ToI Delhi Litfest 2017

After desiring for many years, and getting thwarted by lack of company, I finally mustered sufficient enthusiasm this year to attend the Times of India Delhi Litfest alone. I did not seek any company and out of sheer will left for the event nice and early. I had kept the decision at the back of my mind, to be taken at the last minute. On the day, I just rolled with the flow, did not overthink it, and rushed when I realised that I might be running a bit late. It was a lazy, winter Sunday morning and I reached the venue in the fastest possible time - the deserted and verdant Lodhi road was a sight to behold. The venue itself seemed sleepy and unprepared. I felt I have come too early and this may be a dampener. I was already uncertain about how much I would enjoy this and how long I will stay. And this cold introduction made me rethink the timing, and that my over-exuberance was misplaced. Not to mention that somebody commented that yesterday had better panels.

Nevertheless, I collected the day’s schedule - which comprised parallel sessions of one hour each at six different locations. And given that it ran from 11 am to almost 8 pm, there was a lot to chew on. I ended up spending almost the entire day, way more than I had imagined doing, attending seven sessions and some. In summary, it was thoroughly enjoyable day although not all sessions were inspiring or thought-provoking.

Filmi baatein: the changing face of Indian cinema through the decades. Bhawana Somaaya and Jai Arjun Singh in conversation with Anna MM Vetticad

This was the first session, in the garden of Margosa, with only a sprinkling of audience, which I found discouraging. I was seated by 10.50 am and given the crowd I was expecting a late start. A few youngsters wearing ‘Organiser’ tees were loitering around. The place hardly seemed prepared to hold a serious event with celebrities on stage. But come 11 am and everything was good to go.

(Over the length of the day I would be amazed by the sharp punctuality of the event. It was ahead of Indian standards. And despite having panelists of reasonable popularity and stature, the event had a professional and grounded feel. There were no heavy-duty security, no high-handedness, no ruckus of any kind)

I have not been a great fan of Bhawna Somaaya but had growing adoration for Jai Arjun Singh, whose columns I had consumed in HT Mint. Overall, I found the discussion average. Upfront, the journalist-anchor AMMV admitted to not having any particular agenda. She started with the raging controversy around the release of the film Padmavati. JAS agreed that it was a shame and the cinematic freedom is getting trampled. Both he and Anna brought up a valid point that why do people with influence (Sanjay Leela Bhansali in this case and others like Karan Johar in the past) not stand up to this pressure and hit back instead of bowing down easily. Examples were quoted of Shahrukh Khan having done so in the past and recently a small director refusing to edit his film at the expense of being removed from a film festival. To this BS retorted that the sheer pressure faced by the filmmakers is immense and it is easy to comment from arm-chairs but very difficult to face it, what with commercial interests and what not. I could see some point but not a lot of it. If people with means and influence cannot handle pressure then who? JAS tried to counter and remain objective but ended up largely clarifying himself, in presence of senior journalist BS. JAS mentioned that the cult movie like Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron too had an anti-establishment story and scenes with religious connotations, something that would have been difficult to get away with today (imagine, we are regressing as a society) but the director Kundan Shah found a way out by being equal-parts derogatory to all.

Beyond this, BS threw up some anecdotes of how Bollywood journalism was in her times, 70’s-80’s that is. She mentioned that Bollywood did not get so much attention or print space in those times. I thought the opposite is true what with so many other modes of entertainment today. Anyway, BS sounded so fawning of the Bollywood personalities, which dashed hopes of an objective opinion. And at many an instance, BS seemed disinterested in what JAS or AMMV were saying, looking elsewhere and in a world of her own.

I had thought they would touch upon questions like: “Why does the level of experimentation in Indian cinema largely remain low, especially in comparison to world cinema?”, “Was story and acting given more focus in the initial years, say 50’s and 60’s then today?”, “Don’t they think most Hindi movies today are bland and unpalatable?”, “Is entertainment the only objective for cinema?”, “If not, then why do we not find more movies which further the art form or convey a message or at least tell a story?”, “Aren’t Indian actors mostly timid and only interested in using their star power to amass wealth, maintaining an overall state of well-being, or getting away with law?”. Never mind.

