Four: Baby Face

Let me start by saying that Baby Face has probably one of the best female characters that I have seen in movies. Barbara Stanwyck is 11^th in list of top 20 greatest female artists of all time. Some of the actresses above on that lists are there because of their star power but Stanwyck in no doubt was a far better actress than a lot of them. Her sexuality, sensuality and yet the strength makes her alluring to all men (still). In Baby Face they said that you can't take eyes off her.

Coming back to the movie, it comes from the collection of Forbidden Hollywood. Hollywood at the beginning of Talkies in 20s was experimental and by the end of the great depression it had started to experiment with themes which were too outrageous for conservative America. Baby Face is one of those talkies. In the 20s there were also a lot of issues with Stars, Directors and Producers and their private lives. Hence in early 30s a gentleman called Will. H. Hayes was hired to clean up Hollywood and put a moral code around it. In 1934 they adopted what is called the 'Hayes Code'. This was an exact copy of Landis commission to clean up baseball league in 1919. The real issue was, how long can you stretch 'Freedom of Speech' as a fundamental right? The Supreme Court of the US had already that this fundamental right is not applicable to movies but everyone kept pushing the envelope until it burst open in censorship called 'Hayes Code'. 'Hayes Code' survived till almost 1966 though it had started losing its sheen by the late 50s. Baby Face was released at the end of pre code days and it upset a lot of people.

Baby Face is about sexuality and love for self. Your own success and achieving it at all cost is the theme. In this the protagonist is a female and that gives the movie a new set of challenges and a different approach to solve them.

The movie starts with Lily Powers serving as a hostess at a seedy bar that her father runs in Erie, Pennsylvania. With men all around she seems like a small fish with hundreds of fish hooks trying to get her. Her father pimps her but she is strong and stands up for herself too. Here we see Mr. Cragg, the man who wants her to go away, is trying to make her strong and is like a father figure to her. After the death of her father in the accident Lily is motivated by Mr. Cragg to leave the town and go to a big city. He tells her that she has the power and that power comes from being a woman. Big city cannot be bigger than New York City and this is where Lily and the maid land up after seducing the train attendant.

Lily uses her charm and sexuality to climb out of misery, get a job and go up the corporate ladder, though not for herself but the men she charms. Men are not able to keep themselves away from her charm. She reaches right to the top to Mr. Stevens and then to his boss and would be father-in-law Mr. Carter. Both men start vying her and Stevens becomes fatal. Though for Lily there is one more step to go and that is owner of the bank himself. She is transfered to Paris where she works hard to do her job. After marrying him they settle down into a cosy luxurious life until one day she finds that even he is broke. What happens next?

The movie is full of sexual innuendos and no where you find a sex scene or even a full kiss. Yet the theme always revolves around Lily's escapades as she beds men and more pawerful men.

This movie is Nietzsche in practise but does Nietzsche win at the end.

My Favourite Scenes:

When she goes to Mr. Clark after her father's death.

When she is looking for a job.

Camera spanning from floor to floor.

When Lily walks into Stevens room knowing that his fiancé would be around soon.

The board room meeting.

Lily waiting for the cab in Paris.

My favourite quotes / dialogues:

After her father's death, Lily visits Mr. Cragg

Mr. Cragg: "What's going to become of you? Its up to you to decide, If you stay in this town you are lost."

Lily: "Where would I go, Paris, I got four bucks."

Cragg: "That's what makes me mad at you, you are a coward, I mean it, you let life defeat you, you don't fight back."

Lily: "What chance a woman got?"

Cragg: "More chance than man, a woman young, beautiful like you, can get anything she wants in the world because you have power over men, but you must use men not let them use you, you must be a master not a slave, look, here, Nietzsche says (shows her the book), 'All life, no matter how we idealise it, is nothing more or nor less than exploitation."

(closes the book) "Thats what I am telling you, exploit yourself, go to some big city, where you find opportunities, USE MEN, be STRONG, DIFIANT, use men to get the things you want.

Maid and Lily in New York City looking at a restaurant,

Maid: ummmm! Sure I could use some of those pork chops.

Lily: "It's all in your mind, you ate yesterday didn't you.

At the office of clerk Mr. Pratt

Pratt: (with a grin on his face) "Have you had any experience?"

Lily: (with a smug) "Plenty"

Mr. Cragg send Lily a book 'Nietzsche: Thoughts out of season' with a passage marked

Passage: 'Face life as you find it – defiantly and unafraid. Waste no energy yearning for the moon. Crush out all sentiments.'

When Mr. Stevens visits Lily

Lily: "Sorry my butler is off today, (handing him his cap), I like my guests shown out in style."

In Trenhomes car while he is dropping her home in Paris.

Trenholm: "Frankly I am surprised."

Lily: "Why?"

Trenholm: "I didnt expect you to stick to the job."

Lily: "That's why I stuck."

Disappointments:

Not many, just a few glitches here and there.

Rating:

Three: The Awful Truth

In the early 1930s, Hollywood started to experiment beyond the classical western theatre by exploring situations and characters which fit more with time and the silver screen rather than the stage. One of such experiments was especially around the female character which could stand up on her own. The use of this kind of format combined with comedy gave the comedy genre called ‘Screwball Comedies’. One of these comedies was 1937 production called ‘The Awful Truth’ it stars Cary Grant and Irene Dunne. Though the idea of ‘Screwball comedy’ can again be traced back to Shakespeare and his ‘The Taming of the Shrew’ but it wasn’t till the 30s that the strong women characters came out in the open. Another major social change that was happening in this post depression era was that even the rich were being portrayed as people who had common problems in love, life and money.

Though, like a lot of other genre it has been used again and again with all kinds of deviations and hence The Awful Truth doesn’t throw any surprises. Also with a very simple comic story that we have seen over and over again initially it doesn’t seem to be put in this list. However, even if it is predictable it grows on you.

