This is part 1 of a series of posts I intend to write on depression and related topics. Having suffered from a chronic state of depression for almost 10 years now, I've always wanted to document my erratic mood changes and mind-upheavals in a journal of some kind.
After seeking counseling with my psychologist for the last 3 years now (I still do), I have slowly been able to unravel the limits of my emotional range. I have made some progress in understanding what triggers it, the life-cycle of the depressed state, how often it happens and if the weather's got anything to do with it :)
It would be foolhardy to unburden 10 years of a silent mental struggle in one single post. So I thought I would write a little about my past and a little about my present condition in each post.. and hopefully over time, I will have documented most of the last 10 years and the present.
(Above, I found this interesting school project video made on depression ..thought it was shot beautifully and was very sensitive too).
The last few weeks in particular has been like sailing in tempestuous waters. Sometimes, three days straight I will show up at school and work, perform extraordinarily and be highly efficient. I will be at work on time .. finish project deadlines way ahead of time .. go out of the way to learn more and do more ... Things couldn't get more satisfying.
Then the crash comes. Its like panic selling at the NYSE. I miss a day at work(maybe I overslept). Then the next few appointments go up in smoke. Very soon I realize I haven't left home in 2 days .. I'm stuck in a dark dingy corner in my room surfing the net incessantly without a purpose .. and by the 3rd day, I know I have just reversed the previous "3 awesome days of productivity". Then the phone goes off because I become reclusive .. I don't want to talk to anybody or listen to anybody .. And you know the rest.
I have spent the last couple of weeks in a similar state. My mood changes ranged from intermittently buoyant to outright gloominess .. so I decided on an experiment. Using Facebook.
I pushed myself to resume my personal blog (this one) and start expressing my opinions on current issues (once again). I go on Facebook, ping back old friends, return messages .. accept friend invitations .. and soon I have messages back and forth from my friends .. things slowly start looking better.
I start posting my blog on Facebook as well and invite friends to read it. People leave comments .. tell me if they like it or disagree. I start feeling confident and finally find the temperament to leave the house and enjoy the summer sunshine.
So bottom line : Get out of the house ! I remember reading a research article where a study showed it helps to fight depression just by simply leaving your room/house and going outside .. and also by just showing up at work.
Hope I haven't bored people to death with my travails. Maybe my next post I'll write about how successful the process has been .. and when I first started feeling depressed for long stretches of time together at 15.
Till then,
Keep your spirits up !
Friday, May 29, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
California Supreme Court Ruling : You cannot call it marriage
The absurdity of this is still sinking. No, I am not mad at the ruling (read NY Times article) much. Why ? Because I understand what the judges are trying to do. Or at least if not agree with the ruling, I can see their logical conclusion.
The Chief Justice and the 5 other assenting judges of the California Supreme Court felt that it was not the court's prerogative to challenge or alter a decision reached by a democratic process ( the slim majority through which the Prop. 8 was passed a few months ago).
In some ways I was also greatly relieved when the bench re-affirmed that under California law, same-sex civil union was still allowed with all the same benefits like those enjoyed by "heterosexual marriages". And that the hundreds of marriages that had taken place when the law was in effect were not going to be voided.
But this is what I don't get. The absolute unwavering insistence by the religious Right on their claim to the word "marriage".
Can somebody please explain to me their rationale ? On what grounds can one section of citizenry claim ownership on a word ?(I say one section of citizenry because they received only 52 % of the votes, barely a simple majority)
As much saddened I am by the ruling .. I am very sure (and I can count a few of my friends in it) that we don't give a damn.
If I have to call it a civil union, you know what? So be it. If I have to call it "full-of-shit" I couldn't have been happier.
I think the entire LGBT community must react to this news with utmost nonchalance ... we must retort with such a level of indifference and show our friends on the Right, that it doesn't matter what they get to call our commitment to love and lifelong partnership... that it doesn't matter if they alone get to enjoy the "fruits of this heavenly matrimony - marriage" .. Because seriously, we have better things to do than haggling over what it can be called and cannot.