After the discussion, a gentleman from the audience walked upto JAS. He had earlier asked a question on what should a budding author like him, who may be writing on a controversial topic, expect. JAS told him after the event that he should not expect any support of help from the publisher. And AMMV mentioned that her Hindi is good because it is not her first language, that you pay more attention to the language you have to learn.

​Republic of Rhetoric: can free speech ever be an absolute freedom in a country like India? Abhinav Chandrachud in conversation with Akhil Sibal

I joined this session a bit late and thus missed the introduction of Mr. Chandrachud and Mr. Sibal and did not know about them a priori. My initial impression was that they looked like fresh business school students and were conducting the session in a very robotic manner. One posing a question and the other answering, all the while looking monotonously in front of them, without much of voice modulation or emotions. It was only much later that I came to know or realised the background of these two, who came from strong legal lineage, educational background and rich experience as lawyers. The discussion was on freedom of speech and around AC’s book  Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India. I missed the initial discussion about sedition rule in India, which is a shame because it would have been interesting to hear thoughts on this.

Gradually I warmed to the discussion with AS making impassioned points on why the freedom of speech is getting stifled, and referencing Padmavati, mentioned how as a society we are increasingly being held hostage by some people who choose to take the moral high ground or have deeply vested and malicious interests. He echoed my emotions when he said the government keeps setting wrong precedent by willing to entertain illegitimate outcry in the first place. He gave the example of the Chief Minister of a state who brokered peace between the movie producer and a demagogue political party, which entailed the movie producer having to pay some money to a charity fund to assuage emotions. (The incident sets bad precedent on so many counts - from the role of government, to the real intention behind raising the ruckus, to the fact that no cause is above money.) The larger point by AS was that we as a society need to be more thick skinned and get out of the mob mentality. Later in the discussion the fact was revealed that AS had defended MF Hussain against charges of obscenity in his paintings, a case which ran very close to the themes of freedom of speech and artistic independence.  

I heard new concepts like ‘The chilling effect of law”, “Heckler’s Veto”, and ‘Shouting fire in a crowded theatre”. The first one means that irrespective of the outcome, being pushed into litigation can have a chilling effect or inhibit a person towards invoking law against any wrong. That having to go through the process itself is so repugnant. All these phrases have origin in American legalese but have common interpretations as well. I got a broad gist but understanding the legal and social aspects would require greater study.

As to the topic of discussion, the speakers agreed that freedom of speech cannot be absolute, it has to be relative - to situations, times, even individuals. Nevertheless, our society should be capable of handling criticism and allowing a person the right to criticise. It was pointed that western world gives more freedom of expression, even allowing mockery of religion and state. An important point in favour of free speech was that it should include the right to offend because only then do we get plurality of ideas, and incite a debate. Only from debate can the truth emerge. The society should allow condemnation, of the harshest nature, of a person for his opinions but it should not allow silencing of the person.

AS expressed a degree of dissatisfaction at the inadequacy if law to deal with the situation but rounded it off by saying that law cannot cover everything in a civil society, that it would always work under a framework and that too only when invoked. The society has to become more responsible, which was refreshing coming from a lawyer.

This was a very interesting session and I ended up liking both the gentlemen variously for their speech, diction, legal skills, intelligence and pedigree. The topic can be debated at greater length and it is difficult to have a last word. While I agreed with most of the views that were presented, I had some uncomfortable rejoinders. A prominent one was that the debate around free speech is premised on the fact that words are less harmful than actions. That while it is acceptable to be vicious, insulting in your writing or speech, but not in your actions. But can speech not be more violent than actions? A ready example is ‘hate speech’ which our politicians give frequently for their gains, especially during election campaigning. Freedom of speech should mean allowing such speeches as well.

​Sense and solidarity: jholawala economics for everyone. Jean Dreze in conversation with Abheek Barman

While I had heard about John Dreze and his work in public policy and developmental economics, I did not know the extent of his connection with India. Turns out, he had spent most of his life in the country and lot of it in the lesser savoury places of UP, Jharkhand, Chattisgarh etc. He came across as opposing the current regime and favouring the past one. He spoke softly but in effective and economical language. He was fluent yet chose his words carefully and no word seemed out of place.

