gavin's blog

Amitabh wasn’t feeling well yesterday, and wasn’t looking at all good, though it wasn’t serious. There’s been an outpouring of sympathy for the man, who India loves like no other.

Why do we love the Big B so much? Today, I’d like to share why I think we do. Mainly, I think, because in so many ways, he represents the very best of us, as humans, and as Indians, and we sense that deep within our hearts, and cherish this irreplaceable icon of our national identity and cultural and spiritual heritage.

Amitabh Bachchan is Indian in the most quintessential sense possible. Born in the heart of India, Amitabh grew up in a privileged household, the son of a cultural icon, a man who imparted to him the values of inner strength, self-esteem, grace and humility that makes of such men leaders and sometimes even saints. Even with this legacy, Amitabh did not have it easy.

Among the many, many tests that Amitabh had to weather in his life, two stand out. The first is at the start of his career, when he came to Bombay to become an actor, with virtually nothing going for him, unsightly physique and gait and baritone voice. From the ultimate underdog, he became the greatest superstar we ever knew, an entire industry and people’s entertainment calendar were punctuated by his performances for over a decade. The second of these was much later in life when his corporate initiative tanked, saddling him with almost a hundred crores in debt, a sum so frightening even his enormous stature sagged under its weight (given that his financial viability in the changed scenario was nothing like what it once was). I do not count among his greatest tests, his return from near death (for that did not challenge his spirit as much as his body) or his political difficulties, though these made of his life anything but a bed of roses.

Amitabh Bachchan, through the handling of these two tests demonstrated at the very deepest level what strength of character is. Especially his return from debt. Caused in great part by the gross miscalculation and incompetence in the entertainment domain and intellectual hubris of green-behind-the-ear professional managers, he rarely blamed others for the situation he found himself in. Nor did he lean on his family for emotional support, ever the rock, even a hundred crores down! Owning up to his situation, his return to mainstream pre-eminence as India’s biggest star (today he is considered in the same category as Shah Rukh Khan as entertainment icon, and bigger by some accounts), and repayment of the entire debt has been a story that would make a fairy tale proud for stretching credulity and demonstrating strength of spirit.

The Amitabh we loved in the seventies and eighties is not the Amitabh we love today. The first Amitabh is a completely different one – an entertainment vehicle for our dreams, where we hung on his every move, as he donned a variety of forms, as the Gambler and the Don and the Sharaabi and the Coolie and so on, each of these an excuse for us to partake of the brilliance of conviction of a man, who could make of everything absurd that he did (because of the fledgling industry he worked in), a reality utterly convincing and a joy to participate in. The second Amitabh is a man who has come back from the dead, who has come back from the debt, and who shows us what it is to be human, to be Indian, from the best place that we can be both.

And these two Amitabhs mirror in a sense two different Indias. The first Amitabh played to an India that was angry, disenchanted, victimized, and which wished it could lash out at a system that had let it down in so many ways, fantasizing its own hero-ness. The second Amitabh mirrored an India that had matured, had made peace with its own and others’ mistakes, and was willing to face its challenges head on. The second Amitabh is the real hero, the one who has lived out what he once only acted out.

About this second Amitabh, a recent article in the Bombay Times commented on the spate of commercials featuring him with children. An insightful comment by one of the makers on why these commercials were so effective to make and to sell was how comfortable Amitabh was with the children. That was only half the story. The other half, I think, was that the contrast of a man so masculine with a person so tender, made the stories of the commercials so appealing. It is this combination of his personal power along with his incredible humility that makes him so compelling to watch, and which makes KBC so vital as an experience.

I can go on and on, on a man I love and revere so much, and that a billion other Indians (cynics, count yourselves out) feel the same way about. I love both Amitabhs, the one I grew up on fantasizing about, and the one whose real life that I now look up to.

Get well soon, Big B! We love you!

Really bizarre story, this: 'Reincarnated' murder victim gives evidence from the TOI:

 
'Could a dead man, or rather his reincarnation, give evidence in his own murder case?

A six-year-old case of murder in Hathras town in western Uttar Pradesh has given rise to this million-dollar question following the deposition of a five-year-old boy, Durgesh.

Creating a sensation in the trial court Friday, he alleged that during his previous birth he was killed by his own friend Ved Prakash six years ago.

..............

While deferring the judgement, the court has asked the prosecution to produce the legal provisions relating to reincarnation if any.'

This last line disturbs me. I know that it is very possible that the boy has been 'tutored' to give false testimony, this taking place in the cow belt, where superstition runs high and the rule of law more manipulated than followed. But what if this is a genuine case phenomenologically at least, in that the boy's memories are genuine? If they are, then the lack of legal provisions regarding reincarnation would be doing his testimony an injustice, no? And here would be an epic tale of truth and justice from beyond the grave dismissed by man's sticking to narrow precedence.