Cary Grant is absolutely fantastic. His comic timing, his one liners and style are all of his own. No wonder Ian Fleming had him in mind when he created the character of James Bond. But Cary Grant was always common; his characters had nothing special to offer they were just you and me in special conditions. He portrayed that fabulously. Irene Dunne was wonderful too, though I haven’t seen any of her other works but this was a treat. Leo McCarey received the Academy award for the Best Director for it.

The movie starts with Grant & Dunne being married to each other and get into a fight due to a music teacher (played by Alexander D’Arcy) and that leads to their divorce. Enter another Oil magnet to woo Irene. One funny situation leads to another till it ends in Irene and Ralph Ballamy breaking up. However, by now Grant is supposed to be engaged to a rich heiress. But like all romantic comedies some fun is still in store.

My Favourite Scenes:

• Jerry, Lucy, Leeson and Dixie Belle sitting in a restaurant.
• Jerry clarifying to Leeson’s mother with his fingers crossed.
• The cap confusion with Jerry wearing a bigger hat.
• Lucy remembering wedding vows.
• Lucy and Jerry riding police motorcycles.

My favourite quotes:

• Oh, Mrs. Warriner, your husband is not like an American man, he has what I call a continental mind.
• Oh. Mr. Warriner, you are out of your continental mind.
• Dan Leeson: “New York, is good.... Jerry (with smug on his face) and Dan together: “for a visit but I wouldn’t like to live here.”
• Jerry (when Dixie is singing): “I just met her”
• Leeson: “I have certainly learnt about women from you.” Aunt Patsy: “Here is your diploma.”

Disappointments:

• I thought that the end scene was dragged a bit after a fast paced comedy for the first hour and half.
• A little choppy with characters coming and disappearing.

Rating:

Two: The Apu Trilogy

The Apu Trilogy is the series of 3 movies made by Satyajit ray during 1951 to 1959. It tells the story of Apurba, who grows up from being a small boy in the first to father of his own child in the third. These three movies made almost amateur-isihly have come to define Ray's cinema and more importantly Bengali & Indian cinema. They still remain the most admired and arguably the greatest work to come out of India. The character became so famous that the 'The Simpsons' character 'Apu Nahasapeemapetilon' is named as a tribute to Ray and his Apu.


When the first shot of movie was shot, Ray hadn't directed, Subrata Mitra, his cameraman hadn't photographed, child actors hadn't acted, one of the actresses hadn't acted in 15 years and the music was given by a certain Ravi Shankar who in those days had no name or fame. Yet or maybe because of it the movie was all too natural. When you watch the movie you become a part of it.

My first experience of Ray was with 'Gopi Gayan Bhaga Bayen'. After the death of Satyajit Ray on Doordarshan aired a lot of Ray's movies and I saw some of them then. Then in 1996 I was at Rolla, Missouri. One evening at the film school they were showing, 'Teen Konya', when I reached there the whole auditorium was full and the Dean stood up to introduce the movie. He raved about Ray's movies and it made me realise how famous he is outside India.

Martin Scorsese who has been heavily influenced by Ray had seen 'Pather Panchali' in mid 1950s on television and fell in love with it. Living in 50s America he couldn't believe that a culture so different from his could still hold such attraction for him. The movie transcends cultures as the basics of human values remain exactly the same. He kept seeing it again and again over the years, he had once said that when you see 'Pather Panchali' every 20 years it becomes better and better. I have a very similar feeling. The first time I had seen it I was struck by the sadness, maybe I was young and hadn't seen life enough to feel the beauty in it. This time around it blew me away.

These movies were made with utmost difficulties. Amateur actors, no fancy equipment, rustic location and have totally been shot on locations and no sets have been used. At one point Ray ran out of money and the shooting couldn't start for almost 2 years before West Bengal government stepped in to help him.

The movies are based on a novel by 'Bibutibhushan Bandopadhya'. Its inspiration was autobiographical 1920s India. Any coming of age 'Bildungsroman' novel needs to tread carefully as the essence of a person doesn't change and yet the change has to be evident. The good and bad instances which form us have to be subtle and yet stark enough to be relayed to the audience. The magic of Bibutibhushan and Satyajit Ray are seen both in the novels and the movies.

The first of the lot is Pather Panchali, 'The song of the little road'.

It starts with a young girl stealing mangos and fruits and sharing them with an old lady, to the horror of an ever struggling mother Sarbojaya (Played brilliantly by: Karuna Banerjee). You immediately feel a part of this little village and realise the small community's life is confined to trivial of their existence and not on the world outside. It is a close knit community where the fights and help are just an arm's length away. The relationship between Sarbojaya and Indir Thakrun is a complex one, Sarbojaya oppressed with poverty seems to be cruel towards the old woman.

(Indir Thakrun was played by Chunibala Devi, who was an old theatre actress and hadn't acted in 15 years. When Ray started to look for her, he found her living in a red light area. As he approached her she thought that Ray was there looking for a girl.)

On the other hand Harihar Ray, the father seems to be an idealist and optimist. As the time moves on a new member in the family is added, it's our protagonist, Apu. Apu and Durga's relationship flourishes, they become best of buddies. The life is set to move slowly, the stealing of the mango, the kids following the sweet vendor, the band at a wedding party and of course after the fight for trinkets the running and the eventual discovery of train.

(Here it is important to mention that the train scene was the first shot that Ray had shot and the only one when he showed it to the great John Hurst, he wrote back to America that he had just seen the work of the next great filmmaker.)

All along you are treated with the importance of education in the family, the struggle for money and of course the optimism of the father. Harihar has to leave the village in search of money and this is when the hardships turn into a burden for Sarbojaya. Each letter brings more unhappiness for her and then the true tragedy strikes.