One pertinent point that was discussed was the use of linking Aadhaar for most financial transactions almost to the point of making it an identity document - he mentioned that it could have benefits but not in the form in which it is being used. He highlighted that as per his research on the ground it has not helped the rural poor in any significant way - in giving direct benefits, alleviating poverty or mitigating corruption. If anything, it had increased corruption by legitimising it. So while it had limited advantages in its present form, it posed the greater challenge of being misused to violate civil liberties. This has been my own worry with increasing government interference and impositions, an insidious entry in the name of transparency and progress. JD raised a pertinent point that when people know they are being watched, they tend to become conformist, which goes against the ethos of democracy. In the longer term it can stifle dissent. Given the insistence in the audience that Aadhaar linking is good as it would bring greater transparency and long term benefits, I marvelled at the effectiveness of government’s marketing and the extent of brainwashing that had been achieved.

An interesting means of formulating public policy that JD highlighted was on experience based evidence. He argued that it can be as effective as policy based on empirical data collection. Indeed, such evidence collection tapped into those working at the grassroots. Of course this is not without pitfalls as it can be marred by individual biases, opinions and mutual distrust.  

JD also highlighted that social indicators remain poor in the country. I wanted to question that are we getting too fascinated by the headline economic indicators and keen to appease a particular set of people - big businesses, investors, analysts - largely the literate and elite, and not too concerned with the social impact.

Keynote Address: A few lessons for followers. Arun Shourie

This session I attended in the passing. Of course it was not difficult to guess the tone the discourse would have had given that Mr. Shourie had been part of the government that is now in minority and a distant second to the ruling government. So he kept highlighting the follis of the present regime. Two classic takeaways was when he quoted Mr. YV Reddy that 'India can afford to make great decisions but it cannot afford to make great mistakes'; and his view that Mahatma Gandhi was a great manager in that he could always identify what a person can be good at, howsoever minor that task is and allocate work accordingly.

Cricket as Indian democracy's alter ego. Shashi Tharoor, Rajdeep Sardesai and Bishan Singh Bedi. Moderator: Nalin Mehta (TOI)

This was by far the most frivolous session with no speaker having anything meaningful to say. There was just one point - that while cricket has become more homogenising and meritocratic, politics has become more dynastic and least meritocratic. And this was in sharp contrast to the situation say 100 years ago when the reverse was true. The blame on the current political situation was largely levelled on ST - the only politician on the panel. ST made many rejoinders, aided in large part by his command over language and his finesse. But RS (the fact that he is cricketer Dileep Sardesai's son was news to me) kept hammering his point, in loud, bombastic, ungraceful manner and after a point he was boring. He kept harping on same examples - Palwankar Balu in cricket (I think we owe it to Mr. Ramachandra Guha for introducing him to the larger audience) and Mohammad Shami, Umesh Yadav and Mahindra Singh Dhoni as examples of democratisation and equality of the sport. And despite being told so, he kept romanticising and playing with cliches, possibly hard selling his book. On the surface, he blamed all political parties for making politics dynastic, unjust, and unequal. (to my mind, while being more meritocratic, Indian cricket had also developed and exported other diseases like big-ticket corruption, undue influence, big-boys culture, and unmitigated greed to the detriment of the sport)

The only good part of the discussion was that all agreed that there should be cricket with Pakistan. ST made a valid point that after 26/11 his government had decided to snap cricketing ties but that was a decision of that time. After a passage of time while we have reconvened our relations on other fronts we have not done the same with cricket - possibly because it is very visible and more political mileage can be got by snobbery here. RS rightly questioned if in all these years anything has improved by not having cricket between the two countries (although he did invoke lot of fake fervour, and cliches), valiantly rebutting objections from the crowd. An insight from ST was that diplomacy has failed to resolve the Indo-Pak standoff over the years and it does not seem to have any solution. If anything, solution may be found in greater interactions between the two countries on different levels, one of which can be cricket.

BSB made no meaningful contribution apart from an anecdote when he went to play cricket in Pakistan with an entire case of alcohol. When he was cautioned that he may be caught and charged for this illegal activity, he said in Pakistan he is Bishen Singh Bedi. Also possibly he associated more with Pakistani cricketers than those from different parts of India because of the common North Indian lineage and legacy he shared with the former. He has always been forthright and blunt in expressing himself and his not contributing to the discussion was disappointing. Probably he did not want to spend himself and court controversy in what was a minor event.

