The context of crime - and how to change it

The Pulitzer-prize winning reporter, Mr. Kristof, of the New York Times, reported yesterday of a shocking case of teenage rape, followed by a fatwa and corporal punishment – of the underage victim, leading to her death. (http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/when-a-girl-is-executed-for-being-raped/)

A summary of the case, from the article:

"A 14-year-old Bangladeshi girl, Hena,allegedly was ambushed when she went to an outdoor toilet, gagged, beaten and raped by an older man in her village (who was actually her cousin). They were caught by wife of the alleged rapist, and the wife then beat Hena up. An imam at a local mosque issued a fatwa saying that Hena was guilty of adultery and must be punished, and a village makeshift court sentenced Hena to 100 lashes in a public whipping....Hena collapsed after 70 lashes and was taken to the hospital. She died a week later,.....The doctors recorded her death as a suicide."

Such a tragic and nauseating scenario appears to be a consequence of antiquated notions of morality, gender relations, local government and punishment.

But "tragic" and "nauseating" only because we have different opinions on these issues. It was, for the overwhelming majority of those involved, perfectly acceptable – obviously. Perhaps even righteous.

The collective pronouns above ("we") and below ("our") refer to the basic tenets of Western civilization, in the year 2011.

If we wish to convince the sub-society mentioned in this example of the superior value of our opinions (our system of ethics, fundamental rights, open debate, gender equality etc.), we probably need to start with understanding the socio-economic parameters of their context.

For example, the outdoor toilets mentioned in the report. If one has little or no privacy whilst defecating, and considers this to be the natural state of affairs, and knows of no other, one probably tends not to worry too much about personal space. If one has little to eat, one probably does not have qualms about eating from a shared vessel. If one is forced to live with parents, siblings, the uncle and a grandmother in a single-roomed house, one has probably not been brought up to knock at a door before entering.

And if men perform the economically more valuable tasks, then women are looked down upon. Or, at least, a more plausible case is made for this sort of discrimination.

And if one hasn't had the time to introspect, one probably hasn't bothered borrowing books on philosophy and human rights from the local well-stocked library with high-speed internet access. Oh, there isn't one?

The more hardships we endure, the more animal-like we become. Compare Sanskrit “bubhukshita kim na karoti papam” (“What sin is it that a hungry one does not commit?”, Sukasaptati) and Latin “Homo homini lupus” (“Man is a wolf to his fellow man”, Asinaria).

Habits and customs form easily, even in matters that were once distasteful. This from personal accounts, written by intellectuals, of long incarceration – Primo Levi, Albert Speer.

And then comes another wildcard into play – religion. Religious texts often are not in accord with our ideas of equality, personal freedom, tolerance and justice.

The answer lies not in banning religious texts (this would probably be the reaction of the sub-society under discussion), but in presenting the alternative – through education, north-south and east-west interaction, through inter-religious debate, through economical justice, through art and literature, through subsidized housing that is in keeping with basic human dignities etc..

At some point, the innate love of freedom – and we must believe that it is innate – will prevail.

The freedom of the paper book

Being a lover of books myself, and of old bookstores, with their characteristic smell and hallowed niches, I was a little disappointed not to find a more spirited defence of the traditional, printed book (in this article on the BBC Magazine http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8447996.stm ). There is much in favour of the Kindles and iSlates of this world, not least that they might even be environmentally friendlier, and to counter their obvious ease of access and mobility with "Ah well, but you can't scribble on the columns" is not very convincing, even to us members of the choir. Especially, as books might well have associated web-pages, where readers can discuss every line with every other reader, even those who don't live down the road.

Here, then, are some reasons I would like to advance to support the paper book.

Printed books, once printed, can't be changed. No publisher can easily (and perhaps without any member of the general public noticing it) change content, delete politically annoying or no-longer-in-fashion opinions. A printed book becomes a carrier of the Zeitgeist. This is especially fascinating when one thinks of world-views before certain continents were discovered, of discourses on freedom before the female-emancipation movement or of common tales of city life, before a certain communist party had been discredited. Of course, this means that romances which have Laura bestow her affections on a different member of the lower nobility every time one reads "Our Austrian Cousins" are not possible, as far as a paper book is concerned. I can live with that.

