Dilon mein tum apni betabiyan lekar chal rahe ho
To Zinda Ho Tum
Nazar mein khabon ki bijliyan lekar chal rahe ho
To Zinda Ho Tum

Hawa ke khozo ke jaise azad rehna seekho
Tum ek dariya ke jaise lehero mein behna seekho
Hare ek lamhe so milo tum khole apni baahein
Hare ek pal ek naya lamha dekhe ye nigahein

Jo apni aankhoein mein hairaniya lekar chal rahe ho
To Zinda Ho Tum
Dilon mein tum apni betabiyan lekar chal rahe ho
To Zinda Ho Tum

Beautiful poetry written by one of the greatest poets and lyricist alive in our country today, Javed Akhtar, and rendered as eloquently by his multi-talented son Farhan Akhtar in the just released Zindagi Milegi Na Dobara. These lines sum up the emotions of the film perfectly. The movie has been directed by Javed Akhtar’s daughter Zoya Akhtar.

The premise, if stated in one line, is not new.

Zoya’s brother, Farhan, had made his directorial debut with a similar movie, Dil Chahta Hai, which presented the life of three male friends, their life and tribulations. ZMND is also an out an out male bonding film, with a slightly different take.  The three are school friends, who go for a Bachelor trip to Spain, right before one of them is getting hitched.

The whole movie revolves around the days these friends spend in Spain, and the changes these days bring about in their personalities. Some old demons get exorcised, some new relationships get forged, some secrets get revealed and some bonds get strengthened. The movie is all about life, and the way these lessons are taught, well, nobody would mind learning them.  All three face their worst fears on the trip and learn about bonds, family, love, friendship and dreams.

I am not going to reveal the secrets, but to experience what they experienced, one just has to go and see the movie.

Every experience is so beautifully captured that you feel a part of it. The cinematography is beyond brilliant in this one.
And if we talk about performances, every performance is top- notch. Even though the girls don’t have much to do, but they have played their part well. The boys, well, it is difficult to judge who is better and who is not.  My vote will always go to Farhan, a personal favourite,  but Hrithik and Abhay are as good and well defined in their roles.

But the real clincher for me are the lines rendered by Farhan in between the movie, describing the mood of the movie. For me, they are the actual soul of this film – inspiring, engaging, entertaining, emotional, everything packed into one, without an abuse, without a Sheila or a Munni or a DK Bose.

“Make him an offer he can’t refuse,” is an iconic line from an equally iconic book, The Godfather. The same principle probably applies to Amitabh Bachchan – give him an exorbitant amount of money and he wont refuse your offer, even if it involves hosting one of the crassest reality shows on television.

Once a legend, always a legend, they say. But, whether this applies to Amitabh Bachchan, who doesn’t seem to want the title anymore, is doubtful. From endorsing  pens, to chocolates, to digestive tablets, to pretty much everything under the Indian sun, Mr. Bachchan is now back on the small screen in a completely different avatar – as a pop philosopher, and a host, not of a game show but a show that feasts on human emotions like jealousy, anger, hurt, love (or is it lust?), and most importantly betrayal. One can also not help but wonder at the choice of participants in the new season of the Big Boss. From a self-proclaimed sex-goddess, to another self-proclaimed sex-goddess’s mother, a self-proclaimed superstar of C-grade films, to a yesteryear’s beauty queen, to an unknown designer and, to top it all, a legendary wrestler’s frustrated son, whose histrionics would put the tactics of even  participants like Rakhi Sawant and Rahul Mahajan to shame.

According to Bachchan what attracted him to the show was the fact that the concept of the show was quite different and intriguing. How would 13 people – with no outside communication – live in one house for so many days, was a question he wanted to see answered. But, one has to stop and wonder: was it actually the “intriguing concept” of the show, or the lure of an outrageous amount that drove him to host the show? Only he knows the answer to that.

Amitabh’s critics have given up on him long back, and the blind followers will love him no matter what he says, or does. It is people like me – who on an emotional level love him but on the practical level detest his vexing money minting ways – who care.

This is not to say that making money is bad or vexing. Who doesn’t like money pouring in like rain, as long as it is not at the cost of others, or illegally got. It was quite commendable when Amitabh Bachchan hosted the show Kaun Banega Crorepati, and changed the face of Indian television and along with it his floundering businesses and personal finances. The years after that have been particularly kind to him, and he has had got ample opportunity to fill his coffers. So, now, why has he accepted this offer to host a sleazy, shady, so called reality show that involves starlets, drug addicts and C-grade celebrities?

