Mahatma Gandhi on 'Online Hate'

 

I am a big fan of Mahatma Gandhi, and I was wondering if Gandhi ji would be alive today, what would he speak about “online hate”. Online hate is something which may be looked at as a “spin off” of plain vanilla hatred. I collected some of the quotes attributed to Gandhi ji in order to capture what he could have said on this topic. Hope you like these.

***

Hate the sin, love the sinner. - Mahatma Gandhi

***

Retaliation is counter-poison and poison breeds more poison. The nectar of Love alone can destroy the poison of hate. - Mahatma Gandhi

***

If you love peace, then hate injustice, hate tyranny, hate greed, but hate these things in yourself, not in another. - Mahatma Gandhi

***

The world is weary of hate. - Mahatma Gandhi

***

Hatred can be overcome only by love. - Mahatma Gandhi

***

God is Light, not darkness. God is Love, not hate. God is truth, not untruth. God alone is great. - Mahatma Gandhi

***

My personal religion peremptorily forbids me to hate anybody. - Mahatma Gandhi

***

Harshness is conquered by gentleness, hatred by love, lethargy by zeal and darkness by light. -Mahatma Gandhi

***

I would rather drown myself in the waters of the Sabarmati than harbour hate or animosity in my heart. - Mahatma Gandhi

***

True ahimsa should mean a complete freedom from ill-will and anger and hate and an overflowing love for all. - Mahatma Gandhi

***

I may fight the British ruler, but I do not hate the English or their language. In fact, I appreciate their literary treasures. - Mahatma Gandhi

***

It is no non-violence if we merely love those that love us. It is non-violence only when we love those that hate us. - Mahatma Gandhi

***

One may detest the wickedness of a brother without hating him. - Mahatma Gandhi

***

- Rahul Tiwary

Is there a larger conspiracy behind anti-Hindu Advertisements?

 

These days, we are witnessing mass online protests against one commercial Ad after another, other what appears to be anti-Hindu content. FabIndia is latest example, where the company aired an Ad appealing to Muslims on the occasion of Diwali and people were immediately offended by it. Before that Myntra and Tanishq are other recent examples which created outrage.

On the surface, people are wondering why so many companies are showing Ads which are especially against Hindu culture. There is no similar attempt to hurt feelings of other religions and Hindus are specifically the target. My views on this are as follows.

If we notice which companies are making such “risky” Ads, we can notice that mostly big multinational or national corporations are making such ads, not small or medium size companies. Most Advertisements try to do sales promotion for companies’ products and services. These are part of marketing campaigns over which big companies spend crores of rupees. If a company gives a discount which happens during Diwali sales and puts advertisement, it will increase sales only during the “season”. So, what most big companies are trying to do is to shape “customer behavior permanently” through these Ad campaigns! Think about it and it will keep getting clearer.

A few years ago, most companies and products in India were local or national. Since 1990s, lot of MNCs came to India. Plus, there are many foreign Ad Agencies working in India too. The MNCs found local Indian culture, which was predominately Hindu culture, “different”. Traditional Indian culture did not encourage the over-commercial, materialistic, transactional, impulsive shopping experiences. Indians were looking for mainly permanent solutions rather than things which need to be replaced every few years (this is why Japanese products became too popular in India, before American brands arrived). So, these companies, instead of molding their products and services totally for the local culture, decided to change the behavior patter of Indian consumers. They heavily relied on mass media campaigns and advertisements for this purpose.

Many people have noticed that TV Ads do not show Hindu women wearing “bindi” anymore. It is simply because if they show women wearing Bindi, it sends a “traditional” impression in the minds of viewers, and hence customers are not encouraged to do impulsive shopping. Hence the TV Ads essentially show women in Western attire, doing shopping, bullying their husbands, or doing things what traditionally men do, in order to trigger modern, liberated impressions in customers, which could promote generous, impulsive shopping in female customers.

And when it comes to promote such commercial culture, all companies are on the “same side”, because it is in their common interest to change customer behaviour towards materialism and excessive, impulsive buying. Also, most businesses are inter-connected these days and higher sales in one business can also increase sales in other sectors.

