There are people who live for their jobs. And a few, very few who die for them. In the latter category you generally think of a soldier. Dying to protect the Motherland. Yes, we have plenty of those, making the 'ultimate sacrifice' to protect our borders.
But Manjunathan was no soldier, he was a sales officer with Indian Oil Corporation. He did not join this company pre-warned about any mortal danger. And yet, for merely doing his job, he paid with his life.
The 27 year old IIM Lucknow graduate was murdered in UP on November 20, 2005. According to the first report on the matter, which appeared in the Lucknow edition of the Indian Express, Nathan had sealed Mittal Automobile Petrol Pump at Gola, about 50 km away from Lakhimpur district for adulteration of petrol.
He had also recommended cancellation of the petrol pump’s licence, said an IOC officer, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The Consequences
"Manju was murdered for doing his job honestly. Considering the circumstances, this case is no different from that of Satyendra Dubey".
Except that this news did not stir the nation's conscience. It appeared on page 12 of TOI, Mumbai edition. And was reported on the CNBC ticker. Ironically, the same ticker reported that Captain Satish Sharma has been let off by the CBI in the petrol pump allotment scam.
Were the cases against Sharma dropped for lack of evidence? Um, not exactly. PTI reports: After hearing two days of arguments, Special Judge Pratibha Rani accepted the closure report filed by the agency which said it was willing to wind up the cases against Sharma as the Home Ministry refused sanction for his prosecution.
The order came even as a PIL was pending in the Supreme Court against the Centre's refusal to grant sanction of prosecution on which the apex court had issued notices to Sharma, CBI and the Union Government.
The colour of money is black. So is petrol...Yahaan koi dudh ka dhula hua nahin hai. More recently, the NDA government was rocked by a similar petrol pump allotment scam.
Politicians come and go, but the Oil PSUs - the so called 'navratnas' - remain under the changul of the netas. I mean yes, they do have professional management but these professional managers - like IAS officers - are expected to function within certain boundaries.
Cross the line and well, you can see what happened to Manjunathan.
Of course, you might argue, Manju was not knocked off by the government. But those who perpetrated the crime did so to protect their 'basic right' to adulterate petrol. Their line of thought: Bhai sab karte hain... Itne saalon se kisi ne roka nahi - yeh launda kahaan se aa gaya?
The conversation from the last press meeting with Manju, a year and a half ago: We asked him how it felt to work in a PSU like IOCL. ... He shrugged. He said work was OK and all, but he felt that the business would improve a lot more if there was transparency. Apparently, part of his job was to inspect samples from petrol pumps, and report back to the company.
Well, adulteration was rampant and here is why: Manju said the reason why this adulteration happened so brazenly was that the dealers knew that no matter what happens, their licenses couldn't be cancelled. If everyone does it, how many pumps will the company shut down?
He said he usually tried to cajole, convince and scold the dealers to not indulge in such dishonesty. He said some fell in line, but most of them usually got back to the same old adulteration business. In fact Manju said, some of the petrol pump owners are downright scary.
But even he could not have imagined such an outcome. I mean, people like you and me don't consider violence as a means of settling a dispute. In UP and Bihar, it must be common enough for someone to believe he could kill an IOC officer and get away with it.
It was, in fact, pure luck that the vehicle in which the murderers were transporting the body was intercepted by the police. They had broken the signal and were speeding. Else who knows in which river or ravine the body would have ended up? And no one would be the wiser.
Aakhir kyun?
The cynical have observed that 'discretion is the better part of valour' and that Manju had no business trying to 'change the world' in the first place. Again, I would like to point out that Manjunathan did not decide to be an activist or crusader. He was merely doing his job.
As friend and classmate Sharad notes : "He received some threats from the Petrol pump owner and bribe offers too, but he refused to change his assessment".
Ho sakta hai soon enough Manju himself would have thrown up his hands and say "I quit!". I'm sure there would be no dearth of jobs - Reliance, for example would have quickly snapped him up.
The fact is, Manjunathan stuck on at IOC for 2.5 years after graduating from IIM-L. Despite his integrity being constantly tested. Despite being posted in UP. And that says something about the "IIM stereotype" that exists in most people's heads.
As another of his friends wrote : Manju was known to the entire batch as an awesome singer (especially for a song he used to sing with Badri aka Bhoja called Rama ho... ), with a natural feel for music and could light up your day by his presence.
That light has been snuffed. That voice has been silenced. But what he stood for - and stood upto - that, I hope will live on.
Widespread media coverage - yes of course! Let's work for that, lobby for it. But beyond the moment, I would like to see a lasting impact. For example, a case which is actually taught at the B schools.
A man who stood up firmly against corruption has been murdered brutally and it should be seen as such. This is not a matter of IIMs or IIT graduates working with PSU's . The issue would still have been relevant even if he had his education in some obscure arts and science college in an unheard-of corner in the country.
