stranglehold of the superstars on tamil cinema but coming up woefully short.
Some movies in a year truly make it a pleasure to watch tamil cinema. Two of them include Pattiyal and Veyyil. They were released in 2006 and were generally well received, pattiyal receiving a much better response among the two. Both of them are bathed in violence with almost no let up in blood and gore. They have extremely well defined roles for heroes and very poorly defined roles for heroines(with some notable exceptions). While Veyyil is a first time venture for the director under Shankar's production, Pattiyal is directed by Vishnuvardhan whose Arindhum Ariyamalum presented a whimsical look at a rowdy's family.
Pattiyal is about the life of hit men who do contract jobs in chennai underworld. The movie is lighted very starkly in keeping with the subject. Theirs is a life strictly governed by money and loyalty to each other. There are influences from Ram Gopal Verma's Satya. Arya plays the brute leader of the two whose cold, nonchalant view on life hides an understanding of the capricious nature of their lives. Bharath plays the follower who kills because he has to and doesnt like to take any more lives than what is agreed on the contract. He is also deaf and dumb but brings a photographic memory and a heightened reflex to the table. The constant bickering they engage with each other shows the bonding between them with Arya generally winning most of the arguments. VMC Hanifa plays a particularly crucial role as the contractor who provides them with targets and pays them. Given the history of his acting career in tamil movies, the casting itself provides a clue as to the direction the story will take. Mohan Natarajan plays a local dada who comes into conflict with Arya Bharath duo when they start killing people close to him. The heroines are there as counterpoise to the heroes but their roles are weak and do not hold up that well. Padmapriya overplays her role of chasing Arya even when he keeps pushing her away. Pooja is there for eye candy while providing the romantic interest for Bharath. The relationships are a study in contrast with Arya-Padmapriya representing the loud and bickering part and Bharath-Pooja representing the quiet and traditional tamil movie romance part.
The movie provides a flashback of why the heroes became contract killers. Unlike most other movies, the flashback is tight without a whole lot of unnecessary detours. Some of the beautiful sequences include
(i) The scene where Bharath and Arya threaten a famous actor with dire consequences of ditching a producer. Bharath is a fan of the actor and asks for his autograph after they have delivered the threat. It is done very well with Arya casually supporting his friend's request(if it can be called one when an aruval is pointed at your neck).
(ii) The scene where VMC Hanifa provides them with a gun and impresses on them the importance of using it in place of their trusted aruval. Their practice sessions are truly a study in brilliant film making. Once again, the director clearly delineates Arya's character from Bharath's and it is to the credit of the actors they bring it out very well. The reason given for the switch('I dont want you guys to get hurt from carrying an aruval on your back') shows the way the director treats VMC Hanifa's character. Here is someone who is a full time government employee who performs the contract arrangements as a path to getting the luxuries in life without being constrained by the government salary. It is for him, a get rich quick scheme. For Arya and Bharath, contract killing is the only thing they know and they have very little idea of what they will do if and when they get out of the business.
(iii) The final scene. Absolutely wonderful end that made me appreciate the movie even more. It is always the middlemen who do better in any criminal transaction and this movie only reinforces the point.
Some scenes that could have been better:
(i) The romantic track between Bharath and Pooja. It proceeds along traditional tamil movie lines but there is no adequate explanation as to why she falls for him. There is some screen time devoted to his attraction for her.
(ii) Mohan Natarajan's son character. While I can see the reasoning behind the character(it provides a way for the director to separate out the 2 characters during the climax and show their weakness when they are alone), the movie itself might have been leaner and far better without that character. It does serve a very good purpose in the relationship between Arya and Padmapriya but given the movie's incessant focus on blood and gore, that character might not have affected the movie that much.
Arya and Bharath have done extremely well and have to be commended for displaying to tamil movie fans that tons of makeup is not a necessity anymore in tamil movies for heroes. The heroines in this movie too go around in pretty much the same manner.
In the end, I think this movie makes the least compromises to the tamil movie formula(songs are there though) while retaining an obsessive focus on realism throughout the movie.
Veyyil is equally violent but the storyline and treatment is different. It is the story of siblings, played by Pasupathi and Bharath, who take completely different paths in life.
The movie opens with scenes of gory killings with voice over from Pasupathi. The story is then told in a flashback, starting from the time the siblings were kids. Both are normal kids growing up in a village doing what kids do. Their father toils away at his butcher shop and expects his sons to repay it through good results at school. He catches the elder son, played by Pasupathi, cutting school and indulging in his passion for MGR movies at the local theatre. He beats him black and blue and as a means of punishment, leaves him naked in the hot sun, oblivious to his son's pleadings. The shame(Not many tamil movies show repeated cries of 'ammanakundi'(literally translated as naked butt)) and pain makes the eldest son run away from home, after stealing his mom's jewellery and money. He loses it to theft and is taken by a kind theatre owner who provides him with a job of cleaning the theatre. He rises to film operator in the theatre and stays there. Back in his village, his younger son becomes a successful ad agency owner with his parents proudly looking on. The eldest son falls in love with the shop owner's daughter opposite to the theatre. The shop owner doesnt like the arrangement and in the melee that follows, the shop owner's daughter takes her life to prevent her lover from being killed by the mob. The eldest son recovers from the tragedy and starts drinking heavily. At the same time, the theater owner decides to shut down the theatre in order to cut his losses. With no place to go, the eldest son returns to his village and finds his dad still angry at him and his mother unable to recognize him. His younger brother sticks up for him and gets him into the house. The family has two younger sisters who consider the eldest son as an interloper who abdicated his responsibilities and treat him as such. As time progresses, the eldest son feels guilty about being useless while his kid brother takes away the credit and responsibilities. When the eldest son resolves to leave the village to get away from pain, he sees his younger brother being pursued by henchmen of his business rival. He protects and admits his younger brother to his hospital and resolves to take revenge on the business competitors. At this moment, the movie catches upto the starting scene. The finale is fitting for a movie of this brilliance.
Points I liked about the movie:
(i) The realism of the story. The director(Vasanthabalan) has chosen his story and tries as much as possible to stick to realistic portrayal of it. He has succeeded very well. The story takes place with a rural background. So there is the customary nod to village rituals that have become the staple of this genre of movies(the village festival, the animal sacrifice, the wise cracking kids). But, the director hasnt gone out of his way to point out the rural atmosphere as Bharathiraja usually did in his movies. This is more Cheran-style film making where the rural background is purely incidental to the main story.
(ii) It is not usual in tamil movies I get to see the games I played when I was a kid. So, there was the top(a.k.a pambaram) restored to its rightful place, inside the circle(a.k.a akkar) instead of the heroine's stomach. Then there is gilli, goli, kavutta pull(slingshot), kabaddi. I only wish aaviyam had been included but you can only expect so much. Plus there was the mindless hobby of getting magnetic residue from sand and using a magnet to form patterns on a paper.
(iii) Pasupathy(and actor playing his younger self). What wonderful acting. Whether it is jollufying the shop owner's daughter or desperately hoping for his father to accept him after the long separation or expecting equal treatment from his mother or some concern from his sisters, he has done it with minimum melodrama and maximum effect.
(iv) Shriya Reddy. She plays the eldest son's admirer when they were young.She stands by him after he comes back to the village and he comes to her for support. I havent seen her acting before but in this role she is equal to Pasupathy. She doesnt have that much screen time but whatever she gets, she utilises it very well.
(v) Narrative. The title of the movie is veyyil and I, at least could make sense why it was named that way. It is veyyil that makes the eldest son take the harsh decision to face life in a far away place separated from his family. It is veyyil which accompanies him as he faces losses in every sphere of life, whether it is employment, love or family relations. Conversely, the time he feels useful, at the end, is when he faces a continuous rain.
(vi) Parental abuse. Very few tamil movies take dads to task for physical abuse of their kids. It is a special dad who treats his kids the way they ought to be treated, with care and without physical abuse. Usually, tamil movies take the compromise path where the son accepts his dad will be that way while trying to live life his own way. Here, the movie takes the same route except at the end. Plus the uncomfortable sequences where the eldest son begs for relief from punishment from his dad is sure to bring reminiscences for people with sadistic dads.
(vii) Sibling rivalry. The movie is about the travails of the eldest sibling when everything in his life goes awry. However, the undercurrent of sibling rivalry is always there. In terms of acting, Pasupathy seems to have realised that and his approach towards his younger brother throughout the movie reflects that. His reactions show the longing of someone who knows he has lost out on his family ties while his brother has soaked in them. Bharath however, is gloriously oblivious of that and comes across as very energetic and bold with no trace of jealousy at having to share his mother's affections with the long lost brother. The director might have addressed it when he describes the younger sibling as a mischievous brat even as a kid.
(vii) The smaller characters. Whether it is the theatre owner or the eldest son's short lived love interest or the older mentor to the eldest son in the theatre, each of them have been defined very clearly and they respond very well to the characterisation.
Points about the movie I didnt like:
(i) Bhaavna. She plays the love interest for Bharath. As in Chiththiram pesuthadi, she is better off playing empty headed bimbo in chocolate romances and not in a serious movie like this. Thankfully, her role is purely designed as comic relief in an otherwise serious movie and so, it doesnt drag the movie down.
(ii) Very conventional villainy. Maybe the brilliance of the movie makes me expect it but the villainy was of the most conventional type. He has a big moustache and generally is grumpy all the time with none of the business acumen that Bharath's character seems to possess.
(iii) Mother and sisters character. They occupy very less screen time which is agreeably surprising for a emotion heavy family centric movie like this. But, whatever screen time there is, it is taken by the stereotyped rural mother who is present in countless tamil movies with similar background(think Saritha in Vedham Puthithu,Manorama, gandhimathi in countless movies).
All said and done,. Veyyil represents a brilliant effort by a first time director to present a great story as realistically as possible. For that alone, he deserves eternal gratitude from tamil movie fans. Here is to hoping the hyped up movies with wafer thin and brain dead storylines starring constellations of tamil movie stars past their prime comes to an end and that Veyyil represents a new generation of tamil movies.

Sticks, stones and words

2007-05-18T15:24:00.000-04:00

I saw 2 movies this past week. One was Mouna Raagam and the other Chiththiram Pesuthadi.

I have always considered Mouna Raagam to be a classic among tamil movies. I wanted to find out if I still held to that view. It is one of the few tamil movies that doesnt waste scenes and keeps a tight leash on the story. Whether it is the treatment of revathi-karthik or revathi-mohan relationships, I thought it had a lot of originality. Every time I watch this movie, I am reminded of Manirathnam's pathetic effort in Alaipaayuthae. Other than Iruvar, Nayakan and (to some extent) Thiruda Thiruda, I dont think Manirathnam has made a movie that I can sit back and enjoy the movie just for the way it is made. Iruvar has a drawback in that you have to have some interest in personalities that dominated tamilnadu politics to appreciate the movie but it is beautiful nonetheless.

Some things I noticed this time around:

(i) I think P.C.Sriram made the introduction scene of Karthik that much more impactful by shooting it at higher speed. I dont know whether he actually did it but the scene does move faster leading to the illusion that served Karthik very well throughout the movie, that of a rogue with hair trigger impulse.

(ii) I appreciated Mohan's acting in this movie after having watched him take advantage of SPB's voice in most of his movies. This is one movie where I could see Mohan actually acting the role instead of serving as vehicle to the genius that is SPB. He is solid in his acting and comes across as someone who takes himself very seriously. It does help that Manirathnam paints the character with enormous sympathy. I am not sure whether it is a coincidence that Mohan's character is a personnel manager that lends some credence to his handling of his relationship with Revathi's character.

(iii) I thought Revathi overplayed the emotional side of her character too much. The only time it didnt sound jarring was with Karthik which might be because of the similarity of the characters(impulsive, quick to judge) they were playing. But Karthik, getting the benefit of tamil movie directors fashioning great characters for their male leads while constructing caricatures of the female ones(Thanks to my brother for repeatedly pointing that out so much that I have now come to believe it as a fact), doesnt seem to overplay it. Manirathnam has given him a role where he can be impulsive without taking himself too seriously. Revathi's role is someone who is impulsive and takes herself too seriously. The restaurant scene where Karthik entreats Revathi's father to join them for coffee is one place where the contrast is shown beautifully.

