I stopped the car as we approached another signal. My friend was sitting next to me in the car. Traffic signals generally open a new topic. Don’t know why. When the car comes to a halt after flowing freely, I guess it happens to our thoughts as well. The system restart does happen. We forgot what we were talking until then. As the car stopped for the signal, my friend suddenly looked at me and asked . . . Read the rest of this entry »

Make a list of 10 most famous artists, 10 most famous writers, 10 most famous poets, 10 most famous humourists and 10 most famous musicians. Out of these 50 personalities how many would be females? If you go by the normal demographical distribution, you must see 20 to 25 of those people being females. In reality, I think we might struggle to get 10 female names. I’ve always wondered why. When it comes to creative arts why don’t we see enough women there? I’m not coming to a conclusion. I’m just asking a question here. If I try to answer the question myself, I have a few options.

Opportunities: I think it can’t be a question of opportunities as they are certainly available. When I talk about opportunities I’m talking about women at large, not just Indian women. There are enough opportunities for women to get jobs in banks, companies and even politics. Creative arts require natural talent and genius which can create opportunities for the artists in the normal course of time. Are women being encouraged to take up creative arts is another question. With ‘less’ pressure to be breadwinner, I would imagine that women are better placed to take up creative arts.

Priorities: Yes, that could be different. If I’m very creative and I don’t apply my creativity beyond my realms, no one may ever get to know. As such, creativity can be applied anywhere. When they get applied in popular arts, it reaches people and creates that publicity. If I have different priorities and none of them are as popular as painting, writing, poetry, humour or music, it’s hard for me to prove that I’m a creative person too. It’s just a matter of choice about where I want to be creative.

Creativity: Is it just a matter of not being creative enough? Creativity may not have anything to do with gender. I respect statistics a lot. If creativity has nothing to do with gender, why would, even in 2009, we have less representation from women in creative arts? I know a few people who very categorically say that men are more creative than women. They say it as a matter of fact statement. It’s like saying Chennai burns like hell and Bangalore has a lovely weather. That’s how the creation is. It is not a matter of Chennai’s mistake or Bangalore’s choice when you talk about their weather. Out of the box is fine but if the box itself is very small, it may not be as out of the box as you’d like. Is their box very small? Or that’s because this is a man’s world?

I know I’ve used the word ‘creative’ a bit loosely here but I hope you get the point. To further the point, make a list of 10 most famous thinkers, 10 most famous philospohers, 10 most famous inventors, 10 most famous spiritual gurus, 10 most famous explorers and out of these find out how many . . .

Aren’t you getting tired of these news channels? It’s all getting a bit obscene now. Everything is a breaking news. Everything is a sensation. I don’t take any of these headlines at newsvalue. Something becomes a headline because there is nothing better to report. Unfortunately, there should always be a sensational headline, a terrible crisis, a shock report etc. What’s more unfortunate is, if there is none, there is an attempt to create these. Make a news out of nothing. I realise it’s not easy to keep giving news for 24 hours non-stop. But you have a choice of creating news or being responsible and educate people otherwise.

When the Bangalore blasts happened, I was in Bangalore. I was staying in Shivajinagar which was one of the several places where the bombs exploded. It is, of course a big news and a terrible news. But I can confirm that it was not as bad as it was made out to be, by the news channels. I was shopping around that weekend because things returned to normalcy in a matter of few hours. If you had followed the images and footages on the television, you must have been thinking that Bangalore was burning, while I was exploring the city on foot and by taxi.

We have too many private news channels. And there is a dog-eat-dog competition among them. What this results in is a cheap competition of who can best sensationalise the happenings. Sadly, that’s what it all boils down to. You can see that if you keep switching across channels while something worthwhile is being reported. I guess there must be a mad rush to fix a catchy deadline that can run for days and weeks. It is purely a business. It is just a matter of who sells more copies or who gets more viewership.

