Bollywood romance : now and then

Love, they say, makes the world go around. It can also make your head spin, if you go by Hindi films nowadays. Not surprising, if you realize that this is the Facebook Generation, where “friending” is instantaneous, and requires little more than a mouse click. The more friends you have the better. And, apparently these are real words, “unfriend” being declared the Oxford Word of the Year (2009) by the New Oxford American Dictionary. When real life buzzes by, can reel-life be far behind?

Lately I have been subject to delicate ministrations of the romantic kind. On celluloid that is. One film after another claiming to be either a romance, or a romantic comedy – I see them all. Boy-meets-girl, they sing and dance (preferably in the rain), and voila! Love blooms! Truly, is this love, or the fast forwarded version? What ever happened to good, old-fashioned romance? You know, the kinds where the hero and heroine spied each other from afar, and remained where they were, instead of galloping into each others arms almost immediately! You know, the kinds where the language of love was spoken with the eyes, and conveyed through coyly written letters which dripped with complicated yet sweet-sounding words in the most chaste Hindi!

Yes, times have changed and so have the notions of love and romance. The lovelorn hero may not be your swashbuckling Sunil Dutt, but perennially suave Saif Ali Khan as modern-day pragmatic lover boy isn’t so bad either. Asha Parekh’s kohl-lined eyes may not make young men’s heart’s go pitter-patter anymore, but Kareena Kapoor’s do. In the recent romantic hit “Love Aaj Kal” Khan romanced two heroines, one of the present-day, and one from an older and, some say, wiser time. The beautiful and leggy Deepika Padukone played Meera, an independent minded girl who is quite practical about love, while Brazilian model Giselle Monteiro played Harleen Kaur, a young girl of the 60s, so in love with a boy not acceptable to her family, that she leaves them for him.

“Love Aaj Kal” nicely contrasts today’s love with yesteryear’s. While Harleen Kaur and Veer Singh are content to just look at each other, sigh and then sigh some more, Jai and Meera have no such forbearance. Their love is happy, snappy, and very, very hip. While one might imagine Harleen and Veer’s commitment hush-hush, their ardor tamped by the social mores of that time, Meera and Jai are New Age, and the openness of their relationship shows it. Love and all that comes thereafter no longer cleanly fits into the “happily settled” philosophy. Whereas older films were often almost prudish when showing physical affection (remember all those shots of two roses meeting, and the hero-heroine disappearing into tall grass?) newer romantic films are more open about such aspects.

Because so it was then; restraint was the name of the game. In the 60s, beautiful actresses like Waheeda Rehman and Nutan in churidars and huge hair-dos, waltzed their way in and out of love stories complicated by class barriers, familial obligations and the “accidental” pregnancy. In the 70s with the rise of talents such as Gulzar, love stories were often simple, but characters well-fleshed out. Gulzar’s fabulous film “Khushboo”(1975) starring Hema Malini and Jeetendra was a simple story set in rural India and dealt with love and perceived betrayal. It’s not that the basic love stories that films seem to thrive upon have changed so much; after all, we essentially are the same people, aren’t we? But the attitudes of the people in love have changed, and (don’t you love this?) changing times pose their newer challenges to the love-stricken.

Take the 80s for example – long before Mithun became a “dancing” star he actually did some great cinema. His 1980 film “Sitara” which starred Zarina Wahab in the female lead dealt with love gone wrong in the razzmatazz of the film world, where she attains stardom, and he feels left out. There are also social shifts in society which have influenced love as we see it now. Women for one thing weren’t really independent, in older films. Yes, an heiress maybe, but a businesswoman with an MBA? Not so much.

In a film like the recently released “Wake up Sid” Konkona Sen Sharma plays a writer out to make her mark in the world. She falls in love with a younger, immature college kid. So she actually has more agency than him, which shifts the love angle a little bit. In the 2006 romantic hit “Pyar ke side effects” the woman Trisha (played by Mallika Sherawat) is taller AND makes more money than her live-in boyfriend Sid (Rahul Bose), and their love-story plays out in the context of Trisha’s insistence on marriage.

There is also then the issue of relative ages, and the almost spiritual it’s-all-in-the-head quality of love. In the 2001 hit “Dil chahta hai” Sid, falls in love with an older, divorced woman. Where traditionally the man is older, in “Cheeni Kum” the hero is older than the heroine’s father. Which is good enough for her, but not for her father.