Manjunathan's death reminds me of a song in an old Malayalam movie Oru thulli chorayil ninnum orayiram peruyarunnu.. Uyarunnu , avar nadin mochana rananganathil poruthunnu'. I am poor at translation yet it would be like this..
From each drop of blood awakened, a thousand men.
They rise from their sleep,
And fight in the bloodstained war-field
For liberating their nation'
Let's hope millions of people of this country would rise from Manjunathan's blood.Lets hope so.
Because we all speak of 'ethics' in business. But it's a rare and extraordinary person who makes the 'ultimate sacrifice'. A sacrifice that - like that of our soldiers on a border we can't get a fix on after 62 years - simply might go in vain.
Monday, November 1, 2010
It's not about sex
"If we are accepting pre-marital sex, we are making youths cannibals"
"It should stopped, no debate required"
"Yeh vaishyavratti hai... videsh se layi gayi gandagi hai. "
These are just a few of the comments SMS'd by viewers which scrolled on the NDTV India ticker during a heated debate on Pre Marital Sex.
A topic that suddenly became all the more topical with Khushboo's views being attacked and poor Sania Mirza getting dragged into the controversy.
Approximately 40% of NDTV India's viewers appeared violently opposed to the very idea of pre-marital sex, while 60% opined it was an individual choice. Pooja Bhatt, summing up "pro" view, said: "Main apne vichaar aap par nahin thop rahi hoon - toh aap apne vyavhaar mujh par kyun thopna chahte hain."
Let me be free to hold my views - you are free to hold yours. And herein lies the crux of the issue.
It's not about sex, really. And it's not a cut and dried Indian Sanskriti vs Western culture kind of debate either. We are a society in transition. People - and young people in particular - are redefining their personal value systems and the Old Order is feeling threatened.
A decade ago, the 'hip' young Indian was like a Michael Jackson, desperately trying to be White. But we've evolved since then and realised aping the West is uncool.
Someone once coined the term 'coconut' to describe young people of 'Asian' descent in the UK. Meaning they were Brown from the Outside but White from the Inside.
A similar generation of 'coconuts' now exists in India. These are young people who will embrace Indian food, Indian clothes, Indian music. The external and interesting paraphernalia of our culture are gladly accepted.
However the "white on the inside" bit is about being increasingly individualistic. About deciding what is wrong or right for oneself. So in the case of pre-marital sex what most 'coconuts' believe is not that it is inherently right or wrong, but that it is for each person to decide.
On the other hand you have the White from the Outside but Brown from the Inside brigade. Let's call them 'cappucinos'. On the surface they have adopted certain 'Western' things - they will happily wear jeans, not dhotis and wolf down pizzas and burgers.
But beneath the layer of white foamy froth, they are deeply "brown".
In such a value system, the writ of Society or 'samaaj' prevails over an individual choices and desires. And it's not just about pre-marital sex. It's also about who you should marry (ideally someone from your own caste), when you should marry (preferably around 25, definitely by 30!), having children ("arre, shaadi ko do saal ho gaye - koi issue nahin hai?) and so on and so forth.
Whose life is it anyways
The whole debate about pre-marital sex, for example, does not take into account the idea that some people may not want to marry. Or maybe they do but only if they meet the 'right' person and not because they are past their 'sell by' date.
Must such a person promise to remain celibate all their life? "Underage" sex and pre-marital sex are thus not one and the same thing.
And clearly, many of the young people who - in theory - support pre-marital sex aren't necessarily doing it 'without thinking'. At least, they're waiting for the right time, place and person.
According to the Durex Sex Survey 2009 Indians lost their virginity at an average age of 19.8 years as compared to 17.3 years (the average age when people had sex for the first time worldwide).
Another pertinent question in the Indian context may be how many people choose to remain virgins until they marry. These could include both the 'coconuts' and the 'cappucinos'. But the two may make their choices for different reasons.
Coconuts may not have sex before marriage but reserve the right to do, should they meet someone special. The other brigade will, on principle, not have anything to do with 'sex before marriage'.
Sex Surveys
All three major news weeklies (India Today, Outlook and The Week) have annual sex surveys. So do the likes of Durex.
A few points to note - the Durex survey was apparently done through the durex.com website which means it was not a random sample representative of the general population
Then there's the the touching belief that people will answer questions about their sex life correctly. I have my doubts, although the stats regarding India are conservative enough to sound 'real', unlike the surveys by Indian magazines!
Globally, people have had an average number of nine sexual partners. The Turks have had more partners than any other country (14.5), Indians have had the fewest sexual partners (3)
But I also wonder what 'losing one's virginity' means to Indians. Would it necessarily mean going all the way?
I ask this because the term 'proposal' has its own strange connotation. A college student saying "He proposed me" is not about getting married. It's agreeing to be someone's steady gf/bf and go to the movies!
Similarly, there would be plenty of young people who will kiss and cuddle but don't 'go all the way'. In fact the Brown on the Inside brigade will often do everything "but that" and justify to themselves that "I didn't actually do it".