I am very sure if a large swathe of the LGBT community refused to acknowledge this as a defeat and instead felt .. now we have California, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont .. 6 out of 50 states that does not discriminate a human being .. and that we have work to do in other states and other countries.. the religious right would undoubtedly feel even more insecure.
They would feel insecure when they see our conviction is in fighting the real issues .. in getting equal rights for everybody .. in preventing any person being discriminated because of their gender or sexuality .. they will know they have a lost cause because those are issues its difficult to bring rationale arguments against.
Gandhi did not organize armies of his countrymen to show the British how much more stronger he and his supporters were than the British. Gandhi knew that to fight the British, one did not need a greater opposing force .. in fact, one needed no force at all.
When the British would see man after man, standing proud and upright, holding hands together in unison but never once raising an arm to protect himself or his fellow protester from a harsh baton-blow, Gandhi knew the British would be compelled to concede and recognize the futility of their batons .. the futility of opposing silent non-violent protesters ...the futility of suppressing the yearning of something so basic and fundamental to a human, the right that make him equal to everybody else.
Often when I read the entries on Wikipedia on the long years of Apartheid, the Jim Crow laws discriminating blacks up to the fifties and sixties, the systematic ethnic cleansing in Europe in the forties and nineties .. I wonder how could a sane world have allowed any of that and for so long ?
Years from now when two boys holding hands together ... entering the dance floor on their prom night will be looked upon with as much interest (or rather dis-interest) as any other couple on the dance floor ... our sons and daughters and their sons and daughters will wonder how could we have tolerated such ignorance and antipathy towards our fellow human beings .. and for so long.
The Chief Justice and the 5 other assenting judges of the California Supreme Court felt that it was not the court's prerogative to challenge or alter a decision reached by a democratic process ( the slim majority through which the Prop. 8 was passed a few months ago).
In some ways I was also greatly relieved when the bench re-affirmed that under California law, same-sex civil union was still allowed with all the same benefits like those enjoyed by "heterosexual marriages". And that the hundreds of marriages that had taken place when the law was in effect were not going to be voided.
But this is what I don't get. The absolute unwavering insistence by the religious Right on their claim to the word "marriage".
Can somebody please explain to me their rationale ? On what grounds can one section of citizenry claim ownership on a word ?(I say one section of citizenry because they received only 52 % of the votes, barely a simple majority)
As much saddened I am by the ruling .. I am very sure (and I can count a few of my friends in it) that we don't give a damn.
If I have to call it a civil union, you know what? So be it. If I have to call it "full-of-shit" I couldn't have been happier.
I think the entire LGBT community must react to this news with utmost nonchalance ... we must retort with such a level of indifference and show our friends on the Right, that it doesn't matter what they get to call our commitment to love and lifelong partnership... that it doesn't matter if they alone get to enjoy the "fruits of this heavenly matrimony - marriage" .. Because seriously, we have better things to do than haggling over what it can be called and cannot.
I am very sure if a large swathe of the LGBT community refused to acknowledge this as a defeat and instead felt .. now we have California, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont .. 6 out of 50 states that does not discriminate a human being .. and that we have work to do in other states and other countries.. the religious right would undoubtedly feel even more insecure.
They would feel insecure when they see our conviction is in fighting the real issues .. in getting equal rights for everybody .. in preventing any person being discriminated because of their gender or sexuality .. they will know they have a lost cause because those are issues its difficult to bring rationale arguments against.
Gandhi did not organize armies of his countrymen to show the British how much more stronger he and his supporters were than the British. Gandhi knew that to fight the British, one did not need a greater opposing force .. in fact, one needed no force at all.
