Mumbai and most of it’s people are burning under the current attacks by Sena on SRK and other things, with the powerful middle-class left to mutter displeasure under their breaths. This whole episode is akin to an ongoing burglary at the neighbour’s house, where you don’t choose to do anything because it’s after all not you who is being affected. The Mumbai middle class will not do anything in this case, because they might be afraid of what might come down on their families if they defy the Sena, or might even be convincing themselves that this issue is independent of their existence in the scheme of things. So, the simplistic, and probably the most effective step that the people can take, of standing by their strength in numbers against a paltry army of a despot, might fall short of sufficient rationale.

Until and unless, the middle class is directly affected by this problem, our oft inefficient law and order might be left in charge of this mess, when even the perpetrators don’t seem to have their heads sorted out about what exactly they want to support. Do they want North Indians and South Indians and other Indians except the sons and daughters of the Maharashtra soil, er, Maharashtrians among them too that is, to learn Marathi and contribute culturally to the state. Well, maybe not the state, but specifically an important city which represents the state, albeit a city that at it’s core is an endless potpourri of cultures. There are catches though. They are allowed to blacken the faces of fellow Maharashtrians and a research institute in Maharashtra (Shrikant Bahulkar, and the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute respectively on supporting a book that portrayed Shivaji in bad light) towards this quest of spreading their intolerant biases. These biases should definitely be detached of their apparently Hindu roots, because nowhere does the religion propose an intolerance in ideology. It would obviously be too much to ask of these fanatics to use the newspaper in their arsenal for an objective denial of these anti-Marathi, anti-Shivaji sentiments put forth by other apparently ignorant researchers and writers! These visionary thinkers are also allowed to envision a grand novel idea of a 300, well, 309 to be exact, feet-tall statue of Shivaji in the Arabian Sea. So that, like immigrants were welcomed to the US by the Statue of Liberty, the MNS cadre would be welcomed from their pleasure trip to Elephanta caves.

Interestingly, all this comes down to an analogy of a crooked mirror in front of the person doing the talking. If the MNS does the talking, like they proposed the aforementioned grand image of Mumbai, the Sena will ridicule the vision, not because of a difference in ideologies, but simply because it is the crooked mirror. If Sena decides to create ruckus on the streets, place sign boards, ironically, against masses that probably don’t understand what it says, the MNS will laugh it off, simply because that’s a primary agenda. Anything remotely related to being an Indian will be taken up by these vigilantes, much to the chagrin of the people who are supposedly being protected. If Australians attack Indians, the Sena/MNS will attack Indians too. If terrorists kill Indians, the MNS/Sena will not deter from killing Indians too. If a Maharashtrian or two decide to back their country and countrymen, like Sachin did, as expected from a great icon like him, they will outcast him. So, they need, not sons and daughters of soil to prop up their culture and language, but willing sons and daughters, willing with either pin drop silences, or fanatical rants on their side.

There seems to be no peace in our city’s existence today. If there are no terrorist attacks, there are the attacks from these fanatics. When the not-so-friendly terrorist strikes, the fanatics play second fiddle, willingly letting some time pass lest the public vent their frustrations against them. This, ofcourse, well defended by the standard argument of expressing solidarity with the nation. When the terrorists take a break, to plan their next attack, the fanatics conveniently abandon their recently acquired nationalistic tendencies, and launch a full-on attack on people who come searching for a better life. The attack will very well extend to anyone who is a someone that wishes to express displeasure at their antics. Like SRK is doing today, with Johar probably left with no choice but to stand by him.

It is unfair of some people who liken this stand of his to a publicity stunt, because if it isn’t, they have let their simplistic tendencies get the better of them by assuming as axiom that the fortunate do only to extend their fortunes. Does belittling a possibly honest justification of a stance make the cynics any better? Isn’t the root of this cynicism, envy of the better-off? Would any amount of justification from SRK be enough to placate these non-believers, who are conveniently living in the bliss of their ignorance from placing forth the armor of cyncism against anything that might increase the worth of someone whom they have previously assumed as junk? Possibly not.