Oh man, there is something seriously wrong with people who think they can abuse a lady because she decided to speak her mind. We need more women like Khushboo (never really enjoyed her movies, but there you go, people surprise you). What friggin law did she break, by the way, that landed her in jail? Shame on the people (the women, especially) who threw garbage at her. To think that a country with some world-class eroticism is in it's heritage would end up in such a sad state of sexual repression. Indians are human too, you know, we have the same needs as anyone else!
I am not sure if it as simple as having a choice and exercising it although, that is not the intent, its more like realist, I would say there really is no choice unless you really really dont care two hoots. Its just a fact. Which you cant overlook. It is a testimonial which at the very least stamps you as being of reasonably good character. Even if we consider an open-minded person so to say, it will still rankle him, especially if he himself has been chaste. Besides, how do you think this works? If you know that you are going to wait forever for the right guy, and your definition of a right guy includes someone who would be objective about this, then good for you. But if unfortunately (or maybe not), you have to go through the rigours of an arranged marriage, when exactly is the right time to tell? During the first meeting, certainly not I would say. During courtship, when you could risk ruining it when all the other logistics seemed to be in place? On the first night- so that you could boast of a 24 hour marriage too? Or some time later on- which could leave you both feeling bitter forever? Or probably never- and risk him finding out through other means, so that you have a la Astitva? Isn't just not 'doing it' so much the easier? In short- my point is I dont know of too many men who would be objective about this, while women might find it just a wee bit easier to forgive because first, they are less likely to find out(!), second they are more likely to consider a host of other factors before calling it off (for their own sake!). And I am not just talking about the average reasonably educated housewife, I am also including the well-educated, can-stand-on-our-own-feet kind of women.
As for the brouhaha over premarital sex, I want to people to ask themselves, one question: Who invented marriage? My answer is simply, mankind. If you agree with me, you must also agree that like all other creations of man, marriage, too is for mankind's convenience and must remain so.
Isn't it ironic that while our society not just sanctions but encourages marriage without/before love, it will get easily disgusted by an expression of love where love actually exists, simply because it is without/before marriage, a man-made convenience.If one disagrees with the premise that marriage was invented by mankind, the only other possible creator could be God.
We, as humans express our feelings by various means. Sex should be ideally an expression of love, when there is no love, there cannot be a perfect sexual relationship, leave alone the question of Premarital or Postmarital. When one indulges in sexual activity without a pure heartly love for his/her mate, it is inferior to human nature, or rather it would be animalistic. Remember that love finds way beyond sex, it is not love which contains itself in boundaries of this body-mind complex. So in the context of many ancient Indian systems, sex comes in way of ideal love, and lovers pass that phase to find permanent union, which does not require physical union. I hope, it was simple. but simple is the word love. Just start loving somebody, try to be true and you will find you expand yourself beyond limitations, and in that ectasy touches the infinite.
The fact of the matter is this: you are free to exercise your will as long as it does not interfere with someone else’s will. No one likes their free will insulted. Nether can anyone promote anything nor can anyone stop anything. Things are happening. People believe and do what they want to believe and do.
If people debate that thing A is bad, note that people will stop doing it. If people propose thing B is good note that all people will start doing it. Everyone knows what’s good for them. Everything is cyclic. Waves come and go. Things happen to pass. People believe something then they forget. Civilizations rise to fall. Liberals want to become conservative, conservatives want to become liberal.
Parallel you might want to check out the book A Return to Modesty by Wendy Shalit. There are some good insights here towards American values possibly returning to a more conservative focus one day.
Sex is a confusing issue for kids today. A lot of young teens do it to be accepted in their peer group, to be popular or for a variety of other reasons, almost none of which involve 'sex' at all. It's sad and must be confusing for parents trying to deal with it. The point is, you can't ban it away. You can't parade outside an actresses house and hope it helps.
We should recognize that curiosity is normal and provide education on what sex is, and what are good reasons for having sex and what are bad reasons for it. I read a handout given out in school once that said "Don't do it if the two of you cannot laugh about elbows knocking and funny noises".
Should Indian culture be Pro or Anti premarital sex. If pre-marital sex is a personal choice then once married should the girl tell her husband about her having slept with 3 men before sleeping with him now. If the man has never experimented before what would be his reaction? Do you think that this marriage will last?" It might last, depends on the chemistry between the two. I am sure she would want to reveal that (if she will anyway) much before they go to bed together). I guess if the man can't accept that - they will not marry. Otherwise atleast the fact that she slept with four others should not be the reason for broken marriage. Or do you think she should keep it a secret all through her life-what happens if the man comes to know of it mid-way. Same is with the male counterpart.
Who said marriage is not about sex-it may not be ONLY about sex but sex is definitely an important part of marriage. Sex is imortant for a healthy married life. And if there is no sex one can well be sure that there is an extra marital relationship cooking somewhere. Marriage without a healthy sex life is sure of meeting the dead end and if it was not about why would he have the first night right on the first night-cant it wait?