Just came across this totally harrowing essay by Amitav Ghosh (via Sepia Mutiny). From it:

Nowhere else in the world did the year 1984 fulfill its apocalyptic portents as it did in India. Separatist violence in the Punjab, the military attack on the great Sikh temple of Amritsar; the assassination of the Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi; riots in several cities; the gas disaster in Bhopal - the events followed relentlessly on each other. There were days in 1984 when it took courage to open the New Delhi papers in the morning.

Of the year's many catastrophes, the sectarian violence following Mrs Gandhi's death had the greatest effect on my life. Looking back, I see that the experiences of that period were profoundly important to my development as a writer; so much so that I have never attempted to write about them until now.

The heartfelt expression of Amitav has opened me up to what it must have been for over 2500 people, totally innocent human beings, to have been torched in a matter of a few days, one by one, individually, by organised groups. Godhra didn't start the fire.

is now taking place as is argued in this article titled Second wave of outsourcing from the Times of India.

Excerpts from the article:

‘"Over the past year or two, the outsourcing industry has been throwing up jobs for doctors, engineers, CAs, architects,"says Jacob William of the Bangalore-based Outsource2India, which employs 500 people and offers services in the big-buzz, big-bucks area of knowledge process outsourcing. "Unlike the first wave which was more about entering data and answering phone calls, these jobs involve skill and expertise."

"I wonder how many American students and job aspirants realise that, to a large degree, their fate is decided in India."

"A lot of high-end work is also coming our way. We have a client called Roamware which provides roaming software to mobile providers, and we negotiate and draft agreements between them and third parties like Singapore Telecom,"says Kamlani, whose organisation comprises 35 lawyers and engineers. "Or recently, a Top Ten US law firm gave us 24 hours to find out whether a client's technology and patent was being infringed. We put three engineers and a lawyer on the job and delivered the goods."

"It certainly seems strange that we are sitting in India and treating people in America,"says William, whose company is also involved in teleradiology. "Sometime ago we got an inquiry asking if we would man the security cameras installed in a Las Vegas casino. That's the level of craziness we are reaching."

"The Mumbai office is today much bigger than the New York office and is the nerve centre of the organisation. This is largely due to the fantastic talent available here."

"This I think is it — the elimination of all borders, especially in the economic sphere." ’

in droves, this year during Navratri, according to this Times of India story.

From the article in The Times of India:

'The Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) have been ranked the third best technology universities in the world for 2005, according to the prestigious Times Higher Education Supplement (THES).

The publication, which is highly respected and read in the world of academia, said: "Our peer review of the world's top technology universities shows that in 2004, the high praise for the Indian Institutes of Technology was no fluke.

"Up to third position in 2005 from fourth place last year, the IITs are a source of Indian national pride as well as innovation and wealth".

India as Class Exploitation & Babes in the Woods

Yesterday, the incredibly moronic Fame Gurukul found new depths to plumb – descending from stupidity to downright evil, which it had only flirted with so far.

With four contestants now in the fray, and only one of them ‘safe’, two of the contestants including the safe one - Qazi & Rooprekha - were to vote out one of the other two - Rex & Arpita. At this point, the hosts claimed to bring a new twist to the game – the voting contestants could choose to save both, if they so wished, but this would mean putting themselves at risk all over again for the next episode, whereas they’d be safe if they chose to vote one of the other two out. All four contestants seemed confused at this twist, and its sudden introduction, which rankled of arbitrariness. Could it be the producers could sense who would have to leave, and were unwilling to see her go? Was this show simply run at the whim of the producers, with no ground rules or consistency?

Both Qazi and Rooprekha chose the higher ground, saving both of their comrades. And then Rooprekha, the only safe contestant started freaking out, as she became aware of what she had done, and the helplessness of her position, as she had been unfairly put on the spot, without enough time to assimilate what was going on, or the wherewithal to deal with this ‘twist’. Everyone became aware that she wasn’t really happy with what she had done, even as they praised her generosity, and when asked for her reaction she said ‘what could I do, I didn’t know what to do’ - not really a sign of confident generosity but of weak helplessness.

This brings me to the point I want to make. The whimsy with which this ‘twist’ was introduced and the unfair turmoil it created for the contestants reminds me of Ila Arun’s arbitrary choices – the powers that be here are playing with the fates of hapless contestants. This is a pattern seen all over India time and again with our political and criminal system (and their nexus) holding the public to ransom today, during the zamindari system before that, during the British Raj before that, and all the way to Brahminical tyranny in antiquity. On the one hand are the powers that be, and on the other the babes in the woods, both classes (or should we say classes and masses) involved in a sick dance of evil, the exploiter and the exploited.