Shooting for glory. India's only individual Olympic Gold medalist Abhinav Bindra in conversation with Rajesh Kalra (Times Group)

I was looking forward to this session because of my liking for AB, based mainly on few of his comments. But this session had the weakest moderator who had no plan or agenda other than idolising AB. Indeed he and AB knew each other well (both had together been part of a committee which was advising government on achieving more olympic medals) which had only been used to rehearse the questions. The common pattern was Mr. Kalra praising AB or leading the dialogue to bring out his qualities and AB downplaying it all immensely. Nadir was reached when Mr. Kalra re-enacted the conversation where AB responds on why he failed to win a medal in Rio olympics. AB had been suffering from a form of epilepsy which made his hands shake and also his rifle broke just before the event. But he refused to blame his failure on anything, instead admitting he lost because he was not good enough. Indeed this remark was memorable and inspired me (as I have mentioned in a blogpost before), but to reenact it was farcical and robs its integrity and impact. AB looked a show monkey.

Still, there was a lot to like, mainly the facets of AB. While it was not a gradual revelation, but more of AB explicitly enumerating his personality types which again takes away the sincerity, I found it fascinating - because of his achievements and my adoration for sportspeople. My takeaways:

• AB is a negative person, he hates competition, and is an introvert. I could associate with most of these. He emphasised how difficult it was for him to learn to compete, how he would be happy just practicing alone in the shooting range and dreaded competing with others.
• He admitted that he has average skills. But a quality that he has always had was the ability to work hard. He attributed all his achievements to be able to work tirelessly towards his aim.
• Margins in elite sports are very thin. He mentioned that the disparity between the top 20 in an olympic event would be just 5%. That it all came down to either raw talent or hard work.
• Sports is mentally tough. That mostly sports will hurt, that the proportion of tears, sorrows, dejections would be higher than success. In the same breadth, a sportsperson has to constantly overcome these, keep picking himself up and keep trying and going for it. This is a beautiful and profound thought.  
• India as a country has to decide its priority. Do we value sports achievement? As a society, are we willing to commit to sports? If yes then we need to understand and institutionalise many things. We need to understand the needs of sportspersons. We need to understand what all goes into winning an olympic medal, the vision, the focus, the planning and hard work.
• Somebody raised an interesting point about giving some social security to sportspersons so that they are confident of their livelihood when they retire. AB said that there should be a program to impart employable skills to sportspersons. It was impressive that he was not talking about a dole or a grant but about making sportspersons capable of earning their living once they quit sports.
• There was a lot of excitement and awe amongst the youth in the audience, and many asked questions. Some of these tried to establish some proximity to AB, citing same school, same college or similar career trend. But AB was not much impressed, as if he gets such comments routinely.
• When asked why Indians fail at the highest level in olympics, AB attributed it to mental toughness. He highlighted how olympics are held once in four years and the amount of pressure that creates. When you have just a few minutes to prove yourself or else efforts of many years goes in vain. It takes mental toughness not to be overawed by the enormity of the moment and focus on giving your best.
• If there was one chink in the entire aura around AB, or the way it was created by the moderator, it was that AB was born in an affluent family. So things were easier for him, for instance he could be blunt and still get away with it. He had a lot going for him while he was targeting his olympic medal. He could afford a personal shooting range at his house and the best coaches in the world. Somebody in the audience rightly called so, but his farcical reply was that he is now trying to learn to earn and it is tough. Guffaw.
• In the end, I wanted to ask if there is a cultural impediment to our sporting underachievement? That we as a country do not understand the way olympic level sports work. It is a different animal all together. When AB’s high performance training center came into discussion, he was having trouble explaining to the audience what they do. The thing is that elite sports is highly nuanced, complex, multifarious, technical, precise, covering wide range of disciplines - diet, psychology, kinetics, genetics, motion, medicine, logic. It takes a collaborative approach, years of practice, coaching from the best in the field, perfecting everything to the last fraction, and intensive use of technology. And all this is expensive. Despite this, success is not guaranteed. While in India we do not appreciate beauty of most things unless we can put a monetary value to it.
• Another question which I had at a slightly philosophical level was that how does one choose between hard work and talent? Should not the glory be reserved for the talented or those born gifted? While success requires both, but isn’t hard work boring? A kind of manufactured robots against natural prodigy.  