I feel that we have people of all kinds-there are people who lie and people who are honest-it is their choice. But what is right-being honest isn't it? similarly some people may feel that pre-marital sex is okay, some may say it is not okay-they can have individualistic views. But then still -pre-marital sex is not the right thing. "We are increasingly becoming intolerant to the idea of tolerance..."
Not really, it is just that more debate is being generated and the number of people voicing their opinion has increased due to the increase in avenues. Pre-marital sex always existed in India and it exists as of today. It is just that we have begun talking about it now. Thanks to the socialist style of Nehruvian governance, we have been fed a load of BS in a single direction. Now that the communication is getting bi-directional, certain sections are feeling the pressure.
As we go through this debate, it is important to realize that it is a privilege to be able to "protest" and not merely a right. For example, our Kaumi bretheren order a Bharat Bandh as and when they feel an itch in their loins. Try protesting in one of the many Sharia/Communist adminsitered countries and see how it goes.
The discussion of Pre-Marital sex being good/bad/right/wrong is based on the assumption that Marriage is about sex. Is It?
How ironic, that in the country that wrote the book on sex, we cannot have a mature & intelligent discussion without classifying it into mindset categories of Coconuts & Capuccinos. Expected a much much more mature outlook from the people.
It is infact about sex as sex and religion are two of the most politically sensitive issues in our country or any country for that matter... All of us seem to have our own version of rights and wrongs about sex and god and we just cant accept any other point of view...
Someone wise had said, "Humans are the only set of people who can justify whatever they do or do not do." Look around and see how Americans are justifying wars, how Indians are justifying torture in Kashmir and the Naxalite affected areas, how Sania justified what she said, how the Hindus justify going 'saat samundar paar' so frequently and not doing 'shudhikaran' even once. So, when Khushboo said what she had to , she could justify it and so did the other set of people. The point which matters is whether there is going to be any difference in the society or the government . No!Except that at the TV Studios and the press conferences, no one is seriously making an effort to educate the Indians about the sex (I meant sex education:)), HIV prevention ,etc etc.
The moderates and the liberals can be either the coconuts or the capuccinos. I have seen the 're-avtar-isation' of a liberal into a radical and vice versa, when they face situattions. A very dear uncle of mine became a hindu zealot overnight, while his son (M.Tech and Phd from IIT) wanted to marry a Christian dalit ( IIM Bangalore passout), who earlier advocated such intermingling of races and intercaste marriages.
So, it is good that we discuss, but it is very hard to comprehend the realty when the individual faces it in the face.
True, dunno what's the hullaboo all about. As if Khusboo or Sania's stamp would make the youth go ahead with it!! Besides being a very very personal choice, it also highlights the 'pseudo libealisation' of the Indian mindset. True liberalization would have arrived when each one was free to say what he/she wants to. And no, I dont think it'll 'erode our values'.
Getting back to the original issues raised by Khushboo. It's not about advocating what's right or wrong but just acknowledging that people do have sex before marriage - even in India. So if you have made that decision, be safe about it. Better safe, than sorry!
P.S. Please, no Khushboo style protests to this post! On my part, I won't be making any Sania style retractions.
"It should stopped, no debate required"
"Yeh vaishyavratti hai... videsh se layi gayi gandagi hai. "
These are just a few of the comments SMS'd by viewers which scrolled on the NDTV India ticker during a heated debate on Pre Marital Sex.
A topic that suddenly became all the more topical with Khushboo's views being attacked and poor Sania Mirza getting dragged into the controversy.
Approximately 40% of NDTV India's viewers appeared violently opposed to the very idea of pre-marital sex, while 60% opined it was an individual choice. Pooja Bhatt, summing up "pro" view, said: "Main apne vichaar aap par nahin thop rahi hoon - toh aap apne vyavhaar mujh par kyun thopna chahte hain."
Let me be free to hold my views - you are free to hold yours. And herein lies the crux of the issue.
It's not about sex, really. And it's not a cut and dried Indian Sanskriti vs Western culture kind of debate either. We are a society in transition. People - and young people in particular - are redefining their personal value systems and the Old Order is feeling threatened.
A decade ago, the 'hip' young Indian was like a Michael Jackson, desperately trying to be White. But we've evolved since then and realised aping the West is uncool.
Someone once coined the term 'coconut' to describe young people of 'Asian' descent in the UK. Meaning they were Brown from the Outside but White from the Inside.
A similar generation of 'coconuts' now exists in India. These are young people who will embrace Indian food, Indian clothes, Indian music. The external and interesting paraphernalia of our culture are gladly accepted.
However the "white on the inside" bit is about being increasingly individualistic. About deciding what is wrong or right for oneself. So in the case of pre-marital sex what most 'coconuts' believe is not that it is inherently right or wrong, but that it is for each person to decide.
