Epiphany

Breaking News: India's Obama

Was watching Dev yesterday. Had never given it much thought or credit earlier. But it made me philosophical this time. With political horse trading, in-party differences and seditious speeches happening openly in India, there is a parallel anarchy brewing in Pakistan. Leads me to wonder if Plato was right in supporting a country ruled by a bad tyrant as against a bad democracy. He argued that that it is better to be ruled by a bad tyrant (since then there is only one person committing bad deeds) than be a bad democracy (since here all the people are now responsible for such actions).

What do you think? After 26/11 there was a fervor for change amongst people. A change for the better - against the rotting system, against unaccountability, against injustice. Unfortunately it is seeing a dying crescendo in didactic ads that urge people to vote. But the moot point is who should we vote for? It is the same old caboodle.

Is there anyone who inspires? Is there any party that is honest? India needs an Obama at this stage - a new face of hope - very unlike the political stalwarts bordering on senility. Gender, caste, religion neutral. A visionary with honest intentions and impeccable record. I can only think of Ratan Tata. All the rest are bad tyrants that would make a worse democracy.

Is there anyone who can convince him to stand for elections? Can the media for once play a persuasive and constructive role? That will be true game changing journalism. A welcome breaking news.

Arya Samaj Masala?!!

MDH masala. Kitchen King or Deghi Mirch...asli masaley such, such...goes the line in the ad that shows a gnarled senile man as the founder of MDH masalas. Ok so they did not have anything unique to say but the legacy it had since 1912. Ok they did not go the celebrity route like Anzu Hing which has Jayaprada as its endorser. They chose the founder to add credibility - Mahashaya Dharampal Ji - and hence the acronym. So far so good.

My mom always told me that MDH stood for Mahasheyan di Hatti - a punjabi phrase, loosely translated, means congregation of the rich or a society of nobles. So the rich tradition and rich masalas still made sense.

But what I saw today appalled me first. Then I was bemused. Because in a way, the ad that I saw simply imitates life. What I saw was a brazen attribution of MDH to Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati - the founder of Arya Samaj. The ad did not explain much but associated Dharampalji's great belief in Dayanand Saraswati. What all marketers do to peddle a masala!!!

But the poor marketer has learnt from our politicians that one can create a unique magical equation by adding marketing to religion.  

A quick Google search revealed that Dharampalji has contributed "20-25 lac rupees" for the construction of a yet incomplete Satyarth Prakash Stambha and a Navlakha Mahal in Udaipur. And the project faces many roadblocks from Govt clearance to lack of funds. 

But it won't be long before some clever marketing suit in MDH arrogates Arya Samaj to itself! After all Arya Samaj also literally means Society of Nobles. That will be the day when the terms marketing and politics would be used interchangeably.   

Slumdog Millionaire - the underdog's loss

Slumdog millionaire. Enough has been written about it. It has garnered praise and courted controversy. But at the heart of this seeming contradiction, lies the truth. Truth that we Indians have been running away from.

Is the truth that it shows poverty? Yes it is. Are we running away from it? No we are not. Everyday we walk the same slum lanes where Jamal and his brother cavorted. At every kilometer we smell the same stench of avarice burning innocence. Every other movie Bollywood has made, celebrates the basti or the slums. In fact some of our bigger names in Bollywood have risen from this labyrinthine cesspool.

So why the angst? Why give it a sophisticated euphemism of poverty porn? Is it fashionable to be contrarian these days? Or is it that we just cannot say the truth as it is and resort to specious pretexts that somehow convey the angst but not the real reason behind it? Big B certainly chose this way. Scores of others said what is politically correct. After all if they pooh poohed it, how does one explain the awards and nominations? Ergo it is a brilliant film!

The polarized opinions are nothing but a telltale sign of our own inherent insecurities. Indians have always judged personal success on the yardsticks set by others. And in the case of films, it is Hollywood that sets the rules. Success in India has always been relative. We lapse into comparisons and that is our bane. We have to make Mumbai the next Shanghai. Is Narayanamoorthy the Indian Bill Gates? We judge even our tragedies relatively - is 26/11 India's 9/11? The comparison continues.

If there is one thing that works as an indigenous analogy, a purely Indian example that blazes the path for the world to follow, it is Bollywood.