(iv) The aspect of mouna raagam that almost everyone remembers is Mohan using the same phrases that Revathi used early in their marriage and her realization at the pointed nature of them. For me, it had to do with the nature of the 3 characters the way Manirathnam has constructed it. Karthik is someone who says what he thinks and gets on with it. Revathi is similar except that after her marriage to Mohan, she is far more circumspect about saying what she thinks after having been burned once. Mohan is the other extreme where he receives slingshots of misfortune stoically, digests it and bides his time to respond. So, while the first half of the movie is about the maturation of Revathi, the second half is about maturation of Mohan. The end of Karthik's scenes points to Revathi coming to terms with her impulsive past and a realization that she cant go back. Revathi learns to let go of her past experience and to accept her lot in life, that of a bored tamil housewife in delhi pushed into a marriage by her parents through emotional blackmail(which is when the tamil audiences let out a sigh of relief at a challenge to their cherished stereotype of tamil culture, that of an unhappy wife reining in her impulses, nipped in the bud). Mohan, in the earlier scenes in the movie, revels in the enlightened husband part who uses his personnel skills honed from trade union negotiations on his wife. When Revathi's attitude towards him improves, he belatedly realises he has been a sucker for her impulsive behaviour all along and decides to let her sweat a little with his responses to her. The whole passive aggressive profile of Mohan is perfectly maintained till the end when he takes some time to respond to Revathi's pleadings.

I would love it if Manirathnam took Mouna Raagam - The End Game starting with the climax of the original and building on the relationship between Mohan and Revathi as the culture around them changes. What tamil culture was in 1980s is no longer true. My guess is that in such a movie, after 2 kids Revathi will slink ever more deeper into depression while Mohan will take to working long hours at office and putting even more burden on Revathi till she cant take it anymore and demands a divorce, again.

All said and done, Mouna raagam is a beautiful movie around a simple story that has great emotive appeal. All my potshots are ramblings of someone who is too much in awe of the movie itself.

Chiththiram pesuthadi was a movie I had high expectations for, after hearing from friends and reading from reviews that it was a well deserved surprise hit of 2006. I didnt like the movie at all as much as I tried convincing myself its treatment was different. The movie starts great, then meanders around trying to find out a way around and ends lamely. It might be that my disappoinment was more with how much potential was wasted by the time the movie ended.

Some characters were etched very well, starting with Narain and his friends as henchmen of the local 'dada'. The characters were beautifully constructed even though it cant be said of their acting, especially Narain.

I dont think tamil movies have shown friends openly coveting their friends' girlfriends and still be shown as a true friend. Normal friendships in tamil movies are very stark. If you are a friend, you treat your friend's girlfriend as sister. Of course, if you dont, you get into an adversarial relationship which is then milked for comedy(Dum Dum Dum) or violence(countless others). Here, friends pour out their jealousies in the open and still remain as friends. The director here has made a compromise where the heroine fawns over every friend of the hero as a brother while the friends of the hero themselves are split over that characterisation.

Heroine's characterisation is a caricature of a city girl lurching from one father figure to another throughout the movie. Bhaavna has made a mess of even that flimsy character with her loud acting.

Hero's characterisation is brilliant but Narain proceeds to flush it down the drain. Here is someone who walks to his own tune indifferent to the effect it has on his existing relationships. Those initial scenes were a delight to watch. After his transformation upon meeting bhaavna, the inconsistency in his acting was too jarring. And the character's antics before getting ready to knock his adversaries throughout the movie were just annoying.

Heroine's father character was well developed even though there could have been more work on it. Tamil movie directors have been steadily improving in their characterisation of fathers and this movie is no exception.

Some of Narain's friends have great profiles. Their reactions are a delight, much more than Narain's.

The rest of the characters were ill developed including the dada played by 'Kathal' Dandapani. As with every tamil movie director, Mishkin fails to develop a good profile for the female characters including the hero's mother or sister. They are just there to nullify the expectation that the hero is not the way he is because he doesnt have any family to hold onto. The sister deserved a better profile given the treatment she receives from the hero throughout the movie.

Some scenes(especially the twist in the storyline which while good, does look stale especially after watching Sethu) looked more like inspirations from earlier, illustrious tamil movies even though the director has fit them well into the story flow.

To me, this is a movie that could have been great but ended up being very average due to missed opportunities.

Maha muddler

2007-05-03T10:20:00.000-04:00

I am very unfavourably biased against Nehru and Gandhi. While I can at least see some rehabilitation for Nehru in the future because of his commitment(and subsequent success in delivery) to a particular form of political ideal especially one that has stood india in very good stead, I dont expect it for Gandhi.

It was in my first year in college I read biographies of Ambedkar, Savarkar and Patel. Some years later, I read Stanley Wolpert's Jinnah. Reading all of them, Gandhi came across as very selfish and obsessive, unlike what was portrayed in Attenborough's Gandhi. Why wouldnt Attenborough make such a movie ? Gandhi was very accomodating in his attitude towards british. Ambedkar, Patel and Jinnah were selfish too but they werent called Mahatmas(neither did they position themselves as one), even after they achieved things that Gandhi didnt(and couldnt have). Ambedkar said it best about Gandhi as Mahatma,'History tells that Mahatmas, like fleeting phantoms, raise dust but raise no level'.

Reading Gandhi's experiments with truth, one thing is clear. He is an extremely religious person in an era where being religious was synonymous with being good. Now we know better. Throughout the book, it is not india's independence he is concerned about. It is his adherence to truth. Even if it means mortgaging chances of indian independence. Is it any surprise we got our independence in 1947, when the british empire was at its knees and tired of holding onto its colonies ? If it was left to Gandhi, he might have carried it on even further. After all, in the end, it is his version of truth that mattered. Given the inexhaustible capacity of religion to enable grand delusions among its devoted followers, it is no wonder Gandhi took to the cult of mahatma with no difficulty.

Whether in south africa or india, he portrays all his activities as seeking truth which he interchangeably uses with God. He is very clear that his hindu upbringing has influenced him on his version of the truth. He compares himself against perfection that is God and finds the results wanting. At one point I could remember him repeating like Kamal Hassan's character in Guna when he goes around a room saying, 'Naan asingam, intha moonchi asingam...'. Gandhi comes across as someone who devalues anything to do with life on earth, the pleasures and pains associated with it. Which shouldnt be a surprise for someone as religious as he is. But he crosses into delusional territory when he dictates the choices for his kids in their education and health. Granted, parents decide what education and health care their kids will have. Gandhi takes his muddling experiments to a shameful extent when he insists on his sons being treated with 'wet earth' treatments when they fall sick and rejects doctor's recommendations. And he has the temerity to suggest it was not at all forced and he asked for his son's agreement before proceeding with the treatment. Wasnt Gandhi the adult here ? What else could his poor sons do ? Fight against their father especially when they are weakened by sickness, especially a father who has laid down morality and character as more important than knowledge? His insistence that moral education more than literal education is better for children is distasteful. He sets up a false dichotomy and uses his responses to screw up his kids' lives. He takes pride in narrating how his kids have built character through work and sacrifice. He is aware that he is putting his kids at a disadvantage as he comments how he might be mortgaging their future.

When he was alive, he desired for better treatment from british rather than complete independence. Only after the debacles of late 1930s and early 1940s did he change his tune and asked british to Quit India. It comes across very clearly in the book. He provides enough justifications for british for their actions(even when it is unfair) and supports them in all their adventures. So, his volunteering for ambulance service at the end of Boer war doesnt look out of place with his volunteering during first world war and his offer not to place independence demands on british when they were reeling from defeats in the second world war. He comes across as desperately seeking equal treatment from british.

If Gandhi was alive for longer than he was, I am sure India would have run into more troubles. He is above all concerned with himself, his distance from what he has defined as the truth and his experiments at reaching it. So, when striking workers or farmers from champaran, kheda ask for his help, it is his adherence to truth they are buying into, not an advocate for their cause. If they didnt know about it, it is their fault. It doesnt matter to him they look upto him for his legal acumen in solving their problems.

Gandhi comes across as any typical politician in this book. In south africa, he chides people for depending too much on public funds for running indian organizations there but once his fame takes off in india, he has no qualms soliciting funds for his public service. It is not good when others do it but it is good when he does it. Ditto for his politics. He is a politician through and through but keeps insisting to anyone who would listen he isnt one. His skillful maneuvering in congress politics is a testament to that. He uses Gokhale very well to establish a foothold in congress politics and builds a very good following after that. His ideals in removing caste system from hinduism and elevating the value of work is good but the way he goes about it says volumes about his general approach. He is clear why he wants to do it but doesnt convey it to his audience. Worse, he makes them suffer through it without adequately explaining why they have to do it.

Maybe there is something indians should have realized. For someone who accepts that he was a bad father(not out of humility but because of his parenting skills), being made father of the nation would have been a consolation. He shifted his playground from his family to nation. The results remained bad as always but the experiments continued. The aura of mahatma ensured any dissenting voices about gandhi's significance were muzzled by a nation that was grateful for its independence when it came.

Law and order in Tamil

2007-04-12T14:36:00.000-04:00

Vettaiyaadu Vilaiyaadu(VV) is one of those movies that depends on style to carry it through as there is no substance in it for a full length movie. It has a cops and killers storyline that wouldnt feel out of place in one half of Law and Order(the original one, not the spin offs) and I expected the distinctive clang and the delicious self loathing of Lennie Briscoe in Long Island scenes. The movie doesnt deal with legal angle of the crimes committed, though, as in law and order.

It is the second in the Gautam's cop movies, the first one being Kaaka Kaaka(KK). It was clear to me from KK that he is good at making a very polished movie with huge gaping holes in its storyline. If not for songs, that movie would have been eminently forgettable. In the originality challenged wasteland that is tamil cinema, KK is considered to be a good movie. I thought another movie, Ab Tak Chappan in Hindi, handled encounter killings in a far better manner than KK.

The presence of the overhyped Kamal Hassan makes the movie ripe for a disaster. For long, Kamal Hassan has been sinking under the ever increasing sobriquets foisted on him by his fawning fans and media that seriously need an appreciation of artistes from other movie industries. Here, he plays deputy commissioner of police, Raghavan, doing what cops are supposed to be doing. His acting is stale and he looks very old(especially for a DCP character).

I thought Jyothika would completely spoil the movie with her annoying high energy acting. But, she was a pleasant surprise as was Prakash Raj. Both of them can ham it up with the best of the breed and thankfully, this movie has them in much more subdued roles. Especially jyothika. She has handled her character beautifully. Normal tamil movie heroines in her character would have burrowed themselves into the ground by staring at it(If you keep your head bowed down and stare at the ground long enough in the interests of indian culture, the ground can open up and swallow you. Ask Sita). Jyothika maintains the right blend of energy and maturity for her character. I am glad she acted well at least before leaving movies for good. I havent seen Kamalini Mukherjee's acting before. In this movie, she is just eye candy with nothing much to do other than provide a justification for Kamal Hassan to take those extra long pauses when talking to Jyothika(which is what fans of Kamal Hassan's fans will point to, as proof of his acting abilities).

The start of the movie was inauspicious when Raghavan beat up baddies of a local tough(of course, they come to take their licks one at a time. Kamal Hassan is much more reasonable in that department compared to the other One in tamil movie industry). As the movie progressed, it did improve in its treatment and I thought maybe this might turn into a reasonable venture. However, all the good treatment is lost in mind numbingly dumb handling that shows up periodically. It is almost as if Gautam shoots himself in his foot just when it looks like the movie might make it into level headed territory. So, a 15 minute sequence of well defined story flow would be interrupted by a 2 minute detour that would have fit in well with any crappy masala tamil movie. But a crappy masala tamil movie is clear about its identity and doesnt care about showing details of hero's thinking as he tries to solve a crime. VV gets confused about its identity between cerebral crime thriller and crappy masala and ends up being neither. I apportion the blame to Gautam in large part even though Kamal Hassan should be somewhat culpable. The director should fashion the movie and here, Gautam has caved into the expectations of Kamal Hassan the star, like any other tamil movie director.