On the other hand you have the White from the Outside but Brown from the Inside brigade. Let's call them 'cappucinos'. On the surface they have adopted certain 'Western' things - they will happily wear jeans, not dhotis and wolf down pizzas and burgers.
But beneath the layer of white foamy froth, they are deeply "brown".
In such a value system, the writ of Society or 'samaaj' prevails over an individual choices and desires. And it's not just about pre-marital sex. It's also about who you should marry (ideally someone from your own caste), when you should marry (preferably around 25, definitely by 30!), having children ("arre, shaadi ko do saal ho gaye - koi issue nahin hai?) and so on and so forth.
Whose life is it anyways
The whole debate about pre-marital sex, for example, does not take into account the idea that some people may not want to marry. Or maybe they do but only if they meet the 'right' person and not because they are past their 'sell by' date.
Must such a person promise to remain celibate all their life? "Underage" sex and pre-marital sex are thus not one and the same thing.
And clearly, many of the young people who - in theory - support pre-marital sex aren't necessarily doing it 'without thinking'. At least, they're waiting for the right time, place and person.
According to the Durex Sex Survey 2009 Indians lost their virginity at an average age of 19.8 years as compared to 17.3 years (the average age when people had sex for the first time worldwide).
Another pertinent question in the Indian context may be how many people choose to remain virgins until they marry. These could include both the 'coconuts' and the 'cappucinos'. But the two may make their choices for different reasons.
Coconuts may not have sex before marriage but reserve the right to do, should they meet someone special. The other brigade will, on principle, not have anything to do with 'sex before marriage'.
Sex Surveys
All three major news weeklies (India Today, Outlook and The Week) have annual sex surveys. So do the likes of Durex.
A few points to note - the Durex survey was apparently done through the durex.com website which means it was not a random sample representative of the general population
Then there's the the touching belief that people will answer questions about their sex life correctly. I have my doubts, although the stats regarding India are conservative enough to sound 'real', unlike the surveys by Indian magazines!
Globally, people have had an average number of nine sexual partners. The Turks have had more partners than any other country (14.5), Indians have had the fewest sexual partners (3)
But I also wonder what 'losing one's virginity' means to Indians. Would it necessarily mean going all the way?
I ask this because the term 'proposal' has its own strange connotation. A college student saying "He proposed me" is not about getting married. It's agreeing to be someone's steady gf/bf and go to the movies!
Similarly, there would be plenty of young people who will kiss and cuddle but don't 'go all the way'. In fact the Brown on the Inside brigade will often do everything "but that" and justify to themselves that "I didn't actually do it".
Oh man, there is something seriously wrong with people who think they can abuse a lady because she decided to speak her mind. We need more women like Khushboo (never really enjoyed her movies, but there you go, people surprise you). What friggin law did she break, by the way, that landed her in jail? Shame on the people (the women, especially) who threw garbage at her. To think that a country with some world-class eroticism is in it's heritage would end up in such a sad state of sexual repression. Indians are human too, you know, we have the same needs as anyone else!
I am not sure if it as simple as having a choice and exercising it although, that is not the intent, its more like realist, I would say there really is no choice unless you really really dont care two hoots. Its just a fact. Which you cant overlook. It is a testimonial which at the very least stamps you as being of reasonably good character. Even if we consider an open-minded person so to say, it will still rankle him, especially if he himself has been chaste. Besides, how do you think this works? If you know that you are going to wait forever for the right guy, and your definition of a right guy includes someone who would be objective about this, then good for you. But if unfortunately (or maybe not), you have to go through the rigours of an arranged marriage, when exactly is the right time to tell? During the first meeting, certainly not I would say. During courtship, when you could risk ruining it when all the other logistics seemed to be in place? On the first night- so that you could boast of a 24 hour marriage too? Or some time later on- which could leave you both feeling bitter forever? Or probably never- and risk him finding out through other means, so that you have a la Astitva? Isn't just not 'doing it' so much the easier? In short- my point is I dont know of too many men who would be objective about this, while women might find it just a wee bit easier to forgive because first, they are less likely to find out(!), second they are more likely to consider a host of other factors before calling it off (for their own sake!). And I am not just talking about the average reasonably educated housewife, I am also including the well-educated, can-stand-on-our-own-feet kind of women.
As for the brouhaha over premarital sex, I want to people to ask themselves, one question: Who invented marriage? My answer is simply, mankind. If you agree with me, you must also agree that like all other creations of man, marriage, too is for mankind's convenience and must remain so.
Isn't it ironic that while our society not just sanctions but encourages marriage without/before love, it will get easily disgusted by an expression of love where love actually exists, simply because it is without/before marriage, a man-made convenience.If one disagrees with the premise that marriage was invented by mankind, the only other possible creator could be God.