For once we had a wholly indigenous success formula in Bollywood films, but we disregarded it because 'none of that masala works abroad for the golden statue '.Because again we were judging our ouvres with a western lens. Whereas the truth is the treasure was always in front of us but we seemed content in finding it elsewhere.

In reality, all those films that got nominated for the Academy Awards (Mother India, Salaam Bombay and Lagaan) were works of art, with a unique storyline, made with a passion and dogged determination to some meaningful entertainment untainted with the temptation of winning a western heart. But did we learn from those? No we disregarded them because we did not win. Others won. We are bad losers. We compare. We judge. We lose. We just don't seem to have the conviction in our own abilities.

The fact is that since the turn of the 20th century when Indian cinema started we have attempted the same formula over and over again and yet were left bereft of the Oscars. SMD is an average Bollywood potboiler. The 10 nominations somehow seem to mock at the Indian film industry's tireless and fruitless 100 year effort! And this is the catch! We consider not making it to the Oscars the benchmark of failure. In fact movies.ndtv.com calls all our 25 entries so far as India's Oscar Failures rather than India's Oscar Entries!! And the 3 nominations so far are also lumped unceremoniously along with the 'failures'.

We didn't learn from the ones who made it to the O list. Instead we entered films like Aishwarya Rai's Jeans in an attempt to figure out the elusive formula. And along came Danny Boyle who snatched our very own original idea and rejigged it with a Hollywood tag. The fact is Boyle deserves the accolades for his uncanny ability of identifying a unique storyline. The device of knowing the answers through little vignettes of a slumdog's life was a brilliant coup by Swarup. Boyle dressed it up with an insightful understanding of the essential Indianness it deserved. And in the process ended up whipping up a winning formula.

And that is what is at the heart of this seeming angst, this controversy. We just cannot digest the success and accolades Danny Boyle is getting. Because when we compare SMD with something, the closest thing that comes to mind is the previous Bollywood release - which we never took pride in; which we always disregarded as the underdog. When the topdog ends up feeling like an underdog despite its achievements, it was just a matter of time that another one laid claim to the prize as the real winner was too busy looking for the bone elsewhere.

Shahrukh needs help

Doesn't he get it? Stars work much like brands. The sharper the niche you occupy, the better the chances of success. Ghajini is a run away success even if it is a remake. Because Aamir thinks strategy, Shahrukh does not. Even Akshay is more marketing savvy than Shahrukh. And marketing savviness does not mean how well one 'promotes' a movie. But what goes behind when it is being conceived. Are you thinking sharp at that stage? Are you focussed and in line with your image and viewer expectations?

What did Akshay do right? He learnt from his one big success that made his other films follow suit - Namastey London. He realized that his portrayal of a rustic villager with a heart of gold worked with the viewers. More than that he realized he had unwittingly occupied the slot vacated by Govinda - mindless plot with mindless comedy and action and a heart of gold. Only the flab was replaced with fab and you had a sexed up formula that worked. And he stuck to that niche ever since (Heyy Babbyy, Singh is Kingg). And today he is paying advance tax even higher than Shahrukh. Won't be surprised if Chandni Chowk does well too.

Aamir on the other hand has always stuck to the image of a man with a purpose. Love happens to him as a sub plot (Lagaan, Sarfarosh, Taare...). And he is today called the thinking actor. He has stuck to this formula in all his portrayals. That is why heroines are incidental in his films. A good niche to occupy.

And we all know Meena Kumari and Dilip Kumar's niche in tragedy, Amitabh's in angry young man etc etc. Dharamendra never could establish his own niche. He was talented, versatile and good looking in his hey days...but alas these are generic qualities expected from any actor. And we all know how we react to a soap brand that promises to freshen up versus that makes us fantasize. Which one are you tempted to pick up from the shop shelf? Is Shahrukh going the Dharamendra route? How long can he be seen as an ISI mark - that is generic too!! There is enough success behind him to see which niche works best for him. All he has to do is think strategic.

Hope this new year all stars find their niche. There are so many who still haven't - Saif, Abhishek...the list is endless. And if they need help, well they know where to look!

The Conspiracy Theory

I did not know I would be traumatized to this extent. I was neither a victim nor a hostage in the recent terror attacks in Mumbai. In fact I was far away from all this, safe in the confines of my house glued to the tele taking in every bit from each news channel. What happened was insane. But having nightmares about a possible hostage situation where sometimes I am involved and sometimes not, a fortnight after the attacks was even more insane. Why was I traumatized every night with these dreams when not even a close friend or relative of mine was a victim in those 60 hours of siege? Why was this happening to me?