Inside the world of Indian cricket: BCCI and beyond. Former CAG Vinod Rai in conversation with Nalin Mehta

The most futile panel of the day. It looked prepared, staged, and defensive. Vinod Rai is the head of Committee of Administrators, a body formed by the Supreme Court of India to implement specific reforms in the BCCI which the BCCI had itself been reluctant to implement despite lot of pressure from the SC. So the COA was supposed to be a empowered group. But even after almost a year of its formation, it had failed to implement the said reforms. In fact starting with four members, it was now down to two with one member Mr. Ramchandra Guha resigning citing many issues in working of COA and of the cricket administration in the country.

As per me, the problem seemed widespread and perplexing - starting from the root i.e. BCCI to SC to COA, nobody had resolved the issue which had been identified 2-3 years back and which all had vowed to address. Imagine! These were the most powerful bodies in the country and if they cannot achieve what they claim they want to, then you have to question the intent, and integrity. I have always found it puzzling that BCCI has been repeatedly able to get away with not following SC’s orders? Does a common man have similar leeway?

VR comes with a strong background, ex-head of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, involved in auditing accounts of public entities. During his tenure CAG had highlighted many cases of corruption, misappropriation of public wealth, and malpractices. However a lot of these were contested and in one case that I had gone into in detail, CAG’s stand made no sense to me. Despite following the BCCI/SC/COA saga with some interest for some time, I had not heard of VR’s stand on the matter so what. So I was looking forward to it.

But it was a disaster. He had nothing to offer other than platitudes. He laid all blames at BCCI’s door and that too without going into the next level of details - just mentioning that BCCI continues to refuse to implement the said reforms and COA is looking at SC for direction. I kept wondering - what then is COA’s role? If it was powerless to force BCCI in any way and SC has to give directions, then why was COA formed? In fact VR mentioned that the first step to implement the reforms is to change BCCI’s constitution/charter and BCCI had failed to hold the General Meeting which is required to do that. I kept wondering, what a smokescreen? Who is to blame here, everything seemed fishy. And this at a time when the larger narrative in the country is around maximum governance, rooting out corruption, and greater surveillance on the common man.

On top of it all, VR was so fawning of the current Indian team that it seemed improper and disproportionate. At the start of the discussion, Nalin Mehta quoted that Indian cricket is like a patient on the operating table, which is opened up and nobody knows how to stitch it up. To this VR said why do you call it a patient when the Indian cricket is doing so well. A classic case of end justifying all means, it was so hilarious that it seemed futile to ask that if performance of the cricket team is the parameter then he or COA was not needed in the first place, that as long as the team is doing well, all corruption, misdemeanour is permissible. What a state of public offices in India.  

VR had a diplomat’s poise and he was swatting questions with consummate ease, either laying things at BCCI’s door, or using the veil of subjudicity, or using success as a bargaining chip. He had readymade answers to all questions on malaise of Indian cricket, of which there are plenty. That we have got the highest revenues in this year (again we may be corrupt but we are profitably so), that the revenue share model with ICC is under discussion, that the Kumble saga was a non-issue (despite contradictions in his arguments), that BCCI is fully compliant with WADA (despite news to the contrary). While he may be better informed than what media knows, but he sounded more like BCCI spokesman, the very body he is entrusted to reform. The fact that he showed no urgency, no sense of frustration or anguish at the state of affairs was frustrating. I didn’t sit through the entire piece.  