Some of the basic details that the movie omitted include:
1. Why the self-promotion throughout the movie ? I can understand fans, male and female, of Kamal Hassan want to drool over him and his so-called "acting" and the movie's producer saw big bucks in that. But, to set aside elemental considerations of police investigative work Raghavan is engaged in, to satisfy the hero worship of the actor is inexcusable.
2. Ditto for the comment when Jyothika's character tells Raghavan about considering him as a reliable confidant.
3. Who goes into a supposed killers' hideout without calling for backup, especially given the gravity of the case and knowledge of their whereabouts ? And after he loses his NYPD liaison to the villain's bullets, there is nothing so much as a murmur from our hero even though he is directly responsible for the liaison's death.
4. What is the deal with the villains ? They come into the story like a chennai water lorry merging onto Mount Road. It happens suddenly and everyone is on tenterhooks after they make their appearance. The additional lives they take do not fit into the story at all other than keep making the point that these guys have some serious sexual issues to deal with. The director takes the oft-traversed path of tamil movie makers, ' Ainthil valaiyaathathu aimbaathil valaiyumaa(If it doesnt bend at 5 (years of age) will it bend at 50(years of age))?'.
5. Aravekkaadu(half-baked) approach to motivation behind the killings. The absolutely ignorant treatment homosexuals receive in tamil movies gets a boost with Kamal Hassan's character's justification towards the end. I dont know whether to be glad that the movie at least refers to homosexuals(as opposed to indians steeped in our 'culture' dont acknowledge existence of flesh and blood homosexuals amongst us regardless of what our ancient literature and paintings say) or sad that the sorry-ass explanation continues the tamil movie treatment of sexual orientation. It might also be the case that Gautam(and Kamal Hassan) wanted to flaunt their awareness of complexities of sexual proclivities in humans and decided to throw in a reference to homosexuals. Who knows, Kamal Hassan can give us the tamil word for homosexuals in his next interview(yes, the one where he strains credulity by fitting in tamil words for some expressions even when he can use an available combination of english and tamil).

The movie has some good points. There is some exposure to the problem of spousal abuse and infidelity among indian couples settled in the US. After all, a society that prides itself on its powers of denial when it comes to treatment of women(and minorities and children) needs all the hard knocks it can get. The mature way in which the romance between Jyotika's and Kamal Hassan's characters is handled provides you with hope.

It made me think, for all his reputation as an action movie director, Gautam might do well to pick softer storylines with not so much gore and so much more relationships. The photography was pretty good especially the fall shots of Long Island. The music was OK with the required hero worship song. That song only showed that tamil directors can find technologically savvy ways to engage in sycophancy towards perceived superstars. The technical aspects were on par with any decent tamil movie. Photography was excellent especially in the Long Island sections.

Propaganda

2007-04-11T13:39:00.000-04:00

Triumph of the Will(1934)

Directed by Leni Riefenstahl, this is a documentary on 1934 Nuremberg rally of the Nazi party. The DVD's voice over by Anthony Sabaro I found annoying, for the most part. There were one or two points he made that were very good. I should have turned it off and my experience would have been much better.

The documentary was a great propaganda vehicle for the nazi party. It focussed on the iron discipline within the party and some of the aerial shots were mesmerising, given these were early times in cinematography. It sold a martial culture that should have found a lot of takers in post world war I germany that was still smarting from versailles. Most of the documentary was taken up in showing marches of massed columns of the different groups within the Nazi party. The insistence on showing camaraderie between german males was understandable in that context. Females do not show up as much other than as kids or mothers.

It starts with Hitler's descent into Nuremberg on the first day of the rally and ends with address on the final day of the rally to the party faithful. The documentary is aimed at co-opting lots of sections of the society for the sake of the party and its spread into general population
(i) The emphasis is on youth all the way. You have the hitler youth, german
youth shown in different levels of community participation.
(ii) There are references to the recent purge of ernst roehm of SA but Hitler
doesnt mention his name. He does try to mollify SA while at the same
time letting Himmler and his SS take most of the applause.
(iii) There is the co-opting of army through Hindenburg and Blomberg. When
Hitler refers to the army in his speech, Riefenstahl cuts to a shot of
Blomberg as if to show the viewer that Hitler is not hoping Army will
join him in the future but that Army is already a pillar on which
to build a strong germany, the other one being the nazi party.
(iv) He inspects the march past of different units of the party in front of a
catholic cathedral and explicitly mentions nazi party's mission as
arising from God. On seeing this, maybe, people will come to understand
the role the concept of God/religion played in Nazi party. Then there is
Ludwig Miller, the crackpot minister who is shown in his priestly
robes during Hitler's address to the party as if to assure german
viewers that christianity and God were behind the nazis.
(v) There are repeated shots of Nazi labor service that Hitler encouraged
as an alternative to labour unions. Given the seriousness of the
challenge that communism presented to Nazism, Hitler does very well in
his response. After beating(literally and figuratively) communists on his
way to power, he comes across as assuring german people that the nazi
labor service will take care of the labor needs of the nation. It
also allows him to build a stealth army within the restrictions of the
versailles treaty, albeit one with military training but carrying farming
tools.

The familiar sight of hitler starting his oration even handedly and ending it in a frenzy of 'Sieg heil' shouts makes you wonder how did such a man come to drive germany to ruin. The insight provided by Sabaro might help here. His view is that, in the documentary at least, Hitler uses words like 'Germany', 'Blood' repeatedly and with very forceful emphasis. Most of the words in the speech itself are pedestrian. The production values associated with the delivery of the speech and the mode of delivery was what made Hitler such a force. Hence, anyone reading a transcript of Hitler's speeches can find it hard to understand the power he had over his countrymen.

Some of the marches reminded me of the DMK and RSS party rallies that insist on discipline. I am not equating DMK and RSS with Nazi ideology but the propaganda tools are very similar. Maybe the parties should take their head out of 1934 ideas and start focussing on more recent tools for spreading their narrow minded ideologies.

There was one point which Sabaro made in the course of the documentary which was intriguing. That had to do with the lack of exposure of this documentary to overseas audiences especially americans at that time. Sabaro was non-committal in his analysis of the effect the movie would have had on americans. From what I know of german history, early 1930s were times where germany was still under Versailles restrictions and any obvious attempt by Hitler to present a martial face to outside world would have invited some response from one of the major powers. Given all that has transpired, the response would not have been anything substantial but Hitler probably figured he would focus first on germans before turning his eyes to outside world.

More than Hitler, I liked the portrayal of Rudolf Hess in the documentary. When Hess thunders 'Hitler is Germany', you realize how personality cults were enhanced by careful manipulation of media in 1930s germany. Here is someone who can be called a sycophant in the truest of terms, like present day DMK, ADMK orators who trip over themselves(in case of ADMK, pathetically flinging themselves at kutti aanai's feet) to display their loyalty to their respective leaders. The only thing missing from Hess is the falling at the feet that ADMK ministers are so good at. At some point in the documentary, I expected Hess to do it given how he was portrayed in the documentary. Himmler looks like a slimmer Kantorek from All quiet on the western front.

It is not uncommon to hear about admiration for Hitler in tamilnadu in spite of knowledge of his heinous crimes. Tamilians might be suckers for propaganda. Who knows, nazism might be alive and well if only Hitler had directed Reifenstahl to sell copies of this movie in tamilnadu.

Battle of Algiers(1962)

As per merriam-webster, insurgency is defined as 'a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as belligerency'.

Battle of Algiers is a movie that shows how propaganda about an insurgency movement can be brilliant art. I have wanted to see it ever since I read a reference to it in a slate article about movies made on insurgency movements. The movie shows the evolution of a small time crook,Ali la Pointe, into an effective insurgent leader under the direction of Algerian National Liberation Front's(FLN) military commander, El-hadi Jafar. The DVD's accompanying material points out that screenplay was by Saadi Yacef who was a military commander in FLN.

The movie is very clear in its mission. Algerian insurgents are good, heroic even if they use absolutely horrific methods. French colonialists are bad under all conditions. There is no redeeming quality to the french forces stationed outside the casbah.

Anything the french do boomerangs on them mainly because of their inability to penetrate the fog of algerian culture. As occupiers, they consider themselves separate from their subjects and it reflects in the increasingly draconian measures in the name of curbing FLN. Some of the shots of guillotining captured insurgents were indicative of the blase attitude French took towards the people they occupied. I read somewhere that the directors(with obvious left leaning sympathies) portrayed algerian characters very realistically while letting french characters be less defined. The french officer who comes into quell the insurgency, Colonel Mathieu, is fleshed out very well in contrast to the rest and I came to sympathise with his character when he fields questions from press regarding tactics to suppress insurgency. The movie shows mostly the impersonal side of french soldiers, covered in riot gear, trying to blast their way into FLN's hideouts in the casbah. That, in addition to mostly long shots of french soldiers, did its job in portraying them as completely removed from the life in an occupied country and squashed any identification on an individual level.

The algerian characters are much more interesting and mostly shown in close ups. So, even a traitor to FLN's cause gets good face time and makes you sympathise with his/her situation. From what I read, the algerian characters were picked from the street lending them more credibility. The absolutely pulsating music of Ennio Morricone is in itself a huge plus. The music is just perfect for the different insurgent attacks and french responses.

I am not sure whether the visuals would have had the same effect if the movie had been made in colour. The difference between french and algerian crowds would have been minimal if colour had been used. Because the movie is black and white, algerians didnt come across as a homogeneous unit when there were good reasons for it. An example would be a group of veiled muslim women. Colour would also have showed french dresses in much more variety while black and white played into the directors' conception of french role.

My favourite scene in the movie was the sequence of planting bombs followed by complete confusion among the french as to who did it. This,inspite of checkpoints manned by french that demand identification from algerians, in their own country. Talk about arrogance.

The propaganda shifts into high gear when showing the differing fates met by Ali La Pointe and El-hadi Jafar at the end of the movie. There is some parallel between this movie and any place where there is a preponderance of government power and a locally grown insurgency. In places where there is insurgency from outside, the considerations change but the illustration of problems faced by an occupying force in an alien land is spot on.

I would be very interested to see if this applies to IPKF misadventure in Sri Lanka and continuing Indian troubles in Kashmir. In both cases, the perception(which is far more important than reality especially when it comes to propaganda) of Indian forces were that of occupiers and the support for those conflicts are constantly under discussion in india(in case of IPKF, very much after the fact). In such a scenario, Colonel Mathieu might as well be mouthing any indian general's queries, only 30 years before and with the baggage of colonialism to boot. LTTE's fight against IPKF probably fits FLN versus french narrative as shown in this movie much better compared to Kashmiri militants(or freedom fighters or people killers or whatever is your fancy) given the identification(rightly or wrongly) of kashmiri issue with the wider islamic fundamentalism in the region and the general acceptance of kashmir(not the whole of it) within territorial boundaries of India.

The similarity between the above 2 movies is in the targeting of all sections of the society for propaganda purposes with special emphasis on youth. Both of them show, in a sympathetic manner, kids to be tools of an ideology. Both the movies were made to garner some sympathy with the wider general public and generally succeeded in their mission, one with a much more horrific consequence than the other by several orders of magnitude.

The difference between Triumph of the Will and Battle of Algiers lies mostly in the power behind it. Triumph of the will is mostly in-your-face about Nazism while Battle of algiers shows the bad aspects of french occupation and justifies the algerians' response to it. Given triumph of the will was close to state propaganda, it emphasises unity of thought and action(totalitarian ideology)among its subjects while Battle of algiers stresses individual actions in the service of the ideology.It might have to do with the stages of those movements. Triumph of the will was made when Nazi party had just ascended to the government whereas Battle of Algiers was made after Algeria was freed from french occupation.

Borat

2007-03-16T09:23:00.000-04:00

Borat is a movie that has been written on extensively. Ever since it was released, I have wanted to see it to find out what the whole hype was about. I got to see it last week on DVD and was disappointed. The funny moments become quite repetitive(and tiring) as the movie proceeds to its conclusion.

Borat is a reporter from 'make-believe' nation of Kazakhstan who is sent by its ministry of culture to america to study its culture and provide a clue as to why they are so successful. In america, his cluelessness about contemporary culture mores makes him stick out like a sore thumb. He somehow manages to find americans who think like him and empathise with him. He happens to catch a picture of Pamela anderson and decides to make her his wife. The movie ends with his aborted attempt to kidnap her so he can marry her.