Dreams that persist do so for a reason. It is the mind's way of looking at a fresh unexplored perspective. Maybe what I saw in reality did not add up. There seemed to be some loose ends. Some lingering cobwebs. Something that did not want me to have a closure on this entire thing. As I would wake up each time with a feeling that I could have handled the situation better than what I did in the dream - sometimes as a hostage, sometimes as the police and yes sometimes as a trouble shooter. The feeling always remained the same - that of not being able to handle the crisis deftly.

As it was certainly that in reality. A badly handled situation. We were unprepared, we all know that. And we did pay the price of this unpreparedness by losing precious lives - of not just the saviors but also of the unsuspecting citizens. But we also lost something more. Our objectivity. The media more than usual, as some were victims themselves for suffering bullet grazes and wounds and some FELT they were victims  -  stationed outside the scene of crime for nights. They were reporting everything - sensitive and insensitive. And in their hunger for breaking news believed all that was told to them. The only thing that mattered was who broke it first. Nobody stopped to investigate. Nobody became the dispassionate and objective voice of reason. That day investigative journalism too was slain.

For a minute, if one plays back all that one saw on various channels and pieces them together, it is not difficult to see that some things really don't add up.

Go back to the last terrorist being flung out of the window of the first floor of Taj. Some channels said he was being pushed out by an NSG commando, some said he was flung outside with the force of the shot fired. Whatever be the version, one simple truth evaded most journalists who in any case by then were nerve wracked - it was a blue body! There was no blood - isn't it implausible considering he was just shot at or came out of a freshly fought duel of sorts?

There are more such untenable situations. Did any one really hear a retaliatory fire from Nariman House's 3rd or 4th floor? All the shots that were heard were those coming from the guns of the NSG commandos! Each channel had perhaps one or two vantage points where their journalists were observing from. What they thought was retaliatory fire from terrorists was actually the NSG commandos' guns from the other side - an advantage a viewer watching 2-3 channels simultaneously had and not the heads of the channels in the studios.

There is more. The terrorists had a clear modus operandi - enter a public place; fire indiscriminately at whoever is visible and move out. And that is exactly what Kasab and his friend were doing, when they were caught. And that is exactly what the terrorists who entered the hotels did. Fired indiscriminately in the lobby, sprayed bullets in restaurants and corridors of the hotel and moved out before the authorities came. They understood the fear paralysis of the people. And escaped along with them on the fateful night from the kitchen doors and back alleys. They left behind the bag they carried to avoid suspicion. In any case nobody would have suspected them or recognized them as everybody was busy saving themselves. So we are still not safe - eight of the terrorists are still at large! Nobody knows where they are or how they look.

Only those who were trapped under the dead bodies were the ones who actually may have seen them in flesh and blood. The rest of the guests in any case were hostage of the situation. They preferred to remain in the safe haven of the rooms on hearing gun shots being fired. All the causalities happened only on that fateful night. If there ever were a post-mortem done on any of the bodies, including the last dead 'terrorist', it won't be surprising if they all show almost the same day and time of death - that of the first night!

So there were no hostages - and I still remember the scrambling news channels went through to claim they were the first in breaking a possible hostage situation. As if any worried citizen cared! There were NO HOSTAGES. Neither in the Taj nor in the Trident. A hostage situation is always followed up by a demand, mobile phones of hostages are confiscated, one or two are killed and shown as manifestation of intent. Why did no channel ever think of calling a hostage expert or negotiators who could probably have thrown light on the probability or improbability of a hostage situation? None of the guests rescued claimed to have 'seen' the terrorists - and again the only thing they had as evidence with them was 'constant gun shots' - which was nothing but our valiant NSG commandos trying to break open unoccupied or occupied rooms.

And that brings me to a sensitive topic. Nobody is a better judge of a hostage situation than those who are chasing the culprits in the thick of things. The MARCOS perhaps realized the speciousness of the situation and withdrew from the scene of action immediately after the press conference. They admitted two of their men were injured as it was a case of mistaken identity! In a terror siege of such magnitude, when there is Mumbai police, RAF, NSG and army - and they remained on the scene of action till the last day, why did the MARCOS withdraw? Obviously, there must be one objective and dispassionate thinker there who thought it is better to save precious lives of his men than keep up the pretense of a possible hostage situation and feed the media and the unsuspecting people a trail of lies.