Therefore, I think the larger battle we are witnessing is to “change customer behavior permanently”, “make them more Western in thinking and decision making”, “get them out of traditional culture which discourages spending”, and the likes. These companies are trying to tell us that we have got “one life” and hence we need to enjoy that "one chance of human life" by buying their products and services which at the end of the day means transferring our money from our bank accounts into their pockets ASAP. That is the ultimate purpose of all these Ads. So, I think that these Ads do not specifically want to hurt Hindu feelings, but are ending up doing it because the Hindu culture is coming in their way. 

What FabIndia probably tried to do was to "differentiate" itself among the minds of Muslim customers, making use of the Diwali festival. During Diwali time, all companies and brands appeal the festival driven customers, who are predominantly Hindu, although Diwali has a secular side too. If we look at marketing campaigns of most brands, they make use of symbols of Diya, Shri Ganesha or pictures of Goddess Lakshmi too. What perhaps FabIndia tried to do was to try to stand out of the crowd, and appeal to Muslims by giving their campaign a different look. If it worked, perhaps FabIndia would have got sales from Muslim customers during Diwali, which could be seen as a "win" for marketing team, right? They took a "risk" and it backfired because customers still see Diwali as a Hindu festival and were not happy with any company tampering their experience. 

I think it would be more sensible for all companies' future growth to understand the local culture and try to interwind their product and services with the local culture, instead of confronting it. Brands like Cadbury already succeeded in doing it many years ago, when it tried to make people buy and gift chocolates along with Diwali sweets on the festive occasion. Cadbury did not call sweets "regressive" or try to make those who buy sweets appear inferior. It did not offend, and hence it was more successful. 

As a bottom line, I would want that companies and brands should show better sensibility by not hurting local Hindu culture and rather make use of local cultural nuances to their advantage.

- Rahul Tiwary

MS Dhoni's CSK Win IPL 2021

Saving all these pictures for memory.

 

IPL 2021 Final Live Score, CSK vs KKR Live Cricket Score Streaming Online: Dream11 IPL 2021 Today Match Live Stream on Star Sports 1, Hotstar (indianexpress.com)

MS Dhoni Speaks About His IPL Future After Chennai Super Kings Win Fourth Title | Cricket News (ndtv.com)

‘Well done CSK, the fantastic MSD’: Ganguly, Sehwag, Gambhir, others congratulate Chennai Super Kings on 4th title win | Cricket - Hindustan Times

CSK vs KKR IPL 2021 Final Match Highlights: Faf du Plessis, Shardul Shine as Chennai Super Kings Beat Kolkata Knight Riders to Lift Fourth IPL Trophy (india.com)

- Rahul Tiwary

Indecent Proposal

 

I watched this old movie named “Indecent Proposal” (1993). I had come across it a couple of times on Netflix but did not open it so far. After watching it, I liked it.

The centerpiece of this movie or its plot is a couple who had married young and are currently in a big financial crisis during recession and about to lose their house. An older billionaire spots the cheerful young wife and likes her. He proposes to the couple that he would give them 1 million dollars for the lady to spend “one night” with him. The couple decline the offer and move away. Later, they ponder over the offer since it would solve their financial crisis forever. The wife says that if husband agrees, she is ok to accept the offer. They vow not to talk about the episode ever in life. The wife goes, comes back, the couple gets money, they move on, but then the billionaire keeps chasing the lady and in the meanwhile the husband starts suspecting her; their relationship sours, they move separate and the woman goes back to the billionaire. The man is broken at first, and then picks himself up and survives. Then the lady asks for divorce, so the husband signs the papers in her presence after making an emotional “film like” appeal to her that he “still loves her”. The billionaire notices that the lady still had affection for her husband, and hence leaves her. She goes back to her husband and story ends.

Now, since I am married, I think I am qualified to make a few comments on where they made mistakes or what went wrong.

For the billionaire, it was ok to fall in love with her, or the idea of her, but it was not ok to make such kind of “indecent proposal”. If he was looking for a wife who was unspoiled by money and glamor, he could have found such a woman who was not yet married. It was not necessary to chase a married woman. Now, suppose we give him a benefit of doubt, saying that love cannot be “planned”, while practically we see people planning everything, and suppose he truly fell in love with her at first sight due to her innocence, he should have backed off after coming to know that she was happily married. Or, he had the chance to make friends with the couple, in that platonic relationship, he could have enjoyed her friendship without doing anything wrong. Plus, it was very wrong for him to use his wealth as a tool to torture the lady, by buying her house or interrupting her at her workplace. He was definitely a mean guy, even though he pretended that he was not so.