When the British would see man after man, standing proud and upright, holding hands together in unison but never once raising an arm to protect himself or his fellow protester from a harsh baton-blow, Gandhi knew the British would be compelled to concede and recognize the futility of their batons .. the futility of opposing silent non-violent protesters ...the futility of suppressing the yearning of something so basic and fundamental to a human, the right that make him equal to everybody else.
Often when I read the entries on Wikipedia on the long years of Apartheid, the Jim Crow laws discriminating blacks up to the fifties and sixties, the systematic ethnic cleansing in Europe in the forties and nineties .. I wonder how could a sane world have allowed any of that and for so long ?
Years from now when two boys holding hands together ... entering the dance floor on their prom night will be looked upon with as much interest (or rather dis-interest) as any other couple on the dance floor ... our sons and daughters and their sons and daughters will wonder how could we have tolerated such ignorance and antipathy towards our fellow human beings .. and for so long.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Difference in Freedom of Speech between US and India
The Indian Supreme Court recently ruled that "nobody can tinker with the national anthem". In question is a song from the new Ram Gopal Verma movie Rann called "Jana Gana Mana Rann" based on the Indian National Anthem "Jana Gana Mana".
The Supreme Court was not the sole dissenter. The song has incensed many others to go on rampage and destroy public property and near-riot situations have been witnessed in a few cities. If there was one acid test that I could administer to these dissenters that would determine their futility or rationality of burning vehicles on roads, it would be this.
Make each one of them enter a soundproof booth and then ask them to sing the National Anthem. I wouldn't be surprised if more than half of these "protectors of Indian honor, culture and lets say everything under the sky" would fail to get beyond a few lines.
To me the issue is larger than dishonoring a national institution. I don't think changing the lyrics of a national song to reflect a story's plot qualifies as dishonoring or tampering. It is rather an artistic expression. And the expression be in favor of the country or against it, protecting that freedom of expressing that thought is more important than the expression itself.
Here is another version of the song sung by children and in compliance with the original tune as composed by Laureate Rabindranath Tagore.
This is not the only instance where Freedom of Speech is seen so radically different in the two countries, US and India. In US, you can burn the American flag as a sign of protest and as a right of showing dissent against the government or the country.. I'm sure if somebody tried that in India, their clothes would be next in line to go with the flag-bonfire.
When the Supreme Court says you cannot tinker with the National Anthem, how far can you draw the line? Should we include common masses and some bad musicians who can't sing or play the anthem to perfection? Should we time each performance of the anthem so that it fits the stipulated 52 second rule ?
And should we not then castigate AR Rahman, BharatBala and almost every top vocalist in the country for their inspiring production of the national anthem, titled "Jan Gan Man" because they "tinkered" with it by changing the tempo, adding more instrumentation and sound to it?
If we can fall in love with this BharatBala production because it inspires us and fills us with pride and joy for being Indian, shouldn't we then as reasonable people respect dissent and opposing opinion as well?
As an Indian, I rather have an imperfect country where people can speak their minds out even if it is acutely criticizing the country and what it stands for ... than a perfect country where we don't have the right to express ourselves fully lest it anger or hurt somebody's emotion.
Here is the article on NDTV.com which made me write my post.
The Supreme Court was not the sole dissenter. The song has incensed many others to go on rampage and destroy public property and near-riot situations have been witnessed in a few cities. If there was one acid test that I could administer to these dissenters that would determine their futility or rationality of burning vehicles on roads, it would be this.
Make each one of them enter a soundproof booth and then ask them to sing the National Anthem. I wouldn't be surprised if more than half of these "protectors of Indian honor, culture and lets say everything under the sky" would fail to get beyond a few lines.
To me the issue is larger than dishonoring a national institution. I don't think changing the lyrics of a national song to reflect a story's plot qualifies as dishonoring or tampering. It is rather an artistic expression. And the expression be in favor of the country or against it, protecting that freedom of expressing that thought is more important than the expression itself.
Here is another version of the song sung by children and in compliance with the original tune as composed by Laureate Rabindranath Tagore.