Dissent and Democracy: is dissent being choked in New India? Ashok Vajpeyi, Hansda Sowvendra Shekhar, Perumal Murugan and N Ram. Moderator: Sanjiv Shankaran (TOI)

This was the last session I attended and it saw big audience, inside the Stein auditorium. The discussion was weak, not helped by the fact that it started late but the organisers wanted to finish on time. The moderator seemed out of sync and Mr. Shekhar had very limited point to make, while Mr. Murugam spoke in Malayalam, with much being lost in translation by the moderator. The topic was very relevant in present times and all the panelists agreed that while there have been instances in the past when freedom of expression had come under pressure, the present state is the most precarious in Indian civil society. When an artist is in his creative zone, all that is going inside him manifests in his art, in various forms. But there should not be shackles around that. An artist cannot be an artist if he is in fear, because then he is not expressing himself. N Ram mentioned that as a journalist and editor of The Hindu newspaper, he has seen times of extreme pressure and dangers, but nothing like the present times.

Audience was highly animated, and interestingly somebody accused Mr. Vajpeyi of being so critical now because a different regime is in place while he was not as unbiased in his opinions in the earlier government.   

**************

All in all, a great day. The overall sense was that we are living in very difficult and fragile times. Most people sounded worried, but hey, Jaane bhi do yaaron.  

Paradise Lost - Delhi Winters

Delhi is no paradise. Delhi is a tough, rough city. Just like a person can be explained in terms of her attitude, traits, values, and beliefs, so can a city. And the adjectives which come to mind for Delhi are not complementary - brash, rude, violent, uncouth. It is like a truant, doped, teenager showing the middle finger whenever someone extends a helping hand or seeks help, who laughs at your shock, who puffs smoke of cigarette in your face whenever you look for any redeeming features. No redemption here. The phrase ‘Dilli dilwalon ki hai’ (Delhi has people with big heart) is nothing more than a wordplay and only slightly more vacuous than the phrase ‘Spirit of Mumbai’.

But, just like in everything, there is a ‘but’. Delhi has some redeeming features (which like most cities in this country, the cities themselves or their governments do not care about). I can list four - (a) wide multi-laned roads, boulevards, and one of the best physical infrastructure in the country; (b) plenty of gardens and green patches including jungles and ridges (one realises their importance after seeing places like Mumbai where a blade of grass is a cause for celebration); (c) food - basically all kinds but the best and most unique are the chats and sweets, in fact the city serves amazing options of the latter (again, sweets are a luxury in Mumbai); and finally (d) winters. I know many people would have personal choices and would like to debate many of these but I find these four to be the best aspects of this city. And lest I sound like a Mumbai-basher, let me admit that Mumbai too has many positives over Delhi (the eternal Delhi vs Mumbai debate) but nothing beats Delhi on these factors.

This piece is to focus on one aspect - Delhi winters, that weather which evokes so many emotions in me that I wish I was a poet, or a better writer. Most of my memories of this city are serenely wrapped in the fog of its winter - winters of catching the school bus in dark and reaching school in light, wearing shorts, freezing but loving it; winters of dark, chilly mornings when life comes alive slowly, like that gently brewing tea on soft flame in the kitchen; winters of eating carrots and pungent radishes in afternoon; winters of dark evenings when poignancy shrouds the heart like blanket and makes one want to remember and cry; winters of day times looking lost and clueless like estranged lovers; winters of early morning wind which can shock and energise; winters when fulfilment is all about staying in blanket the whole day watching TV or reading or writing; winters of riding the bus with open window/gate with sharp wind chilling the whole body still giving a stupid excitement; winters of bus floor littered with peanut shells; winters of shawls, sweaters and jackets, mostly ugly, but at times sharply stylish and beautiful; winters of exhibitions, galleries and All American Diner; winters of open air performances in Old Fort where the chill distracts you but still enhances the performance; winters of picnics in parks and Humayun’s Tomb; winters of deserted streets and Lutyen’s Delhi; winters of endless chais on dhabas while staring at the dark wall that is the jungle of Sanjay Van; winters of half marathons, long jogs and unending walks; winters of hot soups, paranthas, halwas, jalebis, hot flavoured milk; winters of dry fruits; winters of the warmth of motherly love or lover’s embrace. Only a Delhiite can understand most of what I have said.

