I watched thanmatra last weekend. I had been looking forward to it ever since it was released but never found time to sit down and watch(More out of procastination than lack of time). I had read articles on how the movie was supposed to present effects of Alzheimer's disease.
The story is pretty simple. Mohanlal plays a government employee(a.k.a file pusher), spending his time with his family and making plans for future. He gets stricken with Alzheimer's disease out of the blue. The second half is about how he and his family deals with this unexpected turn of events.
It is presented very well. The first half wouldnt be out of place in a decent tamil movie nowadays with sequences showing Mohanlal character's affection and love for his family and getting the same in return. The characters are squeaky clean and are always smiling or well mannered. Add to it, Mohanlal's character pontificates a lot on human memory and how to use it effectively.
The drift towards alzheimer's starts towards the end of the first half and the director slowly tightens the screw on dread as Mohanlal's character slides ever more deep into the disease. The contrast with the atmosphere of the first half hits you hard as we see Mohanlal's character struggle to do things normally done without batting an eyelid in a healthy human being.
The director has to be commended for keeping a tight leash on things in the second half. There are lots of opportunities waiting to be exploited for melodrama and barring a few, he does a good job of moving the story along.
Mohanlal has done a good job in this movie. However, his frame makes you worry about Meera Vasudevan, the actress playing his wife in the movie. I know he is chubby but it seems like he has added an additional layer of fat for this movie. The controversial shot where Mohanlal is in nude does show the seriousness of his affliction but it would have been more palatable and less terrifying without all those fat filling up the TV screen. As is mostly the case with malayalam movies, there are times when my tamil movie fan side screams to see some overacting just to relieve some tension.
Meera Vasudevan , who plays the wife character, does what is expected of her which isnt much. She does come up with some surprise expressions seeing her husband deteriorate steadily. Her initial reaction at not knowing what to do when the primary breadwinner of the family has to stop working is very good.
Nedumudi Venu, as the father of Mohanlal's character, is pretty solid, as always. There is a sameness to his acting which continues with this movie too.
The son's character, played by Arjun Lal, is etched out well. While the character comes across a goody two-shoes(with a half hearted attempt by the director initially to show some spine in him), showing him that way throughout the movie does get tiring. Towards the end of the movie, I expected him to throw something at his father to vent his frustrations. But, other than a tiny out burst of tears, nothing happened.
My miniscule exposure to movies in different indian languages has convinced me that malayalam movies do very well when presenting a story with realism. I have also read stories about how malayalam movies for quite some time have been trying to address competition from tamil, telugu and hindi movie industries by becoming more like them, more flashy and melodramatic and unbelievably star-driven. Maybe, it is the collective learning curve of an industry more used to realistic portrayals or backlash from malayalam movie fans, they keep coming back once in a while to things that made them watchable and thereby, stand out in the wreckage that is indian movie industry. I am not saying tamil, telugu and hindi movies are unwatchable. I am merely suggesting that their star driven ventures start to grate after some time. Malayalam movies have their stars too and thankfully, Mohanlal has chosen to act in this role, going against the stereotype(You know, the cigarette flips, multi goonda fights, foreign locale songs, amma/thali/thangai/jaathi/mozhi/ sentiments...). The credit should go to the director for fashioning a movie that is like a vikraman movie in the first half and a bala movie in the second half. The movie also has very judicious references to bharathiar poems which, given their positioning in the story, sounded very poignant.
Here is hoping, some tamil directors get 'inspired' by this pseudo medical movie and not by a half-assed pseudo medical movie like Anniyan.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Friday, March 02, 2007
A butterfly flaps its wings in china.....
This week, we had an inkling of what globalization can do to even mature economies. The US economy(or for that matter, Europe) is not so dependent that a little sneeze in china would cause a coughing spell here. However, the extent of investments that US companies and institutional investors have made in china carries with it a risk that can be exacerbated in bad times. If the signs in the US economy were healthy, any impact from china(or the so-called emerging markets) can be managed. But, given the borrowing binge US consumers have gone on for last 6 years, the indicators for US economy show a much more vulnerable picture. In the future, US consumers might shrug off any bad news to stocks and continue their spending even more. The extent of borrowing and decline in stock figures might just cause US economy to magnify chinese economy's influence much more. As the probability of chinese economic decisions impacting US economy(and by implication, US consumers too) increases, it might be helpful to think about how political stability inside china(or other countries which can materially impact US policy) can influence those choices.
Ian Bremmer's J Curve lays out a framework for thinking about how stability and openness of societies can play an important role in how they respond to changes from outside.
(From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/30/wjcurve30.xml&page=1).
The J curve stands for the shape of the curve where stability(on the Y-axis) is plotted against openness(on the X-axis) for different societies. Societies generally start on the shorter left hand side of 'J' with a certain amount of openness and stability. As openness progresses(either from within or imposed from without), the stability decreases first, reaches a low point and then proceeds upwards on the right hand side of the J curve. The level of the entire curve can be lifted up(or dragged down) by certain events that impact these societies. As an example, a beneficial event(like an increase in GDP or winning 2007 cricket world cup) can lift the entire curve allowing for a higher level of stability for the same openness as before. Some societies try to get back to where they started by reducing openness, thereby increasing stability. These societies generally lie on the left hand side of the J curve. Some examples include North Korea, Iraq(when Saddam was in power). Some societies have taken the brave step of more openness and have reached the bottom portion of the curve. Some examples include Russia, South Africa, Yugoslavia. Other societies have pursued openness vigorously and ended up with more stability, on the right hand side of the J curve. US is rightfully placed at the top of the right hand side of the J curve, given its track record of stability. Some other societies that fit this side, but at a lower level, include India, germany, france. In response to stimuli from outside pushing for openness, any society can respond in 2 ways.
Where they will end up at the end depends on where they are currently on the curve. So, a North Korea pushed towards openness(as attempted by US foreign policy for last 6 years) might experience a decrease in stability first before it proceeds to become more stable. The reaction of its dictator, Kim Jong Il, might be to push North Korea up the left hand side of the curve towards more stability and lesser openness. Lesser openness provides Kim Jong Il with more control over the country's resources. The end result is more suffering for longer time for people in North Korea with no obvious benefits and some dangers to US.
As an alternative, they can proceed to become more open. The decrease in stability can be counteracted by aid from the other parties currently involved in solving the issue(Russia, China, US, South Korea, Japan). If that happens, Kim Jong Il might just be persuaded to stop watching too many hollywood movies and start listening to his suffering populace. One of his responses might be to throw the society more open(as long as he is assured that the other parties will be there to back him if he fails).
My interest is focussed on south asia, considered to be India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Burma. In this post, I will focus only on India and Pakistan as their conflict seems to hold back both countries from achieving their potential(and writing about other countries in the region might expose my ignorance).
Of these, India started on the left hand side of the curve and has ended up on the right hand side of the J curve, courtesy of its political and military leaders. As much as I despise Nehru for squandering away precious time in improving india's economy, I give him credit for having a vision of a democratic india and laying down foundations for its institutions, working in concert with other leaders for the last 50 years. India now has a functioning democracy that has ensured some level of openness and stability. It is reasonably more open than many other countries and has a system which assures its citizens of some voice inspite of its imperfections.
On an anecdotal basis, emergency promulgated by Indira Gandhi(along with Sanjay Gandhi and a remarkably supine congress party of that era) might have been the reaction of someone trying to push India up the left hand side of the curve towards greater stability and lesser openness. It came right after the liberation of bangladesh that provided as much political leverage to Indira Gandhi as she could handle. As the apocryphal story goes, popularity of General Sam Manekshaw(Field Marshal of Indian Army) led Indira Gandhi to query him as to the military's inclination towards democracy within the country. If the story is true, it might have been the ever present insecurity of Indira Gandhi that led her to do that. Manekshaw has to be commended for sticking to military matters. It might also have been her desire to see off any challenges to her vision(at that time) of a more stable but less open india. As long as the steady vision of Nehru(in the political sphere, that is) of a democratic India was there, decrease in stability was accepted in return for adhering to the overarching vision. Beginning in 1970, the political leaders who fought for indian independence were losing their pull with the electorate and the new generation of political leaders did not have the baggage of Nehruvian vision. India, at this time, was probably at the bottom portion of the J curve.
It is also to the credit of other leaders(Janata Party, DMK in addition to others) that they resolutely resisted it and were willing to suffer arrest. The loss for Indira Gandhi in 1977 elections might have marked the moment when India rejected the short term safety and long term peril of lesser openness(and more stability at that time with Sanjay Gandhi snapping off reproductive organs as and when he wished) in favour of short term pain and long term pleasure of more openness(higher stability currently). Subsequent events(like assassinations of prime ministers, serious danger of default with IMF, frequently maddening religious riots) have brought India to the brink of the bottom portion of the J curve but its leaders seem to have learnt the art of sticking to the right hand portion of the curve even if it seems unpopular at the time.
As long the future leaders commit themselves to the right hand portion of the J curve, people in India will do much better in terms of expressing their opinions and fashioning policies responsive to their concerns. Over the long term, that course will prepare India for changes on a global scale than remaining a closed society.
Pakistan started on the left hand side of the curve as India did but their response has been resolutely towards left hand side of the curve with periodic flirtations towards the right hand side of the curve with little success. India and Pakistan started on an equal footing with their leaders educated mostly in western democracies and hence, amenable to developing institutions for grooming democracy. After their independence in 1947, India had the luxury of bench strength when it came to leaders. While all the credit has been given to Nehru and Gandhi, people have forgotten the talents of people like Sardar Vallabhai Patel, Ambedkar, Moulana Azad in the service of the new nation(Shashi Tharoor's The Great Indian Novel does give credit where it is due). Whatever be their shortcomings, they applied their knowledge and skills to the betterment of a new nation.
Mohammad Ali Jinnah had a similar vision as Nehru but was hobbled by the lack of reliable leaders assisting him in administration of the country. Pakistan stumbled in its attempts to establish democracy after Jinnah died. With him went the vision of a nation trying to become a democracy and whatever attempts towards more openness. The lack of democratic leaders brought in military leaders to fill the vaccuum and lead Pakistan towards more stability. Given their military background(as against politics), they pushed the country up the left hand side of the curve leading to more stability but lesser openness. The military dictators did have a vision. However, that focussed on stability within Pakistan rather than encouraging openness. When the military suffered a setback(as in losses to India in 1965 and 1971), the long suffering politicians inside Pakistan had their chance. However, they squandered it through ineffectual governance and corruption and one of them ended up hanging for it. The military given its resources, came roaring back to take back the power. Thus, every war(and its attendant loss) to India pushed the military to consolidate their power and push Pakistan even further up the left hand portion of the curve.
The genius of pakistan military leadership also lay in their eye for playing US against Soviet Union(at that time). The financial support provided by US helped Pakistan address economic concerns of its people(at least what the military perceived as economic concerns of Pakistan) while keeping their requests for democracy in check. In effect, it shifted its J curve up. However, the military's refusal towards more openness also meant Pakistan squandered a valuable opportunity. The financial support of US could have mitigated, to some extent, the instability Pakistan would have faced if it pushed for more openness. Pushing for openness would have meant reducing military's control over all aspects of Pakistani politics. Over the long term, it could have led Pakistan over the bottom portion of the J curve and planted it on the right hand portion. Unfortunately, the military establishment(including ISI) decided to stay put on the left hand portion and poured its resources towards supporting terrorists(at that time, euphemistically called, afghan(followed later by kashmiri) freedom fighters). US also neglected its responsibility in demanding Pakistan become more open for all the financial support it was getting. As the terrorists went from strength to strength, Pakistan military looked on indulgently as they served its purpose of slowly bleeding India. After Zia-Ul Haq, the pakistan military leadership were not upto the task of keeping a lid on the grumblings within Pakistan. The short timeframe within which elections were called after Zia-Ul-Haq's death showed the brittleness of the remaining military establishment in holding the country together. The military establishment's incompetence and short sighted policies in administering the country came home to roost as the elections moved Pakistan towards more openness(with associated decrease in stability). When the soviet union pulled out of afghanistan(and promptly crumbled as a nation state some years later), Pakistan got saddled with the problem of well trained terrorists within and on its border. The young democracy's inexperience and widespread nepotism, as evidenced during the period of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, in the new political parties disillusioned the public very quickly and made the option of military leadership look positively warm. The final straw was the bumbling over kargil that led to the current military dictatorship of Musharraf. For a population tired of instability, Musharraf responded with clamping down on openness in the interest of stability and once again, Pakistan started its movement up the left hand portion of the curve. The current situation of Musharraf is dicey as there is the pressure from within Pakistan for bringing democracy(as he promised when he took over). He has delivered stability, for the most part, as promised even with the after effects of september 11. There have been bombings inside that have brought the level of the J curve down even though it is par for the course for the region. The openness level has gone down enough to pinch everyone, from Imran Khan to islamist parties. If Musharraf proceeds to open Pakistan's political environment even more, he has to contend with lesser stability and take a hit on what he promised when he took over the country. Hence, his gestures earlier to allow islamist parties to have some measure of power in the parliament. However, that might cause them to demand even more and Musharraf has to contend with a potential slide towards the bottom portion of the J curve and its attendant instability. Opening up the political environment even more to get to the right hand portion can lead to instability that would make Musharraf's position more untenable and strengthen the possibility that Pakistan would descend into chaos. The lack of democratic institutions improves the chances that it will happen in the above scenario.