This is not the only instance where Freedom of Speech is seen so radically different in the two countries, US and India. In US, you can burn the American flag as a sign of protest and as a right of showing dissent against the government or the country.. I'm sure if somebody tried that in India, their clothes would be next in line to go with the flag-bonfire.
When the Supreme Court says you cannot tinker with the National Anthem, how far can you draw the line? Should we include common masses and some bad musicians who can't sing or play the anthem to perfection? Should we time each performance of the anthem so that it fits the stipulated 52 second rule ?
And should we not then castigate AR Rahman, BharatBala and almost every top vocalist in the country for their inspiring production of the national anthem, titled "Jan Gan Man" because they "tinkered" with it by changing the tempo, adding more instrumentation and sound to it?
If we can fall in love with this BharatBala production because it inspires us and fills us with pride and joy for being Indian, shouldn't we then as reasonable people respect dissent and opposing opinion as well?
As an Indian, I rather have an imperfect country where people can speak their minds out even if it is acutely criticizing the country and what it stands for ... than a perfect country where we don't have the right to express ourselves fully lest it anger or hurt somebody's emotion.
Here is the article on NDTV.com which made me write my post.
Indian politician Abhishek Manu Singhvi caught sleeping during TV interview
Alright. Here's when it happened. The Congress party in India won a huge majority in the recent April-May 2009 elections surprising everybody including themselves.
One of their campaign alliances, the National Conference, a state-level party in Kashmir took offence because the Congress hadn't invited them in the power-sharing of the Government.
This is an interview by Barkha Dutt of NDTV with Abhishek Manu Singhvi with Omar Abdullah (the Chief Minister of Kashmir and one of the top leaders of the National Conference).
You can see Mr. Singhvi at first drowsing ( fast foward to 1:09 in the video )
Then you see him trying to stop himself from yawning ( hee hee hee, at 1:34 in the video ). The grand finale comes from 2:27 .. you've got to watch it to believe it !
Wouldn't blame them... probably stayed up late nights trying to figure out the cabinet-berth arrangements. But Omar ! He has no clue his sleighted remarks are falling on deaf ears again !
One of their campaign alliances, the National Conference, a state-level party in Kashmir took offence because the Congress hadn't invited them in the power-sharing of the Government.
This is an interview by Barkha Dutt of NDTV with Abhishek Manu Singhvi with Omar Abdullah (the Chief Minister of Kashmir and one of the top leaders of the National Conference).
You can see Mr. Singhvi at first drowsing ( fast foward to 1:09 in the video )
Then you see him trying to stop himself from yawning ( hee hee hee, at 1:34 in the video ). The grand finale comes from 2:27 .. you've got to watch it to believe it !
Wouldn't blame them... probably stayed up late nights trying to figure out the cabinet-berth arrangements. But Omar ! He has no clue his sleighted remarks are falling on deaf ears again !
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Gay Marriage Argument
(This is an article I wrote for an English class this semester on Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from Birmingham Jail". We were asked to write our own treatment of the letter, so it was an open topic. I thought I might share it with everybody.)
“…where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
- Dr. King
I have often felt that if there is one monument of integrity that can be evoked to convince the people of this country to vote in favor of equal gay rights, it is Dr. King. Although Dr. King never mentioned in his writings where he stood on the issue of homosexuality, it is his message of universal brotherhood that I wish to reflect on. My belief strengthened when I read the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” and I found resonance with the current approach towards gay rights issues and the approach towards black rights in the sixties.
(Above, video of Dr. King's I have a Dream speech, one of the most emotionally stirring speeches I have heard.)
Dr. King eloquently sums it up by writing “Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.” The thin veiled apathy towards the gay rights issue is very similar.
Today one cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender (my emphasis here not being man over woman but transgendered people). Most urban people are comfortable knowing their friends, children or relatives are gay. However, the queer community is not allowed equal rights in marriage (except in Massachusetts and Connecticut) or in adoption. Openly gay people are not allowed to serve their nation. And if you have a rare blood type and are gay, you cannot donate blood that could potentially save the life of another.