It appears strange for a moment that the wife had “volunteered” to go with the billionaire. The husband initially never took the proposal seriously, but only after she volunteered, he gave consent. Does that make her a bad wife? I think she made that proposal because she felt “ownership” of herself and her body, and it was like the feminist war-cry “my body, my choice”. It would have been very wrong for the husband to propose it, and she would have hated him forever due to it, but in that sense, it was logical that she made that proposal. And her proposal to accept the offer of the billionaire was wrong. What she agreed to do was still “cheating” on her marriage. It was surely going to be humiliating for the husband, no matter what he said at that time. As a bottom line, it was okay for her to divorce her husband, but not ok to go with another man while she was married.

Now, the husband was of course stupid to agree to her plan of accepting the billionaire’s offer. As expected, he soon repented and ran to stop her, but it was too late.

The tricky moment came when the billionaire declared that he won’t force himself upon her and would do only what she agrees. At that moment, the lady should have stopped him and not allowed to touch her. She already had backing of a signed agreement which said she would get the money no matter what. But she thought that since the billionaire had paid money, he must get its price. It was like offering ourselves to a lion, just because the lion has been running for 10 kilometers to get to reach us. She was a lamb who showed mercy at the lion who was trying to eat her. It looks foolish, but I guess it happens with emotional people.

Later in the movie, many wrong things happened. The husband should never have insisted to know “what happened”, because it was impossible for him to tolerate her after knowing the details. The lady should also not have told him details, no matter how much he asked. The lady should not have gone to the billionaire, changing her hatred into liking just because she saw he was trying too hard to get her. She should have taken help from the Police since he was stalking her and also harassing her. It could be seen that she did not try to resist him enough. But then, it was just a movie story.

Now, the billionaire should also not have tried to marry her because what if she later repented her decision! It was easy for her to start liking him, because he did not have much to dislike except for his age, but what if she later changed her mind? But since he was a billionaire, he had the privilege to take chances.

And it was also not okay for the husband to try to stop the wife from marrying the billionaire and to get her back. She had seen the life of luxury once, she had liked the billionaire once, and what if even after returning, she keeps a double mind about if she did right or wrong by returning? I mean, it is difficult to trust a disloyal person and by going with the billionaire, she had shown her disloyalty once. It was risky to trust her again, but then perhaps the husband was driven by his ‘male ego’ in his attempt to get her back. 

All said and done, it was a very interesting plot and movie indeed.

- Rahul Tiwary

Panipat - Film - 2019

I watched ‘Panipat’ (2019) recently. I had missed it at the time it was released mainly due to negative reviews floating all around. After watching it now, I can’t understand why there was so much negative publicity done at the time of its release and it even seems a “conspiracy” now. I found Panipat to be a brilliant piece of art, a cinematographic masterpiece and a movie worth becoming epic for decades to come. Perhaps the only thing which could have provoked media houses at the time of its release was the fact that the movie shows Maratha Empire in a positive light. Marathas had lost the great battle of Panipat, and perhaps famed movie reviewers were not impressed by the manner in which they are not shown negatively in this movie. Other than that, I can’t get any other reason. I now feel upset at missing to watch this movie and the fact that all those negative reviews stopped it from becoming a Box Office Hit. I would definitely compare this in the league with “Bajirao Mastani”.

Arjun Kapoor has played a great role and his body transformation for the role of Sadashiv Rao Bhau is magical. Kriti Sanon has played this historical role very comfortably and even Sanjay Dutt has done a great job.

Here are a few pictures for the sake of memory:

 

- Rahul Tiwary

Mumbai Saga: Why Bhau Killed Amartya Rao

 

Mumbai Saga is a brilliant movie made on the life of Mumbai’s big gangster named Amar Naik from the 1990s. If you watch this movie, its ending will look at bit puzzling.