My favourite scenes: Too many to mention

1. Durga hears the sweets vendor and asks Apu to ask for money from their father. As Apu is unsuccessful in procuring it they follow the vendor and a dog decides to follow them too.
   
2. The love and devotion that Indir has for the girl, especially when Sarbojaya beats her up.
   
3. The music depicting the agony of father when he realises his loss and the wailing after it.
   
4. The spider crawling out of the Durga's box with beads in it.
   

My favourite quotes:

1. Indir singing a song:
   

   "Those who came before are gone,
   

   I am left behind, a penniless beggar,
   

   Day draws to it close, night's mantle descends,
   

   Row me across to the other side."
   

2. Right at the end when the family is leaving,
   

   Sarbojaya: "I don't know what we would have done if you and your husband hadn't helped us."
   

   Nilmoni's wife: "If we had done more perhaps you would have stayed".
   

Disappointment:

1. The only one was that my two favourite characters will no longer be seen in the following parts of the trilogy.
   

Rating:

The Second of it is Aparajito, 'The unvanquished'

A lot of people consider this as the best of the three. However, it's a true growing up melodrama. It starts when the family has reached Kashi. Here you find Apu growing up at the banks of Ganga where his father is a priest and prescribes herbal medicines to the needy. From the dilapidated home and surreal surroundings of the village the town life seems to be doing well for the family. Apu has friends and Sarbojaya seems to be happier here. It lasts until the tragedy strikes again. Now left with a bitter choice of going back to a village with an old uncle, Sarbojaya decide to work in a rich family's home as a maid. Apu's life seems to have taken a little twist as now he is helping the family too with small odd-jobs. However, when Sarbojaya realises that she can lead that life but can't let her son into it she again returns to Bengal to the confine of a small village. Here Apu is being groomed to be a priest but his yearnings for school take him to the one nearby. He excels at studies. Then the adolescent Apu passes school and now wants to go to college in Calcutta. The dilemma of the mother is evident as Sarbojaya is not able to decide between the desires of his son and the fear of losing him when he goes away.

However, Apu persists and moves to Calcutta to his new college and his new life. This part ends as Apu finally is leaving the village life. The catharsis of life is gut-wrenching in it.

My favourite scenes:

1. Sarbojaya waiting to hear from the guest on how the tea is made.
   
2. Apu feeding monkeys at the temple.
   
3. Sarbojaya looking at Apu filling the hookah and taking a hard decision in that instant.
   
4. Apu sitting at the railway station.
   

My favourite quotes: (I am biased towards the few which I might have heard in my own childhood.)

1. Don't you have any money, Ma, don't you?
   
2. Do you like reading? And I don't mean textbooks.
   
3. We may live in remote corner of Bengal but that does not mean our outlook should be narrow.
   

Rating:

The Third of the lot is Apur Sansara, 'The world of Apu'

Having lost everyone around him Apu (played by 'Soumitra Chaterjee') is left with his only friend Pulu ('Swapna Mukherjee') with him. The protagonist has grown up and now we know that all that has proceeded in the last two movies will come into foray. What life holds for Apu now? Pulu is whisked away from the tormenting landlord by Pulu for his cousins wedding. At the wedding when the family finds out that the bridegroom is mad Apu is asked to be his substitute and marry the girl. Apu with money and no source reluctantly agrees, though he is not ready to be tied down he still accepts the fate. He marries a young shy girl from a rich family is uncertain about it. A 14 year old 'Sharmila Tagore', plays Aparna. Moving back to Calcutta the life slowly settles down and the love flourishes between them. Apu himself is amazed at his devotion for his wife and it shows in every aspect of his life. When Aparna passes away in child birth Apu's life is devastated too. He runs away to hide from himself and the world.

There is only one man who can save him and that is Pulu. Of course Apu needs to redeem himself and go back to claim his son. His son, 'Kajal', without is father is growing up to be a prankster and naughty boy.

My favourite scenes:

1. Apu & Pulu sitting in the cafe.
   
2. Newly married Aparna looking out of window through a torn curtain.
   
3. Of course the last scene.
   

My favourite quotes:

1. You must lend me a shirt and I must have a shave.
   
2. Apu: Aparna, Can you live with a poor husband? Aparna: Yes
   
3. Kajal: Who are you? Apu: Your friend
   

Rating:

The visual imagery of these movies is beyond comparison. Each shot keeps you engaged and makes you realise the beauty of the world we live in. Every time you watch them you realise that the beauty exists in small little things that are all around us. Subarta Mitra was facilitated in mid 90s for his work and he did not thank Ray or anyone else, he thanked his camera.

There was this Canon's advertisement hoarding in Gurgaon where a guy is sitting at almost an unreachable place on a mountain. My brother used to see it and always said 'What a great place he is sitting at.' I always replied, 'But you don't see how hard he must have worked to get there', He always retorted, "Why do have to say it every time?" Apu Trilogy and especially 'Pather Panchali' is like that. Satyajit Ray was a genius; he was not only a great filmmaker, great writer, great cameraman both with still and moving, great artist and a great musician and yet no one cares how hard Satyajit Ray and his team must have worked to make it, How many times he might have felt like quitting? How many times people may have discouraged him? How many time he must have felt hopeless. But finally, like most masterpieces of art he gave the world a movie which would remain in top 100 movies of all time for all time. Like the movie it tells us that great things only come out when they are not done for the money but only for love of it.

To end it: ""Not to have seen the cinema of Ray means existing in the world without seeing the sun or the moon.": Akira Kurosawa.

(One) Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes

In 1972 Werner Herzog made the movie, Aguirre, Der Zor Gottes which translates in English as 'Aguirre – The wrath of God'. Like most Werner Herzog movies its main character has impossible dreams and inhuman character both in terms of depravity and dreams. Klaus Kinski who plays Aguirre has played the part so well that you start disliking Klaus himself instead of the character. It is rumoured that Klaus and Herzog completely disliked each other but that didn't stop Herzog to make movies with him as his leading man.