Admist all this fervor, there are others who make their statements, which the public has to find an appopriate position for in this jigsaw puzzle of a scheme of things. Like Chavan’s ultimate utopia of Marathi speaking cab-drivers to herald Mumbai into the next generation. Or Sharad Pawar’s visit to the Sena supremo, to express god-knows-what, but with the effect of a renewed vigor against screening of the movie. Or for that matter, Rahul Gandhi, who decided to pull in the alternate birthplace of NSG commandoes as the ultimate argument to defeat the Sena policy. What purpose does his statement serve? Of course, that this statement was made in Bihar might convey something. Why does his intelligence betray him to further fuel a regionally biased argument made by Sena? The next step might be a politician from the South rightly claiming the high position of his state by speaking for a Keralite NSG commando, albeit without the knowledge of the poor Keralite boy himself.

South Indians, among the other Indians who aren’t targetted today, feel they are safe, maybe even admitting that North Indians have created some problems as of late, like that of sanitation and a cut-throat business culture. They must be reminded of the 70s, when they were targetted by the then nascent Sena. They must ask themselves whether the target isn’t just revolving and is not as important as the attack itself; maybe the Gujratis would ne next for their fulfilling businesses, the Bengalis for their sweets maybe, the Kashmiris because of their tumultuous birthplace, the Rajasthanis because their music is too loud.

Law and Order as a solution will be ineffective because it is only a temporary respite, because the fanatics will keep coming back. If the police hurt them with violence, they will come back with a worse strike next time. How do you justify the policeman with a soft corner for the Sena? Should he be expected to strike his like-minded comrades? Rather than use reactionary violence as a solution to the problem, a genuine interest in what they have to say might be prudent. Only if all democratic options seem useless, in which case, the objective of the accused parties is clearly not on the side of any people, should violence be used as a retort. Politicians should stop making statements to further justify the Sena anger and create angst-ridden minds elsewhere rather than abating the crisis at hand. Unfortunately, the solutions from the perspective of what politicians must do and musn’t do are so obvious to the ordinary individual, but seldom implemented in our country. Politicians who do not have the baggage of public distrust with them, like Rahul Gandhi, must weigh his words carefully, without being swept off with the new found populistic support. Politicians like him have the power to change a lot, and may they realize this sooner than later to make necessary amends and appropriate statements.

Coming back to the movie. For the few of us outside Mumbai, expressing a stand in the form of some action isn’t too difficult. The smallest of these actions would be to watch MNIK in a theater. An action towards an opinion, no matter how small, irrelevant or futile it may seem, is better than merely enjoying an opinion for the fact that you have an opinion.

Understanding the world around us, it’s past, present and consequently, the future, seems to be a driving force for much of the reading we indulge in. Events however, on accord of its driving or reporting agents, are perceived through different lenses, which makes understanding the world not only a question of mindlessly assimilating facts but also about building (or finding, if you’re the lucky few) the world view you conform to. So, the problem is two fold, daunting in each, to acquire as much wealth of knowledge as possible alongside building a solid foundation of ideals and morals to weigh this information by.

Being short of foresight regarding the longevity of life, and fueled by the melancholy of ignorance, the above process never seems to receive the amount of time it deserves. One half a spark of doubt in these matters I mention, is more than enough, to send me into a confused toss, egged on by the countless many of these other matters I have only an acquaintance with. So, trying to optimize this process is not as indulgent an idea as it initially might seem.

Too much information, at the outset, seems to be a good thing. The number of blogs, opinions, re-statements, and aggregator sites, relevant to the subject under consideration, are only limited by your capacity in exploring them. So then, we reach the point of this rumination: does one follow this mode of acquiring information, which has the capacity to keep you involved forever, or invest in books, innumerable as they may, still exhaustive towards the purpose of understanding the subject.

The RSS/GoogleReader/FriendlyNeighbourhoodBlog occupies a vulgar amount of my waking hours, and is forced off with contempt, like one for a dirty thought, only with the strongest amount of self-loathing. Every time I come across a new blog or magazine, it lodges itself in my ‘to-read’ list, adding to this never-ending misery. I can only attribute this vice to the adequate food it provides to our dwindling attention spans, providing the apt, measured quantity to our minds, lest it go obese.

However, the importance of editorials, columns, opinions, which also one acquires via the internet, cannot be overstated. It might very well be the path to understanding these matters, however, considering that there are never ending of these, this source definitely eats into the, more important, book reading. A book, a good book, is a thoroughly researched and carefully compiled source, which immerses you into the subject of its concern, and gives you your best attempt at figuring it out. Books also elicit a responsible selection from its reader, unlike the ever-increasing variety of internet snoopings, and helps narrow down all the required material to understand a subject.