When Shilpa Shetty took up similar offers of  participating in the UK version of the show, Big Brother, and then hosting the Indian version last year, no one was outraged or bothered, because she didn’t have the stature and the standing that Bachchan has (or had?). Is it merely the lure of the money that is a driving concern for even legends like Bachchan, and not their status and grandness? Is it not important for them to have the same kind of respect and reverence that they had earlier? Can you imagine a Marlon Brando or an Al Pacino doing a similar kind of feat?

I don’t think so, do you?

Last night I had a discussion with two of my closest friends. A debate that we generally have only in the confines of our home, and mostly in good humour. It’s said that religion, politics and sex should not be discussed in the public domain, therefore we try avoiding a debate on these issues publicly. The topic of the debate this time, however, was not any one of the three, but something related that is probably being discussed all over the world today. Something like a “clash of civilization” debate, where my friends were on one side teasing me for being a pseudo-secular.

In India, post 1989, it is fashionable to deride people who are liberal in the matter of religion. They are tauntingly christened as ‘pseudo- secularists’. On similar lines, to be anti-Nehru is also a fashion these days. Humanism has ceased to be a point of discussion and of concern to the generation to which I belong. The majority of the present generation fails to distinguish between ‘Majoritism’ and Democracy, and therefore the minority bashing. Every word spoken or any action supportive of minority is treated as ‘appeasement’ and earns the epitaph of being pseudo secularist.

My family has always imbibed in me the secular ideals, and that is how my brother and I think and react to certain situations. A few years back, it was all too simple and acceptable but now, our reactions invite glares and taunts. “You live in the times of Gandhi, people like you are responsible for the way the minorities behave in this country, and the most common of all, you guys are hopelessly pseudo-secular.”

Well, is it wrong to be secular, it is wrong to believe in equal rights for everyone? I don’t think so.

Whatever, and I repeat, whatever may be the reasons or justifications, one can’t generalise a religion or a community of people. Yes, the facts may point towards certain members of a certain community but does that give us the right to demonise an entire community?

Since 9/11 in the world, and in India more so since 26/11, Muslims have come under the line of fire. Everyone who is visibly Muslim is looked at with suspicion and thought of as a terrorist, as if there is no distinction between a the two. Some terrorists may be Muslims, but how does that give us the right to think of every Muslim individual as a threat. The anger and the rage that everyone, especially the victims, felt when Mumbai was under siege is natural, and quite understandable, but that rage and anger instead of being directed at some innocent individuals should be directed at the governing authorities who let the incident happen.

But again, it is intriguing to note that the suspicion and mistrust is selective, and is reserved for a certain segment of the community that falls easy prey to the radar of suspicion. The common man, not the ones who are famous and sought after, but the ones who can easily be typecast as the bad elements. This common man seem to have all the traits that are required to betray the nation. He is hardcore, religious and hot-blooded, who will go to any length for the sake of his religion. The others like actors, cricketers, fashion designers, businessmen, etc. are outside the purview of scepticism because of their important designation, or the power they hold. Actors like Aamir Khan, ShahRukh Khan; Cricketer Irfan Pathan, etc. are all beyond the ambit of the said bias, because they have a certain image and hold some power. Their achievements are accepted as our own, but a failure on the part of an ordinary Muslim, calls for all sorts of jabs and digs.

If this is not selective criticism, then what is it?

My family’s love affair with the Nehrus and the Gandhis, it seems, will never end. To this day, my father has a huge portrait of Indira Gandhi in his bedroom!

Somewhere maybe they still feel bonded with the legacy of India’s two premier dynasties. I realised it all the more, when they came visiting me recently – my family otherwise stays at Jaipur. Instead of showing an interest in the historical monuments or the fancy malls, they wanted to visit the Nehru-Gandhi memorials. Not that I wasn’t interested. But memorials?

So, our Delhi darshan began at the Teen Murti house and ended at Shakti Sthal, Indira Gandhi’s samadhi. There was not much to remember from the darshan, but two things stand out. The instances were a sort of reflection on us as Indians and an expression of our respect for the great leaders and their contributions.

The first episode was more of an observation rather than an act.