The crudeness, the cheapness of reporting is one. Worst is, the joy, more than the duty, of reporting terrible incidents. Sometimes it makes me feel that if they hear about a serial bomb blast somewhere, they might scream ‘yesssssssss’. The news channels’ job is a bit like that of the doctors. If everyone’s healthy, he’s got nothing to do. That shouldn’t mean he’s hoping for the cholera to break out. If it does break out, he can’t be spreading the scare and fear instead of awareness and alertness.

Journos question everyone. News channels are omnipotent. They are so bloody powerful. They question politicians, economists, sportsmen, artists, celebrities; they can question anyone. They have the God-given right to ask anyone the tough questions. They have the privilege of embarrassing anyone in the public eyes. They might even score some brownie points when they get someone to walk out on them from the studio or when someone was made to weep. I guess they would also weep if it helps the TRP.

Who can question the news channels? Who can evaluate them? They can name and shame the politicians for not doing their job, they can question the commitment of a player when he is not in form, they can brutally criticise an artist and his creations and pretend that they know more than the learned economists. Now, who’s checking if the news channels are doing their job? Who’s going to report them? How do you evaluate the news channels is an interesting topic in itself.

You must know about this blogger Chyetanya Kunte who wrote a post titled ’shoddy journalism’ about the coverage of the Taj incident by NDTV. He was not a well known blogger or anything. He wrote about how the terrorists used the NDTV’s live coverage of the whole Taj incident. He was particlarly singling out Barkha Dutt for the ’shoddy journalism’ and questioning her ethics. He was tracked down by the NDTV and Barkha Dutt. He was sued and made to issue an apology in his own blog for his post. Below is his original post for which NDTV sued Kunte. Make up your mind.

I think it was a very good post (though with a poor closing line) which should have been responded by Barkha appropriately instead of a libel. He has raised some very vital questions which require answers more than anything. Those were the questions on everyone’s lips. When this argument continued in facebook, Barkha herself responded there in facebook, again with no valid response. You can read the whole history of this battle here. The whole episode was seen as a breach of freedom of expression. The bloggers were enraged. Many many anti-Barkha communities were created in Facebook. Finally, we all realised there is a way to talk about the Press. I think the answer to who can evaluate and if required, criticise the news channels lies in this very incident.

It is in the internet, and it should be the bloggers. Who else can do that and using which other medium?

How many of us have heard of the genocide in Rwanda that killed about 1,000,000 people, wiping away 10% of their population? Yup, that’s a million murders and million dead bodies in a country smaller than the size of Kerala. Frankly, I didn’t know about this. Okay, this did not happen early 18th century or something, this happened in 1994. I was joining college then. Of course I’m not the best informed but a million murders cannot escape anyone’s notice!? What are the chances of you not knowing about a genocide of million deaths that happened in the United States of America?

Before we go to the movie, a very short backdrop of the story. Rwanda is an central African country that was a Belgian colony until 1962. Hutu and Tutsi are the two major ethnic groups in Rwanda. Hutu are the majority and Tutsi are the minority. Unsurprisingly, it was the Belgians who promoted the divide between the classes and ethnic groups when they took control of Rwanda in 1916. They considered Tutsi as the elite and ruling class and gave them key positions. In 1959, the very same Belgians took a u-turn and handed the power to Hutu. When they left the country in 1962, Hutu majority were in ruling power. The Hutu-Tutsi relationship has always been strained since then. The Hutu-Tutsi situation existed in the neighbouring countries of Congo and Uganda as well.

The story starts in the early 90s. There is a constant tension in the country due to the recent incidents of violence. The Hutu movement to wipe of ‘the cockroaches’ (as they would call Tutsi) starts to gain enormous momentum. That’s when the Hutu president of Rwanda gets assassinated which worsens the situation. Hutu take military command of the state and sets on a mission to erase the Tutsi population from Rwanda.

This movie is the true story of Paul Rusesabagina, the assistant manager of a very big hotel in Rwanda. Paul’s father is a Hutu and mother is a Tutsi. His wife is a Tutsi.