The response of India is something which puts it in a tough position. India's security would be strengthened if the south asia region becomes home to societies on the right hand portion. It cannot afford to wait till the current military dictatorship transforms Pakistan and lets go its chokehold on the political freedoms. By the time that transformation occurs, it might be too late for Pakistan to move to the right hand portion. A better response might be to assist Pakistan in establishing durable institutions(and maybe, a better movie industry) as it lurches towards democracy. India can keep lines of communication between the two countries open, to handle any problems that might arise. India might even offer Musharraf help in tracking down terrorists(not arms) along their border allowing him more breathing room to purge military establishment of anti-democratic forces. This recommendation does assume Musharraf has seen the benefits of a functioning democracy.
There would always be forces on both sides of the border who have stake in a Pakistan on the left hand portion of the J curve. The Indian side allows for that expression through its democracy, thereby making it one among multitude of ideas. In case of Pakistan, the lack of democracy leads to a depleted exchange of diverse ideas among its people, making it more susceptible to crises that would push it up the left portion of the curve.
I would be interested in exploring how different states(and at a micro level, political parties) within india deal with change.
Ian Bremmer's J Curve lays out a framework for thinking about how stability and openness of societies can play an important role in how they respond to changes from outside.
(From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/30/wjcurve30.xml&page=1).
The J curve stands for the shape of the curve where stability(on the Y-axis) is plotted against openness(on the X-axis) for different societies. Societies generally start on the shorter left hand side of 'J' with a certain amount of openness and stability. As openness progresses(either from within or imposed from without), the stability decreases first, reaches a low point and then proceeds upwards on the right hand side of the J curve. The level of the entire curve can be lifted up(or dragged down) by certain events that impact these societies. As an example, a beneficial event(like an increase in GDP or winning 2007 cricket world cup) can lift the entire curve allowing for a higher level of stability for the same openness as before. Some societies try to get back to where they started by reducing openness, thereby increasing stability. These societies generally lie on the left hand side of the J curve. Some examples include North Korea, Iraq(when Saddam was in power). Some societies have taken the brave step of more openness and have reached the bottom portion of the curve. Some examples include Russia, South Africa, Yugoslavia. Other societies have pursued openness vigorously and ended up with more stability, on the right hand side of the J curve. US is rightfully placed at the top of the right hand side of the J curve, given its track record of stability. Some other societies that fit this side, but at a lower level, include India, germany, france. In response to stimuli from outside pushing for openness, any society can respond in 2 ways.
Where they will end up at the end depends on where they are currently on the curve. So, a North Korea pushed towards openness(as attempted by US foreign policy for last 6 years) might experience a decrease in stability first before it proceeds to become more stable. The reaction of its dictator, Kim Jong Il, might be to push North Korea up the left hand side of the curve towards more stability and lesser openness. Lesser openness provides Kim Jong Il with more control over the country's resources. The end result is more suffering for longer time for people in North Korea with no obvious benefits and some dangers to US.
As an alternative, they can proceed to become more open. The decrease in stability can be counteracted by aid from the other parties currently involved in solving the issue(Russia, China, US, South Korea, Japan). If that happens, Kim Jong Il might just be persuaded to stop watching too many hollywood movies and start listening to his suffering populace. One of his responses might be to throw the society more open(as long as he is assured that the other parties will be there to back him if he fails).
My interest is focussed on south asia, considered to be India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Burma. In this post, I will focus only on India and Pakistan as their conflict seems to hold back both countries from achieving their potential(and writing about other countries in the region might expose my ignorance).
Of these, India started on the left hand side of the curve and has ended up on the right hand side of the J curve, courtesy of its political and military leaders. As much as I despise Nehru for squandering away precious time in improving india's economy, I give him credit for having a vision of a democratic india and laying down foundations for its institutions, working in concert with other leaders for the last 50 years. India now has a functioning democracy that has ensured some level of openness and stability. It is reasonably more open than many other countries and has a system which assures its citizens of some voice inspite of its imperfections.
On an anecdotal basis, emergency promulgated by Indira Gandhi(along with Sanjay Gandhi and a remarkably supine congress party of that era) might have been the reaction of someone trying to push India up the left hand side of the curve towards greater stability and lesser openness. It came right after the liberation of bangladesh that provided as much political leverage to Indira Gandhi as she could handle. As the apocryphal story goes, popularity of General Sam Manekshaw(Field Marshal of Indian Army) led Indira Gandhi to query him as to the military's inclination towards democracy within the country. If the story is true, it might have been the ever present insecurity of Indira Gandhi that led her to do that. Manekshaw has to be commended for sticking to military matters. It might also have been her desire to see off any challenges to her vision(at that time) of a more stable but less open india. As long as the steady vision of Nehru(in the political sphere, that is) of a democratic India was there, decrease in stability was accepted in return for adhering to the overarching vision. Beginning in 1970, the political leaders who fought for indian independence were losing their pull with the electorate and the new generation of political leaders did not have the baggage of Nehruvian vision. India, at this time, was probably at the bottom portion of the J curve.
It is also to the credit of other leaders(Janata Party, DMK in addition to others) that they resolutely resisted it and were willing to suffer arrest. The loss for Indira Gandhi in 1977 elections might have marked the moment when India rejected the short term safety and long term peril of lesser openness(and more stability at that time with Sanjay Gandhi snapping off reproductive organs as and when he wished) in favour of short term pain and long term pleasure of more openness(higher stability currently). Subsequent events(like assassinations of prime ministers, serious danger of default with IMF, frequently maddening religious riots) have brought India to the brink of the bottom portion of the J curve but its leaders seem to have learnt the art of sticking to the right hand portion of the curve even if it seems unpopular at the time.
As long the future leaders commit themselves to the right hand portion of the J curve, people in India will do much better in terms of expressing their opinions and fashioning policies responsive to their concerns. Over the long term, that course will prepare India for changes on a global scale than remaining a closed society.
Pakistan started on the left hand side of the curve as India did but their response has been resolutely towards left hand side of the curve with periodic flirtations towards the right hand side of the curve with little success. India and Pakistan started on an equal footing with their leaders educated mostly in western democracies and hence, amenable to developing institutions for grooming democracy. After their independence in 1947, India had the luxury of bench strength when it came to leaders. While all the credit has been given to Nehru and Gandhi, people have forgotten the talents of people like Sardar Vallabhai Patel, Ambedkar, Moulana Azad in the service of the new nation(Shashi Tharoor's The Great Indian Novel does give credit where it is due). Whatever be their shortcomings, they applied their knowledge and skills to the betterment of a new nation.
Mohammad Ali Jinnah had a similar vision as Nehru but was hobbled by the lack of reliable leaders assisting him in administration of the country. Pakistan stumbled in its attempts to establish democracy after Jinnah died. With him went the vision of a nation trying to become a democracy and whatever attempts towards more openness. The lack of democratic leaders brought in military leaders to fill the vaccuum and lead Pakistan towards more stability. Given their military background(as against politics), they pushed the country up the left hand side of the curve leading to more stability but lesser openness. The military dictators did have a vision. However, that focussed on stability within Pakistan rather than encouraging openness. When the military suffered a setback(as in losses to India in 1965 and 1971), the long suffering politicians inside Pakistan had their chance. However, they squandered it through ineffectual governance and corruption and one of them ended up hanging for it. The military given its resources, came roaring back to take back the power. Thus, every war(and its attendant loss) to India pushed the military to consolidate their power and push Pakistan even further up the left hand portion of the curve.
The genius of pakistan military leadership also lay in their eye for playing US against Soviet Union(at that time). The financial support provided by US helped Pakistan address economic concerns of its people(at least what the military perceived as economic concerns of Pakistan) while keeping their requests for democracy in check. In effect, it shifted its J curve up. However, the military's refusal towards more openness also meant Pakistan squandered a valuable opportunity. The financial support of US could have mitigated, to some extent, the instability Pakistan would have faced if it pushed for more openness. Pushing for openness would have meant reducing military's control over all aspects of Pakistani politics. Over the long term, it could have led Pakistan over the bottom portion of the J curve and planted it on the right hand portion. Unfortunately, the military establishment(including ISI) decided to stay put on the left hand portion and poured its resources towards supporting terrorists(at that time, euphemistically called, afghan(followed later by kashmiri) freedom fighters). US also neglected its responsibility in demanding Pakistan become more open for all the financial support it was getting. As the terrorists went from strength to strength, Pakistan military looked on indulgently as they served its purpose of slowly bleeding India. After Zia-Ul Haq, the pakistan military leadership were not upto the task of keeping a lid on the grumblings within Pakistan. The short timeframe within which elections were called after Zia-Ul-Haq's death showed the brittleness of the remaining military establishment in holding the country together. The military establishment's incompetence and short sighted policies in administering the country came home to roost as the elections moved Pakistan towards more openness(with associated decrease in stability). When the soviet union pulled out of afghanistan(and promptly crumbled as a nation state some years later), Pakistan got saddled with the problem of well trained terrorists within and on its border. The young democracy's inexperience and widespread nepotism, as evidenced during the period of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, in the new political parties disillusioned the public very quickly and made the option of military leadership look positively warm. The final straw was the bumbling over kargil that led to the current military dictatorship of Musharraf. For a population tired of instability, Musharraf responded with clamping down on openness in the interest of stability and once again, Pakistan started its movement up the left hand portion of the curve. The current situation of Musharraf is dicey as there is the pressure from within Pakistan for bringing democracy(as he promised when he took over). He has delivered stability, for the most part, as promised even with the after effects of september 11. There have been bombings inside that have brought the level of the J curve down even though it is par for the course for the region. The openness level has gone down enough to pinch everyone, from Imran Khan to islamist parties. If Musharraf proceeds to open Pakistan's political environment even more, he has to contend with lesser stability and take a hit on what he promised when he took over the country. Hence, his gestures earlier to allow islamist parties to have some measure of power in the parliament. However, that might cause them to demand even more and Musharraf has to contend with a potential slide towards the bottom portion of the J curve and its attendant instability. Opening up the political environment even more to get to the right hand portion can lead to instability that would make Musharraf's position more untenable and strengthen the possibility that Pakistan would descend into chaos. The lack of democratic institutions improves the chances that it will happen in the above scenario.
The response of India is something which puts it in a tough position. India's security would be strengthened if the south asia region becomes home to societies on the right hand portion. It cannot afford to wait till the current military dictatorship transforms Pakistan and lets go its chokehold on the political freedoms. By the time that transformation occurs, it might be too late for Pakistan to move to the right hand portion. A better response might be to assist Pakistan in establishing durable institutions(and maybe, a better movie industry) as it lurches towards democracy. India can keep lines of communication between the two countries open, to handle any problems that might arise. India might even offer Musharraf help in tracking down terrorists(not arms) along their border allowing him more breathing room to purge military establishment of anti-democratic forces. This recommendation does assume Musharraf has seen the benefits of a functioning democracy.
There would always be forces on both sides of the border who have stake in a Pakistan on the left hand portion of the J curve. The Indian side allows for that expression through its democracy, thereby making it one among multitude of ideas. In case of Pakistan, the lack of democracy leads to a depleted exchange of diverse ideas among its people, making it more susceptible to crises that would push it up the left portion of the curve.
I would be interested in exploring how different states(and at a micro level, political parties) within india deal with change.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Green(s) with anger
Do greens come under vegetarian food ? I asked for it at the cafetaria in my workplace and got the answer that the greens are cooked with pork. The person who was dispensing it knew I consistently chose vegetarian food from the menu and she offered this valuable tidbit of information. I had eaten those greens before(under the assumption that they were vegetarian) and had never seen any sign to the effect that they used meat in cooking it. I eat meat, though sporadically and enjoy it as long as it is cooked well. However, my selection of greens was under the assumption that it was vegetarian.
As far as I know, vegetarian food refers to those food choices that require body parts of plants. Meat includes all the food products that require body parts of animals. By that classification, greens are classified as vegetarian food. After all, it involves boiling greens, that come from plants ,and adding salt to it. What happens when the boiling portion is done with pork which comes from pig and as such represents meat ? Is the cafetaria under any obligation to clearly state greens contains pork ? What is such a food classified under ?
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced the current way of producing and distributing food on an industrial scale in US is seriously flawed and misleads the consumer. As Michael Pollan lays it out in the omnivore's dilemma, the industrial basis of food production and distribution in the US has made it into an unhealthy concoction of chemicals that perform the function of delivering calories without any regard to the health of the consumer and cost to the environment. In the process of manufacturing meat, the industrial producers have gone as far away from a sustainable model as possible.
You have corn farmers having difficulty farming their land with variety of crops, instead relying on corn to give them some return over initial investment. The farm subsidies provided from the US government helps a corn farmer eke out a better living than if they planted any other crop. The farmers produce more corn, than would be consumed by the population, and flood it into the market. The excess corn goes into feeding animals in feedlots which are then slaughtered to produce meat. That these animals do not have the constitution to digest corn is not a concern for the food industry. They inject the animals with chemicals that make it possible. The industrial mentality treats animals as machines that generate caloric content, in the form of meat, from a specified amount of input, in the form of feed. The food producer can reduce their costs by
(1) reducing the cost of input provided to the animals. Produce more corn and drive down the cost of input ever more. Corn farmers can always use the subsidy from the US government to make up any losses due to the low price of corn.