Aguirre is an almost true account of historical characters. Though there is no direct source of information on what went on during that journey it seems a very plausible account. As the Incan empire fell and the legend of El Dorado became very prominent a lot of expeditions were taken by Spanish Conquistadors to find the mythical city. The story starts with the expedition of Pizzaro, which he is forced to abandon and move back. Though Pizzaro ended up being one of the great conquerors at the same level or maybe greater than Cortes, his first attempt was a disaster.

However, Pizzaro instead of immediately moving back sends a small team led by 'Don Pedro de Urusa' to go further on rafts and return in a specific time if they do not find El Dorado. It is very clear from the beginning the Aguirre doesn't like Urusa and very soon wounds him and charges him with treason to control this expedition. Aguirre is motivated to find the El Dorado and wouldn't let anything stop him. He even uses a canon to destroy a raft with fellow team members which is stuck and slowing them down. Urusa's wife and Aguirre's daughter are the only female members on this trip. Once in command his degradation as a human and his desire to rise takes control. He takes the raft with people who are loyal to him and moves further down the river.

The movie though sometimes moves very slowly has no real plot. You immediately know where the movie is heading and as an historical account you also know the fate at the end; however it is gripping because of the characters. I was a little disappointed when Urusa is rendered useless pretty early in the movie and conflict of two totally different characters is not shown at all.

Though most actors play their roles very well but Kinski as Aguirre dominates everyone and hence everyone else in the movie seems to be just a supporting cast. Helena Rojo, was a Mexican superstar and she plays Urusa's wife and in the movie she wears disgust for Aguirre on her sleeves. But one of my favourite characters of the movie is accidently appointed puppet king (of nothing but imagined conquered land) played by Peter Berling, his gluttony is as haunting as Kinski's greed.

The movie ends with some very powerful scenes with monkeys creating havoc on the raft.

This is an adventure and also I must say that not understanding German wasn't a big deal. The dialogues were simple and emotions, faces and subtitles make sure that language isn't your biggest problem.

My favourite scenes:

1. The opening scene where Pizzaro's party is descending the Andes to get to the river.
   
2. A long shot with absolutely no background music where the team is trying to hear noises coming from the forests.
   

My favourite quotes:

1. I am the wrath of God, who else is with me?
   

My rating:

Mood: When you want to appreciate good cinema.

Rahiman tha to prem tha.....

I read a very interesting comment on 'The Times of India' yesterday; someone had written 'Rahiman tha to prem tha, ab hain bin laden...'

Very early in schools while studying Hindi literature you are introduced to the concept of 'dohe' or couplets. These were famous in the era what is now known as 'Bhaktikal' in Hindi literature. It is from around mid 14^th century to 16^th century. These 'dohe' came from those eclectic times

This era in the mid 1500s was dominated by hermits and saints who did not leave their homes to create a new philosophy; instead they intermingled with the masses to raise its voice. This was the time when Hindustan had an emperor in Akbar the Great. This was the time religion was dominant but who followed which religion was so intermingled that religions as we now know now had lost their meaning. These were the time when Tulsidas was changing the concept on how Ram was being worshiped; he had just stolen 'Ramayan' from the Pundits, Brahmins and Scholars and put it into the hand of common man. This was the same time when Sufi music and Qwallies were being sung in every 'dargah' across north India. A 'julaha' weaver had just made two majorreligions irrelevant. If Ram was being glorified in the familiar language of masses in 'Ramcharitramanas', Surdas thought only of Krishna and Meera was madly in love with him. Malik Mohammad Jayasi had just written 'Padmavati'. It is supposed that Akbar himself with his friends used to visit these greats in disguise and once listing to Meerabai he had forgotten who he really was.

But coming back to Rahim, who was he? Where did he come from? While reading those Hindi literature books in school, I always thought that Rahim was a 'sufi-ish' saint. Rahim was a warrior and no less than Khan-i-khanna in Akbar's army and one of his famous courtiers. His father's name was actually more surprising, he was none other than 'Akbar's mentor', who did everything for Akbar what Humayun should have done, 'Bairam Khan'. Even after the fallout between Akbar and Bairam, Akbar never let his family go. Akbar protected him like an elder brother. 'Abdur Rahim' was born around 1556, this was the time when Akbar was 14 and just been around a year since he had ascended to the throne. So Akbar saw him not only grow up but very eagerly followed his rise in his Army.

He was responsible for annexing Ahmadabad. He had lead a lot of successful battles before Akbar entrusted him to the title of 'Khan-i-Khanna. He then stayed on in Ahmadabad for some time to take care of the province.

However, growing up around Akbar with the influences of his views on religion it is no surprise that Rahim came to be known for his 'Krishna Bhakti'. He had great command on Sanskrit, Persian Arabic and Turkish. He translated 'Buburnama' in Persian for Akbar. However he wrote all his work in local languages, 'Awadhi' and 'Brij'. He wrote Rahim-dohavali which is probably his most famous work. His other works, 'Shringar surath', 'Madanastaka' and 'Ras panchadayi'. He was also a celebrated astrologer and wrote a few books on it too.