In 1994, the genocide breaks out in Rwanda. The radio keeps blaring ‘kill the cockroaches’. The armed Hutus are everywhere. They are in hundreds and thousands. They have all the weapons with them and they have the numbers too. They start killing Tutsi on sight. They seem to take pride and joy in killing Tutsi. The news about the mass murders spreads. Tutsi are running everywhere. They want a place to hide, place to save their lives. As this was a very well planned massacre, Hutu have got them very well surrounded. There is no escape.

It even gets to a stage where the disposal of dead bodies becomes a massive operation by itself. Rwanda starts stinking. Dead bodies are cleared like debris. It becomes difficult to drive in certain roads because of the uncleared bunch of bodies lying around.

The real Paul Rusesabagina recollects:

We all knew we would die, no question. The only question was how. Would they chop us in pieces? With their machetes they would cut your left hand off. Then they would disappear and reappear a few hours later to cut off your right hand. A little later they would return for your left leg etc. They went on till you died. They wanted to make you suffer as long as possible. There was one alternative: you could pay soldiers so they would just shoot you. That’s what her [his wife] father did.

This whole situation was brought out in the movie very well. They make you feel how bad the situation was. They got me worried. You get this uncomfortable feeling when you see thousands of armed Hutu extremists chanting and walking down the roads and killing Tutsi along the way. Absolutely merciless. Be it old people or women or children, they just go on killing them. And there is Paul Rusesabagina trying to save his family.

When all this news comes out, Paul wants to save his family and that’s all he cares. And he feels that he must save his neighbours too. Then he realises that he is able to save some more lives. And he slowly realises that everyone is abandoning Rwanda. The journalists, the red cross, the UN officials, everyone is leaving Rwanda. No one wants to stop what’s happening here in Rwanda. Worse is, no one even wants to know what’s happening here in Rwanda. This wasn’t the biggest story in CNN or BBC and was called ’some tribal violence’. I know why. There is no oil in Rwanda, for starters.

As the killings continue, Paul with no support from anyone, goes on to refuge about 1,268 people in his hotel which has 112 rooms. The power is out. Supplies have stopped coming. There is no administration at the hotel. There is no one to do that. These thousand plus people will have to be fed until the crisis comes to an end. Hutu are hunting for the Tutsi. Paul Rusesabagina, a true hero, saves 1,268 people in a genocide that killed about a million people in about 100 days.

It’s a great movie, as in it brings out the horror and emotions as it should. I mean, imagine a million people getting killed in about 100 days, that’s about 10,000 murders everyday for 100 days. It must have been fucking hell and the movie captures that as much as possible. It is simply impossible to capture a horror of this magnitude in a movie. It cannot be a documentary. It is a movie and there’s a story telling to do. In the process, they had to show the backdrop to make us understand the gravity of the situation. Even though you now know that Paul saved more than thousand people, when you watch the movie, you won’t believe that they could be saved or might have been saved. That’s how well they’ve depicted these scenes.

Paul was a hero. He was a hero because he could commit a heroic act to save so many lives. Before 1994, he was a very ordinary man, with his family and children, working as an assistant manager in a hotel. After 1995, he took asylum in Belgium after some serious life threats in Rwanda. He is again a very normal man now. He was a hero, for a short period, when it mattered most. One might wonder why Paul left Rwanda and is living in Belgium. The answer is he wants to live. He wants to live his life peacefully. That underlines that he is a very normal man who went against all the odds to perform a heroic act at a certain time. He did not dedicate his whole life to the people of Rwanda or something. He did not want to bring change to Rwanda or something. All that he did was to be a hero when he can and be like a normal man when he wants to. This mentality is brought out very well in the movie as well.