We, as humans express our feelings by various means. Sex should be ideally an expression of love, when there is no love, there cannot be a perfect sexual relationship, leave alone the question of Premarital or Postmarital. When one indulges in sexual activity without a pure heartly love for his/her mate, it is inferior to human nature, or rather it would be animalistic. Remember that love finds way beyond sex, it is not love which contains itself in boundaries of this body-mind complex. So in the context of many ancient Indian systems, sex comes in way of ideal love, and lovers pass that phase to find permanent union, which does not require physical union. I hope, it was simple. but simple is the word love. Just start loving somebody, try to be true and you will find you expand yourself beyond limitations, and in that ectasy touches the infinite.
The fact of the matter is this: you are free to exercise your will as long as it does not interfere with someone else’s will. No one likes their free will insulted. Nether can anyone promote anything nor can anyone stop anything. Things are happening. People believe and do what they want to believe and do.
If people debate that thing A is bad, note that people will stop doing it. If people propose thing B is good note that all people will start doing it. Everyone knows what’s good for them. Everything is cyclic. Waves come and go. Things happen to pass. People believe something then they forget. Civilizations rise to fall. Liberals want to become conservative, conservatives want to become liberal.
Parallel you might want to check out the book A Return to Modesty by Wendy Shalit. There are some good insights here towards American values possibly returning to a more conservative focus one day.
Sex is a confusing issue for kids today. A lot of young teens do it to be accepted in their peer group, to be popular or for a variety of other reasons, almost none of which involve 'sex' at all. It's sad and must be confusing for parents trying to deal with it. The point is, you can't ban it away. You can't parade outside an actresses house and hope it helps.
We should recognize that curiosity is normal and provide education on what sex is, and what are good reasons for having sex and what are bad reasons for it. I read a handout given out in school once that said "Don't do it if the two of you cannot laugh about elbows knocking and funny noises".
Should Indian culture be Pro or Anti premarital sex. If pre-marital sex is a personal choice then once married should the girl tell her husband about her having slept with 3 men before sleeping with him now. If the man has never experimented before what would be his reaction? Do you think that this marriage will last?" It might last, depends on the chemistry between the two. I am sure she would want to reveal that (if she will anyway) much before they go to bed together). I guess if the man can't accept that - they will not marry. Otherwise atleast the fact that she slept with four others should not be the reason for broken marriage. Or do you think she should keep it a secret all through her life-what happens if the man comes to know of it mid-way. Same is with the male counterpart.
Who said marriage is not about sex-it may not be ONLY about sex but sex is definitely an important part of marriage. Sex is imortant for a healthy married life. And if there is no sex one can well be sure that there is an extra marital relationship cooking somewhere. Marriage without a healthy sex life is sure of meeting the dead end and if it was not about why would he have the first night right on the first night-cant it wait?
I feel that we have people of all kinds-there are people who lie and people who are honest-it is their choice. But what is right-being honest isn't it? similarly some people may feel that pre-marital sex is okay, some may say it is not okay-they can have individualistic views. But then still -pre-marital sex is not the right thing. "We are increasingly becoming intolerant to the idea of tolerance..."
Not really, it is just that more debate is being generated and the number of people voicing their opinion has increased due to the increase in avenues. Pre-marital sex always existed in India and it exists as of today. It is just that we have begun talking about it now. Thanks to the socialist style of Nehruvian governance, we have been fed a load of BS in a single direction. Now that the communication is getting bi-directional, certain sections are feeling the pressure.
As we go through this debate, it is important to realize that it is a privilege to be able to "protest" and not merely a right. For example, our Kaumi bretheren order a Bharat Bandh as and when they feel an itch in their loins. Try protesting in one of the many Sharia/Communist adminsitered countries and see how it goes.
The discussion of Pre-Marital sex being good/bad/right/wrong is based on the assumption that Marriage is about sex. Is It?
How ironic, that in the country that wrote the book on sex, we cannot have a mature & intelligent discussion without classifying it into mindset categories of Coconuts & Capuccinos. Expected a much much more mature outlook from the people.
It is infact about sex as sex and religion are two of the most politically sensitive issues in our country or any country for that matter... All of us seem to have our own version of rights and wrongs about sex and god and we just cant accept any other point of view...
Someone wise had said, "Humans are the only set of people who can justify whatever they do or do not do." Look around and see how Americans are justifying wars, how Indians are justifying torture in Kashmir and the Naxalite affected areas, how Sania justified what she said, how the Hindus justify going 'saat samundar paar' so frequently and not doing 'shudhikaran' even once. So, when Khushboo said what she had to , she could justify it and so did the other set of people. The point which matters is whether there is going to be any difference in the society or the government . No!Except that at the TV Studios and the press conferences, no one is seriously making an effort to educate the Indians about the sex (I meant sex education:)), HIV prevention ,etc etc.