The movie is not fit for consumption in a family setting. The movie is made in the style of a documentary so that Borat is captured setting scenes where he tries to learn from americans about their culture. It provides the moviemaker with latitude to pick and choose which aspects of american culture to focus on. The moviemaker uses it to pick on societal ideas that americans have arrived at(unofficially) a common consensus. As consensus implies some kind of a compromise, there are always going to be people who are not happy with the status quo.

As a clueless kazak, he revels in ignorance and backwardness of his culture. The 'running of the jew' and 'town rapist' are some examples. However, it is only backward when it is contrasted with modern standards of equality of people regardless of colour, creed, sex, sexual orientation. Since he has been exposed to only kazak culture, Borat doesnt realize it is backward and is quite proud of it.

When he comes to america and meets americans, he is exposed to a culture that prides itself at being the opposite of kazak culture. His interactions with americans shows through exceptions that the pride might be misplaced. The exceptions seem to have been chosen for maximum effect. Sacha Baron Cohen has masterfully exploited the desire of most americans to portray themselves as following the common consensus on most issues. Given that this is a commercial venture made with the aim of making money, it is not surprising Borat's character milks the uncomfortable situations for all they are worth. So, when he lets loose inappropriate comments, americans around him are caught trying to figure out the appropriate response. Some respond enthusiastically like the car dealer trying to make a sale and the beer guzzling fraternity guys. Some are lukewarm in their empathy like the driving instructor and the comedy coach. Some are livid like the feminist group and the dining etiquette group and abruptly terminate the discussion.

His interest in Pamela anderson is shown as becoming serious only after he receives news of his wife's demise. So, even if he is portrayed as a native bum of a backward country, the moviemaker has enough sense to know that the implicit agreement with the audience(which is the source for all the laughs) might not appreciate his serious interest in Pamela anderson when his wife is alive.

I lost whatever remaining interest in the movie after the prolonged nude wrestling scene between Borat and his producer. While I can see the point of including the scene in the movie, to have it go on for that long as it does, made it lose the message. Showing a fat guy in nude rolling around with another guy is funny when it is shown for a short time. The funny aspect comes from the implicit agreement between the moviemaker and audience that such a scene is gross in a politically incorrect sense. If it is shown for a long time, the audience might start thinking maybe the grossness has to do more with their idea of fatness(and correspondingly with thiness) than with the character in the movie.

The movie does educate you in the idea that Borat revelling in sexism and a fraternity guy revelling in sexism are not that far apart even if they belong to cultures that are completely different in sophistication, knowledge and achievements. That education has to come with a caveat that the movie has been made to exploit politically incorrect responses for all they are worth.

Borat is similar in its underlying structure to tamil movies that have been made on the storyline of a rural character coming to urban sorroundings and feeling like a fish out of water. Replace Borat with rustic characters played by Sivaji/MGR/Rajni/Kamal in countless movies. Given the different audiences they target, the flow of those movies diverge after some point. But the underlying idea seems to be similar. The rural population make up a major portion of the tamil movie audience and hence, the hero character starts out being clueless but ends up marrying the urban heroine(usually after a lecture on culture as if rural tamilnadu has a hold on the culture and urban tamilnadu does not) and shows off how comfortable he is in that environment.

Thanmatra

2007-03-08T13:24:00.000-05:00

I watched thanmatra last weekend. I had been looking forward to it ever since it was released but never found time to sit down and watch(More out of procastination than lack of time). I had read articles on how the movie was supposed to present effects of Alzheimer's disease.
The story is pretty simple. Mohanlal plays a government employee(a.k.a file pusher), spending his time with his family and making plans for future. He gets stricken with Alzheimer's disease out of the blue. The second half is about how he and his family deals with this unexpected turn of events.
It is presented very well. The first half wouldnt be out of place in a decent tamil movie nowadays with sequences showing Mohanlal character's affection and love for his family and getting the same in return. The characters are squeaky clean and are always smiling or well mannered. Add to it, Mohanlal's character pontificates a lot on human memory and how to use it effectively.
The drift towards alzheimer's starts towards the end of the first half and the director slowly tightens the screw on dread as Mohanlal's character slides ever more deep into the disease. The contrast with the atmosphere of the first half hits you hard as we see Mohanlal's character struggle to do things normally done without batting an eyelid in a healthy human being.
The director has to be commended for keeping a tight leash on things in the second half. There are lots of opportunities waiting to be exploited for melodrama and barring a few, he does a good job of moving the story along.
Mohanlal has done a good job in this movie. However, his frame makes you worry about Meera Vasudevan, the actress playing his wife in the movie. I know he is chubby but it seems like he has added an additional layer of fat for this movie. The controversial shot where Mohanlal is in nude does show the seriousness of his affliction but it would have been more palatable and less terrifying without all those fat filling up the TV screen. As is mostly the case with malayalam movies, there are times when my tamil movie fan side screams to see some overacting just to relieve some tension.
Meera Vasudevan , who plays the wife character, does what is expected of her which isnt much. She does come up with some surprise expressions seeing her husband deteriorate steadily. Her initial reaction at not knowing what to do when the primary breadwinner of the family has to stop working is very good.
Nedumudi Venu, as the father of Mohanlal's character, is pretty solid, as always. There is a sameness to his acting which continues with this movie too.
The son's character, played by Arjun Lal, is etched out well. While the character comes across a goody two-shoes(with a half hearted attempt by the director initially to show some spine in him), showing him that way throughout the movie does get tiring. Towards the end of the movie, I expected him to throw something at his father to vent his frustrations. But, other than a tiny out burst of tears, nothing happened.
My miniscule exposure to movies in different indian languages has convinced me that malayalam movies do very well when presenting a story with realism. I have also read stories about how malayalam movies for quite some time have been trying to address competition from tamil, telugu and hindi movie industries by becoming more like them, more flashy and melodramatic and unbelievably star-driven. Maybe, it is the collective learning curve of an industry more used to realistic portrayals or backlash from malayalam movie fans, they keep coming back once in a while to things that made them watchable and thereby, stand out in the wreckage that is indian movie industry. I am not saying tamil, telugu and hindi movies are unwatchable. I am merely suggesting that their star driven ventures start to grate after some time. Malayalam movies have their stars too and thankfully, Mohanlal has chosen to act in this role, going against the stereotype(You know, the cigarette flips, multi goonda fights, foreign locale songs, amma/thali/thangai/jaathi/mozhi/ sentiments...). The credit should go to the director for fashioning a movie that is like a vikraman movie in the first half and a bala movie in the second half. The movie also has very judicious references to bharathiar poems which, given their positioning in the story, sounded very poignant.
Here is hoping, some tamil directors get 'inspired' by this pseudo medical movie and not by a half-assed pseudo medical movie like Anniyan.

A butterfly flaps its wings in china.....

2007-03-02T12:42:00.000-05:00

This week, we had an inkling of what globalization can do to even mature economies. The US economy(or for that matter, Europe) is not so dependent that a little sneeze in china would cause a coughing spell here. However, the extent of investments that US companies and institutional investors have made in china carries with it a risk that can be exacerbated in bad times. If the signs in the US economy were healthy, any impact from china(or the so-called emerging markets) can be managed. But, given the borrowing binge US consumers have gone on for last 6 years, the indicators for US economy show a much more vulnerable picture. In the future, US consumers might shrug off any bad news to stocks and continue their spending even more. The extent of borrowing and decline in stock figures might just cause US economy to magnify chinese economy's influence much more. As the probability of chinese economic decisions impacting US economy(and by implication, US consumers too) increases, it might be helpful to think about how political stability inside china(or other countries which can materially impact US policy) can influence those choices.

Ian Bremmer's J Curve lays out a framework for thinking about how stability and openness of societies can play an important role in how they respond to changes from outside.

(From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/30/wjcurve30.xml&page=1).

The J curve stands for the shape of the curve where stability(on the Y-axis) is plotted against openness(on the X-axis) for different societies. Societies generally start on the shorter left hand side of 'J' with a certain amount of openness and stability. As openness progresses(either from within or imposed from without), the stability decreases first, reaches a low point and then proceeds upwards on the right hand side of the J curve. The level of the entire curve can be lifted up(or dragged down) by certain events that impact these societies. As an example, a beneficial event(like an increase in GDP or winning 2007 cricket world cup) can lift the entire curve allowing for a higher level of stability for the same openness as before. Some societies try to get back to where they started by reducing openness, thereby increasing stability. These societies generally lie on the left hand side of the J curve. Some examples include North Korea, Iraq(when Saddam was in power). Some societies have taken the brave step of more openness and have reached the bottom portion of the curve. Some examples include Russia, South Africa, Yugoslavia. Other societies have pursued openness vigorously and ended up with more stability, on the right hand side of the J curve. US is rightfully placed at the top of the right hand side of the J curve, given its track record of stability. Some other societies that fit this side, but at a lower level, include India, germany, france. In response to stimuli from outside pushing for openness, any society can respond in 2 ways.

Where they will end up at the end depends on where they are currently on the curve. So, a North Korea pushed towards openness(as attempted by US foreign policy for last 6 years) might experience a decrease in stability first before it proceeds to become more stable. The reaction of its dictator, Kim Jong Il, might be to push North Korea up the left hand side of the curve towards more stability and lesser openness. Lesser openness provides Kim Jong Il with more control over the country's resources. The end result is more suffering for longer time for people in North Korea with no obvious benefits and some dangers to US.
As an alternative, they can proceed to become more open. The decrease in stability can be counteracted by aid from the other parties currently involved in solving the issue(Russia, China, US, South Korea, Japan). If that happens, Kim Jong Il might just be persuaded to stop watching too many hollywood movies and start listening to his suffering populace. One of his responses might be to throw the society more open(as long as he is assured that the other parties will be there to back him if he fails).
My interest is focussed on south asia, considered to be India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Burma. In this post, I will focus only on India and Pakistan as their conflict seems to hold back both countries from achieving their potential(and writing about other countries in the region might expose my ignorance).

Of these, India started on the left hand side of the curve and has ended up on the right hand side of the J curve, courtesy of its political and military leaders. As much as I despise Nehru for squandering away precious time in improving india's economy, I give him credit for having a vision of a democratic india and laying down foundations for its institutions, working in concert with other leaders for the last 50 years. India now has a functioning democracy that has ensured some level of openness and stability. It is reasonably more open than many other countries and has a system which assures its citizens of some voice inspite of its imperfections.
On an anecdotal basis, emergency promulgated by Indira Gandhi(along with Sanjay Gandhi and a remarkably supine congress party of that era) might have been the reaction of someone trying to push India up the left hand side of the curve towards greater stability and lesser openness. It came right after the liberation of bangladesh that provided as much political leverage to Indira Gandhi as she could handle. As the apocryphal story goes, popularity of General Sam Manekshaw(Field Marshal of Indian Army) led Indira Gandhi to query him as to the military's inclination towards democracy within the country. If the story is true, it might have been the ever present insecurity of Indira Gandhi that led her to do that. Manekshaw has to be commended for sticking to military matters. It might also have been her desire to see off any challenges to her vision(at that time) of a more stable but less open india. As long as the steady vision of Nehru(in the political sphere, that is) of a democratic India was there, decrease in stability was accepted in return for adhering to the overarching vision. Beginning in 1970, the political leaders who fought for indian independence were losing their pull with the electorate and the new generation of political leaders did not have the baggage of Nehruvian vision. India, at this time, was probably at the bottom portion of the J curve.

It is also to the credit of other leaders(Janata Party, DMK in addition to others) that they resolutely resisted it and were willing to suffer arrest. The loss for Indira Gandhi in 1977 elections might have marked the moment when India rejected the short term safety and long term peril of lesser openness(and more stability at that time with Sanjay Gandhi snapping off reproductive organs as and when he wished) in favour of short term pain and long term pleasure of more openness(higher stability currently). Subsequent events(like assassinations of prime ministers, serious danger of default with IMF, frequently maddening religious riots) have brought India to the brink of the bottom portion of the J curve but its leaders seem to have learnt the art of sticking to the right hand portion of the curve even if it seems unpopular at the time.