(2) making the machinery of the animal more efficient. If the machinery that is the animal body throws up a wrench in the industrial food production, treat it with chemicals so the machinery starts to work smoothly again at maximum, not optimum efficiency. Optimum efficiency would have to take into account the cost of serious damage that is done to these animals, physically and emotionally, due to their extended confinement and seriously out-of-whack feed in feed lots.
(3) spreading the usage of output from these animals to as many categories of end users as possible. If more corn is produced, find a market for that corn. Some of the corn is factored further to produce products like high fructose corn syrup that is ubiquituous in soft drinks.
The food distributor strives to reduce their costs by purchasing from food producers that have economies of scale which only encourages even more standardization of corn fed animals.
The over dependence on corn means that the end consumer is overloaded with it even when they think they are having food the way earlier generations did, only cheaper. How else could consumers gorge on it and put on oodles of flesh and fat that they, ultimately, pay the price for ?
As for my experience, I didnt expect to see greens contain pork. I stood there repeating, again and again, 'Why?'. All she could tell me was that that was always the way they cooked.
As far as I know, vegetarian food refers to those food choices that require body parts of plants. Meat includes all the food products that require body parts of animals. By that classification, greens are classified as vegetarian food. After all, it involves boiling greens, that come from plants ,and adding salt to it. What happens when the boiling portion is done with pork which comes from pig and as such represents meat ? Is the cafetaria under any obligation to clearly state greens contains pork ? What is such a food classified under ?
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced the current way of producing and distributing food on an industrial scale in US is seriously flawed and misleads the consumer. As Michael Pollan lays it out in the omnivore's dilemma, the industrial basis of food production and distribution in the US has made it into an unhealthy concoction of chemicals that perform the function of delivering calories without any regard to the health of the consumer and cost to the environment. In the process of manufacturing meat, the industrial producers have gone as far away from a sustainable model as possible.
You have corn farmers having difficulty farming their land with variety of crops, instead relying on corn to give them some return over initial investment. The farm subsidies provided from the US government helps a corn farmer eke out a better living than if they planted any other crop. The farmers produce more corn, than would be consumed by the population, and flood it into the market. The excess corn goes into feeding animals in feedlots which are then slaughtered to produce meat. That these animals do not have the constitution to digest corn is not a concern for the food industry. They inject the animals with chemicals that make it possible. The industrial mentality treats animals as machines that generate caloric content, in the form of meat, from a specified amount of input, in the form of feed. The food producer can reduce their costs by
(1) reducing the cost of input provided to the animals. Produce more corn and drive down the cost of input ever more. Corn farmers can always use the subsidy from the US government to make up any losses due to the low price of corn.
(2) making the machinery of the animal more efficient. If the machinery that is the animal body throws up a wrench in the industrial food production, treat it with chemicals so the machinery starts to work smoothly again at maximum, not optimum efficiency. Optimum efficiency would have to take into account the cost of serious damage that is done to these animals, physically and emotionally, due to their extended confinement and seriously out-of-whack feed in feed lots.
(3) spreading the usage of output from these animals to as many categories of end users as possible. If more corn is produced, find a market for that corn. Some of the corn is factored further to produce products like high fructose corn syrup that is ubiquituous in soft drinks.
The food distributor strives to reduce their costs by purchasing from food producers that have economies of scale which only encourages even more standardization of corn fed animals.
The over dependence on corn means that the end consumer is overloaded with it even when they think they are having food the way earlier generations did, only cheaper. How else could consumers gorge on it and put on oodles of flesh and fat that they, ultimately, pay the price for ?
As for my experience, I didnt expect to see greens contain pork. I stood there repeating, again and again, 'Why?'. All she could tell me was that that was always the way they cooked.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Long tail
Chris Anderson, editor of Wired magazine, based this book on an article he wrote in october 2004. It is about how certain markets are particularly conducive to exploiting niche segments in them and how some businesses have thrived on it. The original article explains the concept very well and the book does an even better job. For further analysis by an engaged community about the book, click here.
Reading the book opens your eyes to how powerful technology is and how it has transformed some economies from one of scarcity to one of abundance. It is written in a concise manner like most popular business books. The author goes overboard in trying to apply long tail to everything across the board. A very good analysis of the book and limitations of its application can be found here.
The book also mentions in passing that long tail might explain why mainstream indian movies(that is, mainstream with respect to audience within india), for all their fanatic following overseas, do not do well in those markets. Indian movie industry(on an aggregate basis in all languages) ,in its output,easily outstrips any other movie industry from any other corner of the world. Movies, in general, are in a format which do not impose prohibitive costs of entry into overseas markets. They include distribution costs and advertising. The indian diaspora are too scattered across the US for a distributor to make good profit on their investment and efficiently target them through advertising. Renting a theater space demands a higher audience than is available among indian diaspora in a specific location. The diaspora are exposed to hollywood entertainment and are sensitive to ticket prices. Some portions of these movies are made overseas. The paunchy hero in these movies is also pricey enough to make the producer drive a hard bargain with their distributor overseas. The appeal for an indian producer to distribute their movie to overseas indian audiences is partly driven by their desire to mitigate these rising costs.
When indian movies compete against movies on a general release in US, they do not do well. The producer of the indian movie gets his/her money's worth from a small overseas audience mainly because of exchange rate of dollar versus rupee. So, you have a DDLJ or KKKG that rake in money within the niche market and a Bride and prejudice that bleeds(In an act of mercy, it also sunk its light weight, acting challenged heroine as a capable actress). (Full disclosure : I have seen only DDLJ and have studiously kept away from the other two. Seeing Aishwarya act is a nightmare I prefer to live without).
The movies mentioned(and most of the mainstream indian movies that are released abroad, for that matter) portray the exclusivity of indian culture and market it to homesick overseas desis who get their validation fix from them. That non-indian audiences in some countries consider the indian culture portrayed in these movies as a reason to become fans of them, to me, is coincidental. The plight of tamil or telugu or bengali or malayalam movies compared to hindi movies in overseas markets can be explained in a similar manner.
A service like Netflix is useful for indian diaspora to peruse old movies.Streaming video or video on demand might liberate the indian producer from the tyranny of theater space and distribution costs. No longer do the indian diaspora need wait for grainy VHS tapes of their favourite movies to land in their 'friendly neighbourhood' indian grocery store.
The trick might be in identifying, targeting and aggregating the niche markets within each of these languages that are desperate for good movies. Indian diaspora watch movies from other countries in enough numbers to expect good movies from indian producers too. Given the vague feeling of indianness that pervades desi public, a producer might be able to succeed against competition from hollywood and independent segments, by focussing on the niche market of indian diaspora. However, the movies have to address issues the overseas diaspora is worried about. So, taking movies that become a hit in A,B,C centres in tamilnadu and in Loehmann's cinemas in virginia might become more untenable. Obviously, there will be producers who can bankroll marquee names of bollywood or kodambakkam and produce a movie that addresses both the segments. The probability that it will become a hit will only decrease further as the world 'flattens' more.
An example of such a movie might be Dil Chahta Hai that was one of the very few indian movies that addressed itself to a niche market of youth who are at ease with glossy vacations, working across nations and slightly complicated relationships. The producer could have tried to have it all by having Dimple's character recover from her illness and reunite with Akshay's character, with blessings from elders. Further more, there could have been a 'family' song included in the climax which Aamir's character sings(with a whiskey bottle for additional effect) to get Preity's character to accept him. That would have made it a conventional indian movie that is obsessed with repeating sequences that they perceive movie audiences across india will relate to, niches within that audience be damned. By focussing on the niche market, DCH were able to become a favourite of their target segment and maintain a brand image that very few indian movies have successfully achieved, in recent memory.
Reading the book opens your eyes to how powerful technology is and how it has transformed some economies from one of scarcity to one of abundance. It is written in a concise manner like most popular business books. The author goes overboard in trying to apply long tail to everything across the board. A very good analysis of the book and limitations of its application can be found here.
The book also mentions in passing that long tail might explain why mainstream indian movies(that is, mainstream with respect to audience within india), for all their fanatic following overseas, do not do well in those markets. Indian movie industry(on an aggregate basis in all languages) ,in its output,easily outstrips any other movie industry from any other corner of the world. Movies, in general, are in a format which do not impose prohibitive costs of entry into overseas markets. They include distribution costs and advertising. The indian diaspora are too scattered across the US for a distributor to make good profit on their investment and efficiently target them through advertising. Renting a theater space demands a higher audience than is available among indian diaspora in a specific location. The diaspora are exposed to hollywood entertainment and are sensitive to ticket prices. Some portions of these movies are made overseas. The paunchy hero in these movies is also pricey enough to make the producer drive a hard bargain with their distributor overseas. The appeal for an indian producer to distribute their movie to overseas indian audiences is partly driven by their desire to mitigate these rising costs.
When indian movies compete against movies on a general release in US, they do not do well. The producer of the indian movie gets his/her money's worth from a small overseas audience mainly because of exchange rate of dollar versus rupee. So, you have a DDLJ or KKKG that rake in money within the niche market and a Bride and prejudice that bleeds(In an act of mercy, it also sunk its light weight, acting challenged heroine as a capable actress). (Full disclosure : I have seen only DDLJ and have studiously kept away from the other two. Seeing Aishwarya act is a nightmare I prefer to live without).
The movies mentioned(and most of the mainstream indian movies that are released abroad, for that matter) portray the exclusivity of indian culture and market it to homesick overseas desis who get their validation fix from them. That non-indian audiences in some countries consider the indian culture portrayed in these movies as a reason to become fans of them, to me, is coincidental. The plight of tamil or telugu or bengali or malayalam movies compared to hindi movies in overseas markets can be explained in a similar manner.
A service like Netflix is useful for indian diaspora to peruse old movies.Streaming video or video on demand might liberate the indian producer from the tyranny of theater space and distribution costs. No longer do the indian diaspora need wait for grainy VHS tapes of their favourite movies to land in their 'friendly neighbourhood' indian grocery store.
The trick might be in identifying, targeting and aggregating the niche markets within each of these languages that are desperate for good movies. Indian diaspora watch movies from other countries in enough numbers to expect good movies from indian producers too. Given the vague feeling of indianness that pervades desi public, a producer might be able to succeed against competition from hollywood and independent segments, by focussing on the niche market of indian diaspora. However, the movies have to address issues the overseas diaspora is worried about. So, taking movies that become a hit in A,B,C centres in tamilnadu and in Loehmann's cinemas in virginia might become more untenable. Obviously, there will be producers who can bankroll marquee names of bollywood or kodambakkam and produce a movie that addresses both the segments. The probability that it will become a hit will only decrease further as the world 'flattens' more.
An example of such a movie might be Dil Chahta Hai that was one of the very few indian movies that addressed itself to a niche market of youth who are at ease with glossy vacations, working across nations and slightly complicated relationships. The producer could have tried to have it all by having Dimple's character recover from her illness and reunite with Akshay's character, with blessings from elders. Further more, there could have been a 'family' song included in the climax which Aamir's character sings(with a whiskey bottle for additional effect) to get Preity's character to accept him. That would have made it a conventional indian movie that is obsessed with repeating sequences that they perceive movie audiences across india will relate to, niches within that audience be damned. By focussing on the niche market, DCH were able to become a favourite of their target segment and maintain a brand image that very few indian movies have successfully achieved, in recent memory.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
India unbound
I finished reading this book by Gurcharan Das. It was written in 2001 and is his reflection on economic, social and political life in post independent india. He has an easy writing style that is engaging. That he has written a book pointing out flaws in the economic policies of holy cows of indian national politics, Nehru, Gandhi, Indira and Rajiv, is just icing on the cake for me. I do hold the Nehru family responsible for many ills plaguing India. That doesnt mean I excuse the rest of the country. It is just that, Nehru family had the opportunity to shape the future of millions of people and its track record is filled with lamentable failures. To hide behind years of public service, multiple assassinations and italian widows doesnt exonerate them from their abysmal economic record.
The book does lament a lot on how India, first under Nehru and then under Indira, moved away from a choice of communism or capitalism and chose a third path, 'mixed economy'. The one thing that we can be thankful is that Gandhi didnt get more say in the economic policy after independence. He would have insisted on his crackpot ideas, reason be damned. So, we would have had regression towards handicrafts and appropriate technologies. Ambedkar and Nehru were correct in slamming him for those fantasy theories. I dont have anything against handicrafts but to make them the driver of the economy would be suicide for a country as large and as needy as India. If they are done well, they could be a profitable sector, providing profits and sustenance to those who are good at it.
The economic policy after independence reflected the confusions and idealisms of Nehru as he went about fashioning India in his own image. As someone inimical to profit seeking motives, Nehru created a socialist hell that progressively got worse. While other asian countries realised the power of capitalism and provided their people a new lease of life, India languished on the sidelines with its moral righteousness, even as millions suffered. For Nehru, profit seeking motive represented a base concern. He proceeded to lay the foundation of an economy that actively stifled any entrepeneurial spirit among its merchants, traders and industrialists. By focussing on state backed import substitution instead of export promotion, Nehru showed a weakness of judgement about indian businessmen. There is some justification in Nehru's fear that, without protection after 1947, a nascent indian industry would be wiped out even before it got started. But his response to that fear was to have the state administer all aspects of business sphere. That might be one reason, to this day, India is a nation of laws that are implemented sporadically. Even the state has a limited amount of resources. You can print only so much money before it becomes worthless. The state after 1947 could have focussed on how to bring india's economy on par with other developing nations by setting the playing field within the country for economic activity and enforcing the regulations. But, Nehru decided to plunge the state into an orgy of building 'temples of modern india' a.k.a steel plants. Why was he so afraid of allowing businessmen to do what they do best, run a business seeking profit, use profit to live comfortably, pay their employees, invest in technological developments that improve profitability in the long run and close plants that are unprofitable ? Did he think Indians werent ready for changes that come with private industry ? Did he think the state should be a surrogate parent assuring its citizens jobs where you dont get fired ? How does someone improve their lot if they are doing a job where they know there is no penalty for not doing any work ? Where is the incentive ?