The moderates and the liberals can be either the coconuts or the capuccinos. I have seen the 're-avtar-isation' of a liberal into a radical and vice versa, when they face situattions. A very dear uncle of mine became a hindu zealot overnight, while his son (M.Tech and Phd from IIT) wanted to marry a Christian dalit ( IIM Bangalore passout), who earlier advocated such intermingling of races and intercaste marriages.
So, it is good that we discuss, but it is very hard to comprehend the realty when the individual faces it in the face.
True, dunno what's the hullaboo all about. As if Khusboo or Sania's stamp would make the youth go ahead with it!! Besides being a very very personal choice, it also highlights the 'pseudo libealisation' of the Indian mindset. True liberalization would have arrived when each one was free to say what he/she wants to. And no, I dont think it'll 'erode our values'.
Getting back to the original issues raised by Khushboo. It's not about advocating what's right or wrong but just acknowledging that people do have sex before marriage - even in India. So if you have made that decision, be safe about it. Better safe, than sorry!
P.S. Please, no Khushboo style protests to this post! On my part, I won't be making any Sania style retractions.
Neal n Nikki
Sweet n sexy
Full on rocking
Hot n happening
The evolved junta went ugh! This was the tune which ruled the airwaves in 2005. It was a Yashraj film and you know how hard their Promo Machine works.
Yup, those were the rather cheesy lyrics from the catchy title track of their release - 'Neal n Nikki'. A film, which, like Salaam Namaste seeked to redefine what being 'young and Indian' was all about. But from a continent away.
So while Salaam Namaste was set in Australia, this one got Canada as the backdrop. And judging, it was DDLJ in reverse.
Synopsis: Neal (Uday Chopra) gives into his parents’ wishes of marrying a girl called Sweetie from Bhatinda, but has just one pre condition to getting married. He wants to live it up one last time and wants to go to Vancouver on a 21 day bachelor vacation.
So the poor dear is let off for one last, long roll in the hay...
Neal gets lucky on his first day out in Vancouver and is asked out by a hot super model. A silly, spunky Indian girl screws up the date. The girl? Nikki Bakshi (Tanisha Mukerjee)!! But this is only the first of many chance encounters, where Nikki – mostly by accident – ensures that Neal never, ever gets lucky!!
Whatever Neal does, Nikki un does. Call it luck, call it fate, call it anything. Bit by bit, Neal’s bachelor vacation starts falling apart – whether he is going skinny dipping with a girl, or enjoying a romp in the back seat of a car. Nikki turns up everywhere to spoil things for poor, poor Neal!!
So far, so good. Now comes the really 'cool and modern' bit.
A truce is called between the two, when Nikki decides to help Neal get some serious action. She tells him she can get him laid and takes him to “babe heaven” – Whistler!!
Did it work?
Most likely, yes. Neal was living out every Young Brown Male's fantasy. Getting 'lucky' with a hot white chick on the day he arrives in Vancouver, for example. It's what every nerd who steps out of the airport is secretly hoping!
As for Nikki, she represents the "I can be naughty, but I'm basically nice" face of the young Indian woman.
I know, the film's tag line was "Nice is out, naughty is in" but it was sure they would not have showed Nikki "going skinny dipping with a boy, or enjoying a romp in the back seat of a car". Trust me on that.
The special feature of the Yashraj 'trendy' films factory is somehow, they get the styling just right. And I don't mean just the clothes. They do push the envelope, but not so much that it tears.
I mean in the end of Salaam Namaste, Preity isn't just left holding a baby she conceived while in a live-in relationship. The couple does marry.
Secondly, Yashraj is definitely formula but they always add some interesting touches. In 'Salaam Namaste' for example, the Jaaved Jaffrey character was quite a riot. Like 'Kaantaben' was, in Kal Ho Na Ho.
Thirdly, Aditya Chopra was definitely the Invisible Hand orchestrating it all. Arjun Sablok was credited with story, screenplay and direction. Which was bad news - given his earlier, excruciating 'Na tum jaano na hum'!
But, if Yashraj decided to film it, you could be sure the kinks and chinks would have been ironed out. The same happened with Kunal Kohli, after all. After a disastrous Mujhse Dosti Karoge he managed a Hum Tum.
I thought the film was a poor rip-off of When Harry met Sally but most of India went gaga over it! Of course, Saif as the leading man (and Rani to an extent) also added charm to Hum Tum.
Did the two relatively lightweight stars like Uday Chopra and Tanisha manage to work the same magic? Well, at least Uday worked hard on his 'look'. Pehle se toh accha lag raha tha. Tanisha lost oodles of weight (a little too much I think!) but seemed to suit the role.
But hey, one more chi-chi youth film with Preity/ Rani/ Saif in the lead would have been hard to swallow. It's been-there-done-that, we were-bored-what-next.
Having lesser known stars can be a blessing in disguise. The producers simply have to pay more attention to the story and dialogue.
They know that if the film's an entertainer, the word-of-mouth from the first weekend crowd will bring in enough audiences in the days to follow!