Who started this? Politicians? News channels? Don't know. But it certainly seems to be a case of what one wants to believe in and continue broadcasting it as news. And when the ever questioning media does not question such basic gaps, then one does wonder whether there is a miasmic enmeshing of the fourth estate with the first and second to make a fool of the third!! Has anyone asked for a follow up post-mortem report on the terrorists who were claimed to be killed - of whom we were only shown the pictures a week later? Where was their investigative streak then? Or is the media just plain dumb?

For they are doing it again. They are again not connecting the dots and doing an investigation. Why else can't they see what they are being fed again in the name of breaking news? When Obama says India is a sovereign country and has the right to defend itself, the press and polity get orgasmic on the 'support' Big Brother is finally showing. Why can't they see that these are little flashes surreptitiously thrown by the US to conflagarate a war between India and Pakistan? How else will US economy recover but by creating a new Iran-Iraq in India and Pakistan? Does not our media know that US has started its troop withdrawal from Iraq and they could be looking for a new Vietnam which they can reduce to a warn-torn economy?  Can't they connect the dots to the pre-parley statement of Obama on Kashmir? Can't these journalists see what path they want us to take in the name of sovereign action?

It seems that all the estates want to wage an immediate war on Pakistan except us commoners. Each channel and newspaper is talking about the immanence of a war. War has not helped any nation - not certainly the warring ones; but it can perhaps help those nations who supply the arms and look to buoy their flagging and botched economies with the blood of innocent people. Why can't the media play a more constructive role and in the name of breaking news, end up making some by forging a clear, unbiased, objective fourth path - foster change; not fuel status quo.

IPL - the real entertainer

Ever guessed why it was a run away success...

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: cricketainment

Amchi Mumbai, Hamari Dilli

Bombay vs Delhi. No it's not the same argument that will continue here. Rather it is a perspective on how the culture and history of the two cities influence the language of the people. Having lived in Delhi for a better part of my life, coming to Bombay and getting to understand the lingo itself was a journey of intrigue and learning for me. In fact it is here that I learnt the difference between lingo and language.

I still remember that day. On the streets of Bombay, people were so civil and polite. But the language they used had violent undercurrents. Consider this: I asked someone for directions to a place I could not find after 20 minutes of going round and round in my car. And here's what I was explained very gently and in a very understanding way, I was told "Madam ...aap yeh road seedha pakaro, phir pehla signal se right kaato ...wahan pe left mein ek bada si building giregi ...uske khatam hote hi daba dena...bas aap pahunch jaooge."

Having not spent enough time in Bombay, I was a little perplexed at the lingo. Why is it that each word had a violent veneer....pakro (hold onto it), kaato (cut), giregi (will fall), daba dena (smother, throttle)...I wondered. The same directions if said in the Delhi language would have sounded polite..."Behenji...ap is road pe seedhe le lo, phir pehle signal se right jab logey to left side par ek badi si building dikhegi...us building ke ekdam baad apka pata hoga." Sure, the language would be civil but whoever would have given me those directions in Delhi would have said it in the most lewd manner for a woman driver or just even a woman and especially one who has lost her way and looks like she can do with some 'extra help'.

Why was this so? A polite sentence spoken by an uncivil tongue in one city. And a lingo sprinkled with violence delivered gently in another. One wonders if the city's historical past and cultural moorings had anything to do with this. But for the similarity of number 7 shared by the two cities, the two are like chalk and cheese in the annals of Indian history. Mumbai is an archipalego of 7 small islands and Delhi comprises of remnants of 7 ancient cities. The similarity ends here. After this, one only witnesses diametrically opposed happenings in their past.

For starters, Mumbai or Bombay has sound etymological routes. Mumbai owes its name to Mumba Devi, the revered deity of the local Kolis. And Bombay is derived from the Portuguese 'Bom Baia' which means Good Bay. Delhi or Dilli's origin is vague and conjectured to some unknown Dhillu ruler who is not known for any other achievements. Or worse it is attributed to Dhillika which has its Sanskrit route in the word 'dhili' or loose.

Delhi has seen a far more violent past than Mumbai. Delhi always remained the object of desire for its ancient rulers and dynasties. Mumbai a center for trade and prosperity. Delhi was raped and plundered as a symbol of conquest. Mumbai was used more as a center of dissemination of commerce and religion. Indeed whatever monuments we see in both cities are silent testimony to how each city was perceived by whoever ruled it.

