Every Indian likes, I am sure, the "Angry young man" but over the past I have a feeling, that most of them are becoming into one themselves and burning effigies is their forte. Be it of Richard Gere and Shilpa Shetty over an "entertaining" kiss or the noodle-strapped Mandira Bedi over a designer sari.
In today’s age where the world is going forward, the people of India seem to have another direction in their mind. While accepting, rather gladly, appalling kissing scenes in "murder" movies, they react with such vigor to simple pecks. And what is worse that they have the support of the "learned" judiciary. With multiple warrants issued, it is absurdity personified. A sari worn in the spirit of the world cup is interpreted as a defaming act of the tiranga leading to riotous protests and rallies and of course, the burning of effigies. There is so much fervor in the people, but all only for futile causes.
Now I am not asking people to take a back seat, after all it is the generation of "Rang De Basanti" but at least be rational about their acts. Where has the spirit of the Jessica Lal murder case gone?
Monday 30 April, 2007
Tuesday 24 April, 2007
Almost Famous
The media has gone crazy over what they call "The wedding of the century" - the Abhiash wedding. Now I am confused if they called the Liz-Nayar wedding also the same, or was it "The most opulent wedding?"
Anyway, in the wedding of the century it took ten seconds to fame for Ms Jhanvi, apparently a model. All she had to do was go to the media-clumped Prateeksha, make some bullshit claims and slash some veins. And BANG, she’s on national news almost instantly and on the cover page the next day. Now the question really is whether this effort will pay off; whether her time on the hospital bed and in the jail cell will last her a lifetime?
I always thought that fame was not easy to get. But now, it seems, the news-hungry media is standing by the door, just waiting for any Tom, Dick and Harry to ring the bell...
Anyway, in the wedding of the century it took ten seconds to fame for Ms Jhanvi, apparently a model. All she had to do was go to the media-clumped Prateeksha, make some bullshit claims and slash some veins. And BANG, she’s on national news almost instantly and on the cover page the next day. Now the question really is whether this effort will pay off; whether her time on the hospital bed and in the jail cell will last her a lifetime?
I always thought that fame was not easy to get. But now, it seems, the news-hungry media is standing by the door, just waiting for any Tom, Dick and Harry to ring the bell...
Sunday 15 April, 2007
The cutting scissors!
The interference of the government in censorship of television and radio shows in some countries is high while in some others is negligible. The role of government, I believe, is as necessary in censorship as it is in making laws.
The social implications of any television or radio show can be disastrous if improper content is telecast. It is commonplace to see people repeat what is being shown on tv, whether in advertisements or on shows. People emulate their heroes. While statutory warnings written on cigarette packs do not drive the smokers away, it would be foolish to think that the people who see/hear the telecast show would not smoke when the actors they are in awe of, do so. The interference in school books and curriculum is admissible, rather desirable, because what the little children read is what they learn and what they aspire to do. In a very similar manner, the shows with their increasing viewerships also need the state's approval.
The supporters of democracy might argue that censorship in any form is the violation of the right to free speech. However, one must understand that it is not advisable to let lions roam our roads when the same are frequented by the children and adults alike and all would be vulnerable.
It is the government’s responsibility to maintain the culture and integrity of a country. Some shows can very easily, hurt the sentiments of some groups. In the Uganda riots of the recent past, the country seemed to be against a particular sect of people. Not because they had done something bad, but because the shows had, in a rather harsh connotation, alleged. In another incident, racial discrimination on a very popular tv show in UK got not only the attention and wrath of the political world, but also, a sudden fall of the ratings and viewerships of that show. It eventually ended in apologies from the crew members. But had it been censored in the first place, it might not have created the rift and the unhealthy feelings in the hearts and minds of people.
Therefore, censorship in its entirety is desirable, as far as done within limits, so as to maintain a healthy culture among the various disparate communities and to avoid adverse affects on the minds of the youth and the children.