There is ofcourse the happy medium where older and wiser counsel meets youthful exuberance. A prime example of this is the 2004 film “Rules – pyar ka superhit formula”. In it Radha, a lovelorn girl pining away for unattainable model Vikram (Milind Soman), is assisted by her grand-mother’s five rules for getting the man she so wants. This was a sweet film, which played up Radha’s grand-mother’s sprightly character and her old-fashioned common-sense against Radha’s lively and impulsive nature.

It also brought home the point that young or old, famous or not, we all eventually want the same thing – to be loved, adored, and appreciated. When this happens, birds sing, the skies clear, and music spews out from the heavens. Whether its yuppie rock, or a refrain from the 60s, really, how does it matter?

(The edited version of this post appeared in the Nov 29th edition of the Sunday Herald.)

Never Forget

On 9/11/09 Yahoo ran a photo on it’s main page, which showed a banner fluttering in the wind, hung on the top of a building with the words “We will never forget”. Search for the words “We will never forget” on Google, and you get hundreds of images, all etched with these words and pictures of the American flag, the twin towers or the memorials which have been erected in the memory of all those lives lost then. Year after year, Americans remember the incident and mourn all those who died in that tragedy. The outrage is alive and well.

On the 26th of November, 2008, Mumbai in India was attacked by people with similarly evil intentions. This year as the world remembers that attack, we mourn all those who were lost. This year, candle-light vigils are held, people gather to read tributes, Indian politicians lead parades to mark the date. NDTV’s website is full of 26/11, as it has come to be known. Will it be the same next year and the next ?

9/11 was the first and biggest overt onslaught by terrorists on America and on US soil. India on the other hand, has been fighting terrorists from across the border for a long time. There have been many such 26/11s even before the one in 2008. Remember the 2005 Delhi bombings ? What about the 1993 bombings of Mumbai, then Bombay ? Recall that there was an incident where professors of IISc Bangalore were shot at. In 2001, the Indian Parliament was attacked. In 2007, the Samjhauta Express was attacked mid January, near Panipat. In Hyderabad, two bombs exploded simultaneously in crowded public places, in 2007. In July of 2008 itself, a series of bomb blasts occurred in Bangalore. Search back to the 1990s , and you’ll see the hijack of Indian Airline Flight 814, which was then forced to land in Kandahar, Afghanistan.

These are just a few of the numerous attacks that India has borne over the past 2 decades. After each one, there has been anger and outrage. But soon anger dims, outrage lessens. The Indian media takes pride in moving on. Indians are portrayed as being stoic, moving on, forgetting ? Innocent lives are lost one year, but are they remembered the next ? Seemingly there is no outrage, and if there is, cynical old me thinks it is lost among the many other atrocities taking place; there are probably many other juicier news stories we search for and read, rather than a couple of people who are no more, yes ? Indian blood is spilt, has been spilt for many years now, and forgotten behind mumbled platitudes. Are lives, each life tied to numerous others – a father, a mother, brother, sister, wife, daughter – really that cheap ?

American lives are being lost in the war on terror being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. This war, perceived by many as an unjust one, nevertheless is taking it’s toll on American soldiers and their families. Like war does. Everytime a soldier from my city loses his life, his loss is reported, mourned city-wide. His lost life is not forgotten in the bigger story of the war. I hear of the soldier, his life, his family, his service to the nation and to it’s cause. I hear of his sedated wife, see his now-orphan toddler smile innocently at the camera, his aged father wipe away his tears. I see that bonds have snapped forcibly by one death. I also see that with that one death, we have lost a great deal.

I remember the bombings in Sadar Bazar in Delhi when bomb blasts ripped through that crowded market, and being thankful that none of my family was anywhere in the vicinity at that time. But what of those who were ? They had families too, but do we mark their deaths ? Do we even remember that date ? Why is there not a 3/1 anniversary ? Why is there not a 8/25/03 (Mumbai) ? Why not a December 28, 2005 (Bangalore) ?

There can never be a doubt in our minds that a single life lost is a humongous outrage, whether it be through a terrorist attack, a religious riot, or an honor killing. We must remember each and every one of those lost lives. We must keep alive that outrage, that anger against those who take lives that were not theirs for the taking. If we forget this will happen, again and again. Lives, bright and beautiful, will be snuffed out, and we, who will never be whole again, will let slip that knowledge through the cracks in our minds, until we remember no more those who were lost forever for no fault of theirs.

Always remember. 9/11. 26/11. 25/1. 16/2. 16/3. 20/4. 22/5. 19/6. 11/7. 10/8. 27/9. 14/10. 17/11. 13/12 . . . . . .

NEVER FORGET.

Bad-Ad Project : Speaking volumes with your eyelashes

A couple of months ago I saw this ad which featured Brooke Shields touting a product, Latisse, which promised, thicker, fuller eyelashes in about 12-16 weeks. It was bizarre.