As long the future leaders commit themselves to the right hand portion of the J curve, people in India will do much better in terms of expressing their opinions and fashioning policies responsive to their concerns. Over the long term, that course will prepare India for changes on a global scale than remaining a closed society.

Pakistan started on the left hand side of the curve as India did but their response has been resolutely towards left hand side of the curve with periodic flirtations towards the right hand side of the curve with little success. India and Pakistan started on an equal footing with their leaders educated mostly in western democracies and hence, amenable to developing institutions for grooming democracy. After their independence in 1947, India had the luxury of bench strength when it came to leaders. While all the credit has been given to Nehru and Gandhi, people have forgotten the talents of people like Sardar Vallabhai Patel, Ambedkar, Moulana Azad in the service of the new nation(Shashi Tharoor's The Great Indian Novel does give credit where it is due). Whatever be their shortcomings, they applied their knowledge and skills to the betterment of a new nation.

Mohammad Ali Jinnah had a similar vision as Nehru but was hobbled by the lack of reliable leaders assisting him in administration of the country. Pakistan stumbled in its attempts to establish democracy after Jinnah died. With him went the vision of a nation trying to become a democracy and whatever attempts towards more openness. The lack of democratic leaders brought in military leaders to fill the vaccuum and lead Pakistan towards more stability. Given their military background(as against politics), they pushed the country up the left hand side of the curve leading to more stability but lesser openness. The military dictators did have a vision. However, that focussed on stability within Pakistan rather than encouraging openness. When the military suffered a setback(as in losses to India in 1965 and 1971), the long suffering politicians inside Pakistan had their chance. However, they squandered it through ineffectual governance and corruption and one of them ended up hanging for it. The military given its resources, came roaring back to take back the power. Thus, every war(and its attendant loss) to India pushed the military to consolidate their power and push Pakistan even further up the left hand portion of the curve.

The genius of pakistan military leadership also lay in their eye for playing US against Soviet Union(at that time). The financial support provided by US helped Pakistan address economic concerns of its people(at least what the military perceived as economic concerns of Pakistan) while keeping their requests for democracy in check. In effect, it shifted its J curve up. However, the military's refusal towards more openness also meant Pakistan squandered a valuable opportunity. The financial support of US could have mitigated, to some extent, the instability Pakistan would have faced if it pushed for more openness. Pushing for openness would have meant reducing military's control over all aspects of Pakistani politics. Over the long term, it could have led Pakistan over the bottom portion of the J curve and planted it on the right hand portion. Unfortunately, the military establishment(including ISI) decided to stay put on the left hand portion and poured its resources towards supporting terrorists(at that time, euphemistically called, afghan(followed later by kashmiri) freedom fighters). US also neglected its responsibility in demanding Pakistan become more open for all the financial support it was getting. As the terrorists went from strength to strength, Pakistan military looked on indulgently as they served its purpose of slowly bleeding India. After Zia-Ul Haq, the pakistan military leadership were not upto the task of keeping a lid on the grumblings within Pakistan. The short timeframe within which elections were called after Zia-Ul-Haq's death showed the brittleness of the remaining military establishment in holding the country together. The military establishment's incompetence and short sighted policies in administering the country came home to roost as the elections moved Pakistan towards more openness(with associated decrease in stability). When the soviet union pulled out of afghanistan(and promptly crumbled as a nation state some years later), Pakistan got saddled with the problem of well trained terrorists within and on its border. The young democracy's inexperience and widespread nepotism, as evidenced during the period of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, in the new political parties disillusioned the public very quickly and made the option of military leadership look positively warm. The final straw was the bumbling over kargil that led to the current military dictatorship of Musharraf. For a population tired of instability, Musharraf responded with clamping down on openness in the interest of stability and once again, Pakistan started its movement up the left hand portion of the curve. The current situation of Musharraf is dicey as there is the pressure from within Pakistan for bringing democracy(as he promised when he took over). He has delivered stability, for the most part, as promised even with the after effects of september 11. There have been bombings inside that have brought the level of the J curve down even though it is par for the course for the region. The openness level has gone down enough to pinch everyone, from Imran Khan to islamist parties. If Musharraf proceeds to open Pakistan's political environment even more, he has to contend with lesser stability and take a hit on what he promised when he took over the country. Hence, his gestures earlier to allow islamist parties to have some measure of power in the parliament. However, that might cause them to demand even more and Musharraf has to contend with a potential slide towards the bottom portion of the J curve and its attendant instability. Opening up the political environment even more to get to the right hand portion can lead to instability that would make Musharraf's position more untenable and strengthen the possibility that Pakistan would descend into chaos. The lack of democratic institutions improves the chances that it will happen in the above scenario.
The response of India is something which puts it in a tough position. India's security would be strengthened if the south asia region becomes home to societies on the right hand portion. It cannot afford to wait till the current military dictatorship transforms Pakistan and lets go its chokehold on the political freedoms. By the time that transformation occurs, it might be too late for Pakistan to move to the right hand portion. A better response might be to assist Pakistan in establishing durable institutions(and maybe, a better movie industry) as it lurches towards democracy. India can keep lines of communication between the two countries open, to handle any problems that might arise. India might even offer Musharraf help in tracking down terrorists(not arms) along their border allowing him more breathing room to purge military establishment of anti-democratic forces. This recommendation does assume Musharraf has seen the benefits of a functioning democracy.
There would always be forces on both sides of the border who have stake in a Pakistan on the left hand portion of the J curve. The Indian side allows for that expression through its democracy, thereby making it one among multitude of ideas. In case of Pakistan, the lack of democracy leads to a depleted exchange of diverse ideas among its people, making it more susceptible to crises that would push it up the left portion of the curve.

I would be interested in exploring how different states(and at a micro level, political parties) within india deal with change.

Green(s) with anger

2007-02-23T13:56:00.000-05:00

Do greens come under vegetarian food ? I asked for it at the cafetaria in my workplace and got the answer that the greens are cooked with pork. The person who was dispensing it knew I consistently chose vegetarian food from the menu and she offered this valuable tidbit of information. I had eaten those greens before(under the assumption that they were vegetarian) and had never seen any sign to the effect that they used meat in cooking it. I eat meat, though sporadically and enjoy it as long as it is cooked well. However, my selection of greens was under the assumption that it was vegetarian.

As far as I know, vegetarian food refers to those food choices that require body parts of plants. Meat includes all the food products that require body parts of animals. By that classification, greens are classified as vegetarian food. After all, it involves boiling greens, that come from plants ,and adding salt to it. What happens when the boiling portion is done with pork which comes from pig and as such represents meat ? Is the cafetaria under any obligation to clearly state greens contains pork ? What is such a food classified under ?

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced the current way of producing and distributing food on an industrial scale in US is seriously flawed and misleads the consumer. As Michael Pollan lays it out in the omnivore's dilemma, the industrial basis of food production and distribution in the US has made it into an unhealthy concoction of chemicals that perform the function of delivering calories without any regard to the health of the consumer and cost to the environment. In the process of manufacturing meat, the industrial producers have gone as far away from a sustainable model as possible.

You have corn farmers having difficulty farming their land with variety of crops, instead relying on corn to give them some return over initial investment. The farm subsidies provided from the US government helps a corn farmer eke out a better living than if they planted any other crop. The farmers produce more corn, than would be consumed by the population, and flood it into the market. The excess corn goes into feeding animals in feedlots which are then slaughtered to produce meat. That these animals do not have the constitution to digest corn is not a concern for the food industry. They inject the animals with chemicals that make it possible. The industrial mentality treats animals as machines that generate caloric content, in the form of meat, from a specified amount of input, in the form of feed. The food producer can reduce their costs by
(1) reducing the cost of input provided to the animals. Produce more corn and drive down the cost of input ever more. Corn farmers can always use the subsidy from the US government to make up any losses due to the low price of corn.
(2) making the machinery of the animal more efficient. If the machinery that is the animal body throws up a wrench in the industrial food production, treat it with chemicals so the machinery starts to work smoothly again at maximum, not optimum efficiency. Optimum efficiency would have to take into account the cost of serious damage that is done to these animals, physically and emotionally, due to their extended confinement and seriously out-of-whack feed in feed lots.
(3) spreading the usage of output from these animals to as many categories of end users as possible. If more corn is produced, find a market for that corn. Some of the corn is factored further to produce products like high fructose corn syrup that is ubiquituous in soft drinks.
The food distributor strives to reduce their costs by purchasing from food producers that have economies of scale which only encourages even more standardization of corn fed animals.

The over dependence on corn means that the end consumer is overloaded with it even when they think they are having food the way earlier generations did, only cheaper. How else could consumers gorge on it and put on oodles of flesh and fat that they, ultimately, pay the price for ?

As for my experience, I didnt expect to see greens contain pork. I stood there repeating, again and again, 'Why?'. All she could tell me was that that was always the way they cooked.

Long tail

2007-02-08T15:27:00.000-05:00

Chris Anderson, editor of Wired magazine, based this book on an article he wrote in october 2004. It is about how certain markets are particularly conducive to exploiting niche segments in them and how some businesses have thrived on it. The original article explains the concept very well and the book does an even better job. For further analysis by an engaged community about the book, click here.
Reading the book opens your eyes to how powerful technology is and how it has transformed some economies from one of scarcity to one of abundance. It is written in a concise manner like most popular business books. The author goes overboard in trying to apply long tail to everything across the board. A very good analysis of the book and limitations of its application can be found here.

The book also mentions in passing that long tail might explain why mainstream indian movies(that is, mainstream with respect to audience within india), for all their fanatic following overseas, do not do well in those markets. Indian movie industry(on an aggregate basis in all languages) ,in its output,easily outstrips any other movie industry from any other corner of the world. Movies, in general, are in a format which do not impose prohibitive costs of entry into overseas markets. They include distribution costs and advertising. The indian diaspora are too scattered across the US for a distributor to make good profit on their investment and efficiently target them through advertising. Renting a theater space demands a higher audience than is available among indian diaspora in a specific location. The diaspora are exposed to hollywood entertainment and are sensitive to ticket prices. Some portions of these movies are made overseas. The paunchy hero in these movies is also pricey enough to make the producer drive a hard bargain with their distributor overseas. The appeal for an indian producer to distribute their movie to overseas indian audiences is partly driven by their desire to mitigate these rising costs.

When indian movies compete against movies on a general release in US, they do not do well. The producer of the indian movie gets his/her money's worth from a small overseas audience mainly because of exchange rate of dollar versus rupee. So, you have a DDLJ or KKKG that rake in money within the niche market and a Bride and prejudice that bleeds(In an act of mercy, it also sunk its light weight, acting challenged heroine as a capable actress). (Full disclosure : I have seen only DDLJ and have studiously kept away from the other two. Seeing Aishwarya act is a nightmare I prefer to live without).

The movies mentioned(and most of the mainstream indian movies that are released abroad, for that matter) portray the exclusivity of indian culture and market it to homesick overseas desis who get their validation fix from them. That non-indian audiences in some countries consider the indian culture portrayed in these movies as a reason to become fans of them, to me, is coincidental. The plight of tamil or telugu or bengali or malayalam movies compared to hindi movies in overseas markets can be explained in a similar manner.

A service like Netflix is useful for indian diaspora to peruse old movies.Streaming video or video on demand might liberate the indian producer from the tyranny of theater space and distribution costs. No longer do the indian diaspora need wait for grainy VHS tapes of their favourite movies to land in their 'friendly neighbourhood' indian grocery store.

The trick might be in identifying, targeting and aggregating the niche markets within each of these languages that are desperate for good movies. Indian diaspora watch movies from other countries in enough numbers to expect good movies from indian producers too. Given the vague feeling of indianness that pervades desi public, a producer might be able to succeed against competition from hollywood and independent segments, by focussing on the niche market of indian diaspora. However, the movies have to address issues the overseas diaspora is worried about. So, taking movies that become a hit in A,B,C centres in tamilnadu and in Loehmann's cinemas in virginia might become more untenable. Obviously, there will be producers who can bankroll marquee names of bollywood or kodambakkam and produce a movie that addresses both the segments. The probability that it will become a hit will only decrease further as the world 'flattens' more.