This is a very inspirational movie. It shows that you don’t have to be in the army or in the politics or be a strong or powerful guy to do such acts of heroism. All that matters is your spirit and determination. And all that he did was very much in his capacity as an assistant manager of a hotel. He did not do anything that a hotelier would not otherwise do. He housed people, he fed them, he made feel comfortable, he made them feel safe. In our walks of life, in our capacity, we can do quite a lot. But we don’t do unless we’re pushed to the limits. Even in this story, if Paul’s family, friends and relatives are all Hutu, he might have tried to flee the country for a peaceful life. It was the fight for the survival of his family that brought the best out of him. We all need to be pushed to the wall to come up with such acts. But we are normal people. But even normal people can do quite a lot. That’s my take away from this movie.

This is one of the most spine-chilling movies I have ever seen. It’s not very often that you’re filled with sadness, disappointment and helplessness after you’re done watching a movie. I was really worried. Really worried that this happened and it happened as recently as in mid-90s and the fact I could know about this only from a movie. Do watch this movie. The sad thing is, this movie would always be relevant. You cannot rule out another such genocide in the future. If I had asked you in 1993, if a mass killing of million people would ever happen, you’d have laughed off. That’s why this movie would always be relevant.

I love Osho’s writings. He does come up with some superb stories to explain his points. Here is one of the fantastic stories from Osho on Lao Tzu (supposedly a 3000-year old story). This story is from his book on ‘Freedom’ where he explains and enlightens us on what is freedom. It is not freedom from something or freedom to do something, it is being oneself. He also talks about how the society and institutions have curbed the evolution of man and how they won’t exist if the individual evolves. Read this superb story.

Lao Tzu became very famous, a wise man, and he was without doubt one of the wisest man ever. The emperor of China asked him very humbly to become the chief justice of the supreme court, because nobody could guide the country’s laws better than he could. He tried to persuade the emperor, “I’m not the right man”, but the emperor was insistent.

Lao Tzu said, “If you don’t listen to me . . . just one day in the court and you will be convinced that I’m not the right man, because the system is wrong. Out of humbleness I was not saying the truth to you. Either I can exist or your law and your order and your society can exist. So . . . let us try it.”

The first day a thief who had stolen almost half of the treasures of the richest man in the capital was brought into the court. Lao Tzu listened to the case and then he said that the thief and the richest man should both go to jail for six months. The rich man said, “What are you saying? I have been stolen from, I have been robbed – what kind of justice is this, that you sending me to jail for the same amount of time as the thief?”

Lao Tzu said, “I am certainly being unfair to the thief. Your need to be in jail is greater because you have collected so much money to yourself, deprived so many people of money . . . thousands of people are downtrodden and you are collecting and collecting money. For what? Your very greed is creating the thieves. You are responsible. The first crime is yours.”

Lao Tzu’s logic is absolutely clear. If there are going to be too many people and only a few rich people, you cannot stop thieves, you cannot stop stealing. The only way to stop is to have a society where everybody has enough to fulfil his needs, and nobody has unnecessary accumulation just out of greed.

The rich man said, “Before you send me to jail I want to see the emperor, because this is not according to the constitution;this is not according to the laws of the country.” Lao Tzu said, “This is the fault of the constitution and the fault of the law of the country. I am not responsible for it. Go and see the emperor.”

The rich man said to the emperor, “Listen, this man should be immediately deposed from his post; he is dangerous. Today I am going to jail, tomorrow you will be in jail. If you want to save yourself, this man has to be thrown out; he is absolutely dangerous. And he is very rational. What he is saying is right; I can understand it – but he will destroy us!”

The emperor understood it perfectly well. “If this rich man is a criminal, then I am the greatest criminal in the country. Lao Tzu will not hesitate to send me to jail.” Lao Tzu was relieved of his post. He said, “I tried to tell you before; you are unnecessarily wasting my time. I told you I am not the right man. The reality is your society, your law, and your constitution are not right. You need wrong people to run the whole wrong system.”

Your comments please!