When I first saw this advertisement I couldn't believe that they were serious. A product which treats the condition of not having thick enough lashes, inadequate lashes as the ad. puts it ! Is that even a condition ? Not enough lashes to bat around ? Use Latisse.

Oh, yes, now that you've tweezed your eyebrows, made up your face, removed all traces of bodily hair, worried yourself to death about the dreaded VPL, and in general made yourself presentable as per societal expectations, you also now need to consider whether your eyelashes are inadequate. And do something about them. Because God forbid, what if you were to bat your lashes at a man, and OMG, they weren't enough, or thick enough, or full enough or dark enough to get his attention ?

Beauty companies nowadays flood us with ads. designed to think women need improvement, i.e.; your natural self is just not good enough. Face too dark ? Lighten it ! That worry solved, now let's get down to matching up body color to face color, because if they don't all hell would break loose. If it isn't your "dark" skin, your hair needs help. Hair frizzy, straight, curly, the wrong color ? No worries we have a product for that ! If the head on your hair is fine, have you ever thought that the natural hair growing on your legs and arms can actually hold you back from achieving your full potential ? Wax, shave, depilate, depilate, depilate !

Once that is done, wear makeup artfully so that noone can tell you're wearing any. To look taller the fashion industry provides really tall heels, the wearing of which will probably result in some sort of a foot injury after a while, but hey, at least you'll look good sitting down.

Lashes are important because they prevent stuff from getting into your eyes, so most of us have some of them. I have short, not so thick lashes, but I figure they are sufficient for what they do. New drugs and the research which goes into them is important because they are solving important medical issues, sometimes essential life-saving ones. But I'm put off by the pop-a-pill approach to most problems. Allergies - take a pill a day. Foot fungus - take another pill a day. Inadequate lashes (I feel ludicrous even saying it) ? Apply Latisse once a day. And here's the wonderful thing about these products - you stop taking them, EVERY SINGLE DAY OF YOUR LIFE, and the problem reappears. Allergies come back, foot fungus reappears, lashes go back to normal growth patterns.

Latisse costs $120 per month, about $4 a day. And it has contra-indications - it might cause a change in skin color, and change in iris pigmentation. Also it could grow hair on ANY skin it comes in contact with. It might also cause itchy/red eyes.

Latisse is supposed to treat "Hypotrichosis" which wikipedia describes as a condition of abnormal hair growth. Basically sparse hair, which could result from a medical condition or chemotherapy. And in those cases I think it'd be a good thing. But it is being marketed at the general public, at women like you and me. Otherwise healthy women, who suffer from "inadequate" lashes. Oh, poor us !

And at times like this, when I think about the pressure already on women to adhere to impossible standards of beauty, that I think that people who think up stuff like this and market it must be demented. Not only for pushing potentially harmful, unnecessary stuff on women who might buy it because it helps them feel beautiful (and hence they say better), but also for introducing this facet of "beauty" into a realm where my daughter (and other young women like her) in a few years might not be able to ignore it, and might wonder if not only her body, her legs, her waist measures up, but even whether her lashes are thick enough ?

And even though it's been a while since I first saw Latisse being advertised, I've been meaning to write about it. And looking around the Net, found a few other women who were fuming about this, but an article on Salon said it best :

How much do you have to hate your body to shell out $150 a month for a mysterious product that might ruin your eyes?

Indeed !

The Bad-Ad Project - 2

Here'e the next installment of Bad Ads. (here's the previous one) I have seen Kaya skin clinic's advertisements quite a few times, always advertising skin care (and by allusion skin fairness) but find their ad. on hair-free treatments really objectionable.



The words in this advertisement are :

"Pari ho tum, Apne pankh na chupa na,
Kali ho tum, Khilne se mat ghabrana na,
Haseen ho tum, Gumsum mat ho jaana"

which roughly translates to :

"You are an angel, Don't hide your wings,
You are a flower bud, Don't be afraid to bloom,
You are beautiful/laughter, Don't be sad"

At the end of the song, a voiceover says to not shy away from life because of unwanted hair.

Admirable words to the little poem there, but in appaling context. The ad. shows a young woman noticing the hair on her arms and rolling down her sleeves, and also hesitating to say hello to a male friend. Because **gasp** what if the guy actually sees HAIR on a female arm ? Something terrible would surely ensue - blindness, the plague, the end of the world ? We wouldn't want to bring that about now, would we ladies ?