As far back as 3rd century BC, Mumbai was under the Maurya Empire and under Emperor Ashok, the rapid spread of Hinduism and Buddhism was evident in what we know as Kanheri, Elephanta, Jogeshwari and Mahakali Caves. After the Maurya Empire, the Gupta and the Silhara dynasties left their indelible imprints in what we know today as Mahim mosque, Banganga tank and Walkeshwar temple. Much later when the Imperialists powers came to be, the city itself got its name and was given as a dowry gift to the bride of Charles II. The first Parsi, Dorabji Nanabhoy built the Zoroastrian Towers of Silence in Malabar Hills around the late 17th century. Much later the East India company built the Gateway of India to commemorate the visit of King George V and Queen Mary. So many rulers. So many change of hands. But not once did the city witness any siege or plunder. Mumbai was not perceived that way by its rulers. It was a city that had an immense capacity to absorb all cultures, faith and religions. It was indeed a city that wore each new patina as a fabric of life and interestingly depended on it for sustenance. It was a city that gave to its people and people wanted to give it back...just as they would to their mothers.

Delhi on the other hand has not been so fortunate and fecund. It was always perceived as the well endowed courtesan who begged to be plundered. Indeed, it is said that Nadir Shah got so much wealth from plundering Delhi that he didn't have the wherewithall to carry it all back home. In fact, despite being plundered so many times, Delhi has had the amazing resilience to regain lost glory only to become a victim of greed yet again. All the monuments are a testimony to the many pillages it has suffered. Whether it was the barren gift to the Pandavas that transformed into a haven in Hastinapur/indraprastha, or the Mauryan Empire or even the Tomar dynasty, or even later with Prithviraj Chauhan or Qutb-ud-din Aybak of the Slave dynasty, all Delhi ever saw was a series of forts and townships that became part of the seven cities. Even Qutub Minar was built as a defense watch tower or a symbol of victory.

Even in the Mughal Empire that ruled the city for almost three centuries, built more forts, more tombs and established more townships of which old Delhi or Shahjahanabad is one. Till Nader Shah and Ahmed Shah Abdali defeated the Mughals and the city came under the British Empire. So what we see of Delhi is more of the 20th century Lutyen's Delhi. There is no monument standing as silent testimony to peaceful or prosperous times. It has been a lustful thing to possess. Delhi has borne the scars of the past with stoic resistance. So how could the victim ever become vanguard?

If that is true, then why the language difference. I guess it is the lingo difference and not the language difference. Mumbai has a distinct lingo that Delhi cannot boast of. It is a delectable combination of all cultures it has embraced in the past. And how it is delivered is the real evidence of its cultural moorings. So we cannot blame the Delhiites for Delhi's historical wounds. Subliminally, the city has passed them on to its denizens. So the next time you find a Delhiite's behavior offensive, remember it is the city's past that is festering on his tongue and it only behoves a Mumbai heart to forgive them.   

Cricket is not in our genes

There's nothing wrong with cricket. There's nothing wrong in cricketers endorsing different products. There's nothing wrong in us not getting the world cup and returning empty handed. Aaah, there I said it and am sure am being lampooned for having said this. But hold on. Why nothing wrong? Because we Indians have still not shrugged our colonial hangover Gandhigiri notwithstanding.

Somewhere deep down we still repect the power an individual can weild. Not an entire nation. Culturally we may be a collective society but aspirationally we always were and remain an individualistic society. We interpret today 'power of one' as the power of 'one' - one man, one woman, one family, one leader, one dynasty or oneself. Unity in diversity was a sugar coated pill forced down the gullible and raw throats of partition torn Indians. But the very same politicians who gave the pill were themselves the victims of power of 'one'. We never were a team. We never could be. It was perhaps never in our genes.

We have always performed as individuals and shone. It was Gandhi and Nehru then, it became Indira, Rajiv and Sonia later. The one team that we thought was a true alliance with a specific role for each person - the NDA - collapsed. The electorate voted for their colonial past. The elected were happy in their present with the power of 'one' status bestowed on them. Everybody was happy. It runs in our history. Single leaders. Mass following.