Electronic books often offer a lot of meta-information. Consider a reader coming across the word "ploy", not previously known to her. What does our young reader do? She clicks on the dictionary function, and learns more about the word, and its synonyms, with example sentences. This is not necessarily a great idea for a couple of reasons. Firstly, one doesn't always need to understand every single word to be able to enjoy and learn from a work. The context provides a general hint, and the reader's imagination is tasked to do the rest. (Blasphemous as this idea sounds, Nietzsche concurs). Secondly, the dictionary entry might have a fascinating etymology, or a pretty verse in the example sentence, leading our reader to learn more about the poet, or about the language the word-stem derives from. Exhilirating as this journey is, it can be construed to be a distraction from the book. Thirdly, imagine books which come with an option "Simplify text", where all uncommon words are replaced by more familiar substitutes, leaving the "spirit" of the work untouched. Not just Nabokov, but the author too, might scream "Vive le pédant". Or, alternately, if the reader gets put off by a long paragraph, there might be an option which provides a summary of the whole book, or just of annoying chapters. I can conceive of an algorithm which can "visualize" parts of books. Young readers find it easier to see images. Novels can be converted into comic books at the tap of an icon. I don't claim that this service exists, but I do anticipate it. And when it does become available, it will easily be defended by its providers as providing more freedom of choice, and freedom is good, I read in a book.

The term "collaborator" is a dangerous one not just under totalitarian regimes. Imagine readers being asked to rate "sneak previews" of forthcoming chapters or books. Imagine also this being targeted at readers who buy (download) more books than others, or books that belong to a particular genre. The author can then tailor his books and the development of his plots to suit his audiences. This will lead to increased sales. And to the death of intellectual diversity.

So, some of the apparent disadvantages of a paper book, with no direct connection to the Internet, are indeed some of its greatest strengths.

I end on a sentimental note, hopefully one not taken as maudlin. A paper book is a unique object. When received as a present, from a parent, perhaps, or bought just before a memorable journey, or picked up during a walk in the winter sun with one's beloved, it acquires a value external to its published content. Critics might suggest that this is true also of a stuffed sheep. Yes, except that it is awkward to scribble on a sheep. Ah well, it appears that I have come back to the "can't scribble on the columns" argument, outlined in the opening paragraph. The other arguments stand.

Debating a euthanasia plea - the case of Aruna Shaunbaugh

The Supreme Court of India in this detailed judgement (http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/wr1152009.pdf) yesterday in the Aruna Shanbaugh case rejected the euthanasia plea. An interesting look at both ethical positions in this very sad case, the only silver lining to which is perhaps the commitment of the generations of nurses, who have provided such exceptional care, and the debate which it has engendered.

‎1. The judgement also refers to one of GB Shaw's plays (The Doctor's
Dilemma ) and a Robin Cook novel (Coma) - am not familiar with them, but fascinating that works of fiction have been referenced. A good thing, in my opinion, for there are no very strong barriers between fiction and fact, between what is and what can be, what was and what could have been.

2. Curiously, the judgement refers to "a recent news item which we have come across on the internet". It compares the new item to another case, and the only attribution for either is "(see Terri Schiavo's case on Google)". Surely, this level of attribution is unacceptable in a college paper. Is it acceptable in a Supreme Court ruling?

3. Another good thing is that the judgement recommends to the lawmakers to delete Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code which allows for punishment by imprisonment and monetary fines of those who attempt to commit suicide.

4. The judgement refers to "the unfortunate low level of ethical standards to which Indian society has descended, its raw and widespread commercialization, and rampant corruption".

This language differs from that of the Attorney General: "He (the Attorney General on behalf of the Union of India) further submitted that Indian society is emotional and care-oriented. We do not send our parents to old age homes, as it happens in the West"

Incredible, this pathetic pretence at being holy, ignoring all the abandoned elderly in Varanasi, the abuse women go through in dowry cases, general contempt towards menials, lower-caste members etc. etc..

5. From the judgement: "Hence one is one's brain". (Comma missing in original) Well, that's one philosophical question answered.

6. The judgement starts off by quoting a beautiful verse of Ghalib. Very apt; an old favourite.

7. One of the arguments of the Union of India was that the petition ought to be rejected because the activist Pinki Virani is not really a "next friend" of the afflicted. Fortunately, the court rejected this spiteful and adolescent line of reasoning. And, hearteningly, congratulated Ms. Virani for her actions, even whilst denying her petition.