Do you think sun signs have any significance? I’m a piscean. So I’m an unexciting sober introvert who is not a great company. Well, not entirely true as I was good enough to a find a non-piscean girl. Sun signs do talk about personalities. Some may find it ridiculous to group the whole population in twelve types of personalities. But I don’t think it’s entirely wrong. I mean, the people I know, I would fit them all in five or six categories, not even twelve.

Sun signs were not invented by Linda Goodman. And sun signs are not a thing of Western Astrology. Sun signs and moon signs are described very well in the ancient hindu astrology. There, sun sign denotes the body and moon sign denotes the mind. Sun signs talk about personalities and how someone is seen by the others. Moon signs talk about what emotional side of the person. Therefore, sun sign alone may not be sufficient to judge a person. You need to combine the qualities of the sun sign and the moon sign for a decent package. But sun signs, moon signs, ‘your day today’ and ’signs this week’ are not astrology. They are pieces of astrology which may not make full sense when used in isolation. By now you’d have understood that I believe in astrology. That makes me a bit old-fashioned, isn’t it? Sadly enough, I can’t even prove to you how it works. I cannot convince you.

Some people don’t believe astrology. That’s because they don’t ‘believe’. I believe in ancient hindu astrology. When you believe in astrology you’re either old-fashioned or superstitious or lacking self-confidence. Those are perceptions that are hard to erase. When I say I believe, let me clarify that I’ve never consulted astrology or sought any help from an astrologer or sought to know my future. Now you may ask, is it possible to predict the future? The way I see it, astrology is a science. It has its own methods, formulae and theories. It can predict the future and those predictions can go wrong, just like it happens with any science. Astrological predictions are like those by-pass heart surgeries. There are proofs of concept that it works. But it depends a lot on who performs it and various other circumstances. Just because a by-pass surgery fails we should not be doubting medical science.

Astrologers are like bloggers. To be an astrologer, you don’t need a degree or a certificate. So anyone can be an astrologers. Most of the amateur astrologers give astrology a bad name. Because of them, astrology has even become a joke. Reminds me of the local meteorological office. When they say it will rain, it will be sunny like sun has come closer by a million miles. That’s a local joke because they get it wrong most of the times. That’s why people don’t really take bloggers or astrologers or meteorologists any seriously.

The fake astrologers are like magicians. They show you what you want to see.

Astrologer: You must be a very hard worker. You’ll give anything and everything for your work. Right?
Astronut: Absolutely. You’re right!
Astrologer: You hate lies. You hate being lied to.
Astronut: You got it. My blood boils when I’m lied to!!
Astrologer: You’re a very creative person. You get upset when you’re ideas are not considered.
Astronut: Spot on. Looks like you know me better than I do!!!
(By this time, it is clear that the astronut is willing to get laid. Now comes the business end of the discussions which wins the bread)
Astrologer: You have some loans and that worries you.
Astronut: Yes, it drives me crazy. That’s why I’m here.
Astrologer: Okay now, what you need to do is . . .

Whatever he prescribes, if it works, the astrologer becomes a legend otherwise he can blame it on anything including the fact that the ‘astronut’ had his kitchen facing north and his gas stove facing west.

Let’s be clear. Unreliable astrologers should not mean astrology is unreliable. Astrology has stood thousands of years. I think the basis of astrology could be statistics. Suppose you survey a group of 1000 people wearing blue shirts and 800 of them are very positive-minded. Suppose you survey another group of 1000 people wearing white shirts of which 900 are very pessimistic and skeptical. Your survey conclusion would be that wearing blue shirts generates positivity and creates vibrancy whereas wearing the white shirt makes you negative. When you’re wearing a particular shirt, if 9 out of 10 times, your day has been fantastic, you’d ‘believe’ that it’s your lucky shirt and would wear for the right occasions. It’s all probability based on track record or past data.