As the author points out, a businessman's focus on economic interests precludes rigidity in their thinking. They can afford to be rigid but then their business has a higher chance to go bankrupt. They might undercut their opposition but as long as the playing field is neutral, they will try to make money the best way they can. At least they provide a purpose where people get together and work for a common purpose. The state support immediately after independence allowed indian businessmen to produce shoddy products because (1) they were constrained in how much they could invest so research and development took a big hit (2) they couldnt set productivity goals for their employees that would serve to achieve progressively higher standards in production (3) They couldnt introduce new products if the market demanded it without approval from the bureaucracy that had only a vague idea of how industry worked and (4) Competition was minimal given the headaches suffered by anyone who wanted to start a business.
Then came Indira. If nothing else, she was smart in a no holds barred survival way. She proceeded to tighten the government policies that discouraged active investment in industry and made sure entrepeneurs were at the mercy of bureaucrats dispensing license permits. Her 'Garibi Hatao' slogan was devious as she should have known it was her government's policies that were causing 'garib' in the first place. She did win a war against pakistan and dismembered it in political sphere. Knowing her father's policies were wrong should have at least alerted Indira towards course correction in the economy but her political instincts probably took over and she decided to continue the short sighted policies that brought nothing but misery.
Obviously, indian people deserved a lot of blame for sticking with congress party this much. Yes, there were reasons why Congress was so successful for this long(power allowed them to build a dedicated base that did their bidding, they had the distribution network in the form of AIR and DD to put out their side of the story most of the time at minimal cost to themselves and so on). But, Congress should have been thrown out long time back for dragging india to the depths of default and ignominy. They have had their chances running on the platform of being the party that got us independence.
The book does lament a lot on how India, first under Nehru and then under Indira, moved away from a choice of communism or capitalism and chose a third path, 'mixed economy'. The one thing that we can be thankful is that Gandhi didnt get more say in the economic policy after independence. He would have insisted on his crackpot ideas, reason be damned. So, we would have had regression towards handicrafts and appropriate technologies. Ambedkar and Nehru were correct in slamming him for those fantasy theories. I dont have anything against handicrafts but to make them the driver of the economy would be suicide for a country as large and as needy as India. If they are done well, they could be a profitable sector, providing profits and sustenance to those who are good at it.
The economic policy after independence reflected the confusions and idealisms of Nehru as he went about fashioning India in his own image. As someone inimical to profit seeking motives, Nehru created a socialist hell that progressively got worse. While other asian countries realised the power of capitalism and provided their people a new lease of life, India languished on the sidelines with its moral righteousness, even as millions suffered. For Nehru, profit seeking motive represented a base concern. He proceeded to lay the foundation of an economy that actively stifled any entrepeneurial spirit among its merchants, traders and industrialists. By focussing on state backed import substitution instead of export promotion, Nehru showed a weakness of judgement about indian businessmen. There is some justification in Nehru's fear that, without protection after 1947, a nascent indian industry would be wiped out even before it got started. But his response to that fear was to have the state administer all aspects of business sphere. That might be one reason, to this day, India is a nation of laws that are implemented sporadically. Even the state has a limited amount of resources. You can print only so much money before it becomes worthless. The state after 1947 could have focussed on how to bring india's economy on par with other developing nations by setting the playing field within the country for economic activity and enforcing the regulations. But, Nehru decided to plunge the state into an orgy of building 'temples of modern india' a.k.a steel plants. Why was he so afraid of allowing businessmen to do what they do best, run a business seeking profit, use profit to live comfortably, pay their employees, invest in technological developments that improve profitability in the long run and close plants that are unprofitable ? Did he think Indians werent ready for changes that come with private industry ? Did he think the state should be a surrogate parent assuring its citizens jobs where you dont get fired ? How does someone improve their lot if they are doing a job where they know there is no penalty for not doing any work ? Where is the incentive ?
As the author points out, a businessman's focus on economic interests precludes rigidity in their thinking. They can afford to be rigid but then their business has a higher chance to go bankrupt. They might undercut their opposition but as long as the playing field is neutral, they will try to make money the best way they can. At least they provide a purpose where people get together and work for a common purpose. The state support immediately after independence allowed indian businessmen to produce shoddy products because (1) they were constrained in how much they could invest so research and development took a big hit (2) they couldnt set productivity goals for their employees that would serve to achieve progressively higher standards in production (3) They couldnt introduce new products if the market demanded it without approval from the bureaucracy that had only a vague idea of how industry worked and (4) Competition was minimal given the headaches suffered by anyone who wanted to start a business.
Then came Indira. If nothing else, she was smart in a no holds barred survival way. She proceeded to tighten the government policies that discouraged active investment in industry and made sure entrepeneurs were at the mercy of bureaucrats dispensing license permits. Her 'Garibi Hatao' slogan was devious as she should have known it was her government's policies that were causing 'garib' in the first place. She did win a war against pakistan and dismembered it in political sphere. Knowing her father's policies were wrong should have at least alerted Indira towards course correction in the economy but her political instincts probably took over and she decided to continue the short sighted policies that brought nothing but misery.
Obviously, indian people deserved a lot of blame for sticking with congress party this much. Yes, there were reasons why Congress was so successful for this long(power allowed them to build a dedicated base that did their bidding, they had the distribution network in the form of AIR and DD to put out their side of the story most of the time at minimal cost to themselves and so on). But, Congress should have been thrown out long time back for dragging india to the depths of default and ignominy. They have had their chances running on the platform of being the party that got us independence.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Hinduism and its deities
A deity is generally considered to be a supernatural power with anthropomorphic characteristics who/that actively takes interest in lives of humans on earth. All the major religions of today follow a deity who, as a rule, is vengeful and downright hypocritical and deserving of scorn and ridicule.
Since I have been brought up as a hindu, my focus has been on hinduism. People who used to follow christianity or islam and are now atheists, do a great job of pointing out flaws in those religions. Based on an unsupportable(through evidence or logic) concept renders religions open to criticism. Their support for hideous, malformed public policies only makes their position more vulnerable.
In hinduism, the various deities are manifestations of the ultimate reality or God. A hindu, by definition, believes in one of the various deities. The stories that address how these deities came about are interesting. There is always a narrative that ties the deity to the populace that invented it. Whether it is sivan, vishnu, murugan, ayyappan,parvati, lakshmi or favourite local deity, the mythology behind it reflects a fertile imagination of a populace that desires its deities to smite their enemies and embrace their friends. Because there has been no restriction on the number of deities, hinduism as a religion has been much more open to diversity among deities when compared to islam, christianity and judaism. So, you have bachelor deities(hanuman, vinayakan), philandering deities(krishnan, murugan), faithful husband/devoted son deity(raman), angry female deity(durgai and all the CGI ammans of tamil movies), rich female deity(lakshmi), geeky female deity(saraswathi), destructive deity with a mean streak(sivan), deity with scarcely believable powers(vishnu), multiple heads deity(brahma), dancing with the stars deity(nataraja). As long as they stay as myths, they can be addressed as such and their influence on daily lives of people mitigated. After all, there has been no evidence of all these deities being alive and having done all the things they are supposed to have done. However, a visit to any hindu household leads one to believe that hindus do believe these deities did all the things that were said about them and that their credibility is enough for them pray to these deities. There are enough examples of people visiting a temple before an exam or an interview or a cricket match or a particularly heinous crime to pray for success in their endeavour.
There are those who argue hinduism is merely a way of life, that it is just a reflection of beliefs and practices of people who lived below indus river and that it is open to intrepretation by those who follow it. Beliefs, however, do not make people build temples for their deities and anthropomorphise them in the hope of protection from unforeseen disasters(from people's perspective) make them religious in nature. A temple to khushboo is different in the sense it serves as an expression of appreciation for an actress from her fans. Did it have religious belief behind it in the sense that her fans thought khushboo could personally intervene in their lives and provide them protection from unforeseen disasters ? The farthest one can argue is that those fans believed khushboo brought joy in their dreams and hence, decided to convey their appreciation. A belief that vishnu will make jim carrey in dumb and dumber sing 'Paattum Naanae' with no introduction to tamil grammar can be classified as religious belief. The follower believes in a deity that owes its existence to the hindu concept of all things in this world. He/she also believes there exists a set of rules that specify how the deity can be placated when the follower receives notification the deity is angry. Take out the religious significance of the deity and the temple stands as piece of artistic expression.
In focussing on the intolerance of monotheistic religions, hindus gloss over the mistreatment and killing that they have indulged in, within hinduism and without. Some would argue that the killing of non hindus by hindus was done by kings who took advantage of gullible followers to achieve their foreign policy goals. So, any mention of chola dynasty's periodic ransacking of buddhist temples, willful killing of jainas in pandya dynasty and the periodic fights between saivites and vaishnavites are explained away by the well worn defense 'Hinduism per se is not bad. It is only the followers who are bad, especially when the followers are kings in need of justification for their conquests/rule'. But, what does one say about a religion whose deities are powerless to drive its message into its followers' heads ? If the deities are powerless, wouldnt the temples constructed in their honour be just pieces of artistic expression ? Would there be a whole set of people whose profession it is, to take care of those deities, to wash them properly, to dress them properly, make them presentable ? There are also people who point out islam killed as many, if not more people in india and ransacked enough temples as if islam's bad boy behaviour justifies hinduism's atrocities.
Hinduism survived in india because kings gave it patronage and financial succour. They levied taxes on people within their dominion so magnificient temples could be built and maintained. They encouraged poets in their courts to express devotion to their chosen deity. While kings can be accused of exploiting hindus based on their belief of a deity, what does it say of a religion/deity that allows itself to be exploited with no forms of redress ?
Since I have been brought up as a hindu, my focus has been on hinduism. People who used to follow christianity or islam and are now atheists, do a great job of pointing out flaws in those religions. Based on an unsupportable(through evidence or logic) concept renders religions open to criticism. Their support for hideous, malformed public policies only makes their position more vulnerable.
In hinduism, the various deities are manifestations of the ultimate reality or God. A hindu, by definition, believes in one of the various deities. The stories that address how these deities came about are interesting. There is always a narrative that ties the deity to the populace that invented it. Whether it is sivan, vishnu, murugan, ayyappan,parvati, lakshmi or favourite local deity, the mythology behind it reflects a fertile imagination of a populace that desires its deities to smite their enemies and embrace their friends. Because there has been no restriction on the number of deities, hinduism as a religion has been much more open to diversity among deities when compared to islam, christianity and judaism. So, you have bachelor deities(hanuman, vinayakan), philandering deities(krishnan, murugan), faithful husband/devoted son deity(raman), angry female deity(durgai and all the CGI ammans of tamil movies), rich female deity(lakshmi), geeky female deity(saraswathi), destructive deity with a mean streak(sivan), deity with scarcely believable powers(vishnu), multiple heads deity(brahma), dancing with the stars deity(nataraja). As long as they stay as myths, they can be addressed as such and their influence on daily lives of people mitigated. After all, there has been no evidence of all these deities being alive and having done all the things they are supposed to have done. However, a visit to any hindu household leads one to believe that hindus do believe these deities did all the things that were said about them and that their credibility is enough for them pray to these deities. There are enough examples of people visiting a temple before an exam or an interview or a cricket match or a particularly heinous crime to pray for success in their endeavour.
There are those who argue hinduism is merely a way of life, that it is just a reflection of beliefs and practices of people who lived below indus river and that it is open to intrepretation by those who follow it. Beliefs, however, do not make people build temples for their deities and anthropomorphise them in the hope of protection from unforeseen disasters(from people's perspective) make them religious in nature. A temple to khushboo is different in the sense it serves as an expression of appreciation for an actress from her fans. Did it have religious belief behind it in the sense that her fans thought khushboo could personally intervene in their lives and provide them protection from unforeseen disasters ? The farthest one can argue is that those fans believed khushboo brought joy in their dreams and hence, decided to convey their appreciation. A belief that vishnu will make jim carrey in dumb and dumber sing 'Paattum Naanae' with no introduction to tamil grammar can be classified as religious belief. The follower believes in a deity that owes its existence to the hindu concept of all things in this world. He/she also believes there exists a set of rules that specify how the deity can be placated when the follower receives notification the deity is angry. Take out the religious significance of the deity and the temple stands as piece of artistic expression.