8. More resources, for a summarized version of the case:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12662124

http://www.blogher.com/rape-has-left-people-wishing-her-dead

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1513/15130740.htm

We are all Unfit for Tyranny

Apropos the "Unfit for Democracy" thesis that's been knocking about, in the context of the revolutions sweeping the Middle-East, and countered by Prime Minister Cameron as being racist: I quote from a modern German text, about the situation in the German Reich at the end of the first world war, when a constitution was being written in the post-November-Revolution era, on the chief problems encountered in doing so (translated from the German):

1. The People are not used to Democracy
2. Large sections of the population are essentially anti-democratic

No one would view this as being racist. Surely, what we allow our historians we may allow ourselves. That is, an uncompromising look at reality and ourselves, even if the conclusion is not a pretty sight. We can make it beautiful, though, by working on it.

To suggest that an ethnic group is incapable of democracy, or any other social system, is clearly absurd, for it assumes that ethnicity, even over a protracted period of time and dialogue, prevents ventures into certain areas of thought. With time, the use of appropriate cultural symbols, open discussions, reassurance about the survival of loved-institutions etc., a society can change, in any direction.

The case of Egypt

Ignoring the representative bit of democracy


Revolutions rejuvenate, and are probably a good thing, except if one happens to belong to those unfortunates who get killed, attacked or have their belongings taken away.

For the conflict in Egypt, there's a lot of international support as well, judging from statements from the US President ("We have seen the people of Egypt...." when what he really means is "We have seen people in Egypt...."), and generally from the western media and online social networking sites.

Mostly in places far away from Egypt.

Saudi Arabia and Israel are not awfully keen on the upcoming change, albeit for very different reasons.

How many Egyptians are there?

Egypt has around 79 million citizens, according to the English Wikipedia. 83 million, if you're reading the German Wikipedia. 75, on the Hindi version of the same website. As I claim to speak all three languages fluently, perhaps I should settle on "ca. 80 million", for the purpose of this little tract.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ägypten, http://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0)


And how many of those Egyptians are on the streets, protesting?

Now, how many people did we and Mr. Obama actually see wandering around the now famous Tahrir Square in Cairo? Let's add the people in Alexandria as well.

The (English) Wikipedia seems to suggest a figure of around 40,000

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Egyptian_protests).

The Telegraph goes with "Hundreds of thousands gather in Cairo and Alexandria..."

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8288167/Egypt-protests-live.html)

The Wall Street Journal has a number of "estimated 250,000".

(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703445904576117393514953196.html)

Al Jazeera has "more than a million"

(http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/20112113115442982.html)

The Guardian is more circumspect. "The organisers claim that a million people have joined the protests, al-Jazeera reports.", it says.

So Al Jazeera reports that the organisers claim that......

But what most readers hear is "Million people".

In any case, let's take the figure of a million people actively milling about public squares and performing associated activities (burning cars, throwing stones, chanting, dancing, shouting, giving TV interviews to the New York Times, trying to get into the Sun's camera's view, as they try to interview Sheila, from Herefordshire, blonde mother of two, who has had her holiday plans utterly ruined etc. etc.)

What's the ratio?

1.25% of all Egyptians are protesting.

That doesn't look very salubrious, if one takes the democractic point of view.

But statistics are the devil's work. So let's multiply that by a figure of four, to eliminate error.

That brings us to 5%.

Why should 5% of the people speak for the other 95%?

In Indian terms, 5% is a lot - it would mean 50 million Indians protesting outside parliament. They wouldn't fit in, even if the whole city were leveled into a parched field.

But for countries with lower populations, say, Liechtenstein with 32,000 subjects.

Would the prince abdicate, if 1600 people gathered outside the palace in Vaduz?

More to the point, would the conscience of the world expect him to?

This "revolution" might be a good thing. It might lead to greater personal freedoms and more prosperity. It might lead to war within two years, but that's another thing.

I would only like to make the point that we should not forget how easily we are influenced by the sight and sound of a mob. I do not suggest we ignore it nor imagine that all the people knocking about there are paid to do so, and that most are completely ignorant of politics, social studies, economics, ethics etc., for that would be cynical, but that we evaluate the crowds with a measured eye.