Mumbai Saga is the story of rise of Amartya Rao (character based on late don Amar Rao) in Mumbai crime scene. The role is played by John Abraham who has done a great job. I think John’s acting has been always underrated while he has been giving one great performance after another. So, as per the plot, Amartya Rao is from a poor family who is forced to enter crime scene to protect his younger brother from other local goons. At that time, another big gangster was ruling the crime scene and there was a rising politician named Bhau (based on Balasaheb Thackeray) who noticed Amartya and promoted him so as to have his own muscle power.

Amartya rises in power but gets himself in soup after he murders a big industrialist in broad daylight in Mumbai. If he wanted it to create his terror in the minds of whole of Mumbai, he succeeded in that, but then Mumbai is too big for any single don or gang. Very soon, police starts chasing him and there is a particular police officer named Savarkar (role played by Imran Hasmi) who kills many of his close friends and even attacks Amartya at every opportunity. Bhau asks Amartya to go abroad for sometime in order to let the matter cool down, and asks him to let his younger brother run the gang in the meanwhile. But while Amartya is abroad, the policeman even attacks his younger brother and hence Amartya is forced to return back to take his injured brother to safety. At this moment, he gets to know that Savarkar is Bhau’s man and hence while he feels cheated by Bhau, he asks him to control Savarkar. Bhau is shown to have asked Savarkar to stop chasing Amartya, but right at the moment Amartya is to catch an airplane to take his brother out of India, Savarkar arrives and shoots him dead. It is shown that he had got the killing order and information about Amartya’s location from Bhau and another close aide of Amartya. Now the question comes that why did Bhau get Amartya killed when he was really a competent gangster and totally loyal to Bhau?

I tried to search for an answer but it is not logically explained anywhere. Then I thought about it and arrived at a logical reason which makes sense.

Bhau had helped Amartya rise in the crime scene and both benefitted from each other, but the moment he killed that big industrialist, Bhau got to know that Amartya was going “out of hand”. He had become too big and was no longer his puppet. Allowing him to gain more power would mean that he can be a threat to himself one day, in case the relationship sours, since both were very close and knew each other’s secrets. Hence he asked his man Savarkar to eliminate Amartya’s close aides and also him and his brother. Bhau planned to replace Amartya by someone more easily controllable as the leader of the gang.

Now, where did Amartya go wrong?

For the while everything was going fine, but the tricky moment was when Amartya came to know that Savarkar was Bhau’s man. Knowing that would mean that Savarkar can’t be after his life without Bhau’s permission and hence Amartya should have stopped trusting Bhau from that moment onward. In fact, he should have betrayed and killed Bhau too, if he wanted, since that is the rule of the mob. But, he still trusted Bhau for one last emotional thing: to take his injured younger brother to safety. Perhaps after keeping his brother to safety, he would have returned and then attacked or countered both Savarkar and Bhau. But, since he hesitated in taking an immediate step, Bhau got an upper hand and got him killed. Why should Bhau allow Amartya and his brother to escape, when he wanted them dead for so long? Amartya’s mistake was to trust Bhau even after knowing his real intention.

- Rahul Tiwary

People Need Not Hate Aryan Khan for Mistakes of His Father

 

These days, Aryan Khan, son of movie star Shahrukh Khan is in the news for all wrong reasons. He was arrested in an anti-drug raid by Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB). Ever since his name came out, social media went abuzz with all sort of bad press for Aryan and his father. A large number of people ridiculed Aryan. And a large number simply posted hate.

If we think about it, people do not really have reasons to “hate” Aryan Khan. Most of their hatred is coming to him only because he is son of Shahrukh Khan. Shahrukh Khan is hated by many because of his pro-Pakistan stands in the past. Now, why Shahrukh Khan took pro-Pakistan stand is not clear, but it can be seen that he had a lot of fan-following in that country and hence he tried to be in their good books. But then, the counter argument is that why would he lose fans in his own country in order to gain fans in another country? So, his true intentions would be best known to only him and a few close people around him. But Aryan Khan never made any controversial statements in the past. He was rather a camera-shy person and not much was known about him through Indian media till now. Before this drug-case, people, in general did not have any reason to dislike or hate him.

From what I read about this drug-case involving Aryan Khan, I could only feel pity for him. I felt sorry, that a man born in privileges like him could have used that opportunity to make so much positive change in our country and the world, but he simply found his escape in drugs. Is that not tragic?