Delhi winter is a treasure - of memories, incidents, events, longings collected over the age; a scrapbook, a montage, so precious that its loss bleeds the heart. And as of now, the loss looks permanent. And to what? Human folly, lethargy, and procrastination. The last few years have seen Delhi winters witness extreme ambient pollution levels which have made the city a gas chamber. Media coverage has been relentless, especially over the last two years but I know this has been a phenomenon of 4-5 years. So we have foreign nationals refusing to stay in the city, countries issuing travel (non)advisory, social media abuzz with meaningful and meaningless, people becoming half scientists individually diligently measuring air quality index (AQI) and pronouncing the quality as ‘Severe’ and spelling out technical difference between different air masks and air purifiers; and media as well as businesses benefiting from the hysteria by churning stories and products around this situation without any meaningful contribution. All in all India as usual.

The problem is there is no clear, scientific understanding of the situation, at least none that I have found. What has started causing such poor air quality over the last 4-5 years? Is it the case of gradual build-up over the years or has there been some major structural change which has suddenly tipped the scale? In either of the cases, what were the causative factors in order of importance? Is it a problem only of Delhi or also of areas within 100-200 kms range? Is it one major problem or a sum of many small factors? Is farm burning the major issue? Then does it not happen twice a year? Or why was it not a problem say 5 years back? Or are vehicles and construction the biggest contributors? Then why no drastic steps against these? How can cracker burning be a big culprit when it is largely a single day event? Then aren’t these incessant appeals against cracker burning by all and sundry just a case of propagation of thoughtless messages in the garb of sounding enlightened and guardians of greater good instead of actually applying brains? Aren’t odd-even and temporary construction bans classic cases of Indian jugaad or resourcefulness, biding time, waiting for the weather to turn or for the next big story to distract the masses, instead of taking difficult, long-term steps to tackle the problem? Why do we not get more concrete facts, figures and logical explanations from researchers and experts, if at all there is research/genuine thought around the issue? Overall the media, politicians, intelligentsia is more capable of managing the environment around environment than actually tackling the environment problem.

While I know the answers to some of the questions, but I am pointing out the obvious gaps in public thought around the issue, at least going by how it is playing in the media. Long term planning and strong action have never been India’s forte and there seems to be no change here as well. Because nobody wants to take strong, difficult countermeasures which would require sacrifices which are discomforting and painful. The very Delhi population who is crying hoarse (literally) against the pollution will not be willing to not actually reduce their vehicle usage on a sustainable basis, or look to undertake construction activities in a safer manner, or overall be conscious about their carbon footprint. In India it is always somebody else’s fault, and somebody else’s repentance and correction.  

Never mind. My biggest pain is that I have been robbed of my beloved Delhi winters. It is barely possible to step out of home, leave alone enjoying the weather. One can only it to the extent possible to do inside a car. I have decided to inculcate the habit of getting up early, only to realise that I can barely take advantage of this weather which is (or would have been) even more beautiful at that time - I can’t go for long walks or run. I started bicycling in this weather, but had to give up because of a bad chest congestion. Delhi winters are now like a zombie, like a ventilator patient who I am seeing from behind a glass as my own eyes become glass, like a romance which is now un-pure, tarnished, like a reality which has become a dream. Just sit tight, hold your breath, write blogs, and wait for weather to change.   

The world’s a stage

But this play is a joke

You will not exit with a graceful bow

But with an ugly choke

Newton - Movie Review

Rajkumar Rao had struck me as an actor in Kai Po Che (2013). While it helped that I loved the movie, the earnestness of his acting caught attention. And since then I have followed his growth as an actor with delight. While I have not seen many of movies, I nevertheless get chuffed by his choice of movies. So far he has not been distracted by big banners or big money at the cost of the quality of roles. At the same time his marketability has grown which means he would have some bargaining power and would not get marginalised over time. He seems to have found that special place in the largely mediocre Bollywood where he is able to do justice to his skills, and at the same time command an audience, the kind of space that only actors like Irfan Khan and Nawazuddin Siddiqui have been able to find. The best part is that all three of them are not great looking but you want to see them on screen.