The visuals and the song/voiceover indicate that a woman who hasn't shorn herself of all bodily hair must somehow feel lesser, and that would cause her to shy away from life. That there is something wrong with having bodily hair - the implication being that a woman must be purged of all hair to spread her wings/bloom/be happy.

What utter nonsense !

I use makeup, wax, thread my eyebrows etc. but I totally resent being told that a woman needs to adhere to this unspoken "code of attractiveness" to be happy. As I was growing up, yeah you would see attractive, leggy, hairless models in magazines, but maybe with less media this whole "women have a duty to be pretty" thing wasn't pushed on us too hard. And growing up you did some of the beauty things that you were comfortable with and some you didn't. They didn't come with strings attached i.e.; I wasn't unhappy when I didn't shave my legs.

Although anal people are duty-bound to point out to you that you must defuzz that almost unseeable hair on your upper arms, and that ring on your finger would look so much prettier if you only got rid of the hair on the knuckle. Yes of course, so it goes, and people have tongues and they will use them. Me, I am inured; to ignore politely is an art learnt and honed. But educating our daughters into believing that they are complete women, natural bodily hair, dark skin color and all, is going to be hard.

Ask and ye shall recieve

They say women don't ask. Women who ask, negotiate on their own terms, are viewed unfavourably to put it mildly. In my personal experience, I've been asked to "not argue" because it's unladylike, accept what I'm getting with gratitude and not push for more (womanly virtues), blah, blah, blah . . .
Mother-figures and aunts impress upon us the value of subservience, and a woman who asks doesn't exactly fit into the good girl/daughter/bahu/girlfriend mould.

Is it any wonder then that I am a regular reader of this blog ? La Roxy, of the Daily Asker, started a 365 day experiment in asking; she asked for something everyday for a whole year. Says she on her blog :

Prompted by a book I started reading today, Women Don't Ask, about how women's reluctance to negotiate costs them millions of dollars individually -- not to mention the collective losses -- I decided, quite spontaneously when I got to the bottom of page 7, to try asking.

Perks. Discounts. Upgrades. 2 for 1. 3 for 2. A better restaurant seat. Application of an expired 20 percent coupon. Salary boost. Access to discretionary funds. Lower insurance rate.

Interesting stuff.

The Bad-Ad Project

I've been meaning to do this for a while, so here it is. Every week, I will post about an ad. which I find damaging - it stereotypes, objectifies, subtly puts down women, or just voices the condescending patriarchial voice. Here's one now :




Seriously, doesn't that make you sooooo proud that we're starting little boys early ? How else would they know that women are like cars ? Or that they like getting whistled at ? Oh, lovely !


I hope Fiat goes out of business.

Why desi comedy sucks

Recently I read a lovely post by Anuvab Pal, on the Random House blog, about the state of Indian comedy. Well, it's dismal, although we didn't need Pal to tell us that. I think Raghuvir Yadav, when he was on "Ranvir, Vinay aur Kaun" said it best - he called it "Chichorapan" in Hindi . You see lots of Chichorapan on desi tv shows - I'd written about one such show here albeit on a different topic. Pal, on Indian comedy shows, says :

Though wildly popular, (check out any intercity Jet flight’s entertainment system), this comedy is not often watched by the cultured classes, not because of the language but because of the aesthetic. Jokes, like everywhere else, involve telling a story and its foundation is the taboo (Ricky Gervais opener, ‘George Michael was caught having sex with a midget on a piano, his excuse…it’s an Elton John tribute’). But the mass Indian comedy describes non-confrontational and harmless incidents, spicing things up with odd noises, strange accents and body contortions. A lot of the time, it imitates Bollywood, never the lucrative terrain of sexual humor (the lifeblood of western comedy).

Complete post here.

The great healthcare debate

I’ve always thought that one of the greatest things about American society is the fact that most Americans are “givers” – they will volunteer, they will help some cause or the other. People routinely donate to charities, volunteer their time at local public schools, and line up to give blood. Neighbors are busy, if nothing else, in coaching local baseball/soccer teams.

Which is why I find the opposition to government led healthcare such a surprise. I admit that Obama’s plans need to be fleshed out in more detail, and there are a whole lot of important questions that need to be asked and answered before such a reform can be realistically thought about, much less implemented. But still what he’s trying to do is a good thing, if you keep in mind that healthcare in the US is prohibitively expensive, and that many people go bankrupt every year because of healthcare expenses. Expensive healthcare is the No.1 reason for bankruptcy in the US.