Now take a bunch of 1000 pisceans and study they personality and behaviour. I’m sure you’re going to find lots of similarities. That’s because, before someone for the first time wrote that Pisceans are unexciting sober introverts that you should avoid, the survey and study must have happened. That is, thousands of years back, before the earliest scriptures of hindu astrology was written. My take is, it is a pattern. I need not be the introvert of highest degree because I’m a piscean but most pisceans could be. That’s statistics. That’s trend analysis and study of patterns. While this is understandable, you can still ask why should all pisceans be so boring? Why Sun in Pisces makes someone an introvert? That’s a bigger question. That’s where the fundamental belief of ‘planets do influence lives’ comes in. It’s like saying, ‘I know blue shirt is your lucky shirt but why?’.

Astrology is not just sun signs and moon signs. It is much deeper. Astrology is also based on mathematics and astronomy. Do not ask me how astrology works? I don’t have an answer. I’m sure this is not the only question for which you and I don’t have an answer. I certainly believe that astrology works because I believe planets can influence the people’s lives. There are so many things that we don’t understand. We call them luck, fortune, God, unknown, unknowable etc. Wait for a few years for a NASA group of researchers to come up with a paper to say that planets of the universe can influence people’s lives. Some might even win a nobel prize for that.

Now, go ahead. Knock me down!

I need to review Slumdog Millionaire, now. As an Indian blogger who has seen the movie, I don’t want to be the only one not to have reviewed this movie. We’ve heard all the arguments for and against the movie. Before I get to that, let me make one thing clear. It’s one hell of a movie. Superb screenplay, lovely cinematography and top class music. I just loved it. I enjoyed this movie so much that I’ve watched it three times. As a movie, it is truly an enjoyable movie. It’s a feel-good movie some elements of masala in it. Unless you have very strong sentiments against the movie, it is quite difficult not to like this movie. The movie is doing good worldwide because the ‘very strong sentiments’ are all from some of Indian viewers. In the eyes of the global audience, it is a very entertaining, wholesome movie experience.

To say that this is a Westerner’s portrayal of India is the worst you can do to this film. That also shows complete lack of understanding for movie as an art form. This movie would not have been as interesting if the hero Jamal (cut the protagonist crap, it’s hero in the Indian movies) had not had the slum beginnings. And I must appreciate Danny Boyle’s portrayal of slums. He did not show the slums so we can pity them. The focus was always on the characters and never on the slum by itself. With the slums as the background, lasting feelings or images could easily have been sorrow, pain, despair etc. Whereas the overwhelming feeling of the film was fun, adventure and joy. This is not because Jamal wins the prize and the girl. The sense of adventure and joy was spread throughout the time scale of the life of Jamal and his brother Salim. The guys are shown to have fun, be very enterprising and take on the life. If this was the Westerner’s portrayal of India – that no matter where they are, they’re mighty spirited people who never give up – thank you Danny!

Like it always happens with movies, the value of positive and negative publicity is almost the same. All the controversies have certainly made the movie a bit more popular. I still don’t understand why Indian slums should not be shown in a movie. It’s more shameful to have them than to show them. Over the last 60 years, the slums in Mumbai have grown to be the largest in Asia, one of the few Asian records that China did not pip India. Remember, slums have only grown. That’s a harsh reality. The India of outsourced processes, internet reach and mobile market is still not the real truth. The last couple of decades of urban prosperity has not done much to our literacy rate and the poverty line. That’s the truth. Why get so defensive about it, especially when the movie is not at all about the negatives. Isn’t it strange that politicians have not come out against the depiction of Indian slums in this movie? They won’t because they had/have a responsibility to eradicate slums and they’re not doing much about it. If we had shown the energy that we show against such movie directors and pub-going women towards the politicians, we would have less reasons to complain. Tired of seeing people barking up the wrong tree.