There were a lot of visitors at all the memorials, but what struck me instantly was the composition of the crowd at these places. There were only three kinds of people: Foreigners, school children and local tourists, the percentage of each group, lesser than the last one. A little thought helped me understand why the composition of the visitors was what it was. It is mandatory for the school children to visit these sites, local tourists have paid for these “dilli darshan” itineraries, and the foreigners perhaps read about these places in the travel guides, or the more informed ones might have read about them in history books.

The second instance though a small one, made me realise a serious fact about the much talked about ‘Indian mentality’. As we were strolling in the lush green lawns of Rajghat (Mahatma Gandhi’s samadhi), we saw two white girls relaxing on a bench. As they had their backs towards us, we couldn’t see their faces, but they seemed to be engrossed in an intense conversation.

We didn’t pay too much attention, but my dad suddenly noticed something about them and frowned. Naturally, it made me curious. Wanting to take a closer look, I went towards them. One of the girls was smoking quite casually. I think the thought that struck me must have occurred to my father too; they are not allowed to do it here. It is a sacred place, but what could we have done when the guards and the caretakers hardly noticed.

As we crossed them, my parents suppressed – with great effort – the urge to say something to them, but I just couldn’t keep silent.

“Excuse me, I am sorry but you are not allowed to smoke here, it’s prohibited.”

“Oh is it? we are sorry,” the girl replied rather apologetically. She instantly put out her cigarette and I returned my gratitude.

As I moved away, there was a lingering thought in my mind; they would definitely light up again. And after going a few steps I turned back, but they were chatting away sans any cigarettes.

My dilemma didn’t end there. Suddenly I realised what would have happened if the violators had been Indians? Would they have stopped smoking on somebody else’s intervention? Would I have approached them to remind them of their incorrect conduct? May be not.

Instead, in all probability, I would have got a rude stare with a suggestion to mind my own business. Even worse I could have been at the receiving end of nasty comments about being too patriotic and acting too responsible. Then there was the possibility of the usual answers like, “How does it bother u?” “It’s my wish, we are a free country, aren’t we?” etc.

What do you think would have happened?

Heya, wassup? Gimme a cal tomo, wanna tak abt dat wrk. Ppl r askng abt u hre.

Most people from my father’s generation won’t understand what these words, looking very similar to English, mean. These words simply didn’t exist in their time. It is the recent communication revolution that has given birth to this new language, which has become the mother tongue of the present generation.

The advent of the internet and the mobile has increased the pace of communication, and has also made communication easier. The news about a plane crash, or an earthquake, in any part of the world spreads all across the world in a matter of a few minutes. Log in to Twitter and you are instantly apprised of what the world is talking about. Communication with our near and dear ones, who are now spread all over the world, has been facilitated by these new gadgets.

Though connecting with friends and family has become trouble-free, the language used in this easy form of communication is not the finest we use. Because these are instant ways of communicating, the language used is also expected to be “instant”. Who wants to write 100 fine English words, when 30 typographic words can do the job just as well?

Did I hear someone say grammar? Well, that goes out of the window too. Earlier the point was to use as few words as possible to get the message across. Now, the thumb rule is: use as few characters as possible. In fact, some upcoming sites, like Twitter, give you only so much character space to get your message across. Quite naturally then grammar and good quality word usage take a back seat, and your creativity– or lack of it- takes the driver’s seat.

English, by its very nature, is an amusing language and its intricacies have always confounded the simple-minded. It is hard to explain a few things like, the difference in the pronunciation of put and but; the silent ‘p’ in pneumonia or the silent ‘k’ in knife. With the language already being so confusing, the new online language is bound to baffle a lot of people. People trying to learn English are bound to be misled and ultimately end up using the language incorrectly.

Children and youngsters still at the school level, who are trying to get a grasp on the language can, and do, get easily affected by this simple form of English. They simply end up believing that the new form is the correct form.

Though brevity has been the soul of wit since long, yet not every word can be shortened in proper English. Online communication, however, gives you this power, which, it can be argued, contributes to its becoming the most powerful mode of communication today. Anything that provides fast and instant results is a hit with the young crowd and so, naturally, is this form of communication even if it comes at a high cost to the English language.

When times change, so does the language. Shakespeare’s English, or Chaucer’s for that matter, is a nightmare for students of English Literature today. The language used by D.H. Lawrence, and R.K. Narayanan differed greatly from the one used by Amitav Ghose today. But, they all contained the essence of the language, applied to the times these authors lived in.

Just like 20-20 can’t match test cricket, similarly this new SMS lingo cnt match English language. Can it?