He never use to look at the person whom he was giving alms to. When 'Tulsidas' asked him why he had such a peculiar way of giving alms. He replied,

देनहार कोई और है, भेजत जो दिन रैन, लोग भरम हम पर करें, तासो नीचे नैन

'dainhar koi aur hai, bhejat jo din rain, log bharam hum par karen, taso neeche nain'

(The giver is someone else, who gives every day, people confuse him with me, that's why I lower my eyes)

Some of his great couplets are:

रहिमन धागा प्रेम का, मत तोड़ो चटकाए, टूटे से फिर न जुड़े, जुड़े तो घांट पड़ जाये

'rahiman dhaga prem ka, mat todo chatkaye, tute se phir na jude, jude to ghant pad jaye'

जे रहीम उत्तम प्रकर्ति, कर करी सकत कुसंग, चन्दन विष व्यापत नहीं, लिप्तत रहत भुजंग

'je rahim uttam prakarti, kar kari sakat kusang, chandan vish vyapat nahin, liptat rahat bhujang'

कहे रहीम सम्पति सगे, बनत बहुत बहु रित, बिपत कसोटी जो कसे, ते ही सचे मीत

'kahe rahim sampati sage, banat bahut bahu rit, bipat kasoti jo kase, te hi sache meet'

चित्रकूट में रमी रहे, रहिमन अवध नरेस, जा विपदा परत है, वो आवत इस देश

'chitrakoot mein rami rahe, rahiman awadh nares, ja vipda parat hai, vo awat is desh'

रहिमन मोहि न सुहाए, अमी पावे मान बनू, बरु विष दी बुलाये, मान सहित मरबो भलो

'rahiman mohi na suhaye, ami pave maan banu, baru vish dei bulaye, maan sahit marbo bhalo'

ओछों का सतसन, रहिमन तजहु अंगार ज्यों, तातो जरे अंग, सिरे पे कारो लागे

'oocho ka satsan, rahiman tajhu angaar jyon, tato jare ang, sire pe karo lage'

होए जा की छांह ढीग, फल रहीं अति दूर, बड़ेहू सो बिनु काजाही, जैसे तार खजूर

'hoye ja ki chanh dheeg, phal raheen ati door, badehoo so binu kajahi, jaise taar khajoor'

सीत हरित, ताम्र हरित नीत, भुवन भरत नहीं चूक, रहिमन ताहे रवि को कहे, जो घटी लाखे उल्लूक

'seet harit, tamr harit neet, bhuvan bharat nahin chook, rahiman tahe ravi ko kahe, jo ghati lakhe ullook'

साधू सराहें साधुता, जाती जोगिता जान, रहिमन सचे सूर को, बेरी करें बखान

'sadhoo sarahen sadhoota, jati jogita jaan, rahiman sache soor ko, bayri karen bakhan'

समय पे फल होत हैं, समय पे झारी जात, सदा रहें नहीं एक सी, का रहीम पछितात

'samay pay phal hot hain, samay pay jhari jaat, sada rahen nahin ek si, ka rahim pachitat'

सबे कहावें लस्कारी, सब लस्कार कांह जाये, रहिमन सलेह जो सहे, सोई जागीर खाए

'sabe kahavein laskari, sab lascar kanh jaye, rahiman sleh jo sahe, soi jageer khaye'

We the people and Amoral Familism

It was 26^th January and as I drove from South Delhi to NOIDA I encountered very heavy traffic. Delhi's residents seem to be in a perpetual hurry here. They honk as if the world has gone deaf or rather to make the world deaf. They jostle with you in a car, most of the time they drive as if they have just graduated from driving a two wheeler and in a car they can still squeeze through those little spaces as they used to do in their two wheelers. They park and double-park without any worry of traffic rules nor do they care about the problems that others face because of it.

Suddenly I realised that it was 26^th January and India's republic had turned 60. There were cheers all across the media. Some people were critical of what we haven't achieved in these years, however most were upbeat about the past and the future.

I started to wonder do people even understand the meaning of a Republic. Do they know their responsibilities for it? However we are a Republic and we have been one for a long time. We have survived the nascent problems on being one and on the whole we are solving ones which exits. But ......

The traffic of Delhi was showing me that we were living not in a Republic but in anarchy. Why this selfishness? Why do we defecate in the open without a worry of cleanliness or the unhygienic condition it would bring to the residents? Why are we so unaware of our larger social responsibilities? Why do we keep our homes clean but throw the garbage on the streets? Isn't all this against the basic premise of being a Republic.

Now I know that most people would argue that Republic is mostly a political idea of governing. However in a larger context a successful republic is where a people are themselves responsible for others in the society. Here a citizen's behaviour is to create a society which leads to betterment of others and him in every possible way.

What is a Republic? A republic is defined as: A state where supreme political power vests with people and people are governed by elected or nominated representatives. Republic derives from the Latin phrase 'Res publica', which means 'A public product'; hence anything that we do should reflect that basic premise.

The earliest republics come from Greece and in northern India some Buddhist Lachchavi kingdoms which worked on Sanghas and Ganas. Probably they were influenced by the earlier Greek models. Greek model collapsed under its own pressure and Alexander turned it into his empire. The irony is that Aristotle who was his teacher actually wanted an oligarchy based republic. Later more successfully this idea was taken by Romans. Roman city state were the first true example of a republic until again the corruption and nepotism brought it down. Julius Ceaser was primarily responsible for it. Augustus Ceaser created an empire which we admire and loathe equally. For next millennia and half there were monarchies, anarchies and all other forms but the Republics didn't exist.

Then it was time for the two great Republics. Though, it was in England where it spawned from Italian Machiavelli's idea of collective exercise. John Locke in 17^th century vehemently argued that the power should lie with people. English parliament became the first bastion of Republicanisms. However, it was in the US and France where it took roots. The success of the US and France has shown way to almost all the republics that stand today and India is no exception. In the late 19^th century, Marxism and eventually Communism changed the idea of Republics, though now we know that they were far removed from actual Republics. What is an amazing achievement on India's part is that we were as divided as a broken windshield when we got independence and we were able to turn it into a concept of Republic.

Suddenly like Archimedes 'Eureka', it struck me, how many of these Delhites do actually belong to Delhi itself? Most of us who live in these big cities come from small towns. For example I come from a town which is so small that it is miniscule in Indian terms. I can not only walk through my town without breaking into sweat but actually run through it. I started to wonder is it 'amoral familism' which affects us when we migrate to metropolitans. What is 'Amoral Familism'?