An example of such a movie might be Dil Chahta Hai that was one of the very few indian movies that addressed itself to a niche market of youth who are at ease with glossy vacations, working across nations and slightly complicated relationships. The producer could have tried to have it all by having Dimple's character recover from her illness and reunite with Akshay's character, with blessings from elders. Further more, there could have been a 'family' song included in the climax which Aamir's character sings(with a whiskey bottle for additional effect) to get Preity's character to accept him. That would have made it a conventional indian movie that is obsessed with repeating sequences that they perceive movie audiences across india will relate to, niches within that audience be damned. By focussing on the niche market, DCH were able to become a favourite of their target segment and maintain a brand image that very few indian movies have successfully achieved, in recent memory.

India unbound

2007-01-31T14:29:00.000-05:00

I finished reading this book by Gurcharan Das. It was written in 2001 and is his reflection on economic, social and political life in post independent india. He has an easy writing style that is engaging. That he has written a book pointing out flaws in the economic policies of holy cows of indian national politics, Nehru, Gandhi, Indira and Rajiv, is just icing on the cake for me. I do hold the Nehru family responsible for many ills plaguing India. That doesnt mean I excuse the rest of the country. It is just that, Nehru family had the opportunity to shape the future of millions of people and its track record is filled with lamentable failures. To hide behind years of public service, multiple assassinations and italian widows doesnt exonerate them from their abysmal economic record.

The book does lament a lot on how India, first under Nehru and then under Indira, moved away from a choice of communism or capitalism and chose a third path, 'mixed economy'. The one thing that we can be thankful is that Gandhi didnt get more say in the economic policy after independence. He would have insisted on his crackpot ideas, reason be damned. So, we would have had regression towards handicrafts and appropriate technologies. Ambedkar and Nehru were correct in slamming him for those fantasy theories. I dont have anything against handicrafts but to make them the driver of the economy would be suicide for a country as large and as needy as India. If they are done well, they could be a profitable sector, providing profits and sustenance to those who are good at it.
The economic policy after independence reflected the confusions and idealisms of Nehru as he went about fashioning India in his own image. As someone inimical to profit seeking motives, Nehru created a socialist hell that progressively got worse. While other asian countries realised the power of capitalism and provided their people a new lease of life, India languished on the sidelines with its moral righteousness, even as millions suffered. For Nehru, profit seeking motive represented a base concern. He proceeded to lay the foundation of an economy that actively stifled any entrepeneurial spirit among its merchants, traders and industrialists. By focussing on state backed import substitution instead of export promotion, Nehru showed a weakness of judgement about indian businessmen. There is some justification in Nehru's fear that, without protection after 1947, a nascent indian industry would be wiped out even before it got started. But his response to that fear was to have the state administer all aspects of business sphere. That might be one reason, to this day, India is a nation of laws that are implemented sporadically. Even the state has a limited amount of resources. You can print only so much money before it becomes worthless. The state after 1947 could have focussed on how to bring india's economy on par with other developing nations by setting the playing field within the country for economic activity and enforcing the regulations. But, Nehru decided to plunge the state into an orgy of building 'temples of modern india' a.k.a steel plants. Why was he so afraid of allowing businessmen to do what they do best, run a business seeking profit, use profit to live comfortably, pay their employees, invest in technological developments that improve profitability in the long run and close plants that are unprofitable ? Did he think Indians werent ready for changes that come with private industry ? Did he think the state should be a surrogate parent assuring its citizens jobs where you dont get fired ? How does someone improve their lot if they are doing a job where they know there is no penalty for not doing any work ? Where is the incentive ?
As the author points out, a businessman's focus on economic interests precludes rigidity in their thinking. They can afford to be rigid but then their business has a higher chance to go bankrupt. They might undercut their opposition but as long as the playing field is neutral, they will try to make money the best way they can. At least they provide a purpose where people get together and work for a common purpose. The state support immediately after independence allowed indian businessmen to produce shoddy products because (1) they were constrained in how much they could invest so research and development took a big hit (2) they couldnt set productivity goals for their employees that would serve to achieve progressively higher standards in production (3) They couldnt introduce new products if the market demanded it without approval from the bureaucracy that had only a vague idea of how industry worked and (4) Competition was minimal given the headaches suffered by anyone who wanted to start a business.

Then came Indira. If nothing else, she was smart in a no holds barred survival way. She proceeded to tighten the government policies that discouraged active investment in industry and made sure entrepeneurs were at the mercy of bureaucrats dispensing license permits. Her 'Garibi Hatao' slogan was devious as she should have known it was her government's policies that were causing 'garib' in the first place. She did win a war against pakistan and dismembered it in political sphere. Knowing her father's policies were wrong should have at least alerted Indira towards course correction in the economy but her political instincts probably took over and she decided to continue the short sighted policies that brought nothing but misery.

Obviously, indian people deserved a lot of blame for sticking with congress party this much. Yes, there were reasons why Congress was so successful for this long(power allowed them to build a dedicated base that did their bidding, they had the distribution network in the form of AIR and DD to put out their side of the story most of the time at minimal cost to themselves and so on). But, Congress should have been thrown out long time back for dragging india to the depths of default and ignominy. They have had their chances running on the platform of being the party that got us independence.

Hinduism and its deities

2007-01-16T15:35:00.000-05:00

A deity is generally considered to be a supernatural power with anthropomorphic characteristics who/that actively takes interest in lives of humans on earth. All the major religions of today follow a deity who, as a rule, is vengeful and downright hypocritical and deserving of scorn and ridicule.

Since I have been brought up as a hindu, my focus has been on hinduism. People who used to follow christianity or islam and are now atheists, do a great job of pointing out flaws in those religions. Based on an unsupportable(through evidence or logic) concept renders religions open to criticism. Their support for hideous, malformed public policies only makes their position more vulnerable.

In hinduism, the various deities are manifestations of the ultimate reality or God. A hindu, by definition, believes in one of the various deities. The stories that address how these deities came about are interesting. There is always a narrative that ties the deity to the populace that invented it. Whether it is sivan, vishnu, murugan, ayyappan,parvati, lakshmi or favourite local deity, the mythology behind it reflects a fertile imagination of a populace that desires its deities to smite their enemies and embrace their friends. Because there has been no restriction on the number of deities, hinduism as a religion has been much more open to diversity among deities when compared to islam, christianity and judaism. So, you have bachelor deities(hanuman, vinayakan), philandering deities(krishnan, murugan), faithful husband/devoted son deity(raman), angry female deity(durgai and all the CGI ammans of tamil movies), rich female deity(lakshmi), geeky female deity(saraswathi), destructive deity with a mean streak(sivan), deity with scarcely believable powers(vishnu), multiple heads deity(brahma), dancing with the stars deity(nataraja). As long as they stay as myths, they can be addressed as such and their influence on daily lives of people mitigated. After all, there has been no evidence of all these deities being alive and having done all the things they are supposed to have done. However, a visit to any hindu household leads one to believe that hindus do believe these deities did all the things that were said about them and that their credibility is enough for them pray to these deities. There are enough examples of people visiting a temple before an exam or an interview or a cricket match or a particularly heinous crime to pray for success in their endeavour.

There are those who argue hinduism is merely a way of life, that it is just a reflection of beliefs and practices of people who lived below indus river and that it is open to intrepretation by those who follow it. Beliefs, however, do not make people build temples for their deities and anthropomorphise them in the hope of protection from unforeseen disasters(from people's perspective) make them religious in nature. A temple to khushboo is different in the sense it serves as an expression of appreciation for an actress from her fans. Did it have religious belief behind it in the sense that her fans thought khushboo could personally intervene in their lives and provide them protection from unforeseen disasters ? The farthest one can argue is that those fans believed khushboo brought joy in their dreams and hence, decided to convey their appreciation. A belief that vishnu will make jim carrey in dumb and dumber sing 'Paattum Naanae' with no introduction to tamil grammar can be classified as religious belief. The follower believes in a deity that owes its existence to the hindu concept of all things in this world. He/she also believes there exists a set of rules that specify how the deity can be placated when the follower receives notification the deity is angry. Take out the religious significance of the deity and the temple stands as piece of artistic expression.

In focussing on the intolerance of monotheistic religions, hindus gloss over the mistreatment and killing that they have indulged in, within hinduism and without. Some would argue that the killing of non hindus by hindus was done by kings who took advantage of gullible followers to achieve their foreign policy goals. So, any mention of chola dynasty's periodic ransacking of buddhist temples, willful killing of jainas in pandya dynasty and the periodic fights between saivites and vaishnavites are explained away by the well worn defense 'Hinduism per se is not bad. It is only the followers who are bad, especially when the followers are kings in need of justification for their conquests/rule'. But, what does one say about a religion whose deities are powerless to drive its message into its followers' heads ? If the deities are powerless, wouldnt the temples constructed in their honour be just pieces of artistic expression ? Would there be a whole set of people whose profession it is, to take care of those deities, to wash them properly, to dress them properly, make them presentable ? There are also people who point out islam killed as many, if not more people in india and ransacked enough temples as if islam's bad boy behaviour justifies hinduism's atrocities.

Hinduism survived in india because kings gave it patronage and financial succour. They levied taxes on people within their dominion so magnificient temples could be built and maintained. They encouraged poets in their courts to express devotion to their chosen deity. While kings can be accused of exploiting hindus based on their belief of a deity, what does it say of a religion/deity that allows itself to be exploited with no forms of redress ?

Legend of Suriyothai

2006-03-13T09:12:00.000-05:00

I saw the legend of suriyothai(LS) at last. This is not a movie review. These are observations of the two cultures(thai(ancient siam) and indian(ancient cholas)) that at some point in history were very much interconnected.

Suriyothai, for indians might resonate more like Rani of Jhansi. They are in different positions. In modern terms rani of jhansi would have been a very dynamic single mother who happened to have a kingdom at her disposal. Suriyothai has more protection in the form of a husband who dotes on her and a commander who was her lover during her childhood. She sacrifices her life in the battle with the burmese to save her husband's life.

I wonder at one similarity between LS and ponniyin selvan. Two princesses that are mirror images of each other scheming against each other. Kundhavai and nandhini in ponniyin selvan and Suriyothai and Srisudachan on the other. Similarity of nandhini and srisudachan is very striking. Both of them have husbands who are very powerful but are completely under their wives' influence. Both the husbands realize their folly just as they are about to become irrelevant through death. Both of them actively use their sexuality to get what they want. Both of them end up on the wrong side in the end.

There were times in the movie when the military commander was referred to as senathipathi which is also the tamil term for military commander. Then there were the names. Ayuththaya(ayodhya), athitaya(athithya),suriyothai(suriyothayam). There was the way of prostrating before the emperor or before someone of a higher status than you.

In tamil culture, people pay respect by falling on the ground with their foreheads, knees and toes touching the ground and their arms extended over their head and towards the person they are paying respect to(take a look at any tamilnadu government minister whenever little elephant JJ is in power. Those ministers could have submitted a research paper on soil consistency given the amount of time they spent on the ground). In the movie, people pay their respects by falling on the ground in almost similar fashion but with the hip rather than the knee touching the ground. Son instead of falling headlong on the ground, they have sideways tilt when they are lying on the ground. One addition seems to be the approach. They move on their knees towards the person they are paying respects.

Just goes to show how sometimes looking with rose tinted glasses at achievements of ancient cultures doesnt work well. They were cultures that actively subjugated their people and you were very much under the control of the royal family. How, what, when were all governed by what the royal famiuly could and couldnt find out.

Why, oh why ?

2006-03-12T14:09:00.000-05:00

*************Spoiler warning****************************************
Saw the tamil movie Kanaa kandaen (Had a dream). Slickly packaged movie.

The storyline is about how the hero, who has a doctorate from anna university, comes up with a cheapo plan for desalination of water thereby supplying singara chennai with potable water. The traditional banks turn down his application pointing to hare brainedness of the idea. In steps the villain, who happens to be the heroine's classmate from college who offers to fund the model plant. As it turns out, he is one of those lenders who charges exorbitant rates and uses it to get favours of different sorts from the lendees(is this a word?). The finale of the movie is how tamil movie justice is rendered to the villain.