In focussing on the intolerance of monotheistic religions, hindus gloss over the mistreatment and killing that they have indulged in, within hinduism and without. Some would argue that the killing of non hindus by hindus was done by kings who took advantage of gullible followers to achieve their foreign policy goals. So, any mention of chola dynasty's periodic ransacking of buddhist temples, willful killing of jainas in pandya dynasty and the periodic fights between saivites and vaishnavites are explained away by the well worn defense 'Hinduism per se is not bad. It is only the followers who are bad, especially when the followers are kings in need of justification for their conquests/rule'. But, what does one say about a religion whose deities are powerless to drive its message into its followers' heads ? If the deities are powerless, wouldnt the temples constructed in their honour be just pieces of artistic expression ? Would there be a whole set of people whose profession it is, to take care of those deities, to wash them properly, to dress them properly, make them presentable ? There are also people who point out islam killed as many, if not more people in india and ransacked enough temples as if islam's bad boy behaviour justifies hinduism's atrocities.
Hinduism survived in india because kings gave it patronage and financial succour. They levied taxes on people within their dominion so magnificient temples could be built and maintained. They encouraged poets in their courts to express devotion to their chosen deity. While kings can be accused of exploiting hindus based on their belief of a deity, what does it say of a religion/deity that allows itself to be exploited with no forms of redress ?
Monday, March 13, 2006
Legend of Suriyothai
I saw the legend of suriyothai(LS) at last. This is not a movie review. These are observations of the two cultures(thai(ancient siam) and indian(ancient cholas)) that at some point in history were very much interconnected.
Suriyothai, for indians might resonate more like Rani of Jhansi. They are in different positions. In modern terms rani of jhansi would have been a very dynamic single mother who happened to have a kingdom at her disposal. Suriyothai has more protection in the form of a husband who dotes on her and a commander who was her lover during her childhood. She sacrifices her life in the battle with the burmese to save her husband's life.
I wonder at one similarity between LS and ponniyin selvan. Two princesses that are mirror images of each other scheming against each other. Kundhavai and nandhini in ponniyin selvan and Suriyothai and Srisudachan on the other. Similarity of nandhini and srisudachan is very striking. Both of them have husbands who are very powerful but are completely under their wives' influence. Both the husbands realize their folly just as they are about to become irrelevant through death. Both of them actively use their sexuality to get what they want. Both of them end up on the wrong side in the end.
There were times in the movie when the military commander was referred to as senathipathi which is also the tamil term for military commander. Then there were the names. Ayuththaya(ayodhya), athitaya(athithya),suriyothai(suriyothayam). There was the way of prostrating before the emperor or before someone of a higher status than you.
In tamil culture, people pay respect by falling on the ground with their foreheads, knees and toes touching the ground and their arms extended over their head and towards the person they are paying respect to(take a look at any tamilnadu government minister whenever little elephant JJ is in power. Those ministers could have submitted a research paper on soil consistency given the amount of time they spent on the ground). In the movie, people pay their respects by falling on the ground in almost similar fashion but with the hip rather than the knee touching the ground. Son instead of falling headlong on the ground, they have sideways tilt when they are lying on the ground. One addition seems to be the approach. They move on their knees towards the person they are paying respects.
Just goes to show how sometimes looking with rose tinted glasses at achievements of ancient cultures doesnt work well. They were cultures that actively subjugated their people and you were very much under the control of the royal family. How, what, when were all governed by what the royal famiuly could and couldnt find out.
Suriyothai, for indians might resonate more like Rani of Jhansi. They are in different positions. In modern terms rani of jhansi would have been a very dynamic single mother who happened to have a kingdom at her disposal. Suriyothai has more protection in the form of a husband who dotes on her and a commander who was her lover during her childhood. She sacrifices her life in the battle with the burmese to save her husband's life.
I wonder at one similarity between LS and ponniyin selvan. Two princesses that are mirror images of each other scheming against each other. Kundhavai and nandhini in ponniyin selvan and Suriyothai and Srisudachan on the other. Similarity of nandhini and srisudachan is very striking. Both of them have husbands who are very powerful but are completely under their wives' influence. Both the husbands realize their folly just as they are about to become irrelevant through death. Both of them actively use their sexuality to get what they want. Both of them end up on the wrong side in the end.
There were times in the movie when the military commander was referred to as senathipathi which is also the tamil term for military commander. Then there were the names. Ayuththaya(ayodhya), athitaya(athithya),suriyothai(suriyothayam). There was the way of prostrating before the emperor or before someone of a higher status than you.
In tamil culture, people pay respect by falling on the ground with their foreheads, knees and toes touching the ground and their arms extended over their head and towards the person they are paying respect to(take a look at any tamilnadu government minister whenever little elephant JJ is in power. Those ministers could have submitted a research paper on soil consistency given the amount of time they spent on the ground). In the movie, people pay their respects by falling on the ground in almost similar fashion but with the hip rather than the knee touching the ground. Son instead of falling headlong on the ground, they have sideways tilt when they are lying on the ground. One addition seems to be the approach. They move on their knees towards the person they are paying respects.
Just goes to show how sometimes looking with rose tinted glasses at achievements of ancient cultures doesnt work well. They were cultures that actively subjugated their people and you were very much under the control of the royal family. How, what, when were all governed by what the royal famiuly could and couldnt find out.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Why, oh why ?
*************Spoiler warning****************************************
Saw the tamil movie Kanaa kandaen (Had a dream). Slickly packaged movie.
The storyline is about how the hero, who has a doctorate from anna university, comes up with a cheapo plan for desalination of water thereby supplying singara chennai with potable water. The traditional banks turn down his application pointing to hare brainedness of the idea. In steps the villain, who happens to be the heroine's classmate from college who offers to fund the model plant. As it turns out, he is one of those lenders who charges exorbitant rates and uses it to get favours of different sorts from the lendees(is this a word?). The finale of the movie is how tamil movie justice is rendered to the villain.
The hero seems to be mired in socialist era thinking of giving away this technology for free which begs the question, how stupid can our heroes be portrayed ? If he is going to give it for free, why would a bank even entertain a loan ? Where would he get the money to pay the loan back? Then again, he is the hero of a tamil movie. He probably is not bright enough to think that way. Taking creative license, the director puts the desalination plant on the beach, as if to say 'If the lack of economic funda doesnt kill the plant, a well-directed tsunami will'. The only reason for putting the plant on the beach was to ensure geographic proximity of sea water supply plus the ready availability of land from the hero's professor. On the flip side, there is the slight matter of screwing up with the environment and public property.
Heroines in tamil movies have always swayed between revolutionaries(usually directed by balachander or someone with a marxist bent(or name), making about .01%) or as sexpots(99.99% of the movies). Here, the director seems to be paying lip service to all those revolutionary characters and at the same time, uses words very effectively to reduce them to sexpots. The revolutionary portion gets over quickly when the heroine sneaks out(with lots of help from her long suffering and sacrificing tamil movie mom
) of her wedding ceremony with the hero to lead a new life in chennai. Hero and heroine have sex before their marriage and casually saunter to the registration office to get married. That was different about this movie. Some sequences would make an entire tamil movie. That puts an end to the revolutionary side of things. On the flip side, there is the usage of the word rape many times to signify the lust between the hero and heroine. How low can tamil movies get ? There is a way to show sensual love between them and using the word rape is definitely not the way to go. The heroine character is showed as chiding the hero for being gentle during the supposed rape. Maybe this is what tamilians keep talking about when they refer to their classical tamil culture(kushboo's comment on premarital sex).
Tamil movies have long used the madonna whore syndrome in characterization of female characters(ignoring mom characters for now). Depending on the storyline, the female characters are divided into those 2 categories. In case of a movie that has only rural background, the heroine is usually clothed from head to toe. The vamp is usually someone with very small chance of landing the hero but a 100% chance of a item number. If it is a story that moves between rural and urban, 9.9 times out of 10, the rural girl is the repository of all the clothing and modesty tamil culture has to offer. The urban girl in this case is usually the projection of the director's fantasies as to what he thinks of women who have made the slightest attempt to be independent themselves. So for every revathy, suvalakshmi,sangeetha there are 5 or more anuradhas, silk smithas, mumtaz...That could also explain the item number concept in tamil movies.
While I can see the marketing reason behind the female characterizations, the item song(target the 18 - ?? male demographic), the producer should also take into account the final product is poorer because of it. It loses out on exploring and showing the female characters closer to real life in tamilnadu. For heavens' sakes, there are enough strong women in tamilnadu and tamil culture in general. The producer might also be losing out economically because of the lack of interest in such a movie from the female base. What started as brilliant marketing from MGR has now been degraded thoroughly.
MGR focussed on the thaaikkulam when that market was wide open. MK(Karunanidhi) and Anna had focussed on tamil literate populations which given the state tamilnadu was in, skewed heavily towards men from 18 onwards. MGR branded himself as the champion of the thaaikkulam and prominently referred to them in his movies. And tamilnadu womenfolk responded by sweeping him to power(Of course, history is never that simple but for the present analysis, I have omitted some details). His movies portrayed thaaikkulam as worthy of respect. He was smart to recognize the effect it would have on the above 18 male base. So, he had female characters that ended up being lectured on screen on tamil culture's traditions by a malayali actor, no less. The lecture came after the female character had danced around in a skimpy and suggestive dress. At the end of his career, he too resorted to the same gimmicks as can be found now. I cannot believe how bad tamil audiences could be. They made hits of movies that had a doddering MGR describing his heroines in songs that would be apt for an adult certificate. The directors and actors who came after him copied those successful methods. Once the times changed, more and more women moved away from the thaaikkulam base. However, tamil directors/producers/actors, being the bright guys they were, kept focussing on the smaller and smaller target group.
Coming back to this movie, the heroine(gopika) plays the madonna portion once we can see past the premarital sex thingy. The hero's professor, a lady, plays the educated urban lady who is much more open. In tamil movie dictionary, that opens her character for all kinds of sexual innuendos that do not get directed towards the heroine character.
The one good thing was the villainy by Prithviraj (malayalam actor). The whole character is 'Dont get angry, get even' kind of one who is forced to get angry at the end because tamil movie storylines demand the hero triumph even if he does everything wrong.
Maybe one of these days, we might see a tamil movie where the female and male characters are closer to real life and not cardboard expressions of the directors' long lost fantasies.
Saw the tamil movie Kanaa kandaen (Had a dream). Slickly packaged movie.
The storyline is about how the hero, who has a doctorate from anna university, comes up with a cheapo plan for desalination of water thereby supplying singara chennai with potable water. The traditional banks turn down his application pointing to hare brainedness of the idea. In steps the villain, who happens to be the heroine's classmate from college who offers to fund the model plant. As it turns out, he is one of those lenders who charges exorbitant rates and uses it to get favours of different sorts from the lendees(is this a word?). The finale of the movie is how tamil movie justice is rendered to the villain.
The hero seems to be mired in socialist era thinking of giving away this technology for free which begs the question, how stupid can our heroes be portrayed ? If he is going to give it for free, why would a bank even entertain a loan ? Where would he get the money to pay the loan back? Then again, he is the hero of a tamil movie. He probably is not bright enough to think that way. Taking creative license, the director puts the desalination plant on the beach, as if to say 'If the lack of economic funda doesnt kill the plant, a well-directed tsunami will'. The only reason for putting the plant on the beach was to ensure geographic proximity of sea water supply plus the ready availability of land from the hero's professor. On the flip side, there is the slight matter of screwing up with the environment and public property.
Heroines in tamil movies have always swayed between revolutionaries(usually directed by balachander or someone with a marxist bent(or name), making about .01%) or as sexpots(99.99% of the movies). Here, the director seems to be paying lip service to all those revolutionary characters and at the same time, uses words very effectively to reduce them to sexpots. The revolutionary portion gets over quickly when the heroine sneaks out(with lots of help from her long suffering and sacrificing tamil movie mom
) of her wedding ceremony with the hero to lead a new life in chennai. Hero and heroine have sex before their marriage and casually saunter to the registration office to get married. That was different about this movie. Some sequences would make an entire tamil movie. That puts an end to the revolutionary side of things. On the flip side, there is the usage of the word rape many times to signify the lust between the hero and heroine. How low can tamil movies get ? There is a way to show sensual love between them and using the word rape is definitely not the way to go. The heroine character is showed as chiding the hero for being gentle during the supposed rape. Maybe this is what tamilians keep talking about when they refer to their classical tamil culture(kushboo's comment on premarital sex).
Tamil movies have long used the madonna whore syndrome in characterization of female characters(ignoring mom characters for now). Depending on the storyline, the female characters are divided into those 2 categories. In case of a movie that has only rural background, the heroine is usually clothed from head to toe. The vamp is usually someone with very small chance of landing the hero but a 100% chance of a item number. If it is a story that moves between rural and urban, 9.9 times out of 10, the rural girl is the repository of all the clothing and modesty tamil culture has to offer. The urban girl in this case is usually the projection of the director's fantasies as to what he thinks of women who have made the slightest attempt to be independent themselves. So for every revathy, suvalakshmi,sangeetha there are 5 or more anuradhas, silk smithas, mumtaz...That could also explain the item number concept in tamil movies.
While I can see the marketing reason behind the female characterizations, the item song(target the 18 - ?? male demographic), the producer should also take into account the final product is poorer because of it. It loses out on exploring and showing the female characters closer to real life in tamilnadu. For heavens' sakes, there are enough strong women in tamilnadu and tamil culture in general. The producer might also be losing out economically because of the lack of interest in such a movie from the female base. What started as brilliant marketing from MGR has now been degraded thoroughly.