Just as Dr. King felt disappointed with the white moderate back then as people more devoted to order than to justice; people who prefer a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; I feel let down by the moderate of this country too.
Their insistence that being gay is an act of choice and since we are allowed to choose freely, gays must have some rights, is very irritating. It is that denial of the real issue of discrimination that troubles me the most.
If you ask me how I feel about gay marriage I would tell you I personally didn’t care. It didn’t bother me if the State didn’t recognize or validate my love for another person and my intention to be with that person for as long as I choose it to be. But what perturbs me is that gays are being discriminated based on their sexuality. So why treat it differently than any other?
People tell me that they are up for equal rights for gays in all aspects except marriage. Their argument is marriage is a solemn act between man and woman. And I say who says that? Does the Bible say that? The Quran, the Torah or the Gita say that? If it does I say, but then you are forming laws based on religion and we know the State has no religion. Such laws cannot be held universal because no single religion is universal. If that be true, then tomorrow I could easily conjure my own religion and argue gay marriage is okay by my religion so make it legal.
People say but marriage between man and woman is a tradition that has held ground for five thousand years. And I say so has polygamy, slavery, child marriage and taboos on interracial marriage. But we don’t hold those to our bosom anymore do we? The truth is marriage itself has undergone evolution at every stage in history and equal marriage rights for gays is just another inevitable step to that evolution.
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
And that is why I believe totally with what Dr. King says that it cannot be left just to the courts to decide on what is just and moral. The queer community and the supporters of queer rights must rally in a non violent fashion demanding justice. We must scream at our rooftops to raise the conscience of our fellow people.
We must remind them that not very long ago this country came to a standstill and had to make a decision if it wanted to move ahead to build a progressive, harmonious nation or fall back to a divisive, hate-filled atmosphere. And it chose well. With Obama’s inauguration today, Dr. King’s bounced check seems to have finally been redeemed. I hope it will not take us another 45 years before the bank of justice of this country tells us gays, yes, now you have sufficient funds.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Big B, blogging and the media : The perfect recipe for a messy pot pourri
I will tell you this out straight. No I'm not being racist or prejudiced. But we Indians love to apologize. Me included.
So this is the thing. Big B a.k.a Amitabh Bacchan, the biggest star in India and possibly the most recognized star in the world (hey, we've got a billion people and still counting) likes to blog. If you thought celebrities love to lament the lack of privacy in their lives and scorn at people who intrude, well, welcome to India. Blogging seems to have caught everybody's imagination in India including the movie stars. And there we have a problem.
For the umpteenth time Big B has made a remark on some recent event which has snowballed into a media frenzy. After phase 1, now it is back to Big B expressing shock or disbelief or repentance (or a mix of them) and in most cases, followed by apologies for having been 'misquoted' and 'misunderstood'.
This time it is his remarks on Slumdog Millionaire. He said it wasn't real India. According to B, the poverty and depravity shown in the movie are a false reflection of emerging India. This was right after the first Indian winning a Golden Globe Award, AR Rahman. Man, you got to give him credit for the sheer timing.
Poor thing, the whole industry stood up to beg to differ on the issue. Half a page on news sites were wasted documenting different actors' and directors' reactions. Some were appalled at his ignorance. Some were delighted they were getting interviewed in the first place and had their first chance in months to get media attention. I wish somebody had said 'shut the hell up everybody!'.
(Above a clip from the movie Slumdog M where the BigB crazy kid jumps into a pool of human waste to meet his idol)
Now this is coming right after his Mumbai blasts remarks where he said he felt so insecure that he slept with a gun under his pillow. I thought it was juvenile for somebody to have mentioned that kind of a thing on the eve of such a tragedy. But hey, its his bed. Why care if he left his wisdom tooth for his tooth fairy to pick it up? But boy was he whacked in the media! A week later it was time for some delicious Indian apologizing ... potpourri style.