The hero seems to be mired in socialist era thinking of giving away this technology for free which begs the question, how stupid can our heroes be portrayed ? If he is going to give it for free, why would a bank even entertain a loan ? Where would he get the money to pay the loan back? Then again, he is the hero of a tamil movie. He probably is not bright enough to think that way. Taking creative license, the director puts the desalination plant on the beach, as if to say 'If the lack of economic funda doesnt kill the plant, a well-directed tsunami will'. The only reason for putting the plant on the beach was to ensure geographic proximity of sea water supply plus the ready availability of land from the hero's professor. On the flip side, there is the slight matter of screwing up with the environment and public property.

Heroines in tamil movies have always swayed between revolutionaries(usually directed by balachander or someone with a marxist bent(or name), making about .01%) or as sexpots(99.99% of the movies). Here, the director seems to be paying lip service to all those revolutionary characters and at the same time, uses words very effectively to reduce them to sexpots. The revolutionary portion gets over quickly when the heroine sneaks out(with lots of help from her long suffering and sacrificing tamil movie mom
) of her wedding ceremony with the hero to lead a new life in chennai. Hero and heroine have sex before their marriage and casually saunter to the registration office to get married. That was different about this movie. Some sequences would make an entire tamil movie. That puts an end to the revolutionary side of things. On the flip side, there is the usage of the word rape many times to signify the lust between the hero and heroine. How low can tamil movies get ? There is a way to show sensual love between them and using the word rape is definitely not the way to go. The heroine character is showed as chiding the hero for being gentle during the supposed rape. Maybe this is what tamilians keep talking about when they refer to their classical tamil culture(kushboo's comment on premarital sex).

Tamil movies have long used the madonna whore syndrome in characterization of female characters(ignoring mom characters for now). Depending on the storyline, the female characters are divided into those 2 categories. In case of a movie that has only rural background, the heroine is usually clothed from head to toe. The vamp is usually someone with very small chance of landing the hero but a 100% chance of a item number. If it is a story that moves between rural and urban, 9.9 times out of 10, the rural girl is the repository of all the clothing and modesty tamil culture has to offer. The urban girl in this case is usually the projection of the director's fantasies as to what he thinks of women who have made the slightest attempt to be independent themselves. So for every revathy, suvalakshmi,sangeetha there are 5 or more anuradhas, silk smithas, mumtaz...That could also explain the item number concept in tamil movies.

While I can see the marketing reason behind the female characterizations, the item song(target the 18 - ?? male demographic), the producer should also take into account the final product is poorer because of it. It loses out on exploring and showing the female characters closer to real life in tamilnadu. For heavens' sakes, there are enough strong women in tamilnadu and tamil culture in general. The producer might also be losing out economically because of the lack of interest in such a movie from the female base. What started as brilliant marketing from MGR has now been degraded thoroughly.

MGR focussed on the thaaikkulam when that market was wide open. MK(Karunanidhi) and Anna had focussed on tamil literate populations which given the state tamilnadu was in, skewed heavily towards men from 18 onwards. MGR branded himself as the champion of the thaaikkulam and prominently referred to them in his movies. And tamilnadu womenfolk responded by sweeping him to power(Of course, history is never that simple but for the present analysis, I have omitted some details). His movies portrayed thaaikkulam as worthy of respect. He was smart to recognize the effect it would have on the above 18 male base. So, he had female characters that ended up being lectured on screen on tamil culture's traditions by a malayali actor, no less. The lecture came after the female character had danced around in a skimpy and suggestive dress. At the end of his career, he too resorted to the same gimmicks as can be found now. I cannot believe how bad tamil audiences could be. They made hits of movies that had a doddering MGR describing his heroines in songs that would be apt for an adult certificate. The directors and actors who came after him copied those successful methods. Once the times changed, more and more women moved away from the thaaikkulam base. However, tamil directors/producers/actors, being the bright guys they were, kept focussing on the smaller and smaller target group.

Coming back to this movie, the heroine(gopika) plays the madonna portion once we can see past the premarital sex thingy. The hero's professor, a lady, plays the educated urban lady who is much more open. In tamil movie dictionary, that opens her character for all kinds of sexual innuendos that do not get directed towards the heroine character.

The one good thing was the villainy by Prithviraj (malayalam actor). The whole character is 'Dont get angry, get even' kind of one who is forced to get angry at the end because tamil movie storylines demand the hero triumph even if he does everything wrong.

Maybe one of these days, we might see a tamil movie where the female and male characters are closer to real life and not cardboard expressions of the directors' long lost fantasies.

Vedham Puthithu

2005-09-11T15:25:00.000-04:00

Movie Review of Vedham Puthithu :

Actors/Actresses : Satyaraj, Saritha, Amala, Raja, Nizhalgal Ravi, Charuhaasan, Janakaraj

Direction : Bharathiraaja

This is a movie that comes close to being called a classic. From the voiceover of Bharathiraaja at the start of the movie about the reasoning behind the movie to the final exclamation of Satyaraj's character 'Balungra manithan Vaidegi enra ponnaiyum shankaran enra payyanaiyum valarkka virumbaran.....(Paraphrased - A humanbeing called Balu wants to bring up a daughter named vaidehi and a son named shankaran), this movie is hard hitting in its portrayal of casteism in indian culture.

Synoposis : Satyaraj plays atheist Balu Thevar, the headman of a village that is the microcosm of india with its superstitions, religions, castes. He is illiterate but comes up with pithy one liners on the pernicious effect of god/religion/caste on fellow villagers. His son, played by raja, comes back to the village after finishing his college education and follows the tamil movie hero script of going after the village priest's daughter played by amala who responds in kind. The village priest seeing the turn of events, decides to marry his daughter off as second wife to a brahmin guy than see her the sole wife of the village headman's son. Amala' s character escapes when going for the marriage and fakes her own death hoping to stop the marriage. The marriage party returns thinking she is dead. The village priest vents his frustration on the headman's son as the cause of his daughter's death and during the altercation, both slip over a precipice and die. The son of the village priest now becomes an orphan and is ostracised by the brahmin community of the village. The headman takes pity on the son and takes him in. The village priest's daughter comes back and is accused by the village of being a bad omen. She takes refuge in the headman's house and is reunited with her brother. The villagers in their fury kill the headman. The movie ends with a message of hope about removing casteism in the next generation.

Thoughts :

Satyaraj was excellent in the role showing the pride of an atheist who is up against the entire god-fearing village. He looks suitably chastened when the priest's son asks him the question about his name.(Balu-ngrathu unga paeru, thevar-ngrathu neenga padichu vaangiya pattamaa ? - Balu is your name, is thevar an educational degree ?). The line is placed very well in the flow of the movie and shows that someone claiming to be an atheist might not be a whole lot more rational than a theist. Of course, he has the choicest lines in the movie whether it is needling every religious person with the needlessness of god or explaining to his son, why he doesnt prefer him to chant mantras or his arguments with the priest. He has given a restrained performance and combined with those famous nakkal dialogues, makes him the character in the movie to watch.

Saritha has a smaller role than some of her famous roles and she breezes through it. She plays an ideal foil to Satyaraj as his very religious wife who goes behind his back to ensure the well being of her son through offerings to gods.

Amala and Raja satisfy the romance portion of the movie. I think this was the first movie where raja plays the loser role to perfection(thinking about it, his entire career is one long list of loser roles. Either his love interest dies or leaves him or he dies before their love gets anywhere). Amala performs her role well considering that she mainly is known for eye candy roles. Her tamil diction is kind of grating but nowhere close to what one hears nowadays.

Janakaraj is the villain in the movie. Bharatiraaja could have done a much better job of developing this character considering his importance to the screenplay. Hence, he comes across as a cardboard character when compared with Satyaraj's character.

Charuhaasan continues his role as always, the brahmin priest who holds onto his rules and rituals inspite of a changing world and losing his life in the middle of the movie.

The movie is consistent in its attack on casteism,god, religion. What is normal for a tamil movie(an invocation to God at the start of the movie) is glaring in this movie. The village headmand character is harsh on god, organized religion and caste. Some of the lines are extremely powerful. Paraphrased examples,

'Thappu pannittu saami kitta mannippu ketkareenga. Oru manithan kitta innoru manithan mannippu ketka saami ethukku ?' (you(people who worship god) ask for forgiveness for your sins to fellow man to a god. I would ask for forgiveness from another man. Where is god needed in this ?)

When arguing with brahmins about including the orphaned son of the village priest in avani avittam, the brahmins point out how the vedas specify who are brahmins and who are not. The headman's rejoinder is absolutely delightful as he points out the hollowness of those arguments. Fascinating.

When he pacifies a meeting where each caste attacked the other in a shouting match, his question towards the brahmins is very much valid. If brahmins insist(as most of them do) on being the enlightened lot of castes in general, why is it that they are so narrow minded as to follow caste system in the first place ?

The almost fanatical insistence of the village headman on approaching every issue from a humanistic point of view versus a religious point of view shows up in his dialogues.

The staple of bharatiraaja's movies are there, the treatment of romance. Whether it is amala licking off the pongal off her fingers or the whole sequence involving the handkerchief, the director shows something sensitive in his treatment of the romance.

I thought this would be a movie I wouldnt like given it has been almost 20 years since the movie came out.

Ponniyin Selvan on screen

2005-08-24T13:32:00.000-04:00

*******************Ponniyin Selvan Spoiler Warning*********************

I am traversing the well worn path of every reader of PS after they have read it. After all, the movie craze among tamilians might be one reason why the second question after reading PS is'What will be the cast of characters if PS was made into a tamil movie using the current crop of actors/actresses ?' (The first is the obvious 'Who killed Aadiththa Karikaalan ?')

Given the scope of the novel, I think it will be tough to take PS as a single movie. Instead, they should focus on 3 - 5 part movie like LOTR. Then again, most of PS is spent on descriptions and historical references and that way, it might end up being shorter than that with all the non-events packaged into bonus section of the DVD.

If there was to be a movie made of PS, my ideal would be new faces in all aspects of movie. That would provide the most vibrant on screen version of PS. Someone can conduct PS idol like American Idol asking people to audition for these once-in-a-lifetime roles. Also, famous directos/music directors/lyricists/actors/actresses would have their popularity baggage. (If PS was made into a movie, it has to stand for its story and not because Kamal croons like a dying peacock in the role of Sundara Chozhan on hearing news of Aadiththa Karikaalan's death)

Now, onto the casting :

Director - Cheran or Thankar Bachchan or Bharathiraaja
Music Director - ARR or YSR or Harris Jeyaraj
Camera - P.C.Sriram or Thiru(I think he was the cameraman for Hey Ram) or Ravi K Chandran
Art Direction - Thotta Tharani or Sabu Cyril(those are the only two names I know)

Main roles :

Vanthiyathevan - Surya or Saif (They wont measure up anyway to the character in the book)
Arulmozhi varman - Prashanth (Goody two shoes character - doesnt require much acting)
Aadiththa Karikaalan - Vikram or Aamir (Probably the most complex character in the book)
Madhuraanthakan - Suresh Gopi or Jayaram
Saenthan Amuthan - Vineet(Fits the role to a 'T')
Paarthibaendran - Paarthiban(Namesake) or Manoj K Jayan
Kandhamaran - Arunpandiyan(Cant visualize anyone else for this character)
Peria Pazhuvaettaraiyar - Saayaaji Shinde or Mammootty (Both look regal and look the
part)
Chinna Pazhuvaettaraiyar - Nasser or Ranjith(Both can act well and have the build for the
role)
Sundara Chozhan - Kamal(He can sit through the entire movie with very little to do)
Aazhwaarkadiyaan - Mohanlal(Role requires all round talent)

Poonguzhali - Nandita Das - She is interchangeable as Kundhavai - Cant think of any other
actresses for this role
Kundhavai - Tabu - She is interchangeable as Poonguzhali - Cant think of any other actresses
for this role
Nandhini - Simran or Bipasha(Havent seen bipasha's movies so cannot decide about her acting
but as seductress she fits the bill perfectly) - Requires loads of
talent
Sembian Maadevi - Ramya Krishnan
Vaanathi - Aishwarya Rai(Requires very less acting other than fluttering her eyelashes, looking
dreamy and staring at the ground)
Manimeghalai - Shalini(if ajith can consent) or Kajol(if ajay devgan can consent) - Requires some
acting

Ponniyin Selvan

2005-08-20T22:29:00.000-04:00

*************************Ponniyin Selvan Spoiler Warning************************

Just completed reading Ponniyin selvan. I now realize why readers are so addicted to this book. I was so into the book all I did for past 2 weeks was come home from work and read that pillow size novel. The time I spent away from working out might have been compensated by the strain on my arms holding up that book.