And if we think about it, what Aryan faced is faced by all young people from the higher income group societies. If you move around in those circles, you are bound to find some friends or some people who take drugs. You need to have a strong character to say no and not to fall into their trap. And how can young folks who are overly protected from childhood expected to grow a strong character? We had seen in many past cases including ones involving Rahul Mahajan or Sushant how youngsters from rich families in are into drugs. It is not only their fault. It is also the fault of their friends, family and our society at large. We have not been able to make an abuse-free society. Most people fall into drugs as an “escape” and we as a society are also responsible for it.

While little is known about Aryan Khan for even me to say whether he is a good or a bad person, looking at the kind of mess he is into, I only feel sad for him. And while throwing all our hatred towards him on social media, we forget how all those can further destroy his self-image and can drag him further towards the wrong path. So much hatred, ridicule and defamation can cause him more harm than benefit. Therefore, we can see that all the people who are posting hatred against him do not really wish him well. They are just enjoying the “few days of fun” while news about him are on the front pages of media.

I wish Aryan Khan survives this crisis and changes his way never to touch such substances again and leads a positive, productive life. He is only 23, has a whole life ahead of him, and if he is able to endure this episode and changes himself for the better, he will only be proud of himself one day.

- Rahul Tiwary

Song: We had joy, we had fun. We had seasons in the sun

 

Terry Jacks - Seasons in the Sun Lyrics | Lyrics.com

- Rahul

Tragic Life Story of Amy Winehouse

 

I came across this documentary or movie ‘Amy’ (2015) and I watched it while skipping portions along the way. It shows the life story of English singer Amy Winehouse using archive footage and narrations by herself and her friends and family.

Amy Winehouse was born in England to Jewish parents in 1983. Her parents were not rich and they had later divorced. She was brilliant in music and took it up as career. She mentions that she had taken up music in order to be able to express the problems she faced (in her mind). Along the way, she started struggling with drugs abuse. She was in and out of “rehab”. She married a man who also used to do drugs and later he divorced her. She also made songs depicting her real-life events, like going to rehab or breakups or divorce. Her albums “Rehab” and “Back to Black” were massive hits. Her health kept deteriorating due to the drugs and unhealthy lifestyle she was living and in the end, she was warned by doctors to stop it or else she would die. She stopped drugs but took on alcohol and one day, she died of alcohol poisoning. Sometime before her death, she had gone on a live performance but did not sing and just sat on the stage, ruining the show for the production company and the audience. It can be understood that her final accidental death was a buildup of the things happening in her life up to that point. At the time she died, she was only 28.

The documentary film shows her life in a very personal manner and viewers can only sympathize with her. But at one point, I noticed that she told the reasons for her mental problems as: “Then she said her dad leaving her mum was what caused this, and her not really seeing her dad.” That was the beginning of her mental problems which drove her towards drugs.

At the same time, if we look at the lives of movie stars, singers or creative people, it seems as if a lot of them, if not most, indulge in drugs. It is common sense that drugs are “addictive” and once a person starts it, feels compelled to keep going on. At one point, when Amy Winehouse won Grammy Awards, she went backstage and told her friend that “all this (winning) does not seem as enjoyable without drugs”. That clearly showed the threat she was facing. From what I have read or seen in movies, creative people get a kind of extra boost to their creativity and imagination when they are drunk or on drugs, and that is what they seek whenever they feel out of ideas or inspiration. But, they need to think if it is really worth it. We all think too highly of our own creations and talent, but the fact is that this world is too bigger than us. If we do not create music, people will find something else to listen to. While our own unique creative contributions are important, but at what cost? This is why, talent is a double-edged sword and success is a great destroyer. 

Once you achieve what you wanted to, it does not feel same anymore. Then, you want more. And to keep seeking newer heights is a path of self-destruction in a way. 

To be so talented and then dying at such an early age can only be called tragic. While her music will remain forever, her life should be remembered as part of an anti-drugs and anti-alcohol narrative for young generations to come. Her mistakes were human and she was not incorrigible. I wish she was able to sort out her life before it was too late. 

Here is a portion of her handwritten song, as shown in this film: 

- Rahul Tiwary

P.S.: After writing this, I just realized that today is Amy Winehouse’s birthday. I had seen this documentary many days ago but got chance to write this piece only today. What a coincidence.