An intolerant art

A Bollywood review: Band Baaja Baraat

Bollywood gets alliteration, obviously. That and a rather good-looking cast, coupled with the technical expertise of film-making, both hard not to get right in a country with one of the oldest traditions of film-making, the world's largest film industry at least in terms of annual feature-film production rate, multiple languages probably implying a variety in culture and, of course, a population both young and immense (this latter bit contributing to the presence of the physically attractive ones, even in a land where nutrition and freedom from physical labour is not a universal truth for children).

This particular film - Band Baaja Baraat (translated as "Wedding Music Band" in the Wikipedia article) - was released on the tenth of this month, i.e. three days ago, and I watched it on the eleventh of December. A childhood friend and I had had a satisfying meal in an excellent restaurant just before, and thus walked into the theatre unencumbered by popcorn and cola.

The plot

Young students in a college hostel, well-up on their Delhi slang, crash a local wedding feast, for the meal in the usual canteen appears unpalatable. Our man is accosted by a young lady who does not accept his wedding-guest credentials. He, however, on account of being acquainted with the videographer, manages to escape a cruel fate by asserting membership in the video engineering team. On the morrow, using a stratagem worthy of Odysseus, the male lead establishes the identity of the female protagonist. A chance meeting that asks for more than the suspension of disbelief allows the girl to show the boy her business idea, which he pooh-poohs. Shortly thereafter, his extended family shows up requiring his extended presence back home. To avoid banishment to the hinterland, he suggests that he may not, for he is part of an entrepreneurial venture. The ruse works, and, at an interview with a famed wedding planner, at which he accompanies the girl, he manages to insinuate himself into a business partnership. The duo leave the professional's service, on account of being shouted at (!), shout back (truer to their behaviour) and leave, having made the vital acquaintance of a dealer in floral arrangements. They set up shop, convince local contacts to trust them, set up a network of suppliers, celebrate successes, move up in scale, sleep together, have a tiff, dissolve the partnership, work independently, even as rivals, face repeated failure and debt, decide to come back together for a particularly lavish wedding, dance, make up and live, presumably, happily ever after.

If, that is, they don't mind the excessive shouting and the other appalling behaviour they continuously display. If this film represents contemporary Indian society, or even, say contemporary Delhi society, then we live in sad times. The film is to be criticized in that it confirms barbarianism. What, exactly, is so bad?

Well, to start with, almost everyone is rude to almost everyone else.

Employers routinely threaten employees with physical violence.

The male lead happily makes a contemptible racist remark, cheered by many in the audience. Perhaps it's perfectly acceptable, if the masses like it. Vox populi and all that sort of thing, or is art required to occasionally try to better the ticket-buying monster?

One might be forgiven for imagining that this is a Hindi film, given that it is made by Bollywood and set in Delhi. However, not one character in the film appears to have the ability to articulate a sentence with more than five words (exclusively) in Hindi. This ignorance, or is it intellectual laziness, is exemplified by the title, which starts with the English word "band".

In some ways, this is the New India, which thrives on entrepreneurship. The young lady is around 22, promises to marry a boy of her parents' choosing at 25, if only they will let her have a shot at the world of business. The enlightened parents agree (after all, 25 is a perfectly acceptable age for an Indian woman to remain unmarried till, this being the 21st century and all that sort of thing). The leading man, on the other hand, does not share her passion for the business. Indeed, his only motivation in joining her is to avoid returning to his village. And he had met her twice in his life before announcing his unsolicited candidacy for the post of partner.

For all that, our pair is remarkably successful, earning a fee of INR 2 crores (1 crore = 100 lakhs; 1 lakh = 100,000; making a total of INR 20 million) on one certain wedding (not, however, the monumental one the film leads up to) within mere months of starting the business. This is roughly USD 442,000. That's around 375 times the annual per capita GDP. On this same wedding, they manage a profit of 0.6 crores - that is a profit margin of 30%. A net profit margin, that is, for no one seems to discuss the little administrative detail of taxes. The New India.

The depiction of communal harmony is patently contrived - the chief suppliers to our wizards being Sikh and Muslim. Sikh and Muslim weddings (one each) too are depicted. The Jews, Christians, Jains, Buddhists etc. are not shown this honour. No religious group or caste is insulted, that being reserved for a certain race.

Encouragingly, neither the civil police nor the political class is as being corrupt and self-serving; this is seldom the case in Bollywood. One small victory for the non-cynics. Oh, and the leading lady refuses to steal electricity, that all-too-common Delhi tendency. Crashing weddings is apparently all right, but there are moral boundaries. Don't worry; they tend to be amenable to being bent.