Then there was the whole tiff with Sharukh Khan, Aamir Khan and a bunch of others. Now mind you, each of these other big actors have their own blogs... and they religiously contribute to the media "gupshup" (our word for babble).
So here we are back again. Two weeks into the new year and Big B has apologized already. Words between actors, their friends, the media and the actors who are friendly with the media... have been hurled at each other. Old rivalries are reborn. New alliances formed. All "WWF This is RAW" style. Those with a higher degree of imagination might say this is not potpourri.. they will say it is a bloody mess.
And all this because instead of publishing your blogs for the family and friends and maybe the dog, you published it for the world to see it. And don't think I didn't realize that .. you couldn't have read this blog had I not published it. So fine, I'm sorry I am being hypocritical .. but hey, whatever man!
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Child marriages in India : even after 60 years of Independence
As I was perusing the net for news I came across this article on NDTV about a 14 year old girl, Ansu Kanwar. Ansu lives in the state of Rajasthan, one of the many traditionally conservative states in India. She was to be married off to a 54 year old man (of course without her consent). Coming under intense pressure from her father and the village elders to marry, Ansu and her mother approached the state authorities for help. The marriage was then called off followed by another 8 proposed child marriages in the same village. Ansu is now being awarded the annual bravery award from the Government of India.
Well first, a fact check. Ansu's story is one of the very few where the outcome of such a proposed marriage has ended in the girl child not getting married. UNICEF reports that 47% of India's women aged 20-24 years were married before the legal age of 18. The more shocking statistic is that 40% of the world's child marriages take place in India. Pakistan and Bangladesh, the two other countries in the sub-continent make up for another huge chunk of the statistic.
A few years ago there was another shameful incident where a 7 or 8 year old boy in northern India was married off to his recently widowed sister-in-law who was in her forties. The reason was the in-laws were afraid their widowed daughter-in-law would break away from the household and thus take a major share in the family property with her.
It seems even after 60 years of India's independence we have not been able to wean out such terrible social vices from our fabric. Of course illiteracy and poverty have a lot to do with this. Many villagers in rural India are not even aware of the legal marriage limit of 18 years for the girl child. Many sell away their daughters so that the money can be used to provide sustenance for the rest of the family.
To top it all off, there is the issue of female infanticide. Such is the skewed sex ratio in certain parts of the country that young girls have become 'hot commodity'. There have been reports of young girls being kidnapped from far away states and brought back to marry (and live forcibly). In one case four brothers ended up marrying a single woman because they couldn't find four brides!
In all these despairing facts and thoughts, I can only find one reason to be cheerful. It is because of Ansu. Truly, three cheers to that brave little girl for having confronted this thousand year old tradition stubbornly and deciding not to be part of another unfortunate statistic.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Satyajit Ray : one of India's finest film makers
Satyajit Ray received a honorary Oscar for his lifetime achievements in 1992, a few days before his death. After searching on Youtube for nearly 3 years, I chanced upon that video today and felt absolutely thrilled from the discovery. The first few seconds of the video below shows the announcement followed by a rapturous ovation from the audience.
I also found this video where Satyajit Ray talks about creative choices he made during his filming. The clips are from 'The Apu Trilogy', his first landmark achievement in film making. Not surprisingly it is also considered by film makers around the world as one of the finest examples in neo-realistic cinema.
Here Satyajit Ray talks about how he used trains as a motif for emotions in his story and in the minds of his characters. His first movie is set in late 19th century Bengal (still a part of British India). One of Indian cinema's most iconic shots is shown where Apu, a boy of 7 or 8, along with his older sister watch a steam engine powered train crossing through the fields. Their joy in that sight is boundless. A tragic turn of fate takes place when the older sister shields Apu from the incessant rain (during their escapades into the fields) and dies.