MGR focussed on the thaaikkulam when that market was wide open. MK(Karunanidhi) and Anna had focussed on tamil literate populations which given the state tamilnadu was in, skewed heavily towards men from 18 onwards. MGR branded himself as the champion of the thaaikkulam and prominently referred to them in his movies. And tamilnadu womenfolk responded by sweeping him to power(Of course, history is never that simple but for the present analysis, I have omitted some details). His movies portrayed thaaikkulam as worthy of respect. He was smart to recognize the effect it would have on the above 18 male base. So, he had female characters that ended up being lectured on screen on tamil culture's traditions by a malayali actor, no less. The lecture came after the female character had danced around in a skimpy and suggestive dress. At the end of his career, he too resorted to the same gimmicks as can be found now. I cannot believe how bad tamil audiences could be. They made hits of movies that had a doddering MGR describing his heroines in songs that would be apt for an adult certificate. The directors and actors who came after him copied those successful methods. Once the times changed, more and more women moved away from the thaaikkulam base. However, tamil directors/producers/actors, being the bright guys they were, kept focussing on the smaller and smaller target group.
Coming back to this movie, the heroine(gopika) plays the madonna portion once we can see past the premarital sex thingy. The hero's professor, a lady, plays the educated urban lady who is much more open. In tamil movie dictionary, that opens her character for all kinds of sexual innuendos that do not get directed towards the heroine character.
The one good thing was the villainy by Prithviraj (malayalam actor). The whole character is 'Dont get angry, get even' kind of one who is forced to get angry at the end because tamil movie storylines demand the hero triumph even if he does everything wrong.
Maybe one of these days, we might see a tamil movie where the female and male characters are closer to real life and not cardboard expressions of the directors' long lost fantasies.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
Vedham Puthithu
Movie Review of Vedham Puthithu :
Actors/Actresses : Satyaraj, Saritha, Amala, Raja, Nizhalgal Ravi, Charuhaasan, Janakaraj
Direction : Bharathiraaja
This is a movie that comes close to being called a classic. From the voiceover of Bharathiraaja at the start of the movie about the reasoning behind the movie to the final exclamation of Satyaraj's character 'Balungra manithan Vaidegi enra ponnaiyum shankaran enra payyanaiyum valarkka virumbaran.....(Paraphrased - A humanbeing called Balu wants to bring up a daughter named vaidehi and a son named shankaran), this movie is hard hitting in its portrayal of casteism in indian culture.
Synoposis : Satyaraj plays atheist Balu Thevar, the headman of a village that is the microcosm of india with its superstitions, religions, castes. He is illiterate but comes up with pithy one liners on the pernicious effect of god/religion/caste on fellow villagers. His son, played by raja, comes back to the village after finishing his college education and follows the tamil movie hero script of going after the village priest's daughter played by amala who responds in kind. The village priest seeing the turn of events, decides to marry his daughter off as second wife to a brahmin guy than see her the sole wife of the village headman's son. Amala' s character escapes when going for the marriage and fakes her own death hoping to stop the marriage. The marriage party returns thinking she is dead. The village priest vents his frustration on the headman's son as the cause of his daughter's death and during the altercation, both slip over a precipice and die. The son of the village priest now becomes an orphan and is ostracised by the brahmin community of the village. The headman takes pity on the son and takes him in. The village priest's daughter comes back and is accused by the village of being a bad omen. She takes refuge in the headman's house and is reunited with her brother. The villagers in their fury kill the headman. The movie ends with a message of hope about removing casteism in the next generation.
Thoughts :
Satyaraj was excellent in the role showing the pride of an atheist who is up against the entire god-fearing village. He looks suitably chastened when the priest's son asks him the question about his name.(Balu-ngrathu unga paeru, thevar-ngrathu neenga padichu vaangiya pattamaa ? - Balu is your name, is thevar an educational degree ?). The line is placed very well in the flow of the movie and shows that someone claiming to be an atheist might not be a whole lot more rational than a theist. Of course, he has the choicest lines in the movie whether it is needling every religious person with the needlessness of god or explaining to his son, why he doesnt prefer him to chant mantras or his arguments with the priest. He has given a restrained performance and combined with those famous nakkal dialogues, makes him the character in the movie to watch.
Saritha has a smaller role than some of her famous roles and she breezes through it. She plays an ideal foil to Satyaraj as his very religious wife who goes behind his back to ensure the well being of her son through offerings to gods.
Amala and Raja satisfy the romance portion of the movie. I think this was the first movie where raja plays the loser role to perfection(thinking about it, his entire career is one long list of loser roles. Either his love interest dies or leaves him or he dies before their love gets anywhere). Amala performs her role well considering that she mainly is known for eye candy roles. Her tamil diction is kind of grating but nowhere close to what one hears nowadays.
Janakaraj is the villain in the movie. Bharatiraaja could have done a much better job of developing this character considering his importance to the screenplay. Hence, he comes across as a cardboard character when compared with Satyaraj's character.
Charuhaasan continues his role as always, the brahmin priest who holds onto his rules and rituals inspite of a changing world and losing his life in the middle of the movie.
The movie is consistent in its attack on casteism,god, religion. What is normal for a tamil movie(an invocation to God at the start of the movie) is glaring in this movie. The village headmand character is harsh on god, organized religion and caste. Some of the lines are extremely powerful. Paraphrased examples,
'Thappu pannittu saami kitta mannippu ketkareenga. Oru manithan kitta innoru manithan mannippu ketka saami ethukku ?' (you(people who worship god) ask for forgiveness for your sins to fellow man to a god. I would ask for forgiveness from another man. Where is god needed in this ?)
When arguing with brahmins about including the orphaned son of the village priest in avani avittam, the brahmins point out how the vedas specify who are brahmins and who are not. The headman's rejoinder is absolutely delightful as he points out the hollowness of those arguments. Fascinating.
When he pacifies a meeting where each caste attacked the other in a shouting match, his question towards the brahmins is very much valid. If brahmins insist(as most of them do) on being the enlightened lot of castes in general, why is it that they are so narrow minded as to follow caste system in the first place ?
The almost fanatical insistence of the village headman on approaching every issue from a humanistic point of view versus a religious point of view shows up in his dialogues.
The staple of bharatiraaja's movies are there, the treatment of romance. Whether it is amala licking off the pongal off her fingers or the whole sequence involving the handkerchief, the director shows something sensitive in his treatment of the romance.
I thought this would be a movie I wouldnt like given it has been almost 20 years since the movie came out.
Actors/Actresses : Satyaraj, Saritha, Amala, Raja, Nizhalgal Ravi, Charuhaasan, Janakaraj
Direction : Bharathiraaja
This is a movie that comes close to being called a classic. From the voiceover of Bharathiraaja at the start of the movie about the reasoning behind the movie to the final exclamation of Satyaraj's character 'Balungra manithan Vaidegi enra ponnaiyum shankaran enra payyanaiyum valarkka virumbaran.....(Paraphrased - A humanbeing called Balu wants to bring up a daughter named vaidehi and a son named shankaran), this movie is hard hitting in its portrayal of casteism in indian culture.
Synoposis : Satyaraj plays atheist Balu Thevar, the headman of a village that is the microcosm of india with its superstitions, religions, castes. He is illiterate but comes up with pithy one liners on the pernicious effect of god/religion/caste on fellow villagers. His son, played by raja, comes back to the village after finishing his college education and follows the tamil movie hero script of going after the village priest's daughter played by amala who responds in kind. The village priest seeing the turn of events, decides to marry his daughter off as second wife to a brahmin guy than see her the sole wife of the village headman's son. Amala' s character escapes when going for the marriage and fakes her own death hoping to stop the marriage. The marriage party returns thinking she is dead. The village priest vents his frustration on the headman's son as the cause of his daughter's death and during the altercation, both slip over a precipice and die. The son of the village priest now becomes an orphan and is ostracised by the brahmin community of the village. The headman takes pity on the son and takes him in. The village priest's daughter comes back and is accused by the village of being a bad omen. She takes refuge in the headman's house and is reunited with her brother. The villagers in their fury kill the headman. The movie ends with a message of hope about removing casteism in the next generation.
Thoughts :
Satyaraj was excellent in the role showing the pride of an atheist who is up against the entire god-fearing village. He looks suitably chastened when the priest's son asks him the question about his name.(Balu-ngrathu unga paeru, thevar-ngrathu neenga padichu vaangiya pattamaa ? - Balu is your name, is thevar an educational degree ?). The line is placed very well in the flow of the movie and shows that someone claiming to be an atheist might not be a whole lot more rational than a theist. Of course, he has the choicest lines in the movie whether it is needling every religious person with the needlessness of god or explaining to his son, why he doesnt prefer him to chant mantras or his arguments with the priest. He has given a restrained performance and combined with those famous nakkal dialogues, makes him the character in the movie to watch.
Saritha has a smaller role than some of her famous roles and she breezes through it. She plays an ideal foil to Satyaraj as his very religious wife who goes behind his back to ensure the well being of her son through offerings to gods.
Amala and Raja satisfy the romance portion of the movie. I think this was the first movie where raja plays the loser role to perfection(thinking about it, his entire career is one long list of loser roles. Either his love interest dies or leaves him or he dies before their love gets anywhere). Amala performs her role well considering that she mainly is known for eye candy roles. Her tamil diction is kind of grating but nowhere close to what one hears nowadays.
Janakaraj is the villain in the movie. Bharatiraaja could have done a much better job of developing this character considering his importance to the screenplay. Hence, he comes across as a cardboard character when compared with Satyaraj's character.
Charuhaasan continues his role as always, the brahmin priest who holds onto his rules and rituals inspite of a changing world and losing his life in the middle of the movie.
The movie is consistent in its attack on casteism,god, religion. What is normal for a tamil movie(an invocation to God at the start of the movie) is glaring in this movie. The village headmand character is harsh on god, organized religion and caste. Some of the lines are extremely powerful. Paraphrased examples,
'Thappu pannittu saami kitta mannippu ketkareenga. Oru manithan kitta innoru manithan mannippu ketka saami ethukku ?' (you(people who worship god) ask for forgiveness for your sins to fellow man to a god. I would ask for forgiveness from another man. Where is god needed in this ?)
When arguing with brahmins about including the orphaned son of the village priest in avani avittam, the brahmins point out how the vedas specify who are brahmins and who are not. The headman's rejoinder is absolutely delightful as he points out the hollowness of those arguments. Fascinating.
When he pacifies a meeting where each caste attacked the other in a shouting match, his question towards the brahmins is very much valid. If brahmins insist(as most of them do) on being the enlightened lot of castes in general, why is it that they are so narrow minded as to follow caste system in the first place ?
The almost fanatical insistence of the village headman on approaching every issue from a humanistic point of view versus a religious point of view shows up in his dialogues.
The staple of bharatiraaja's movies are there, the treatment of romance. Whether it is amala licking off the pongal off her fingers or the whole sequence involving the handkerchief, the director shows something sensitive in his treatment of the romance.
I thought this would be a movie I wouldnt like given it has been almost 20 years since the movie came out.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Ponniyin Selvan on screen
*******************Ponniyin Selvan Spoiler Warning*********************
I am traversing the well worn path of every reader of PS after they have read it. After all, the movie craze among tamilians might be one reason why the second question after reading PS is'What will be the cast of characters if PS was made into a tamil movie using the current crop of actors/actresses ?' (The first is the obvious 'Who killed Aadiththa Karikaalan ?')
Given the scope of the novel, I think it will be tough to take PS as a single movie. Instead, they should focus on 3 - 5 part movie like LOTR. Then again, most of PS is spent on descriptions and historical references and that way, it might end up being shorter than that with all the non-events packaged into bonus section of the DVD.
If there was to be a movie made of PS, my ideal would be new faces in all aspects of movie. That would provide the most vibrant on screen version of PS. Someone can conduct PS idol like American Idol asking people to audition for these once-in-a-lifetime roles. Also, famous directos/music directors/lyricists/actors/actresses would have their popularity baggage. (If PS was made into a movie, it has to stand for its story and not because Kamal croons like a dying peacock in the role of Sundara Chozhan on hearing news of Aadiththa Karikaalan's death)
Now, onto the casting :
Director - Cheran or Thankar Bachchan or Bharathiraaja
Music Director - ARR or YSR or Harris Jeyaraj
Camera - P.C.Sriram or Thiru(I think he was the cameraman for Hey Ram) or Ravi K Chandran
Art Direction - Thotta Tharani or Sabu Cyril(those are the only two names I know)
Main roles :
Vanthiyathevan - Surya or Saif (They wont measure up anyway to the character in the book)
Arulmozhi varman - Prashanth (Goody two shoes character - doesnt require much acting)
Aadiththa Karikaalan - Vikram or Aamir (Probably the most complex character in the book)
Madhuraanthakan - Suresh Gopi or Jayaram
Saenthan Amuthan - Vineet(Fits the role to a 'T')
Paarthibaendran - Paarthiban(Namesake) or Manoj K Jayan
Kandhamaran - Arunpandiyan(Cant visualize anyone else for this character)
Peria Pazhuvaettaraiyar - Saayaaji Shinde or Mammootty (Both look regal and look the
part)
Chinna Pazhuvaettaraiyar - Nasser or Ranjith(Both can act well and have the build for the
role)
Sundara Chozhan - Kamal(He can sit through the entire movie with very little to do)
Aazhwaarkadiyaan - Mohanlal(Role requires all round talent)
Poonguzhali - Nandita Das - She is interchangeable as Kundhavai - Cant think of any other
actresses for this role
Kundhavai - Tabu - She is interchangeable as Poonguzhali - Cant think of any other actresses
for this role
Nandhini - Simran or Bipasha(Havent seen bipasha's movies so cannot decide about her acting
but as seductress she fits the bill perfectly) - Requires loads of
talent
Sembian Maadevi - Ramya Krishnan
Vaanathi - Aishwarya Rai(Requires very less acting other than fluttering her eyelashes, looking
dreamy and staring at the ground)
Manimeghalai - Shalini(if ajith can consent) or Kajol(if ajay devgan can consent) - Requires some
acting
I am traversing the well worn path of every reader of PS after they have read it. After all, the movie craze among tamilians might be one reason why the second question after reading PS is'What will be the cast of characters if PS was made into a tamil movie using the current crop of actors/actresses ?' (The first is the obvious 'Who killed Aadiththa Karikaalan ?')