Bollywood goes corporate
Yashraj managed to 'scale up' and corporatise. Cranking out more and more content for an entertainment-hungry India.
And when one has to churn out 2-3 'products' a year, originality is what takes a hit. The designer youth films of the Chopras are invariably 'inspired' by phoren ones.
Of course, being far smarter than the Bhatts, Yashraj never copies scene by scene.
Wonder Neal n Nikki ka idea kahaan se uthaya tha. I don't quite understand the dilienation between what is appropriate for Indians in India and Indians living abroad. It is nothing but a load of crap and women are willing to go all the way for a small slice of the pie.
Tanisha.. the baby voice gave stiff competition to the screaming done by Preity in Salaam Namaste.
Uday chopra. well coordinated colours- eyeballs, lipstick n clothes. Not bad.
No script. Horrible music. No signs of any performance by the "actors".
And yes. Soft porn. An attempt.
Kudos Mr Aditya Chopra, the Yashraj banner sure deserved a better association.
That's what the movie had in store for its viewers.
I was rolling my eyes throughout the synopsis of the plot. I mean how much more idiotic can you get. OK, so we have had our fair share of clueless valley girls and dumb jocks, but this definitely wasn't the story of the average Indo-Canadian. Not every guy over here wants to get laid before marrying Sweetie in Bhatinda. They do want to get laid - but that's guys in general, right. And not all Indo-Canadian women are hoochie mamas. Some women dress down for the clubs, but it's too damn cold there to be cavorting around in slutty mini-skirts and cleavage-baring tanks 24/7.
And no, not everyone is living up the great Canadian dream of driving rented beamers. There are loads and loads of qualified doctors driving cabs though...So, I guess it's time for more suspension of disbelief.
I think this was the first movie with Mr. Chopra as the sole male protagonist.
Now (was every despo all eyes ?), the centre of discussion was the inclusion of 21 smooches in the movie. And hence the saga of publicity had begun. This is why I didn't really have a rosy picture of this movie's prospects at the B.O.
If every movie was 'Dil Chahta Hai', it would again be a formula. It's like that dialogue in The Incredibles - Everybody will be super, which means no one will be.
DCH (apparently one of the male leads, I fail to remember, had so much respect for the movie that he did not want the movie to be known as the acronym -DCH), was definitely something that stood aloof. I loved every part of the movie with 3 people reflecting distinct mentalities and the portrayal was also lovable.
LOL! I'd love to join in the nuking exercise but anyways.
What generations X-Y-Z want!
Aha!!! This my dear friends was what being young was all about....so said our very enterprising Bollywood film makers....I mean what the hell??? A loser actor and an equally sad actress need to kick off their careers...so what do they do??? Of course...go to the Chopras..they have a formula for everything....do Indian minds need anything more complicated??? " But whether you like it or not, Yashraj films are an inescapable part of India".....
A break here!! Remember the song - I am THE Neal?? Gosh this is like Hansa in Instant Khichdi..."i am the Hansa and he is the Praful" only on that serial they are supposed to be silly and not cool... Dont know how many people in their right frame of minds would have wanted to watch a film like this... The film reeks of pretentious nonsense decked up for the greenback.
But then Yashraj creates these 3 hour travesties with the NRI audience in mind and that the Indian box office collections are regarded as pocket change? The recent spate of Yashraj 'youth' films have been successful at the box office. Acknowledging /analysing this as a cultural phenomenon does not make them in their "shoes".
This was not supposed to be a reflect on the attitudes of the people and the wants of the movie going public who year after year are accustomed to spending their hard-earned money on useless crap with men and women jumping around and running around trees.
YUCK...another one with the fit-for-Mr. Dombivli/Dahisar/Nalasopara Uday Chopra. Wonder how many more films is the Yashraj banner going to sacrifice on that dud. (No the last word isn't a typo). They do make mass entertainers and they do them well. Yashraj has its place in the history of Indian Cinema as an entertainer. And it lives up to this image with most movies that it has created. It also seems to understand the psyche of typical Indian crowd and is generally able to deliver what appeals to them best- "Try a little adventure and then firmly comeback to the good old Indian values."
Funny? yeah but so damn annoying. Just when you think maybe this one is original... you know its not! Very soon movie makers are going to run out of ideas and Mahesh Bhatt will still be making sex thrillers throwing silly comments about ethics and all against others!
The caveat
For all its fabulous promos, box office success and even awards, a Yashraj film is never what I would call a 'classic'. That's because it is based on formula - although one that's been tweaked a bit and packaged beautifully. The industry is going towards a loss of ideas... what they should do is instead stick to slapstick comedies and mindless formulas... that will keep the expectations low, at least!
I don't see Yashraj ever making a true cult film like Dil Chahta Hai. A film which was made with a completely different mindset.
Trouble is, even Farhan Akhtar can't make another Dil Chahta Hai (and shouldn't be expected to either!). We need both kinds of filmmakers. And then some!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)