A Pinching Game

At times pictures make us stop and reflect, and hence it is an experience to watch poignant photographs. I was checking this article on Rediff about Mukesh Parpiani’s photographs. The article features many thoughtful pictures, though most of those are of celebrities and I could not get why. After a while I reached a place where I saw the below photograph with caption: 

As it says, this poor woman pinched her child (perhaps her own child) to make it cry, in order to gain PM Indira Gandhi’s attention. What was this woman thinking?

Indira ji was certainly not carrying a big purse with loads of money which she could give to these women. Or is it that the woman hoped she would become emotional seeing a child cry and announce a large sum of compensation for these people? Since these were riot-victims, of course Indira ji would have seen them in bad condition, she would also have seen some child really injured or really crying. What was the need for this woman to make her own child suffer? I think, most probably, the woman was uneducated and did not think much before doing it. She just used a common “trick” which she would have used at other places as well. I mean, I do not think she would have pinched the child first time or only time here in front of the PM. She did not necessarily “plan” it or expected anything serious “in return”. Perhaps her hands just did what they were programmed to do in such situations. And it is so sad to imagine.

Unfortunately, I was able to recall an incident after seeing above picture. When my daughter had come to my place after about 2 years, there was a boy who was with my in-law’s, working as a house help. He used to carry the baby in his arms most of the time. One evening, when I asked him to hand over the baby daughter to me, he tried to hand her over to me and before doing it, he pinched her and she suddenly cried. I scolded him about why did he do that and he denied doing it. But I had noticed that my daughter had cried even while she was in his arms and before she touched mine, and hence I had no doubts that he had pinched her. I scolded and warned the boy to never do that again. How could the boy who took care of her for two years be so cruel that he would pinch her to make her cry and hence not go into the arms of her father? Are all feelings, ethics, morality and sensibility limited to educated and rich people and do these people from lower section of society have no heart at all? I would not like to believe that. But the incident did prove to me that utter cruelty exists in this world and if people can pinch babies to make them cry in order to gain some petty political advantage, they could do worse things someday.

Such episodes disturb us and we may feel like losing hope in humanity. But these are also reminders that life is not only roses but also about thorns, and how much lucky we were to have safe and abuse-free childhood.

- Rahul Tiwary 

Aparajito by Satyajit Ray

 

Aparajito (The Unvanquished) is a 1956 Bengali film written directed by Satyajit Ray (1921–1992). It is adapted from the first half of Bibhutibhushan Bannerjee's novel Aparajito. The story as well as movie is one of the best I have ever watched.

In the story, a poor Brahmin family: a man, his wife and only son move from their village in Bengal to Varanasi where the man starts working as priest on the Ganga ghat. They are very poor, although the boy goes to school. Satyajit Ray has captured the images or old Varanasi so well that we are transported into that age and that place along with the camera. Then, the man catches fever and quickly dies. This episode is shown in such a touching manner that it has become a masterpiece. The man did not have enough money, so he did not want to call a doctor. He made some home medicine which makes him better. But next day, he goes to Ganga ghat for a bath, much to displeasure of his wife who would rather have him rest. While returning, he falls sick again. Before dying, he asks for Ganga jal and dies after having a sip. During his sickness of a few days, he does not complain, he does not curse his poverty, he does not call for any help. He showed a complete acceptance of his fate and his death, which was beyond imagination. I know movies and literature sometimes romanticizes death, but the manner in which Satyajit Ray has shown it, is unparalleled.

Now, even before her husband died, a neighbor tries to take benefit of the woman, whom she scares away. Then she works as a housemaid in some rich person’s home. But looking at the situation of her son Appu who keeps wandering here and there, she decides to rather return to her village in Bengal.

Once in village, the boy shows good talent in studies and after a few year when he is in teen age, he is sent to Calcutta where he studies in college during the day time and works at a printing press during the night to cover his expenses. His struggles are also shown in the movie, although the boy does not speak much and hence there is a kind of impending silence on the screen.

But after Appu moved to Calcutta, his mother becomes all alone. There is a very touching episode when Appu visits village for 4 days and she asks him to stay for one more day, but he decides to go. Later, he leaves the train, returns home and just goes to sleep.