Kalki has done a tremendous job maintaining the interest of the reader. The only blemish I can find is the almost cloying treatment he gives towards organized religion pounding the reader into submission on the goodness of god and the righteousness of saivite/vaishnavite philosophy.

As he says in epilogue of the book, there is so much potential for many more ponniyin selvan type novels if only people of tamilnadu paid attention to their history. The attention to detail he has paid in describing pazhaiyaarai, thanjavur, anuradhapura(srilanka) is breathtaking. Of course, given the focus of the novel on chola history, pandiyas become the villains. They are painted with a not-so-positive nature throughout. Reading the novel makes me realize what a sorry excuse CBSE history books are on local history. Other than a passing reference to Thanjavur peria kovil/raja raja chola, not much is present on providing the incredible details on the intricacies and traps of chera-chola-pandiya-pallava politics.

The sheer variety in treatment of love is enough to hold anyone's attention. My favourite is vanthiyathevan kunthavai relationship. The pressures of a relationship between an accidental spy and a smart princess who fall for each other is so beautifully brought out by kalki. He has delineated the difference between the attraction/admiration vanthiyathevan feels for nandhini versus kunthavai. Their conversations reminded me of the conversation between eowyn and faramir in lord of the rings with its mixture of poetry and romance.

Obsessive relationships abound in this story. Whether it is peria pazhuvattaraiyar/karikalan/kanthamaran/paarthibaendran-nandhini, manimeghalai-vanthiyathevan, poonguzhali/vanathi-arulmozhi, the one sided nature of those relationships(except for the late almost abrupt change in vanathi-arulmozhi relationship) assures their demise.

The notable female characters poonguzhali, kunthavai and nandhini, all are much more complex than in sivakamiyin sabatham where sivakami pretty one dimensional character pining away for narasimhavarman. Poonguzhali wants to be a queen and gets her wish in the end even though not in the way she wanted it. Kunthavai and Nandhini are two sides of the same coin as it turns out later in the story. Because the story turns out to be of cholas, kunthavai comes out looking good whereas Nandhini turns out to be the poisonous one.

The story can be read through the lens of most of the major characters. Maybe , in the future, there will be discourses on vanthiyathevan's ponniyin selvan versus poonguzhali's ponniyin selvan versus kunthavai's ponniyin selvan.

I was impressed with the historical references kalki pointed out about kunthavai-vanthiyathevan. Maybe thanjavaur peria kovil will have those inscriptions till I get time to read it. The order of succession of cholas is another. The detailed descriptions of how chola kings died is incredible.

The tamil words used in some of the inscriptions that kalki referred to were difficult to understand. Maybe I have been using chennai tamil a lot that senthamizh is no longer understandable.

Unforgettable sections :

The killing of karikalan
Every discussion between vanthiyathevan and kundhavai
Every discussion between vanthiyathevan and nandhini
Everytime kalki digresses on tamil history
Poonguzhali's character development as a girl unafraid of anyone or anything(till at the end , kalki marries her off to saenthan amuthan)

Forgettable sections :

The forced relationship between vanathi and arulmozhi(Historically, they might have been a couple but their treatment in the story didnt rise upto vanthiyathevan/kundhavai)
The forced turnaround of poonguzhali marrying saenthan amuthan after expressing her desire for arulmozhi

Losing a piece of myself

2005-06-07T16:29:00.000-04:00

This past month, I went on vacation to India. I came away with mostly positive emotions. I am writing this when I am still reeling from homesickness. Everything there looks green inspite of the heat and humidity . Change seems to be everywhere and most of it is for the good. The dynamism is something different and it is not only restricted to the metros.

I lost quite a lot of my weight during this trip inspite of my mom's best efforts to feed me stuff I havent eaten in ages. I went in the month of may to chennai. Even if it is not the hottest place, it is hot enough to wish for year round rains. As the song from Gentleman goes 'April Mayilae pasumaiyae illae.......' . That song was sung in an entirely different context but one can appreciate it keeping the weather in mind.

I went to places in and around chennai randomly given my procastination. I still managed to cover places I wanted to see with some exceptions.

My first trip was to St.Thomas Mount. I always wanted to visit it ever since I came to know it had some historical importance attached to it. Once you reach the entrance to the church, it is very easy to go up as the way up is paved and has places to rest. But once you go up,there is not much to look at. It was a disappointment that was somewhat mitigated on seeing a painting in fort st. george museum that shows a pristine mount with a clear view of the village that was chennai at that time. That doubting thomas was killed on top of the mount in 72 AD wasnt enough to hold my interest to me anyway.

The fort st. george museum is very well maintained even though they could use some guides. Most of the visitors had to browse through the museum and make of the artifacts what they could. Places like St.Thomas Mount seemed to be so different from what they are now. There were even items from french period of occupation of Fort St.George. The official letters written by Robert Clive were another treat. Looking at them, I couldnt help wonder how someone like him, down and out when he landed in india, could transform his life and go on to establish east india company as a force to be reckoned with. Like those international cricketers making their career against india with a bang even if they were nondescript players before in their respective countries. Or as they say in tamil 'Vandharai vaazhavaikum tamizhagam' (Providing livelihood for all comers).

The government museum in Egmore is another treasure trove of historical pieces. It has sculptures and scripts dating from asoka's period(B.C.) to around 11th century AD. They have different complexes for stone sculptures and metal sculptures. The metal sculptures are housed in that rarity of a government space, an airconditioned room. They have done a very good job of putting all the metal sculptures inside glass casings knowing very well the propensity of visitors to touch and spoil the sculptures. The stone sculptures get no such protection. It was a pathetic sight to see valuable sculptures lying around as painters whitewashed the walls of the museum and generously dripped the paint onto the sculptures. Then there were the confiscated pieces from thieves and smugglers. The museum administrators in their infinite wisdom have put them all in the open backyard behind the museum almost as if inviting a thief to have a go at them again. All said and done, it is still a worthwhile effort to have all these marvelous sculptures in a single place even though they can do a better job of maintaining them from the spoiling hands of visitors/maintenance crew.

Senji fort lies between chennai and tiruvannamalai. For a fort that is sorrounded by paddy fields and generous water sources, it is really hot. The fort complex is actually a ring of forts built on rock strewn hills sorrounding Chennai Tiruvannamalai bypass road. The main ones are Krishnagiri, Chitradurg and Rajagiri. The initial construction seems to have been done by Kone chieftains and after they relinquished their hold, it was developed further by Vijaynagara empire, Adil Shah and the british. Militarily, attacking the fort head on is suicidal given the approach steps are at an incline and turn at right angles every 10 steps or so. There are enough outer rings outside each fort to provide the defenders with a very clear view of whoever is attacking the fort. The forts dont have as much visitors now except for young lovers who seem to be intent on leaving their mark on history. Given the way the forts are constructed, I am sure the testament to their love scribbled on the walls of the fort will die much earlier than the fort itself. Krishnagiri and Chitradurg were smaller forts compared to Rajagiri. Rajagiri seems to have been the main fort. The inner fort is at least a mile inside the outer fort. On way to the inner fort, there are granaries, gunpowder dumps and different temples. If the granaries were a sign of the prosperity of the kingdom, they should have been mighty rich those days. Getting to the top of Rajagiri fort is a challenge in itself. It is very steep compared to the other two forts and walking up in 100 degree heat and humidity is tough even with bottles and bottles of water and soft drinks. Some of the surprises along the way were a tank in the middle of ascent to the top. Whoever designed the fort was really paranoid. From the top one has a clear view of everything down below. There are the watch towers which lead to lower rings around the fort through underground passages. There are mortars that look out from the top of the fort to the fields below just in case the farmers get any ideas of self sustenance.

As a sign of the changes in ownership, the structures on top of the fort vary from solid rock structures to cement and concrete structures. Krishnagiri fort has a temple and a mosque on top of it.

The respect indians in general have for monuments in their history was illustrated when I asked for a way to get to the top of another fort behind Chitradurg. He wanted to know if I wanted to go there and smoke whatever drugs I carried with me.

I wanted to visit mahabalipuram to see the new complex that was supposed to have been unearthed by the tsunami. For lack of time, I didnt get to see it. I saw only a portion of the sculptures and that itself was impressive. To have had the imagination to sculpt them out of rocks by the sea was itself commendable. Because it is a world heritage monument, mahabalipuram seems to be getting much better conservation treatment. They have guards posted at the entrance all the sculpture complexes so the visitors remain honest.

The one mistake in my visit was my visit to kutralam which is a system of waterfalls supposed to have medicinal value because the water in it gathers medicinal plants as it flows through the mountains nearby. It is a seasonal waterfall and when I visited it, the season hadnt yet set in. So, I had a good look at the sides of those hills which would be blanketed by water come june or july. All I got in return were blisters and swelling in my foot from indiscriminate walking. I should have realised the season was not in when the bus I was travelling approached the towns around the falls. If the season has started, the area has a cool breeze that makes it wrthwhile just to walk around. When I visited the place, it was hot and dusty not at all like when the falls are full of water.

That mistake in scheduling cost me the time to visit badami which houses the ruins of chalukya dynasty from 6 - 8 century AD. Maybe next time.....

Looking back

2005-04-12T10:39:00.000-04:00

Where did this neglect of one's own ancestors come from ? Does focussing on knowing one's ancestors extend to justifying all their actions ? Are they best left as they are, consigned to dustbins of history which as we know is written always by victors ?

If someone asks me what I know about my ancestors, I would probably respond defensively knowing very well they have stuck an open wound. I can trace it to the procastination I have in spades.

When I refer to my ancestors, I am referring to the people who followed practices that led to what I am today. I am well aware that it covers a lot of people and practices and probably involves intermingling of cultures. Some of those cultures have done an exceedingly well in maintaining record of who came before them. As for me, the lack of awareness of my ancestors strikes home whenever I read about someone holding fort on theirs.

Whether my ancestors were bigoted or narrow minded , I do not know. Given my propensity to think positive of anything or anyone, I would like to think they did what they thought was right at the time. Judging them through the prism of my present day culture would definitely show them in poor light.

Does revisiting one's history through the lens of present day moraes fair to those who came before us ? Then again, would I be as objective as I consider myself to be when it concerns my own flesh and blood ? Knowing myself, the answer is No.

Nom De Guerre

2005-04-08T15:11:00.000-04:00

*******************Sivakamiyin Sabatham Spoiler Warning*****************

Paranjothi - the name itself brings to mind prosperous kanchi of 7th - 8th century of tamil novels. A traveller in search of a teacher, he loses his way and ends up as the commander of armed forces for pallavas.

His chance encounter with Mahendravarman, king of pallava dynasty at that time puts him on the career track of a military commander with them instead of their rivals, chalukyas. His unwitting involvement in political intrigues makes him more mature in handling matters of state. His tendency to believe in the goodness of whoever helps him makes him a target for every side involved in the conflict over kanchi.

The tension in his friendship with the future king of pallavas, Narasimhavarman brings out the differences between the characters. Narasimhavarman is literally the kid with golden spoon in his mouth who spends his time going after sivakami. Paranjothi is not portrayed as a ladies' man. Instead, he is the rock on whom Mahendravarman depends to ensure Narasimhavarman will lean on in his future conflicts. He is satisfied with the girl his mother has arranged for him back in his village. With the marriage question resolved, he is free to prioritize better compared to Narasimhavarman.

At the end of it all, Paranjothi comes out better than Narasimhavarman in most aspects. He leads pallava armies to glorious victories and when he gets tired of it all, takes sanyas. Narasimhavarman marries the pandian princess as a political consolidation measure and does not marry sivakami in the end. As hard as the restraining influence of Paranjothi was, Narasimhavarman's inability to get rid of the influence of sivakami causes the destruction of a whole dynasty and its capital city.