In the second movie, Apu, who has now left home and his widowed mother in the village, is studying in the city of Calcutta. The train becomes a painful object to watch as Satyajit Ray makes it a motif of longing. Apu's mother longs for her son and spends her days lonely, waiting for her to son to be with her again. Having left my parents to pursue my education here, it left me with tears the first time I saw it. I called my mother a few minutes after the movie and told her how I felt. It was one of the most moving moments in my life, yet I felt so powerless.
In the third movie, Apu marries and Satyajit Ray purposefully chose Apu's ram shackled house by the train tracks. Ray wanted the train whistle (which gave Apu great joy when he was young) to become a symbol of irritation and emotional struggle. He wanted to reflect on Apu's destitute state of life and his confusion with what to do next.
It was extremely sad to know that Ray was given India's highest civilian award 4 days after he was given the Oscars (he was on his death bed then). For the Indian government to have taken so long in honoring one of India's most internationally respected cultural icons was unfortunate.
I hope this post will bring back memories of his movies to those who know about Ray. And to those who don't, I hope you will want to check out his movies on Blockbuster or Netflix and enjoy what many great film makers have said of his cinema, 'it is pure cinema'.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
When a mass murderer can become India's Prime Minister
Two of India's biggest industrialists (also two of the world's richest people) have backed Narendra Modi for the candidature of the Prime Minister's post.
A quick Google search will tell you Mr. Modi is an ubiquitous name in Indian politics. Businesses all over India love this man. He has turned around Gujarat's flagging economy, the state he is Chief Minister of, and made it one of the best states in the country for start up businesses. Very recently he wooed Tata's Nano project into Gujarat after it ran into a thicket in West Bengal.
But I have always held a rather strong opinion when it comes to mass murderers. That however great their accomplishment be or generous their contribution to science or mankind itself, if they have the blood of innocent lives in their hands, they aren't worth two pennies to me.
It was Hitler's hegemony that gave us tanks, V2 rockets and a host of other inventions. But are we going to succumb in his awe or are we going to remember he gave orders to murder 6 million people? Mr. Modi's position is very similar.
In 2002 he blatantly supported the religious riots that took place in Gujarat between Hindus and Muslims. He being a staunch Hindu and member of the ultra-religious right, he incited the people in his state to riot and kill. Of course the incident of a train carriage full of Hindu worshippers being burnt, allegedly by Muslims, is Mr. Modi's justification for the carnage. Irrespective of what religion the victims belonged to, both the riots and the train incident, it was a sad way for a Chief Minister to act.
So yes, India has her own version of Hitler. As you might except, Mr. Modi has ardent supporters throughout the country. And surprisingly very few people seem to be perturbed by his past actions. Even big industrialists like Mr. Mittal and Mr. Anil Ambani. Sad will be that day for Indians when a mass murderer like Mr. Modi will run for Prime Ministership. The son of that very state, Gujarat, which begot a truly great man but now almost forgotten, Mahatma Gandhi.
A quick Google search will tell you Mr. Modi is an ubiquitous name in Indian politics. Businesses all over India love this man. He has turned around Gujarat's flagging economy, the state he is Chief Minister of, and made it one of the best states in the country for start up businesses. Very recently he wooed Tata's Nano project into Gujarat after it ran into a thicket in West Bengal.
But I have always held a rather strong opinion when it comes to mass murderers. That however great their accomplishment be or generous their contribution to science or mankind itself, if they have the blood of innocent lives in their hands, they aren't worth two pennies to me.
It was Hitler's hegemony that gave us tanks, V2 rockets and a host of other inventions. But are we going to succumb in his awe or are we going to remember he gave orders to murder 6 million people? Mr. Modi's position is very similar.
In 2002 he blatantly supported the religious riots that took place in Gujarat between Hindus and Muslims. He being a staunch Hindu and member of the ultra-religious right, he incited the people in his state to riot and kill. Of course the incident of a train carriage full of Hindu worshippers being burnt, allegedly by Muslims, is Mr. Modi's justification for the carnage. Irrespective of what religion the victims belonged to, both the riots and the train incident, it was a sad way for a Chief Minister to act.
