Sanga Thamizhachchi

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 ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.