Did we ever have something like the Boston Tea Party that sparked the American Revolution? Do you recall any one leader in that? Do you recall the Storming of the Bastille which sparked the French Revolution? Any memorable names that come to mind? No. Becasue that was in true sense teamwork. It was a class overthrowing another. Even the Russian Revolution resulted in the peasants overthrowing the czars.

And what do we have? We have the Indian Mutiny. Truly team work. But our need to attach a hero to a movement to give it credence is what makes us what we are today. We want to and seek out names like Rani Laxmibai and Mangal Pandey and valorize them as icons.  We never could do a seamless team effort. And when we did it really in the Chauri Chaura incident, Gandhiji suddenly had moral qualms about the 'ethics' of a racial oppression. The struggle for power of 'one' was apparent then, it was apparent also on the president ship of Congress with Subhash Bose. The individual aspiration was too strong for national team spirit to survive. Esprit d'corps is too french for us and most of us do not even know how to pronounce it well, leave aside know its true meaning. It's just not in our genes.

We seem to take the adage - too many cooks spoil the broth - too seriously and wear it on our sleeves. Why else do you think independent India has had almost no successes wherever team work is concerned? Whether it is a political party, a team of sportsmen, corporate offices, group of environmentalists or even the Mandalized doctors, we are a team with no steam. So why blame the poor cricketers? Whoever has shone has been an individual, self motivated, driven and passionate about their goals first and being an Indian and hence playing for the nation happened by happy default later. Examples abound in Sania Mirza, Jyoti Randhawa, Vishwanathan Anand, Narain Karthikeyan, Prakash Padukone in sports, Shiamak Dawar, Amitabh Bachchan, Shahrukh Khan in entertainment, Dhirubhai Ambani and Narayanmoorthy in enterprise and of course the Gandhi dynasty in politics.

So why blame the poor cricketers? They behaved in the most natural way. Whether it was the team itself, or the board, or the selectors, we should have known the story about too many cooks and the broth. Look at what happened to a behemoth of an enterprize, Reliance,  when it passed from the first generation to the second. Too many cooks again. Or for that matter most family owned businesses which are now big corporates be they the Birlas or the Bajajs. Or any political alliance.

We are a dichotomous clan. We believe in individual performance. And when the individual is bestowed the power of 'one', we are a team. But bestowing that 'power of one' is itself a struggle. In cricket, a struggle that promises to complete its silver jubilee. The individuals goals are almost always more important than the collective goal.

On the other hand, when collective goal is all what matters, we are a team. As it happened in 1983. There was no single leader. The only leader was the cup. We were self motivated, driven and passionate about cricket. Winning the cup happened by happy default.

Bollywood - The Denial Tribe

Passionate lip lock. The watershed in Hindi cinema. So far taboo - suddenly given the thumbs-up by the censor board. It was ok to kiss on the larger than life silver screen. What followed was a slew of films capitalizing on it to get the box office collections ringing louder than usual. Films like Khwaish were described not as per genre of a moving love story but on its Kiss Count - the film with 17 kisses. How bizarre is that? But what is more bizarre is Bollywood itself. Bollywood that revels in the new found independence is a shy bride itself. Or at least pretends to be one. Yes, Bollywood - the world which film stars populate.

Bollywood as a word is hated by most stars. But I want to use it as it best describes their world - that coterie of mega stars and starlets, the wad of cash rich producers, the thin layer of underpaid script writers and overpaid music composers, lyricists and of course the iconic film directors. Bollywood, the real world which houses these people must not be confused with Hindi cinema. For, Bollywood is not Hindi cinema.

Bollywood is the world where the stars live. Hindi cinema is the world where these stars live the lives of ordinary people. Hindi cinema is a microcosm of our culture, our values, our thinking. It changes as we do. It reflects what we think. It is art imitating life. That is what Hindi cinema is. But it is not Bollywood. Hindi cinema is about the masses. Bollywood is tribal. Hindi cinema is ever evolving. Bollywood as a tribe is static, never changing. Hindi cinema is liberal (more so, now that kisses are allowed). Bollywood is parochial and feudal.  Hindi cinema is progressive. Bollywood is still living in the Victorian Age. How ironic then that the contemporary is made by the tradtional!