Relations between the sexes are mostly amicable, perhaps because only one such relationship is depicted. The language, patois really, is atrocious. Interestingly, the couple appears to fall in love, that happy descent, after having explicitly avowed not to, and after having slept with each other.

Around six people walked out after the first forty minutes - lucky them. Another five followed shortly after the intermission. Bollywood films often have a break, handy if one wishes to visit the washroom, satisfy a craving for nicotine, stock up on nachos or otherwise stimulate the economy. Unfortunately, this also generally implies that films demand much in terms of time.

Some, much more.

Bollywood comes up with some excellent films - Lagaan, Yuva, Johnny Gadaar, Dharma etc., but, all too often, it descends to the depiction of personal servants as deserving of mockery, physical abuse and general rudeness.

Of politicians - including ones democratically elected to office - as being utterly corrupt.

Of the police forces being contemptuous of the rights of citizens.

Of wealth as being either inherited or gained through illegal and scarcely honourable means - any means, except those involving creativity, discipline and hard work.

Slapstick is rife but even that is preferable to the general depravity ascribed to Indian society.

The witticisms are rarely original and, often, films are directly inspired, if one wishes to employ the euphemism, from world cinema.

Unforgivingly, violence is glorified.

Brutality is accepted, made banal.

The intellect of the viewer is rarely challenged.

There exists a censor of films. How all this gets past them is symptomatic of the current frame of mind. No sex, please, we are Indians. Never mind that one does not see artificial insemination clinics dotting the countryside in this land of one billion, most of whom have probably never seen a stork. And nothing against the Gandhis. Religion is the holy cow, or the major ones are. Jokes about skin tone, race and accents, and contemptuous of most foreigners, are acceptable, if in rather poor taste. Although it boggles the mind, films have also been known to mock the accents of foreigners speaking a foreign (their own) language in a foreign (their own) country, suggesting that the Indian pronunciation (of that foreign language) is the way to go. Or one certain Indian pronunciation, anyway.

Ten contemporary reviews

A now a quick look at what (a sample of) the Indian media has to say about this particular film. Unmissable, if one enjoys a mild chuckle. Unfortunately, a little disheartening to see the lack of erudition and critical thinking.

1. http://www.cinegoer.com/telugu-cinema/srinivas-reviews/band-baaja-barat-movie-review-101210.html

"The decorum of the film went for a toss with the unwanted love-making scene."

Unwanted by whom? You? In any case, this is not the movie that first leaps to mind, when one wishes to illustrate decorum.

"The ethical values are set aside for a brief period."

All ethical values? Your ethical values?

"In fact Bittoo, in order to getaway from the compulsion of going back to his home town and look after the sugarcane farm, needs an excuse to stay back in Delhi where he is graduated from."

One may end a sentence with a preposition, but one is not permitted to murder it.

"During the celebration of the success the couple goes intimate and crosses all the barriers where the problem is on track."

"The final verdict is that Bollywood is adapted to the constraints of Hollywood especially in romantic situations."

These two latter statements are probably best left to the psychiatrist's couch.

2. http://www.realbollywood.com/news/2010/12/band-baaja-barat-review.html

"The first half of the movie is full of fun and in the second half the viewers will get to see some twists and turns. The youth faces give freshness to the movie, which is a romantic comedy. It is a complete family entertainer and worth watching at the weekend."

Twists and turns are all right, as long as one does not run into anything hackneyed. The youth faces (youthful, one presumes) impart freshness - this is exactly the sort of perceptive insight one desires in the critics.

3. http://thebollywoodactress.com/band-baaja-barat-movie-reviewrating-35trailers/

"Through their business they experience the ups and downs of the lavish world of the glamour and glitz of Delhi weddings. In this mean while they knows one another well is the storyline of BandBaajaBarat (BBB)."

"Overall, Band Baaja Baaraat is an entertainment movie as it is of a Romantic Comedy Movie."

The construction of these sentences possibly owes itself to having been written whilst in the dark of the theatre. One suspects that it is not only there that darkness reigns.

4. http://www.rediff.com/movies/review/review-band-baaja-baraat/20101210.htm

"Dialogues and screenplay by Habib Faisal...are first rate."

Apart, of course, from the fact that there is scarcely one sentence of any length free from grammatical error in the entire film. In any language.