That the contestants are babes in the woods is borne out by their difficulty in making voting choices right from the first show when all contestants voted for one of the two choices, simply because the first one did (because of which the 'writing on the slate' vote was introduced to avoid group menality), and later when Arijit voted out Shamit and others later voted him out - these are representative of the Indian masses that may be free, but are not really competent.

For playing such a dirty game - Shame on you, Fame Gurukul!

..............was evident yesterday in Head Faculty Ila Arun’s strident and immensely embarrassing defense of her utterly stupid choices to save Qazi (and earlier Sandip) which were in large part responsible for the elimination of Arijit & Shamit, the two best male contestants (or 2 out of 3 – the other being Rex). She kept saying that what she did was ‘protsahan’, which she had full right to do, without once acknowledging that her choice to choose the less meritorious contestant was inherently flawed.

 
Fame Gurukul is a reality show and in this lies its strange fascination for me (and for others too I think) as we watch riveted, and horrified at the same time – at the disgusting truth of the nature of our own identity.

 
In Ila Arun’s refusal to acknowledge that the true criterion of her choice must be merit and not need lies the fatal flaw that cost our nation half a century of growth post independence – the period when our systems and minds and spirit ossified and during which fatalism became institutionalized on such a massive scale it became almost indistinguishable from our very being. Fame Gurukul’s strange dynamics of letting the best contestants fall by the wayside while celebrating those clearly less talented (who are themselves left non-plussed!) shows us who we are……

 
….and it ain’t pretty at all.

Today's TOI sports page has only one story entitled: Indian Cricket R.I.P. which you can read a bit about here.

 
The level of infighting within the BCCI at its AGM, the jockeying for power by individuals and parties, and the shamelessness of it, has left everyone stunned.

 
Earlier it was the antipathy between Saurav Ganguly and Greg Chappell.

 
And this is only about cricket.

 
On Fame Gurukul we were all put off first by the antagonism between judge Javed Akhtar and Head Faculty Ila Arun.

 
Then by Arijit voting 'best friend' Shamit out, for reasons he has still not been able to articulate clearly.

 
Then other contestants voting him out despite their belief that he was the 'best singer', for that action of his.

 
And before that there were the Ambani brothers. What a shock that was.

 
And what about the strange stuff that's been happening within the BJP? And nowadays within the Shiv Sena, famed for its cohesion?

 
Am I missing other examples of infighting? Please add a comment below if u come up with some more.

 
All this INFIGHTING, remember, is happening within 'families', groups within which there is an expectation of differences but which have an even greater responsibility to stick to the same side of the table. And the infighting is happening in full public view.

 
What is with India and Indians? Why all this infighting all of a sudden? Or is it something endemic to our nature?

 
When Amartya Sen titled his book on the Indian nature 'The Argumentative Indian' did he strike upon not just a quaint expression but a quintessential trait?

 
Questions, Questions, Questions..........

A rather disgusting (and shameful) thing happened just now on today's episode of the top reality show in India right now - Fame Gurukul. Unarguably one of the best contestants on the show, Shamit, was voted off by one of his own friends, Arijit, (who to cut a long story short, had to cast the decisive vote) in a fiasco that only began with that vote. As the other participants, the judges and the faculty (which are three of the four parties that decide who stays and who goes, the fourth being the almighty public) looked on stunned, unbelieving, the head faculty, acclaimed singer Ila Arun, lost it, and launched, crying and shouting, into a tirade at Arijit for his decision.

 
That this was embarassing was the least of it. That it was hypocritical is much more accurate, considering her own decision to keep Shamit in the 'danger zone' and her reasons for doing so (when he did not deserve to be, I don't say this, everyone does), directly influenced Arijit.

 
There has always been something strange about Shamit who despite being considered by peer participants, faculty and judges (PFJ) as one of the best, never being voted highly by the public. This is the polar opposite of Qazi, who the PFJ triad see as one of the worst being voted by the public as the highest, virtually always. Shamit, it has been suggested by the judges in analytical discussions that take place all the time on the show to resolve these conundrums, could be suffering because of his confidence. Why should that be a negative factor? He has never been arrogant, only self-assured. Is being good and knowing it something one must pay a price for?

What does this say about India? The India that is voting? And the India in the PFJ that is at odds with the public? Remember Indian Idol ad how Ravinder, despite being repeatedly castigated for singing badly, garnered higher votes, simply because he represented and resonated with underprivileged India?

 
Bono, U2's frontman,  in an interview once commented that the Irish were unalike the Americans in that when they saw another person better off, or doing well, they didn't aspire to having more or doing more, they wanted to pull them down. India it seems suffers from the same syndrome, a conspiracy against merit.

 
What a crying shame.