Given the scope of the novel, I think it will be tough to take PS as a single movie. Instead, they should focus on 3 - 5 part movie like LOTR. Then again, most of PS is spent on descriptions and historical references and that way, it might end up being shorter than that with all the non-events packaged into bonus section of the DVD.
If there was to be a movie made of PS, my ideal would be new faces in all aspects of movie. That would provide the most vibrant on screen version of PS. Someone can conduct PS idol like American Idol asking people to audition for these once-in-a-lifetime roles. Also, famous directos/music directors/lyricists/actors/actresses would have their popularity baggage. (If PS was made into a movie, it has to stand for its story and not because Kamal croons like a dying peacock in the role of Sundara Chozhan on hearing news of Aadiththa Karikaalan's death)
Now, onto the casting :
Director - Cheran or Thankar Bachchan or Bharathiraaja
Music Director - ARR or YSR or Harris Jeyaraj
Camera - P.C.Sriram or Thiru(I think he was the cameraman for Hey Ram) or Ravi K Chandran
Art Direction - Thotta Tharani or Sabu Cyril(those are the only two names I know)
Main roles :
Vanthiyathevan - Surya or Saif (They wont measure up anyway to the character in the book)
Arulmozhi varman - Prashanth (Goody two shoes character - doesnt require much acting)
Aadiththa Karikaalan - Vikram or Aamir (Probably the most complex character in the book)
Madhuraanthakan - Suresh Gopi or Jayaram
Saenthan Amuthan - Vineet(Fits the role to a 'T')
Paarthibaendran - Paarthiban(Namesake) or Manoj K Jayan
Kandhamaran - Arunpandiyan(Cant visualize anyone else for this character)
Peria Pazhuvaettaraiyar - Saayaaji Shinde or Mammootty (Both look regal and look the
part)
Chinna Pazhuvaettaraiyar - Nasser or Ranjith(Both can act well and have the build for the
role)
Sundara Chozhan - Kamal(He can sit through the entire movie with very little to do)
Aazhwaarkadiyaan - Mohanlal(Role requires all round talent)
Poonguzhali - Nandita Das - She is interchangeable as Kundhavai - Cant think of any other
actresses for this role
Kundhavai - Tabu - She is interchangeable as Poonguzhali - Cant think of any other actresses
for this role
Nandhini - Simran or Bipasha(Havent seen bipasha's movies so cannot decide about her acting
but as seductress she fits the bill perfectly) - Requires loads of
talent
Sembian Maadevi - Ramya Krishnan
Vaanathi - Aishwarya Rai(Requires very less acting other than fluttering her eyelashes, looking
dreamy and staring at the ground)
Manimeghalai - Shalini(if ajith can consent) or Kajol(if ajay devgan can consent) - Requires some
acting
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Ponniyin Selvan
*************************Ponniyin Selvan Spoiler Warning************************
Just completed reading Ponniyin selvan. I now realize why readers are so addicted to this book. I was so into the book all I did for past 2 weeks was come home from work and read that pillow size novel. The time I spent away from working out might have been compensated by the strain on my arms holding up that book.
Kalki has done a tremendous job maintaining the interest of the reader. The only blemish I can find is the almost cloying treatment he gives towards organized religion pounding the reader into submission on the goodness of god and the righteousness of saivite/vaishnavite philosophy.
As he says in epilogue of the book, there is so much potential for many more ponniyin selvan type novels if only people of tamilnadu paid attention to their history. The attention to detail he has paid in describing pazhaiyaarai, thanjavur, anuradhapura(srilanka) is breathtaking. Of course, given the focus of the novel on chola history, pandiyas become the villains. They are painted with a not-so-positive nature throughout. Reading the novel makes me realize what a sorry excuse CBSE history books are on local history. Other than a passing reference to Thanjavur peria kovil/raja raja chola, not much is present on providing the incredible details on the intricacies and traps of chera-chola-pandiya-pallava politics.
The sheer variety in treatment of love is enough to hold anyone's attention. My favourite is vanthiyathevan kunthavai relationship. The pressures of a relationship between an accidental spy and a smart princess who fall for each other is so beautifully brought out by kalki. He has delineated the difference between the attraction/admiration vanthiyathevan feels for nandhini versus kunthavai. Their conversations reminded me of the conversation between eowyn and faramir in lord of the rings with its mixture of poetry and romance.
Obsessive relationships abound in this story. Whether it is peria pazhuvattaraiyar/karikalan/kanthamaran/paarthibaendran-nandhini, manimeghalai-vanthiyathevan, poonguzhali/vanathi-arulmozhi, the one sided nature of those relationships(except for the late almost abrupt change in vanathi-arulmozhi relationship) assures their demise.
The notable female characters poonguzhali, kunthavai and nandhini, all are much more complex than in sivakamiyin sabatham where sivakami pretty one dimensional character pining away for narasimhavarman. Poonguzhali wants to be a queen and gets her wish in the end even though not in the way she wanted it. Kunthavai and Nandhini are two sides of the same coin as it turns out later in the story. Because the story turns out to be of cholas, kunthavai comes out looking good whereas Nandhini turns out to be the poisonous one.
The story can be read through the lens of most of the major characters. Maybe , in the future, there will be discourses on vanthiyathevan's ponniyin selvan versus poonguzhali's ponniyin selvan versus kunthavai's ponniyin selvan.
I was impressed with the historical references kalki pointed out about kunthavai-vanthiyathevan. Maybe thanjavaur peria kovil will have those inscriptions till I get time to read it. The order of succession of cholas is another. The detailed descriptions of how chola kings died is incredible.
The tamil words used in some of the inscriptions that kalki referred to were difficult to understand. Maybe I have been using chennai tamil a lot that senthamizh is no longer understandable.
Unforgettable sections :
The killing of karikalan
Every discussion between vanthiyathevan and kundhavai
Every discussion between vanthiyathevan and nandhini
Everytime kalki digresses on tamil history
Poonguzhali's character development as a girl unafraid of anyone or anything(till at the end , kalki marries her off to saenthan amuthan)
Forgettable sections :
The forced relationship between vanathi and arulmozhi(Historically, they might have been a couple but their treatment in the story didnt rise upto vanthiyathevan/kundhavai)
The forced turnaround of poonguzhali marrying saenthan amuthan after expressing her desire for arulmozhi
Just completed reading Ponniyin selvan. I now realize why readers are so addicted to this book. I was so into the book all I did for past 2 weeks was come home from work and read that pillow size novel. The time I spent away from working out might have been compensated by the strain on my arms holding up that book.
Kalki has done a tremendous job maintaining the interest of the reader. The only blemish I can find is the almost cloying treatment he gives towards organized religion pounding the reader into submission on the goodness of god and the righteousness of saivite/vaishnavite philosophy.
As he says in epilogue of the book, there is so much potential for many more ponniyin selvan type novels if only people of tamilnadu paid attention to their history. The attention to detail he has paid in describing pazhaiyaarai, thanjavur, anuradhapura(srilanka) is breathtaking. Of course, given the focus of the novel on chola history, pandiyas become the villains. They are painted with a not-so-positive nature throughout. Reading the novel makes me realize what a sorry excuse CBSE history books are on local history. Other than a passing reference to Thanjavur peria kovil/raja raja chola, not much is present on providing the incredible details on the intricacies and traps of chera-chola-pandiya-pallava politics.
The sheer variety in treatment of love is enough to hold anyone's attention. My favourite is vanthiyathevan kunthavai relationship. The pressures of a relationship between an accidental spy and a smart princess who fall for each other is so beautifully brought out by kalki. He has delineated the difference between the attraction/admiration vanthiyathevan feels for nandhini versus kunthavai. Their conversations reminded me of the conversation between eowyn and faramir in lord of the rings with its mixture of poetry and romance.
Obsessive relationships abound in this story. Whether it is peria pazhuvattaraiyar/karikalan/kanthamaran/paarthibaendran-nandhini, manimeghalai-vanthiyathevan, poonguzhali/vanathi-arulmozhi, the one sided nature of those relationships(except for the late almost abrupt change in vanathi-arulmozhi relationship) assures their demise.
The notable female characters poonguzhali, kunthavai and nandhini, all are much more complex than in sivakamiyin sabatham where sivakami pretty one dimensional character pining away for narasimhavarman. Poonguzhali wants to be a queen and gets her wish in the end even though not in the way she wanted it. Kunthavai and Nandhini are two sides of the same coin as it turns out later in the story. Because the story turns out to be of cholas, kunthavai comes out looking good whereas Nandhini turns out to be the poisonous one.
The story can be read through the lens of most of the major characters. Maybe , in the future, there will be discourses on vanthiyathevan's ponniyin selvan versus poonguzhali's ponniyin selvan versus kunthavai's ponniyin selvan.
I was impressed with the historical references kalki pointed out about kunthavai-vanthiyathevan. Maybe thanjavaur peria kovil will have those inscriptions till I get time to read it. The order of succession of cholas is another. The detailed descriptions of how chola kings died is incredible.
The tamil words used in some of the inscriptions that kalki referred to were difficult to understand. Maybe I have been using chennai tamil a lot that senthamizh is no longer understandable.
Unforgettable sections :
The killing of karikalan
Every discussion between vanthiyathevan and kundhavai
Every discussion between vanthiyathevan and nandhini
Everytime kalki digresses on tamil history
Poonguzhali's character development as a girl unafraid of anyone or anything(till at the end , kalki marries her off to saenthan amuthan)
Forgettable sections :
The forced relationship between vanathi and arulmozhi(Historically, they might have been a couple but their treatment in the story didnt rise upto vanthiyathevan/kundhavai)
The forced turnaround of poonguzhali marrying saenthan amuthan after expressing her desire for arulmozhi
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Losing a piece of myself
This past month, I went on vacation to India. I came away with mostly positive emotions. I am writing this when I am still reeling from homesickness. Everything there looks green inspite of the heat and humidity . Change seems to be everywhere and most of it is for the good. The dynamism is something different and it is not only restricted to the metros.
I lost quite a lot of my weight during this trip inspite of my mom's best efforts to feed me stuff I havent eaten in ages. I went in the month of may to chennai. Even if it is not the hottest place, it is hot enough to wish for year round rains. As the song from Gentleman goes 'April Mayilae pasumaiyae illae.......' . That song was sung in an entirely different context but one can appreciate it keeping the weather in mind.
I went to places in and around chennai randomly given my procastination. I still managed to cover places I wanted to see with some exceptions.
My first trip was to St.Thomas Mount. I always wanted to visit it ever since I came to know it had some historical importance attached to it. Once you reach the entrance to the church, it is very easy to go up as the way up is paved and has places to rest. But once you go up,there is not much to look at. It was a disappointment that was somewhat mitigated on seeing a painting in fort st. george museum that shows a pristine mount with a clear view of the village that was chennai at that time. That doubting thomas was killed on top of the mount in 72 AD wasnt enough to hold my interest to me anyway.
The fort st. george museum is very well maintained even though they could use some guides. Most of the visitors had to browse through the museum and make of the artifacts what they could. Places like St.Thomas Mount seemed to be so different from what they are now. There were even items from french period of occupation of Fort St.George. The official letters written by Robert Clive were another treat. Looking at them, I couldnt help wonder how someone like him, down and out when he landed in india, could transform his life and go on to establish east india company as a force to be reckoned with. Like those international cricketers making their career against india with a bang even if they were nondescript players before in their respective countries. Or as they say in tamil 'Vandharai vaazhavaikum tamizhagam' (Providing livelihood for all comers).
The government museum in Egmore is another treasure trove of historical pieces. It has sculptures and scripts dating from asoka's period(B.C.) to around 11th century AD. They have different complexes for stone sculptures and metal sculptures. The metal sculptures are housed in that rarity of a government space, an airconditioned room. They have done a very good job of putting all the metal sculptures inside glass casings knowing very well the propensity of visitors to touch and spoil the sculptures. The stone sculptures get no such protection. It was a pathetic sight to see valuable sculptures lying around as painters whitewashed the walls of the museum and generously dripped the paint onto the sculptures. Then there were the confiscated pieces from thieves and smugglers. The museum administrators in their infinite wisdom have put them all in the open backyard behind the museum almost as if inviting a thief to have a go at them again. All said and done, it is still a worthwhile effort to have all these marvelous sculptures in a single place even though they can do a better job of maintaining them from the spoiling hands of visitors/maintenance crew.