But later on, as he struggles to cope up with the city life and his studies, he stops visiting village. His mother becomes sick, writes him letters but he declines to visit village. In the end, his mother stops asking him to come visit her, gets sick and dies. Appu gets a letter from a relative, visits the village, cries upon finding that she is gone and has already been cremated. But when a old man (relative) asks him to stay in the village for a few days and complete the last rites, he says that he would do it in Calcutta itself and leaves. This last climax stuns the viewers and this is also where a magic moment is created by Ray.

Here are a few pictures from the beginning of the movie.

This is one of the masterpieces that I am fortunate to watch.

- Rahul Tiwary

A Lover Boy

 

The title of this blog post is not to offend anyone. I am just describing an incident as it happened.

On a train journey, I came across a Muslim boy sitting on the opposite berth. He must be in his early 20s, had full beard of at least 20 cm (quite long for his age), and wore white salwar kameej like a lot of traditional Muslim men do. At first glance he looked like a regular guy. But on second look, there was something weird: in the name of luggage, he had carried only a red backpack which was also mostly empty. A “red” backpack did not go well with his looks! But I guessed that he could have loaned it from some friend, as a possible explanation.

The boy offered namaj right on his top berth with full yoga-like poses twice in the day – once in the morning and once in evening. After offering evening namaj, he started making some phone calls. I noticed his calls after a while, since he was talking for over an hour.

He was talking to some girl and she told him about some of her hobby or interest, and then he told her, “Now I am coming to know about your hobbies and how wasteful those are. It was much better if you could develop a hobby in namaj (Muslim prayers)”. It was weird. How could he call offering prayers as hobby? Anyways. After a while I noticed that he had been making one call after another. And then it went interesting when I paid a bit of attention.

It became clear that he was calling only girls and talking from the point of view of courtship before marriage. It seemed as if his marriage proposal was in progress with all those girls. And many of the girls were sisters of his friends, because he often talked about their brothers as his friends. And whenever the girl on the other side of phone told about some other girl, he would ask, “which number of sister she is – i.e. how many sisters she has?” It was clear that he was “expanding” his knowledge of girls in his target group.

He talked to one girl addressing her as “tum”, to another with “tu” and then with one girl he talked calling her “aap”, with full respect. He talked to one girl in Bhojpuri, one girl in very fluent Maithli and then many girls in Hindi. This guy was a James Bond!

The last call he made was really interesting. The girl on the other side of the phone told him that she considered him as a “bhai” (brother). Then he said, “If you considered me as brother, then why did not you come to meet me when I went to your home that day? What is wrong in meeting your brother?” I felt sick listening to this cunning guy.

Then, he asked the girl that she could stay at his parents’ home when she had to appear for some exam. She asked about how did his home look like. And he replied, “My house is not as good as yours, but you will feel nice there.” He said it in such a loving and polite way that it impressed me. He was playing with the girls' minds. Then, the girl said that she was not comfortable staying in a house which had other males. He replied, “There are no males in my house! Only my father is there, my younger brothers are there and my sisters are there. You will not feel bad there; there are no males there.” So, according to him, his father and brothers did not count as “males”? It seemed that his answers or arguments were not good enough - but he added a last sentence as assertion which was really convincing. For example, "my house is not as good as yours" was a weak argument, but he added, "but you will feel nice there" as a gimmick. Similarly, he counted the number of males in his house but in the end said, "there are no males in my house", as a gimmick. I think all frauds and cheats use certain techniques to trap and play their victims and perhaps this was his trick. He might have learnt that people did not remember our full answers but always remembered the last few words, so may be had devised such a trick. Otherwise, his contradicting statements did not make any sense to me. I could also notice that he mentioned both brothers and sisters in “plural”, indicating a large family. In the end, he told the girl that his mother will be calling her tomorrow, to ask her to stay at their house when she has to appear in her exams. 

I know that I found this guy interesting also because I have never had a girlfriend of my own, and hence I would have certain curiosity about such guys and their ‘charming’ ways. And I would also accept that I saw a Muslim “lover boy” like him for the first time. I have seen enough ‘road-Romeos’ in public places, but never a Muslim guy, whom I thought were better behaved and did not make girlfriends. Perhaps with mobile phones as a ‘game changer’, such boys are thriving even among traditional Muslim families.