Though that was where my essay ends, I would have loved to mention about the bans the Indian tv ministry is putting on tv channels. Be it AXN in the beginning of the year or FTV recently. Though I barely watch these channels, but I strongly feel that such interference is also not desirable. There has to be a balance; the exercise of such power should not be irrational. The stay on the release of the movie “Black Friday” was also too harsh, but it was still justifiable because of the influence it might have had on the then-running court case. I did not mention any of these in the essays because they are very India specific. Don’t forget to leave your comments…
The social implications of any television or radio show can be disastrous if improper content is telecast. It is commonplace to see people repeat what is being shown on tv, whether in advertisements or on shows. People emulate their heroes. While statutory warnings written on cigarette packs do not drive the smokers away, it would be foolish to think that the people who see/hear the telecast show would not smoke when the actors they are in awe of, do so. The interference in school books and curriculum is admissible, rather desirable, because what the little children read is what they learn and what they aspire to do. In a very similar manner, the shows with their increasing viewerships also need the state's approval.
The supporters of democracy might argue that censorship in any form is the violation of the right to free speech. However, one must understand that it is not advisable to let lions roam our roads when the same are frequented by the children and adults alike and all would be vulnerable.
It is the government’s responsibility to maintain the culture and integrity of a country. Some shows can very easily, hurt the sentiments of some groups. In the Uganda riots of the recent past, the country seemed to be against a particular sect of people. Not because they had done something bad, but because the shows had, in a rather harsh connotation, alleged. In another incident, racial discrimination on a very popular tv show in UK got not only the attention and wrath of the political world, but also, a sudden fall of the ratings and viewerships of that show. It eventually ended in apologies from the crew members. But had it been censored in the first place, it might not have created the rift and the unhealthy feelings in the hearts and minds of people.
Therefore, censorship in its entirety is desirable, as far as done within limits, so as to maintain a healthy culture among the various disparate communities and to avoid adverse affects on the minds of the youth and the children.
Though that was where my essay ends, I would have loved to mention about the bans the Indian tv ministry is putting on tv channels. Be it AXN in the beginning of the year or FTV recently. Though I barely watch these channels, but I strongly feel that such interference is also not desirable. There has to be a balance; the exercise of such power should not be irrational. The stay on the release of the movie “Black Friday” was also too harsh, but it was still justifiable because of the influence it might have had on the then-running court case. I did not mention any of these in the essays because they are very India specific. Don’t forget to leave your comments…
Tuesday 10 April, 2007
I moved my cheese...
Recently (actually today only, but just in case you're reading this some other day) I got an award at my previous company. Now its not one of those "young acheiver" or "Mr. talented" awards which some have got, its a rather simple one, by the name "Best integrated team" and as you might have guessed by the name, it wasn't I who was lauded but the team. I am not boasting, read on. So, I got many calls from my ex-colleagues and not-yet-ex-friends to congratulate coz now my photo would be put up, but then does anyone really wanna see it? And does it really make much of a difference as to what I did when I was there? It was, after all, another time, another life...
Have you read "Who moved my cheese?"? All it talks about is change and how it affects you, rather adversely, and how to cope with it. But does reading such a book really make you invulnerable to change? All said and done, one does not cry, not even fret, about the change. Not because it is inevitable, but because it was your decision, your deliberated choice. But then that is what makes it all the more difficult. One opines whether it was a wrong choice after all, but I think one shud close that chapter and look forward to what is there to come. Because I believe that the best is still to come. Is it practical, is it not too ideal? I guess ambivalence is a way of life. You think and after weighing your options come up with a decision, but that decision haunts you for a long time. It seems to have many ifs and buts.
Now tell me, can you really sell the ferrari and become a monk? But thats beyond the scope...
Have you read "Who moved my cheese?"? All it talks about is change and how it affects you, rather adversely, and how to cope with it. But does reading such a book really make you invulnerable to change? All said and done, one does not cry, not even fret, about the change. Not because it is inevitable, but because it was your decision, your deliberated choice. But then that is what makes it all the more difficult. One opines whether it was a wrong choice after all, but I think one shud close that chapter and look forward to what is there to come. Because I believe that the best is still to come. Is it practical, is it not too ideal? I guess ambivalence is a way of life. You think and after weighing your options come up with a decision, but that decision haunts you for a long time. It seems to have many ifs and buts.
Now tell me, can you really sell the ferrari and become a monk? But thats beyond the scope...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)