Senji fort lies between chennai and tiruvannamalai. For a fort that is sorrounded by paddy fields and generous water sources, it is really hot. The fort complex is actually a ring of forts built on rock strewn hills sorrounding Chennai Tiruvannamalai bypass road. The main ones are Krishnagiri, Chitradurg and Rajagiri. The initial construction seems to have been done by Kone chieftains and after they relinquished their hold, it was developed further by Vijaynagara empire, Adil Shah and the british. Militarily, attacking the fort head on is suicidal given the approach steps are at an incline and turn at right angles every 10 steps or so. There are enough outer rings outside each fort to provide the defenders with a very clear view of whoever is attacking the fort. The forts dont have as much visitors now except for young lovers who seem to be intent on leaving their mark on history. Given the way the forts are constructed, I am sure the testament to their love scribbled on the walls of the fort will die much earlier than the fort itself. Krishnagiri and Chitradurg were smaller forts compared to Rajagiri. Rajagiri seems to have been the main fort. The inner fort is at least a mile inside the outer fort. On way to the inner fort, there are granaries, gunpowder dumps and different temples. If the granaries were a sign of the prosperity of the kingdom, they should have been mighty rich those days. Getting to the top of Rajagiri fort is a challenge in itself. It is very steep compared to the other two forts and walking up in 100 degree heat and humidity is tough even with bottles and bottles of water and soft drinks. Some of the surprises along the way were a tank in the middle of ascent to the top. Whoever designed the fort was really paranoid. From the top one has a clear view of everything down below. There are the watch towers which lead to lower rings around the fort through underground passages. There are mortars that look out from the top of the fort to the fields below just in case the farmers get any ideas of self sustenance.
As a sign of the changes in ownership, the structures on top of the fort vary from solid rock structures to cement and concrete structures. Krishnagiri fort has a temple and a mosque on top of it.
The respect indians in general have for monuments in their history was illustrated when I asked for a way to get to the top of another fort behind Chitradurg. He wanted to know if I wanted to go there and smoke whatever drugs I carried with me.
I wanted to visit mahabalipuram to see the new complex that was supposed to have been unearthed by the tsunami. For lack of time, I didnt get to see it. I saw only a portion of the sculptures and that itself was impressive. To have had the imagination to sculpt them out of rocks by the sea was itself commendable. Because it is a world heritage monument, mahabalipuram seems to be getting much better conservation treatment. They have guards posted at the entrance all the sculpture complexes so the visitors remain honest.
The one mistake in my visit was my visit to kutralam which is a system of waterfalls supposed to have medicinal value because the water in it gathers medicinal plants as it flows through the mountains nearby. It is a seasonal waterfall and when I visited it, the season hadnt yet set in. So, I had a good look at the sides of those hills which would be blanketed by water come june or july. All I got in return were blisters and swelling in my foot from indiscriminate walking. I should have realised the season was not in when the bus I was travelling approached the towns around the falls. If the season has started, the area has a cool breeze that makes it wrthwhile just to walk around. When I visited the place, it was hot and dusty not at all like when the falls are full of water.
That mistake in scheduling cost me the time to visit badami which houses the ruins of chalukya dynasty from 6 - 8 century AD. Maybe next time.....
I lost quite a lot of my weight during this trip inspite of my mom's best efforts to feed me stuff I havent eaten in ages. I went in the month of may to chennai. Even if it is not the hottest place, it is hot enough to wish for year round rains. As the song from Gentleman goes 'April Mayilae pasumaiyae illae.......' . That song was sung in an entirely different context but one can appreciate it keeping the weather in mind.
I went to places in and around chennai randomly given my procastination. I still managed to cover places I wanted to see with some exceptions.
My first trip was to St.Thomas Mount. I always wanted to visit it ever since I came to know it had some historical importance attached to it. Once you reach the entrance to the church, it is very easy to go up as the way up is paved and has places to rest. But once you go up,there is not much to look at. It was a disappointment that was somewhat mitigated on seeing a painting in fort st. george museum that shows a pristine mount with a clear view of the village that was chennai at that time. That doubting thomas was killed on top of the mount in 72 AD wasnt enough to hold my interest to me anyway.
The fort st. george museum is very well maintained even though they could use some guides. Most of the visitors had to browse through the museum and make of the artifacts what they could. Places like St.Thomas Mount seemed to be so different from what they are now. There were even items from french period of occupation of Fort St.George. The official letters written by Robert Clive were another treat. Looking at them, I couldnt help wonder how someone like him, down and out when he landed in india, could transform his life and go on to establish east india company as a force to be reckoned with. Like those international cricketers making their career against india with a bang even if they were nondescript players before in their respective countries. Or as they say in tamil 'Vandharai vaazhavaikum tamizhagam' (Providing livelihood for all comers).
The government museum in Egmore is another treasure trove of historical pieces. It has sculptures and scripts dating from asoka's period(B.C.) to around 11th century AD. They have different complexes for stone sculptures and metal sculptures. The metal sculptures are housed in that rarity of a government space, an airconditioned room. They have done a very good job of putting all the metal sculptures inside glass casings knowing very well the propensity of visitors to touch and spoil the sculptures. The stone sculptures get no such protection. It was a pathetic sight to see valuable sculptures lying around as painters whitewashed the walls of the museum and generously dripped the paint onto the sculptures. Then there were the confiscated pieces from thieves and smugglers. The museum administrators in their infinite wisdom have put them all in the open backyard behind the museum almost as if inviting a thief to have a go at them again. All said and done, it is still a worthwhile effort to have all these marvelous sculptures in a single place even though they can do a better job of maintaining them from the spoiling hands of visitors/maintenance crew.
Senji fort lies between chennai and tiruvannamalai. For a fort that is sorrounded by paddy fields and generous water sources, it is really hot. The fort complex is actually a ring of forts built on rock strewn hills sorrounding Chennai Tiruvannamalai bypass road. The main ones are Krishnagiri, Chitradurg and Rajagiri. The initial construction seems to have been done by Kone chieftains and after they relinquished their hold, it was developed further by Vijaynagara empire, Adil Shah and the british. Militarily, attacking the fort head on is suicidal given the approach steps are at an incline and turn at right angles every 10 steps or so. There are enough outer rings outside each fort to provide the defenders with a very clear view of whoever is attacking the fort. The forts dont have as much visitors now except for young lovers who seem to be intent on leaving their mark on history. Given the way the forts are constructed, I am sure the testament to their love scribbled on the walls of the fort will die much earlier than the fort itself. Krishnagiri and Chitradurg were smaller forts compared to Rajagiri. Rajagiri seems to have been the main fort. The inner fort is at least a mile inside the outer fort. On way to the inner fort, there are granaries, gunpowder dumps and different temples. If the granaries were a sign of the prosperity of the kingdom, they should have been mighty rich those days. Getting to the top of Rajagiri fort is a challenge in itself. It is very steep compared to the other two forts and walking up in 100 degree heat and humidity is tough even with bottles and bottles of water and soft drinks. Some of the surprises along the way were a tank in the middle of ascent to the top. Whoever designed the fort was really paranoid. From the top one has a clear view of everything down below. There are the watch towers which lead to lower rings around the fort through underground passages. There are mortars that look out from the top of the fort to the fields below just in case the farmers get any ideas of self sustenance.
As a sign of the changes in ownership, the structures on top of the fort vary from solid rock structures to cement and concrete structures. Krishnagiri fort has a temple and a mosque on top of it.
The respect indians in general have for monuments in their history was illustrated when I asked for a way to get to the top of another fort behind Chitradurg. He wanted to know if I wanted to go there and smoke whatever drugs I carried with me.
I wanted to visit mahabalipuram to see the new complex that was supposed to have been unearthed by the tsunami. For lack of time, I didnt get to see it. I saw only a portion of the sculptures and that itself was impressive. To have had the imagination to sculpt them out of rocks by the sea was itself commendable. Because it is a world heritage monument, mahabalipuram seems to be getting much better conservation treatment. They have guards posted at the entrance all the sculpture complexes so the visitors remain honest.
The one mistake in my visit was my visit to kutralam which is a system of waterfalls supposed to have medicinal value because the water in it gathers medicinal plants as it flows through the mountains nearby. It is a seasonal waterfall and when I visited it, the season hadnt yet set in. So, I had a good look at the sides of those hills which would be blanketed by water come june or july. All I got in return were blisters and swelling in my foot from indiscriminate walking. I should have realised the season was not in when the bus I was travelling approached the towns around the falls. If the season has started, the area has a cool breeze that makes it wrthwhile just to walk around. When I visited the place, it was hot and dusty not at all like when the falls are full of water.
That mistake in scheduling cost me the time to visit badami which houses the ruins of chalukya dynasty from 6 - 8 century AD. Maybe next time.....
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Looking back
Where did this neglect of one's own ancestors come from ? Does focussing on knowing one's ancestors extend to justifying all their actions ? Are they best left as they are, consigned to dustbins of history which as we know is written always by victors ?
If someone asks me what I know about my ancestors, I would probably respond defensively knowing very well they have stuck an open wound. I can trace it to the procastination I have in spades.
When I refer to my ancestors, I am referring to the people who followed practices that led to what I am today. I am well aware that it covers a lot of people and practices and probably involves intermingling of cultures. Some of those cultures have done an exceedingly well in maintaining record of who came before them. As for me, the lack of awareness of my ancestors strikes home whenever I read about someone holding fort on theirs.
Whether my ancestors were bigoted or narrow minded , I do not know. Given my propensity to think positive of anything or anyone, I would like to think they did what they thought was right at the time. Judging them through the prism of my present day culture would definitely show them in poor light.
Does revisiting one's history through the lens of present day moraes fair to those who came before us ? Then again, would I be as objective as I consider myself to be when it concerns my own flesh and blood ? Knowing myself, the answer is No.
If someone asks me what I know about my ancestors, I would probably respond defensively knowing very well they have stuck an open wound. I can trace it to the procastination I have in spades.
When I refer to my ancestors, I am referring to the people who followed practices that led to what I am today. I am well aware that it covers a lot of people and practices and probably involves intermingling of cultures. Some of those cultures have done an exceedingly well in maintaining record of who came before them. As for me, the lack of awareness of my ancestors strikes home whenever I read about someone holding fort on theirs.
Whether my ancestors were bigoted or narrow minded , I do not know. Given my propensity to think positive of anything or anyone, I would like to think they did what they thought was right at the time. Judging them through the prism of my present day culture would definitely show them in poor light.
Does revisiting one's history through the lens of present day moraes fair to those who came before us ? Then again, would I be as objective as I consider myself to be when it concerns my own flesh and blood ? Knowing myself, the answer is No.
Friday, April 08, 2005
Nom De Guerre
*******************Sivakamiyin Sabatham Spoiler Warning*****************
Paranjothi - the name itself brings to mind prosperous kanchi of 7th - 8th century of tamil novels. A traveller in search of a teacher, he loses his way and ends up as the commander of armed forces for pallavas.
His chance encounter with Mahendravarman, king of pallava dynasty at that time puts him on the career track of a military commander with them instead of their rivals, chalukyas. His unwitting involvement in political intrigues makes him more mature in handling matters of state. His tendency to believe in the goodness of whoever helps him makes him a target for every side involved in the conflict over kanchi.
The tension in his friendship with the future king of pallavas, Narasimhavarman brings out the differences between the characters. Narasimhavarman is literally the kid with golden spoon in his mouth who spends his time going after sivakami. Paranjothi is not portrayed as a ladies' man. Instead, he is the rock on whom Mahendravarman depends to ensure Narasimhavarman will lean on in his future conflicts. He is satisfied with the girl his mother has arranged for him back in his village. With the marriage question resolved, he is free to prioritize better compared to Narasimhavarman.
At the end of it all, Paranjothi comes out better than Narasimhavarman in most aspects. He leads pallava armies to glorious victories and when he gets tired of it all, takes sanyas. Narasimhavarman marries the pandian princess as a political consolidation measure and does not marry sivakami in the end. As hard as the restraining influence of Paranjothi was, Narasimhavarman's inability to get rid of the influence of sivakami causes the destruction of a whole dynasty and its capital city.
Paranjothi - the name itself brings to mind prosperous kanchi of 7th - 8th century of tamil novels. A traveller in search of a teacher, he loses his way and ends up as the commander of armed forces for pallavas.
His chance encounter with Mahendravarman, king of pallava dynasty at that time puts him on the career track of a military commander with them instead of their rivals, chalukyas. His unwitting involvement in political intrigues makes him more mature in handling matters of state. His tendency to believe in the goodness of whoever helps him makes him a target for every side involved in the conflict over kanchi.
The tension in his friendship with the future king of pallavas, Narasimhavarman brings out the differences between the characters. Narasimhavarman is literally the kid with golden spoon in his mouth who spends his time going after sivakami. Paranjothi is not portrayed as a ladies' man. Instead, he is the rock on whom Mahendravarman depends to ensure Narasimhavarman will lean on in his future conflicts. He is satisfied with the girl his mother has arranged for him back in his village. With the marriage question resolved, he is free to prioritize better compared to Narasimhavarman.
At the end of it all, Paranjothi comes out better than Narasimhavarman in most aspects. He leads pallava armies to glorious victories and when he gets tired of it all, takes sanyas. Narasimhavarman marries the pandian princess as a political consolidation measure and does not marry sivakami in the end. As hard as the restraining influence of Paranjothi was, Narasimhavarman's inability to get rid of the influence of sivakami causes the destruction of a whole dynasty and its capital city.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)