Anyways, all said and done, it was an interesting experience to have. The last memory I had of him was when I thought that he was like "Musafir Ali" of the web series Ray (played by Manoj Bajpayee). 

- Rahul Tiwary

Our Women Ministers: What their ‘Bindi’ Tell Us

 

Today is Late Sushma Swaraj’s death anniversary (punya tithi). A stalwart in Indian politics, she does not need introduction. But one thing that stood out of her was that everyone could “relate” to her! People saw her as “one of own”. It was because of her work and views, but also because of her personality. She sported a prominent ‘bindi’ on her forehead.

Sushma Swaraj always put bindi - mark of Hindu women and sindoor - mark of married women in India.

Now, recently our govt has expanded the cabinet and made many first-time ministers who are women. We now have 11 female ministers. There was a very popular picture shared by the ministers soon after the oath taking ceremony. 

I tried to spot how many of these ministers are sporting bindi and sindoor, just out of curiosity.

I find that Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman sports a very small, dot like bindi, and does not sport sindoor most of the time. She is married and has one child. 

On the other hand, minister Anupriya Patel almost never sports either bindi or sindoor, despite being married. Anupriya Patel is younger, and perhaps this explains. Many women these days are ashamed of putting bindi and sindoor. Some say that it is due to the influence of Missionary schools who discourage these signs of local religion.

Meenakshi Lekhi at times appears in Bindi and at times does not. And she seldom applies sindoor, at least that is what I can see in the pictures. She is married to Aman Lekhi, a senior advocate in Supreme Court.

Minister Annapurna Devi is a widow and hence she can be seen so as per the local custom among Hindus. Her husband Late Ramesh Prasad Yadav was Minister in RJD’s Rabri Devi Government of Bihar and she entered politics after her husband's untimely demise.

Minister Pratima Bhoumik has never married and hence she appears so. Do you know that she is the first politician from the state of Tripura to join Union Cabinet? Our current government has strong focus on giving voice to the areas who have been under-represented in the past and a strong North East policy. Pratima Bhoumik is popularly known as ‘didi’ (elder sister) in Tripura. 

Minister Shobha Karandlaje is never married but applies bindi which is alright since unmarried women can apply ‘bindi’. She is a prominent politician from Karnataka. 

Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti is of course never married; and she uses a religious mark (tilak) on her forehead. She comes from a small village in Uttar Pradesh and we should be proud of her presence in the cabinet.

I find that all other women ministers do apply ‘bindi’ and many also use ‘sindoor’ (though not all). 

Dr. Bharati Pravin Pawar is a politician from Nashik in Maharashtra. She is also an MBBS doctor by education and used to work as a medical practitioner. She is the daughter in law of former minister Arjun Tulshiram Pawar. 

Mrs. Darshana Jardosh is from Surat, Gujarat. She won her election with a historic margin of 533190 votes which is the highest lead by any woman MP in Indian Electoral History after Indira Gandhi 

Mrs. Renuka Singh Saruta is from Chhattisgarh and minister of state of Tribal Affairs. 

And I suppose Mrs. Smriti Irani needs no introduction. 

As a conclusion, at an overall level I can see that our ministers have used the ‘bindi’ more often but ‘sindoor’ less often. 

The popularity of 'bindi' may be because it is very convenient to use - most women use a plastic bindi which has a glue on the backside. Though traditionally women used a bindi created with some home recipe. Sindoor may look inconvenient because there is a chance to 'mess it up' by touching and it would spread on the forehead. But there are some variants, e.g. one comes in a sticky paste format, which can be used even by women who are busy at work. 

There is no shame in showing the mark of being married. Keeping a traditional look only makes us looks better, confident and comfortable with ourselves. And when it comes to public fields like "politics", it plays a role like no other. Sushma Swaraj did not keep bindi and sindoor for any political gesture, but it did help her relate to the common masses more. 

This exercise was not to shame anyone for their choice of appearance. It was just a  leisurely research and reality check on the use of popular cultural symbols. We also got to know our ministers better through this exercise. We all should strive for a society which is not ashamed to keep the harmless traditions and marks of our culture intact in our daily life. And when it comes to culture, women excel in it more than men. 

- Rahul Tiwary