"She (Anushka Sharma) can cry and laugh at the same time and deliver a biting line with equal believability."

Believablity equal to what?

5. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/band-baaja-baraat/723015/0

"A big part of the delight of ‘Band Baaja Baraat’ is the writing which imparts nice little touches to its characters, making them real as opposed to outlined caricatures."

The writing? Either this is irony, by someone whose acquaintance with the device is restricted to the Simple English Wikipedia article, or Ignorance boasts of the writer.

"Post interval, the film tries for mush,and dips, extricating itself only right at the end."

Dips in the mush? Fascinating use of the English language.

6. http://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/reviews/Mayank-Shekhar-s-review-Band-Baaja-Baraat/Article1-636924.aspx

"The dialogues are in colloquial Hindi, 'slanguage' more common to the north."

That's it? Hindi only shows up as a framework for the English and Urdu words.

"Bittoo and Shruti start a successful wedding planners' "binness" right after finishing college. This is good move, no doubt, given a culture that perennially envies its neighbour, thrives on throwing money at weddings and other personal processions to show wealth off."

Ironical omission of the indefinite article before "good move", right after mocking the pronunciation of "business" as "binness" in the preceding sentence.

A culture that envies neighbouring cultures? The writer obviously lost track of his or her sentence.

"This world is any day more relatable than duffers drivin' around daddy's Ducati in downtown West, known to Bollywood NRIs alone."

Obviously, alliteration is much loved, and is obliged when it demands taste as sacrifice.

7. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/movie-reviews/hindi/Band-Baaja-Baaraat/moviereview/7059509.cms

"And what a delightful smattering of colours is spilling forth as film makers try to understand what makes the Indian capital -- with its amalgam of cultures and communities -- so charismatic."

The return of alliteration. Obviously, well beloved of the Indians.

"....the earthy, emotional, rough-edged quintessential Dilliwala who peppers his language with street talk, doesn't believe in minding his Ps and Qs, revels in an in-your-face attitude and cocks a snook at the HS (high-society) people..."

Ah, the familiar and commendable theme of the common man standing up to a higher social class. Except that the lead character bullies his peers and threatens his own employees with brutal, physical violence. Interesting abbreviation, that (HS for high-society).

And he (and she) does not pepper his language with street-talk - it is exclusively street talk. There is not one minute of exclusively Hindi (or Punjabi, Urdu or English) dialogue in the movie. In a movie of more than two hours (seemed much longer, though).

8. http://www.thehindu.com/arts/cinema/article946135.ece

"The film is set in an outspoken world..."

This must be a euphemism for the threats of physical violence, the rudeness, the racist remarks and the general lack of polish and tolerance.

"When we return, we thank god once again that one sequence of intimacy doesn’t result into peristalsis!"

Obviously, the publication is doing its bit for our low-carbon world by not having printed copies of the style guide lying about on reviewers' desks.

More in this vein:

"At the end of the day it is a love story but the brain is not expected to be on a break. Once again it raises issues of commitment and integrity that surround the young generation but doesn’t skims the shiny surface."

9. http://www.bollywoodmoviereview.info/2010/11/yash-raj-band-baaja-baarat-watch-band.html

"Band Baaja Baaraat is comedy romantic movie based on love story of two characters who are business partners in Wedding Planners venture In the beginning of movie they don’t like each other cause of different nature and choices But at the end of movie they falling love with each other."

I am not making this up. Maybe I too sometime falling love with this movie.

10. http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_Review.aspx?id=577

"This is also because debutant actor Ranveer Singh is pitch perfect in the role of the uncouth but good-hearted small town slacker who is a bit of a duffer when it comes to matters of the heart."

Uncouth? Well, that is certainly one word to describe the lead male character. And the lead female character. Good-hearted but not versed in matters of the heart. Fascinating, how we absolve our protagonists of brutality, intolerance, dishonesty and racism as long as they are good-hearted.

"The first half, in which him and Shruti set up their company is great fun, with weddings and struggle and a mid-point twist that will surprise you."

He and Shruti, not "him and Shruti", of course. But the writer is probably good-hearted and well-intentioned, so that's all right.

Incidentaly, the official website of the film is http://www.bandbaajabaaraat.com/ - worth a visit; the colourful posters of the very attractive leading pair etc..