So yes, India has her own version of Hitler. As you might except, Mr. Modi has ardent supporters throughout the country. And surprisingly very few people seem to be perturbed by his past actions. Even big industrialists like Mr. Mittal and Mr. Anil Ambani. Sad will be that day for Indians when a mass murderer like Mr. Modi will run for Prime Ministership. The son of that very state, Gujarat, which begot a truly great man but now almost forgotten, Mahatma Gandhi.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Indian composer A R Rahman wins Golden Globe
If there was one piece of news that was all over Indian media yesterday, it was of A.R. Rahman winning the Golden Globe award for his peppy score in Slumdog Millionaire.
Long was such an honor over due on this musical genius. Rahman lost his father at 9. Being the oldest of the children he took up the responsibility of supporting his family on his shoulders. He joined a musical band to earn money for his family. In his teens he won a scholarship to the Trinity College of Music, London. If you check his wiki, he is in the list of top 10 all-time selling recordists.
British media calls him 'The Mozart of Madras'. Indeed a very Mozart like story. Mozart too had a very impoverished childhood.
Rahman's Golden Globe victory and a possible nomination in the Oscars will hopefully set a positive trend in the Indian film industry. When Rahman included 'the billion people of India' in his tribute in his award speech, we Indians exactly knew what he meant. True Indian cinema for over six decades have been eclipsed by over the roof musicals and grandiose set designs. Rahman's win can become that becaon of inspiration to Indian artists. The inspiration to dream and to believe that international and national recognition for your work is now within reach.
Although funnily, Rahman still provides soundtrack and music for typical Indian musical-styled films. But he is also slowly gaining popularity for his offbeat scores and for scoring for offbeat movies. In the last seven years, Rahman's music in Lagaan, Swades, Rang De Basanti and Slumdog show a gradual shift in his willingness to shy away from the stereotypical Bollywood and all other woods' stuff and make some beliveable music.
To those naive readers, yes, we Indians have many woods. Apart from Bollywood, we have Kolly, Tolly and Polly and a few others. They are regional film industries prone to borrow from the main Hindi film industry. But lets hope that Rahman's inspirational win will at least party decimate the commerical rubbish that has creeped into Indian cinema and we will make some good cinema again.
Long was such an honor over due on this musical genius. Rahman lost his father at 9. Being the oldest of the children he took up the responsibility of supporting his family on his shoulders. He joined a musical band to earn money for his family. In his teens he won a scholarship to the Trinity College of Music, London. If you check his wiki, he is in the list of top 10 all-time selling recordists.
British media calls him 'The Mozart of Madras'. Indeed a very Mozart like story. Mozart too had a very impoverished childhood.
Rahman's Golden Globe victory and a possible nomination in the Oscars will hopefully set a positive trend in the Indian film industry. When Rahman included 'the billion people of India' in his tribute in his award speech, we Indians exactly knew what he meant. True Indian cinema for over six decades have been eclipsed by over the roof musicals and grandiose set designs. Rahman's win can become that becaon of inspiration to Indian artists. The inspiration to dream and to believe that international and national recognition for your work is now within reach.
Although funnily, Rahman still provides soundtrack and music for typical Indian musical-styled films. But he is also slowly gaining popularity for his offbeat scores and for scoring for offbeat movies. In the last seven years, Rahman's music in Lagaan, Swades, Rang De Basanti and Slumdog show a gradual shift in his willingness to shy away from the stereotypical Bollywood and all other woods' stuff and make some beliveable music.
To those naive readers, yes, we Indians have many woods. Apart from Bollywood, we have Kolly, Tolly and Polly and a few others. They are regional film industries prone to borrow from the main Hindi film industry. But lets hope that Rahman's inspirational win will at least party decimate the commerical rubbish that has creeped into Indian cinema and we will make some good cinema again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)