Why do I call Bollywoodians traditional? Because that is what they are in their personal real lives. They behave very similar to a tribe with a few tribal lords that draw the line of morality even when they attempt to cross it in their ouvres. The tribal laws are set and rigid. One man's wife cannot kiss another man on screen. That is the unwritten rule. Once a woman is married in real life, she ceases to be an actor on screen! But the man continues to be one. No wonder all kisses are showered on nubile actresses and all the married ones are left untouched - even though "the scene demands it". The male ego of this tribe is too inflated to accept a real life wife kiss another actor even if it is an essential part of the acting. The entire tribe complies. No wonder a much married Kajol in real life was asked to deliver a kissless copulation in Fanaa. The scene and script certainly demanded it. Only the real life marital status came in the way. Look at all other countless liplocks that have happened. The actress who gets kissed and kisses back is always unmarried in real life. The marital status of the man, however, is not important.

And it is not as if the lady herself decides. It is her marital status. A much kissed Juhi Chawla in Lutere is made to seal her lips after she gets married. Same will happen with Aishwarya, Preity, Priyanka, Kareena once they get married. Karisma's tryst with lips stopped after Raja Hindustani. You may say, much is being made of just a kiss. But this is a sign of something deeper. Of the double standards of the tribe. Of the tenuousness of real life relationships. Of the lack of faith in them. Of the specious ways of covering one's insecurities. And of the sophisticated veneer that hides the hollow inside.

Why else is there a denial of the casting couch practice? There is denial of the links with the underworld too. There is denial of relationships gone sour. There is denial of real credit and appreciation.  There is denial of a healthy competitive spirit. Why is Bollywood so wont to expressing itself openly? When the profession ironically demands that very openeness and candour? In trying to be others, they have forgotten to be themselves. What is the use of all the excess when one has to live a life of constant denial?

Old wine. Old bottle. New label - Corporate

Success is tricky. It is enthralling at first. Then it haunts you. There is always this need to better it. And there in lies the trap. If you attempt to repeat success with the same formula, you better be sure of all the equations and the calculations that got you there. Or the other option is to take the risk of creating an altogether new potion and hope that it is as potent as the earlier one. The risk involved in both is equally big. But the chances of failure in doing the former are more. As same formula means an audience already familiar with your modus operandi. And in doing so you have created your own Frankenstein. You have to now deal with a universe of vastly different expectations your earlier success fuelled in the minds of this savvy and familiar audience. And this is where Madhur Bhandarkar went wrong in Corporate.

The word politics always unwittingly gets used with another word - dirty. There is nothing new in this. Dirty because there is always an innocent scapegoat while the perpetrators join hands and revel in the end. Hindi cinema has used politics as the text and subtext of many movies for as long as we can remember. And today's corporate world seems to have embraced both the words - dirty and politics as second skin - in the way it works. This is perhaps what inspired Madhur Bhandarkar to use as a plot for his film Corporate. But he lost the original thought somewhere in attempting to gloss up an age old theme of dirty real politics with a corporate world sheen. His calculations went wrong. His equations didn't add up successfully. As the real subject matter of a corporate office was only used as a context and not the microcosm where all the dirty politics happened. The politics that happened was political in its true sense and not corporate.

He didn't do what he did in Page 3 - successfully debunk what lay behind the glamour of the socialites from an objective outsider's perspective. What made Page 3 successful was the various sub plots of different socialites and their reasons for being in the party circuit. These very differing reasons provided the humorous and real life insights that made Page 3 successful. The real agendas of each party-goer were played back beautifully in his/her personal life when each returned home. Page 3 provided that crack in the socialite-veneer that assuaged the voyeur in the masses. And it raised the expectations for the next magnum opus - Corporate. One expected to see the real politics in a corporate world. Not what happens at the state and government level which in any case has been so often flogged. One expected to touch and feel the lives of the corporate executives, their pains and pleasures and the real reasons why they succeeded or failed. As isn’t that what corporate politics is all about?

Instead what we saw was the personal and professional life of only one protagonist - Nishi. She was not a victim for the whole two hours and fifty minutes. The whole time was spent on glamorizing the corporate world and the way it worked. An organization was still portrayed as a clean and fair organization within. Which is not true at all, most of the times. Yes there were the unethical espionage escapades with rival companies. But even a slice of internal rivalries was not touched upon. The microcosm of a corporate unit is portrayed clean till it gets tarnished with the political world outside. And that is where the fundamental flaw is. We don't need to be told how dirty real politics is. It was time the masses were made voyeurs to the real goings-on of the corporate world and its real motivations and vulnerabilities. Not state level political wine in the same old scapegoat bottle with a new label – Corporate! Spare us the routine, please.