Amoral Familism was a term coined by an Italian named, 'Edward Banfield'. In Banfield's work which was done in poverty ridden villages of southern Italy, he summarises that in these societies there is a persistent action to promote the immediate family. He goes on to blame the backwardness to villager's inability to work for common good.

Now neither am I a social scientist nor do I have expertise in it but when I think in India we have a different kind of 'amoral familism'. Here even in the presence of very strong extended family system (unlike the lack of it in Banfield's study) we still are very hidebound, very selfish when it comes to our family. Then we sometimes take this family concept to different circles, sometimes caste or clan based, sometimes to religion or economic levels.

The basic premise of amoral familism is that when rural societies turn into urban one but we still have a psyche of village life. We in India live in concentric circles. Our first responsibility comes for our immediate family, then our extended one, after that our neighbourhood, then comes our ethnic or religious group and beyond. The country or people we do not identify with come last. However, one surprising thing is that our cities show this far more than our villages.

Amoral familism could easily be attributed to why most Indians keep their homes clean but defecate on the road. Why a street corner turns into a garbage dump but people's bedroom is absolutely spic and span. It could also be explained to rash driving where people have very less regard for people they don't know. However this is very dangerous but maybe essential for society's transformation.

But what changes, what changed in America and France initially and then whole of Europe. What changed poor, uneducated, rural, agricultural, authoritarian societies into urban, industrialised democracies. Is democracy the key word here? Governments and people worked hand in hand to create societies. Government worked to remove social classes, disbanded large estates. They got in civil rights and laws which encompassed large masses of people and included the ones on the fringe of the society into the main fold of things. Private enterprises created wealth with the help of government.

Another important fact is the concept of larger society or humanity. Though Indians were far more welcoming to strangers and far more adapting and considerate of so called 'others' but I feel that this urbanization and right wing movements have made us more obstinate. We want to live with Nehru's idea of 'still larger cause of humanity...' & inclusiveness, this still has to be understood by urban Indians.

At least we are moving in the right direction, Right to Education is now a fundamental right instead of just being a directive. It took us 100 years to get there; Gopal Krishna Gokhle had first asked this as the right for Indian children from the Imperial Assembly. There is no other way but education to make society more egalitarian and more altruistic. So a good beginning but societal changes take a long long time to take roots. I hope that India draws from its benevolent villages of the past.

The Story

I saw a movie a few years back, actually it was 2001 when it came on HBO so it must have been 2001. It was a BBC & HBO co-production called 'Conspiracy'. It was a fantastic movie. For some reason me and a friend were discussing this movie and I remembered a story which one of the character told in it.

To give you a brief overview of the plot, this movie is about 'Wannsee Conference' which the Nazi's had. This was to discuss the final solution to their Jewish question. This story in the movie is told by Friedrich Kritzinger, deputy head of the Reich Chancellery to General Reinhard Heydrich. Though the scene in the first person is not in the movie, in the movie the story is being retold by General Heydrich to two of the other officers, Gastapo Chief Heinrich Muller and Heydrich's second in command for this job, Colonel Adolf Eichmann.

I think this is such a wonderful story that it needs to be read and understood.

Here is the story, if you like it and understand it, do let me know, if you don't still let me know and we can discuss it further.

 

Muller: So what was the story you wanted to tell me?

General Heydrich: story?

Muller: Kritzinger's story.

General Heydrich: Yes, he told me a story about a man he had known all his life, a boyhood friend, father left them when he was very young, he hated him, a mother who had nurtured and protected him, she died, man stood as they lowered her casket and tried to cry, but, no tears came. The man's father lived to a very extended old age withered away and died when the son was in his 50s, I think, at the father's funeral to the son's surprise, he could not control his tears, wailing, sobbing, apparently he was inconsolable, he lost it, that was the story Kritzinger told me.

Col. Eichmann: I don't understand

 

Do you?

 

The Fog and the year that was

I remember reading a story by Ray Bradbury called ‘The Fog Horn’ in school. The story told of a sea monster that rises from the sea during thick fog after hearing a fog horn and falls in love with a lighthouse. Now I didn’t remember the message of it nor the quality until I read it again after a long time but what I do remember is that all of us with our puny 9 or 10th grade minds had laughed a lot at it.
For last few days Delhi has been suffering because of one of the densest fogs that I have seen. Yesterday the nightmare started when I missed my turn and got onto the Greater NOIDA expressway. The 23 km long way has no exits and it took me almost two hours to traverse through the 46 kms in the fog. I have never been afraid while driving, neither had I had trouble driving in Scotland without Petrol and I have rarely faltered under the influence of alcohol or deprivation of sleep. But, I was scared yesterday. I am not sure what it was, the uncertainty of Indian traffic or the spooky nature of the dense fog. It really seemed that I was in a horror movie in the middle of the night, it was around 2 at night when this happened.

So the 2009 has passed us by and it was a year of tumultuous changes across the world.

Let me start by some things that have been sad and tragic first. The story that has been on my mind since last couple of months has been tragic suicide of 14 years old Ruchika in 1990 and subsequent fight for justice by her friend and family.

One of my favourite TV programmes of all time has been ‘Law and Order’. I used to watch so many back to back episodes of it that my uncle and aunt used to go crazy. However, the first season, season with Chris Noth and Micheal Moriarty, in one of the episodes the judge says, “I am appalled. We often say that public officials are not above the law but that’s not enough, they serve the law and if they don’t respect it who will.” This holds truer with the police force.