Surely, we can go beyond this? The hoary old but-this-is-the-grim-reality argument does not hold water - this brand of cinema will win us no personal freedoms, will liberate no slaves. If it is entertainment we seek, surely we can afford to encourage and stand up for values we wish to see practised in our societies.

Values of fair play, common courtesy, basic civic sense, tolerance, rejection of street violence, celebrating the ability to string together a sentence using any one language et cetera.

And how do we do this? By writing critical reviews of movies? Just not going to the movies is not antidote enough. A more proactive approach is called for.

Perhaps an ironical awards night for those Bollywood films which most brazenly transgress against taste, which promote racism, cynicism, dishonesty and make brutality banal?

A discussion is always a good starting point.

Questioning the Modern Protester

The modern protester

They are regularly on our news channels, hoards of them, ranging from delightfully young but shockingly rabid college students to the scruffily dressed oppressed without jobs or formal education, and many other combinations, including some who sacrifice a vacation day, are well and variously informed about the issue at hand, are averse to throwing stones and Molotov cocktails, and would be able to participate intelligently in a conversation on the nature of truth.

Protesters in the past have won for us all freedoms we take today for granted, and while many who preach Liberté ou la Mort usually hold the interjection "someone else's" as understood, we must be grateful towards all who stood up against tyranny. Drawing on Koestler's idea of civilizations having various internal levels of progression, let us exclude from the current discussion those who unfortunately still must fight for personal liberty and currently accepted ideas of human rights. They need no justification and are beyond the pale of constructive criticism. Let us instead use the phrase "modern protester" to designate those living in a liberal democracy who feel at odds with certain policy decisions of a government elected by themselves or by their neighbours and choose to express this difference of opinion by publicly visible protest marches, sit-ins, slogan-chanting and, occasionally, vandalism, arson and murder.

The first pertinent question is: why a march? Why not a letter written to the local Member of Parliament, and another to the local newspaper, a door-to-door signature campaign, perhaps, a notice hung in the local coffee shop or public house, or a declamation on market day, positions outlined on blogs, emails sent to even second cousins etc.? One answer is that a march helps to raise public awareness and force the government's hand. Both rely upon a brute-force method - if we shout loudly enough, and increase people's commute-times and generally be enough of a nuisance, we will inevitably intrude upon the masses, forcing them to take a stand, any stand, our stand. If enough people get upset, the media will circle in, causing even more people to think about the matter at hand, eventually leading all politicians desirous of re-election (i.e. almost all of them) to formulate responses.

Note also that most protest marches are usually not fora where a debate is held, or can be held. It is dangerous to talk to a mob, even one not wielding pitchforks, and small, rectangular pieces of cardboard only hold reduced and over-simplified positions. Public awareness is indeed raised, but only in that the public is made aware that some feel strongly about a certain subject, and not what the various facets of said subject are. Indeed, in this sense, protest marches represent the darker side of democracy, the might of the mob, of inflexible, monolithic opinion over knowledge and discussion. Especially when protest marches move from being of a purely symbolic nature to one where the hands of protesters are used as main force - in this case, we might as well declare that the State Must Die and consider whether not all social institutions must be destroyed and whether the non-marching majority is entitled to an opinion and if one really needs to consider its wishes.

The second, and related, question is: should protest marches be allowed at all in a liberal democracy? The government is by the people, the courts and the constitution exist to check excesses and the legislator's contract was signed for a number of years. Note that the holding and dissemination of diverse opinions and public assembly is not being questioned here, and while there is a thin line between public assembly and protest march, we question here the motive, not the actual marching. Let the people march, if march they will, but let us not allow all policy matters to require protest marches - these impinge on the freedoms of others, the freedom to enjoy a quiet day in the park, the freedom to get home to pet dog or lover at seven in the evening, the freedom not to have reduced quality of healthcare because the state's budget was consumed paying the bills of policemen or because the public health system was occupied in tending to those who exposed themselves to harm because they are unable to articulate their ideas on a piece of paper and divert cash outflow to paying for postage.

A blanket ban on marches is dangerous for that would grant too much power to the state. Let those march who march must, even if because they only marching know.

However, let us consider that there is nothing inherently noble or morally superior in protest-marching. They serve too, who, instead of marching, toil to pay taxes to provide for the heating of shelters for the homeless elderly, who clean streets in unglamorous uniforms, outside the glare of flashbulbs, who compose violin quartets or low-fat pastries for a small minority etc.. The much maligned majority too deserves a voice.