When Lagaan made it to the Oscars, I don’t remember anyone making so much noise. In my eyes, Lagaan was more shameful because it showed the Indian bunch as some illiterate bodies in an obscure village, who acted stupid, silly and emotional. None of the villagers were keen about putting up a fight except one man who leads them to an unbelievable charge against the well-mannered, smart, disciplined English. Some of the villager characters existed in the movie just for comedic elements. All they did were stupid, funny things that you’d not expect normal human beings to do. The movie completely undermined the Indians so that the hero can be a hero while you’re having fun watching the movie. Lagaan was made for the Indian audience and when it made to the Oscars, it was so unfortunate that the whole world got to see how ‘we’ projected ‘our’ illiterate silly Indians against the learned British. SM has not done more damage to the image of India than Lagaan did. Isn’t it hypocrisy of the highest order that Slumdog is being pilloried while Lagaan was not? If the same SM was directed by some RGV or Mani Ratnam, we’d have gone bonkers. The pseudo-nationalists always need some reason to knock down anything that’s not Indian.

SM is not the perfect movie. It has its faults. It has its perceived plot holes and all that. Actually I don’t mind that. The movie ‘Life is beautiful’ was not the perfect movie, in terms of factual accuracy and hole-free plot. But no movie has ever moved me than ‘Life is beautiful’ did. In just about 15 or 20 minutes into the movie SM, you’d realise that looking for perfection would only spoil your movie experience. If you look at this movie very critically, I pity you because you missed the fun. Superb casting, great acting by the younger actors, Rahman’s music, most lively camera work, smart direction, mementoesque screenplay with a bollywood-like ending. It’s got it all.

My favourite part of the movie is this. Jamal is on the final question for 2 crore rupees. He doesn’t know the answer and he has the last life line that is phone-a-friend. He calls his brother’s number and he is pleasantly surprised that Latika (Jamal’s love) picks up the call. That’s the first time he gets to speak to her after many months of forced separation. Upon the show host’s insistence, he asks the final question to Latika. She thinks hard but she doesn’t appear to know the answer. Show host says ‘just 15 seconds more’ for the call. Jamal, instead of asking if she knows the answer, asks her “where are you” and she replies “I’m safe”. For me, that sums up the movie. You should watch to appreciate this fully.

In another couple of weeks we’d have known if SM gets the Oscars. I don’t think that Oscars are the paramount, supreme awards that are given out in the film industry. Some of my favourite films which have been the best of that year, never went on to win the Oscar thereby substantiating my belief. Oscars are an American award given to American films and some foreign language films, all from the American standards of film making plus their understanding of world culture. But what Oscars can give you unbelievable publicity, reach and acceptance. For that reason, it helps to win the Oscars. I don’t quite think that the movie would win the award, despite the Warner Bros connection. I really really hope that Rahman wins it. He deserves this award. To get nominated twice in a category that has three nominations means he’s the odds-on favourite to win it.

As many have noted, SM was not Rahman’s best ever. And that’s not to undermine his music in SM, but just to show the high standards he has maintained all through his career, right from his debut. At least 20 to 30 times in his career, I have thought that ‘this is it, this is his best’. Yesterday, I was listening to his ‘Newyork nagaram’ song which still blows me away. The man’s a genius and he deserves global recognition and acclaim.  His ‘O Saya . .’ in Slumdog Millionaire is a very unique score. My bet is that it would win the Oscars.

All these international awards do have some subtle business angle to them. All those Indian girls won the Miss World, Miss Universe, Miss Asia-Oceania and all that not just because they were stunningly beautiful but also that western cosmetic industry had to tap the Indian market. And boy, didn’t they do well! An Oscar for Slumdog Millionaire would start a long season of foreign investment in Indian movie industry. With a humble budget of $15m (most of the hollywood actors get more than that per film) Slumdog Millionaire has amassed $130m. In the current economic conditions which other investment would give as much?

Slumdog Millionaire is the new entrant in my list of my favourite films (I plan to review each of them here, over a period of time). You can say all you want, the one thing SM accomplishes is to remind us the magic of cinema. Roman Polanski said “Cinema should make you forget you are sitting in a theater“. I know some porns will achieve that, but as far as I know that’s the most crisp definition of a good cinema. Slumdog Millionaire does just that.