Now here we have a gentleman & a high ranking policeman who molest a young girl and when she complains goes through a length of things to conspire against her and her family. She commits suicide. Within these 16/17 years of her death he flaunts his power, wins police medals through corruption and at the end when a mockery of justice is done by giving him a 6 month jail term he smiles. His smirking smile on the day when walked out of court with his wife was something that would drive any sane person to look for vigilante justice.
Maybe due to apathy towards our system, maybe because of fear of law or maybe just due to good sense no one in this country resorts to a la ‘Rang De Basanti’ kind of justice. However what has started to happen is the public outrage in the Rang De Basanti format. People take on to street with protests and media takes upon itself to get the justice. Most of the times we sit, watch and comment on such cases but sometimes we are moved and we really want justice for those who have been denied.
We were taught in school that a democracy stands on three pillars ’Legislature, Executive and Judiciary’, however in the modern times the fourth pillar is free media. Free Media is as important and if not more. It could stand up as the fourth pillar or act as a gel between the three and the masses. But in the recent times media has become bigger than what it should be. Most famous trials are now run on TVs. We make our decision on who is right and who is wrong long before the judiciary can give its verdict. I am all for free media but where are we headed. Till now fortunately we have had this in extreme circumstances but we shouldn’t get to a point where like in the US negative or positive both kinds of influences from media are frowned upon and also sometimes cases are thrown out of courts because of large media involvement in them or even decisions influenced. Who can forget the O. J. Simpson trial or Clinton-Lewinsky fiasco.
We need a more balanced and pragmatic approach to it and some kind of restriction has to be placed on media in cases which are under judiciary. I am not saying any kind of censorship but we surely need some kind of self regulatory mechanism. Now as Rathore has been denied bail and some people have been jailed at least in this case we see some movement for the good, but couldn’t we have done this 19 years ago.
Another sad story is Pakistan itself. Absolute mess and as an outsider I see no signs of hope. More than 13800 violent deaths and over 3000 deaths directly because of terrorism, this is not something that could be swallowed. Most people living under the gun somehow accept the fate and start looking for small windows of hope. It is only when you move away and look from an outsiders perspective you get a better bird’s eye view of things. I am sure that a lot of Pakistanis are still hopeful and each passing day when a bomb is not blown up or children are not killed brings hope of and the end to this massacre. Now if you look at Pakistani news channel you get a totally different picture of things especially in Urdu media. How anti Muslim and anti Pakistani countries like, US, India and Israel are conspiring against the Pakistani state. I laugh and say yes these are the countries who are responsible for corrupt politicians too, who try to sign the deal with terrorists as it happened in Swat. Some of the commentaries are so hilarious that they could even make a hearing challenged laugh. I am not sure where the problem lies. Is it lack of democratic establishments? Is it mullahs? But then there are good mullahs too. Is it politicians? But then there have been dictators too. However I think the problem is a far bigger one.
Harsha Bhogle had once said that sports teams performances are very much linked to how the country is feeling in general. The debacle of Sydney Test tells you exactly what the mood in Pakistan is like? That is called snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I think since Imran Khan there has been no good captain. I think same is the case with Pakistan in general. Its ability to create leaders is poor to say the least. The only people who have been able to give it a little stability were dictators who came from Pakistani Army. The feudalistic landlords work on their own whims and fancy, these are the only people who rise to the top in politics and for that matter any major organizations. Most of these people have absolutely no stake in Pakistan as a country. I always believed that feudal can never become good leaders because they don’t rise through the ranks. They don’t have to fight it out.
I think the biggest issue Pakistan and India for that matter should be concerned is that the Taliban is now prevalent in almost all parts of Pakistan. So called Punjabi Taliban is a real bad news. Another sad thing is that Karachi which seemed to be immune to it has been hit right the end however the problem seems to compound when it is not Taliban but the old menace of MQM vs. Rest rivalry.
No solution can be reached in Pakistan until someone puts their hand up and says that I would solve this problem.
Michael Jackson’s death was another shocker. Every time I think of MJ all I think about is all those magnificent years in MHOW when for the first time we had videos of BAD and Thriller in the mid 80s. I still have the old ‘BAD’ LP. I stopped following him around Black or White but as an outsider I thought he was misunderstood person. With ‘Thriller’ he broke all sales records and with ‘Billy Jean’ he broke all laws of physics. His ‘BAD’ was probably one of the biggest sellers outside the US and ‘Man in the mirror’ & ‘Heal the world’ showed his softer side to the world. All controversies aside he was the biggest entertainer that we have seen. My favourite track though is ‘The way you make me feel’.
A lot of good things also happened in 2009, a year ago the world was in a gloom, and people didn’t know how long the depression would last this time around. But a year later the world is upbeat again. Investments are flowing back again.
India became world number one in cricket, a long hard process which was started under Ganguly-Wright combination took India to top, at the turn of last decade when we had just been thrashed by Australia a certain change took place. Indians started to realise that being world beaters at home is not sufficient. We were ‘Ghar ke sher’ and as Steve Waugh had put India as his Last Frontier, sadly he never conquered it. Of course in my eyes we owe this to the magnificent 4 plus Sehwag to this. They played their hearts out on their sleeves. First time since mid 80s, we had a team which could stand up against anyone in any condition. Two triple hundreds in a decade were last time achieved by Sir Don in 1930s and his dominance over the bowling wasn’t seen until Sehwag came into in his own. He could win India a match in one session of blistering batting. Tendualkar was his usual great, 20 years of playing professional sport and he hasn’t lost his edge, that is something that we all can carry with us. Ganguly and Laxman were always standing up tall. There is one thing to win but cricket is a great game where you can lose as quickly as you can win, that is why it is known as the game of glorious uncertainties. Here the man who was always standing between India and defeat was India’s wall called Rahul Dravid.
2009 gave very few good movies, generally the quality was poor. 3 Idiots became a very big hit but I thought it wasn’t in the level of Hirani’s Munnabhai series. Someone described Hirani as modern Hrishikesh Mukherjee, but in my eyes he lacks the earthiness of Hrishikesh da. Another problem with 3 Idiots I have is that it puts clichéd characters into forefront. As Amir Khan will tell himself that it is only hard work & diligence which has made even this movie work and not just the genius. Though I agree that we need reforms in education but I think that should be more at school level. Also, it is not that bad at the top level, even if our examination system is bad but I am product of the same system and I wouldn’t trade those vehemently fought wars with my friends over various topics for anything else. I owe them a lot for what I know even after 15 years. Nehruvian dream of IITs and IIMs has produced people who are now putting their own mark on the world. I really hope that instead of students turning into guys who piss on their Director’s door they understand the hidden meaning of the movie of being unconventional. Path is what makes a MAN not the destination.
I guess there were only 3 other hits last year, one was Love Aaj Kal. Giselle Monteiro, a Brazilian was hot and gorgeous as a Punjabi girl and my favourite two songs of the year come from this movie, ‘Aaj Din Chadheya’ and ‘Chor Bazari’ is something which is closer to my heart, I can easily identify with the younger Saif in the movie. The other one was ‘Dilli 6’, good attempt & great concept but Rakeysh Mehra couldn’t create the magic of ‘Rang De Basanti’. Though I was absolutely amazed by the success of ‘Genda Phool’, I am not sure what attracted people to this song, very simple folk song with modern beats. The third was ‘Ajab Prem ki Gazab Kahani’, the less I say about that is better.
Another important change that happened this year was that Delhi state allowed Gay rights by decrimilising it. Gays and Lesbian (actually LGBT) were always more accepted in our life’s and now the law made them too. However I have always believed that changes in laws are as important as changes in perception, sometimes law moves ahead of public opinion and sometimes it follows, in this case it is setting the trend. As I learnt more about our past this year especially the Mughal past I became more inclined to accept LGBT. I am attaching a clip of interview of Vikram Seth on this matter on ‘We the People’. I think he summarizes the situation better than I can put it down in words here.