The internet leads you on a horizontal quest, often leading to nowhere, whereas books create verticals based on your needs. I often have to stop myself from dying by link de-referencing, where one link leads to another pertinent one, the end of which is an aviyal of ideas, with no particular start or end connecting them all. All said and done, these are a gold mine of information, albeit unstructured and addictive to the weak.

What is the correct balance? It seems painfully difficult to ignore, heck, even to curtail the RSS monster, with me procrastinating important tasks at the expense of catching up the next day with these curtailed nuggets. Books, on the other hand, are often the first casualty, losing out on accord of their overlooked specialization, and unappreciated length. Does one attempt to strike a balance, or tilt it towards books, until the stage is reached when you can confidently turn to the vastness of the internet? Or does this cycle never end, forever expanding my house of cards?

Currently reading “The difficulty of being good” by Gurcharan Das. I haven’t read any of his books, and am not basing this read on the author’s reputation either. Just that any metaphysical analysis of the Mahabharatha can capture my attention, no matter how trivial. There are a lot of unanswered questions in the epic, which I carefully brush aside till the next meeting. Hopefully, this book will throw some light into these… at the least providing an interesting perspective.

Amit mentioned a curious intersection of this book’s table of contents with that of Yuganta, a seemingly similar analysis of the Mahabharath by noted anthropologist, Dr. Irawati Karve. It will be interesting to compare the two.

On lighter moments, R.K.Narayan beckons, with “The Financial Expert” next on the plate. I read “The Printer of Malgudi” last, and it was mildly disappointing, almost like a hodgepodge of meandering thoughts without the purpose needed to create a good novel. Nevertheless, even this indulgent rant of his is a pleasure to read, a lazy one at that…

There must be a time when I stop binge-blogging about an absolutely inane movie just watched. As no such time has yet knocked, here’s a rant about Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds.

Rant number one, I had to google the movie’s correct spelling. Followed by philosophical inquiries about the logic in the search, and the efficacity of such a title.

Even though I am a self-professed Tarantino fan, the Grindhouse/Deathproof debacle had a strong enough impact on me to not rush to a hall to watch the eagerly awaited IBs. I probably was conciously delaying my possible disappointment, something that the trailers made no mistake in conveying. And true to that, a disappointment it is! It probably is the worst movie Tarantino has made, while still under the remnant intoxication of Kill Bill’s success, meanwhile exhausting his audience-reinforced flamboyant bravado, which borders on simply corny in this travesty of a thriller.

I have to admit, the first scene was typically gripping, after which it was all downhill. The forgettable casting doesn’t let you forget it. Roth (riding on Tarantino’s contribution to him) as the bear jew is absolutely ridiculous, and his whole act feels like a high-schooler’s rendition of a supposedly great character, which the audience never had the fortune of seeing. Brad Pitt seems to constantly have a nagging doubt about his casting, and he’s absolutely right. There are too many references to Kill Bill, seemingly a nostalgic tribute to a masterpiece, albeit less than 10 years old. Flowery rock ballads are peppered in at the perfect times to transport us into the 90s and forget what the hell we were doing in the first place. Long gripping sequences, which are supposed to keep you on the edge of your seats, are so long and predictable, that you successfully tip over the edge out of your seats. Tarantino needs to use his stylistic baggage assumed because of a few successes to sparingly few and appropriate occassions, and not on every possible opportunity.

Finally a note about the ending. Only after complaining about the movie for half an hour did it dawn on me that Hitler and Goebbels were brought to their demises. I wonder if it is just me, or that this impactful ending occured as a mere passing to the maker! I strongly feel, when you play with history, the best approaches are to either change audience perception of history while keeping events in tact (like “The Last Temptation of Christ” or “Oru Vadakkan Veeragatha“), or if you’re brave enough to change history, then bloody well follow through with it. If art is an adequate representation of the artist, then Tarantino probably wanted the ending to end on a brash note, conveying his bravado and callous authority to shock. It seems to me that he has taken the easy way out, all in all, leading to not even titilating a curious peep to the audience’s mind as to the possible repurcussions of such a dramatic change in history. Alas…

What a drag…