Ira Rosofsky at Salon puts it pretty nicely whe he writes :

I’m 62 -- old enough to cash in my 401K, yet still too young for Medicare -- and, despite my advancing age, some might view this as just another infantile boomer rant. But I want to put in a word for the idea that the elderly among us are just plain selfish -- as is any group with health insurance that believes what’s good for them is threatened if made available to others.

Where is the idea of community, the idea that we sacrifice and help others? Those who oppose government, conveniently forget that the community, "we the people," wrote the Constitution to "promote the common welfare."

There’s been a whole lot of stupidity about “death panels” in the press, and the lead rumor-monger is none other than a potential president. I totally agree with Carl Hiaasen, also at Salon, when he writes :

Nobody with an IQ higher than emergency-room temperature could ever believe that "death panels" would be appointed to nudge the elderly toward euthanasia. Yet for idle entertainment, it's hard to beat Sarah Palin's ignorant nattering on the subject.

He goes on to say :

Nobody knows for sure how many Americans don't have medical coverage, but the most frequent estimates range from 43 million to 47 million. Some carry no insurance by choice, but the majority simply cannot afford it.

We've already spent more on Iraq than the Democrats' current healthcare plans are projected to cost over the next decade. Yet some of the same bright bulbs in Congress who were excited to bankroll that foolish invasion are now huffing indignantly about the price tag for insuring our own citizens.

Reform can't work without including the uninsured, not just because it's humane but also because it will ultimately save taxpayers a fortune. The public cost of treating uninsured patients, who often don't see a doctor until there's an emergency, is boggling.

Extraordinary mind

Source : Andre Jordan's Work

Respect your MPs or else . . .

Reading this article by Amit Ahuja, in which he describes interactions with the governmental bureacracy as transactions where the "government official involved establishes himself not as a service provider but rather as a dispenser of favours", one is filled with acute hatred for the ubiquitous, corrupt babu and the venal politicians that make this possible. Says Ahuja of the damage to ordinary citizens :

"bribery robs citizens of not one but two things: cash and dignity. By submitting to an official’s demands and grovelling before him, one is humiliated and loses one’s own self-worth. "

The Indian bureaucracy is notorious for rampant corruption. According to Transparency International , even "Below Poverty Line households paid an astonishing Rs 223 crore in bribes to attain access to a set of basic public services like hospitals, schooling, and water." Keeping in mind that the entire corrupt system rests firmly on the self-serving shoulders of elected representatives such as the MPs and MLAs, it makes the "extraction" of respect for them a ludicrous idea - but that is what the Rajasthan government wants :

Stand up and be respectful ! it says. Not to the common man ofcourse - he deserves to be trodden upon; this "respectful" treatment is reserved only for the neighborhood corrupt criminal politician. It has issued a diktat to all its employees, making it mandatory for them to stand up and greet visiting MPs or MLAs.

Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot’s government says that what the government employees are being asked to do is nothing new, but just a part of the Indian culture. How nice (and such ingenuity !) that the Indian culture we don't see a shred of in government offices these days, can be used at will, by politicians to force (unwilling) respect out of lower officials ! When they swear in these elected officials, they might as well ask them to specify how they like their officials : pliant, malleable or just plain servile ?

Only in India do public servants, those glorious "elected officials", reserve for themselves the antiquated tags of "VIP" - "Very Important Person". Everywhere you go, from toll-booths on the highway to airports, VIPs demand special treatment. And what makes them VIPs ? Mostly, getting elected. You might be a criminal, have very sparse knowledge about your great land, and even lesser of your governmental duties, but you are a "VIP" because you are an elected representative. But apparently the VIPs of Rajasthan are not satisfied with their ration of importance; they want more. Thus orders for recieving respect have been issued in writing.

Among other things, according to an article in India Today, government employess aka babus have been asked to :

- stand up not just when an elected representative arrives at their office but also when he leaves
- if there is any change in a prior appointment with an elected representative, the officer concerned needs to promptly intimate the former
- if an elected leader reaches an officer's office without any appointment, the latter should call them in immediately after meeting those who had come after fixing an appointment
- invite local representatives to all the official functions organised in the area he represents, and reserve the seat for him until the end of the function.
- not ignore telephone calls of an elected representative
- acknowledge an elected representative's letters and act upon them. If that is not possible, properly explain to them why not.

Of course none of the above facilities are available for the common man or the aam junta. They can just wear out their chappals running from pillar to post at government offices, without being served with even basic courtesy. Gehlot and his government might do well to remember that Indian culture asks you to be respectful to all people including the citizens that elected you in the first place! He also forgets that respect is not extracted, it is earned. And if his MPs or MLAs were indeed doing their people any good, people and officials would stand up and respect them without there being a need for official diktats.