It is not only the year 2009 has ended but the decade of 2000s too. This decade would be known in the world for two things. One is of course terrorism. Wars on terrorism are still going and it seems that it would at least go deep into next decade. The US and most democracies across the world have taken a few steps backward when they forgot Benjamin Franklin’s famous words, ‘Any society that will give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.’ Liberty and freedom is the corner stone of democracy.
Another thing would be the levelling of the world economic order. First there were two camps and then one fell over the edge and we were left with one major force. Though the US is still the biggest economy but this decade’s story is the fight between China and India. This is story right out of Ayn Rand’s book; it would have made her proud. China is winning the economic war as of now and India the war of ethics and principles. Would I ever compromise my democracy and liberty for better roads and more money, I guess I won’t, but I know some people don’t think that way. Who would get the girl at the end of the book would be found out maybe in 10 to 15 years. The battle has just begun.
If we need to compete with the world our problem lays both inside and outside. Inside we need to make sure that the penetration of good life seeps deep inside our society. One of the biggest problems of 1000 years of subjugation is that poor become really poor. They are poor not only economically but they lose the ability to think. After the glory years of Guptas in the middle of the first millennium, India fell into a lull. Most Muslim rulers who came from outside were conquerors. Apart from some like Akbar, most didn’t have the depth and understanding of Indian masses and their good at heart. One of the biggest problems with the Mughals even if they settled down and made this their home was that from Babur to Aurangzeb everyone kept concentrating on expansion rather than ruling. Akbar was brilliant, he ruled with the same fervour as he expanded. For an illiterate man he had the most brilliant group of people to assist him, Todarmal, Abul Fazal, Maan Singh and Birbal did what should have given India a new scientific and more liberal outlook. Sadly his successors got trapped in thinking that their coffers and religion were more important than advancement of their people. Grandeur that we know about Mughals and Rajputs (who were hand in glove with each other after Akbar’s accession) during the hay days was just a charade of success of India. This pompous and elitist life style was taken over by British which suited them to core as they came here to rule. The grandeur at the top was over the top, most of the world still sees India from that grandeur, however, most people forget that till 1947 our masses had lived for almost 1000 years in abject poverty in the shadows of these huge palaces with unimaginable money. First time in last 10 years we are seeing a paradigm shift in Indian attitude but these needs to be deepened.
Second problem, India would face that most of its neighbours are in horrible shape. I think India should do more, play more active role in this area. We need to help develop Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Pakistan and then only we all can combine to counter the larger world.
With EU consolidating itself as one unit, Japan, Russia, Brazil and South East Asia running as hard as they can it is really becoming a flatter world. A flatter world with more powerhouses is a very good thing for the world. Somehow in a few years we really need to see a truly democratic multi-national establishment.
However so much has happened in this decade that it is impossible to cover everything in one blog.
For me this decade was filled with lots of ups and downs. However the only thing I can say is now I dream far bigger than ever before. The age of reason has hit me, in this when most men become self defeating and start to cover their inability to dream anymore in the monotonous nature of family life or in some kind of religious activity, I have still been able to keep my hopes up. I thank my family friends and maybe the person up there for it.
But the year and the decade has passed us and like ‘We didn’t start the fire’, we can’t end it either, the world moves on and hence I quote a poet called ‘Akbar Allahbadi’, I heard this couplet somewhere but it feels so apt here,
‘Khuda ka Khudai par harsu amal hai,
Taffaqur main phir kyon jaan apni hai khota,
Jo kuch hua Akbar samajh theek ussi ko,
Zaroori na hota to hargiz na hota.’
To end I go back to the fog and ‘The Fog Horn’, I love fog and the mist. The romance could be because while growing up I saw very little of it. Maybe for a few days in deep winter we had fog for a few hours in central India. But ...
What fogs us from looking further into the future? What makes us revive our deep hidden emotions and passions and listen to the unknown call? What makes us fall in love with something that is sometimes benign, something that we don’t like or want to be with?
I am always perplexed. At the end maybe it’s just a passing phase too.