So watching Newton with Rajkumar Rao in lead, with its quirky name, and with rave reviews had become mandatory. And I liked it. I am not using the superlative ‘loved’, and there is a reason which needs elaboration. Right now Bollywood is split into three kinds of movies - nonsense cinema which it has been always making and which it continues to make because it requires limited effort and sells readily. This segment makes for bulk of the output and is liked on a mass scale with endorsement from mainstream actors, primarily SRK and SK. Then there are movies by mainstream stars like Aamir Khan and Akshay Kumar which are commercial but with stronger storyline. They tell a good, relevant story, but in a populist manner. The extent to which they are sugar-coated distances them from reality. And the third category is of hard-hitting stories, which can make one uncomfortable. These are usually slice-of-real-life, reflecting truer version of India. This category of movies has come into prominence over the last decade or two and is the most positive change for Bollywood. Such movies have championed the craft of movie-making. They do not insult intelligence and give emotional satisfaction. Movies such as Dor, Masaan, Kai Po Che, Lootera, Shor in the City, Do dooni Char etc. fall into this category. The key trait is that such movies keep story at the center and the story is not necessarily to please. I am deeply appreciative of such movies and of actors like Abhay Deol, Irfan Khan, Nawazuddin Siddiqui, Vinay Pathak, Ranvir Sheorey, Vijay Raaz, Nandita Das, Konkana Sen Sharma, Richa Chaddha, KK Menon, Shreyas Talpade, Sanjay Mishra, Pankaj Tripathi who have been the trailblazers.

Nevertheless, there is one problem. India is a large, diverse country with many problems - personal and social, as well as a wide set of milieu. Most of the new wave Bollywood now reaps this fertile field - by taking up a socio-cultural-political problem, or to look at a new milieu. So after a point, films such as Ugly, Titli, Raman Raghav and Badlapur start looking similar in that they put light on the dark, grotesque underbelly of a seemingly calm society. Or movies like Dum Laga ke Haisha, Tanu Weds Manu 2, Vicky Donor, Ishqiya, etc primarily celebrate capturing a new milieu with accurate characterisation, dialogues and mannerism. Or the favourite is to show a compendium of parallel stories. So after following such movies for some time, one starts to find a sameness. A totally new ground in terms of content or treatment is difficult to find. In contrast, Hollywood explores way more diverse fields which extend cinema as a craft in terms of story, acting, direction, sets, technology etc - Schindler’s List, Dunkirk, Dark Knight, Blade Runner and so many more.

Newton for me partly had the same problem - it was not actually breaking any new ground. Still it is to be liked for its honest portrayal. And for a novice mind like me, it is good to explore the layers of the movie subtly over time. The premise is similar - a satire on the state of affairs in the country. Here the context is elections - widely touted as our biggest achievement and a show of strength of our democracy; throwing in the issues of clash of idealism with cynicism, authoritarian mistreatment, voicelessness of the tribals, and short-sightedness of Western media. But all these are treated with a very light hand - absolutely no preaching, sermonising or even taking stands.

But for me the biggest strength of the movie is its play on cynicism. Cynicism is a concept which I grapple with and which will get a separate blog post. This movie first takes you on a cynical ride and then mocks you for being a cynic. The central character Newton is an idealist who wants to go absolutely by the book while conducting polls in a makeshift booth in interiors of Maoist land with only a handful of registered voters - mostly tribals. So despite constant refrains, he would personally go there (and not let some cop go and get the votes), set up a proper polling booth, educate all voters on the sanctity of the process, run the polling station till the prescribed hour, and fight with his life to not lose even two votes. After a while, you actually start thinking he is going too far. What is he going to achieve? You stop feeling for him and think he deserved the thrashing he got for being such a pain. What exactly will he achieve by lecturing those tribals on the virtues of democracy and polling? You start to side with the security head - Aatma Singh for being practical. And if the viewers felt like this, the movie says that the joke is on you.

Nearer home, one questions the purpose of such elections. What exactly will be achieved by conducting a fair election when the voters have no clue of the contestants, of the process, and of the consequences? They have a simple life and would just want lesser atrocities from authorities. But the cause and effect of a fair election and democracy hardly seem to apply to them. Will their lives get any better even if the elections were held fairly? Isn’t the process of election here more a case of man-with-the-hammer, of senseless application of a placebo. The desperation of Newton for fairness, which grows over the length of the movie, reaches farcical proportions. What is Newton trying to achieve here? And what exactly did he achieve? We do not know if the electoral sanctity is maintained at the end - the votes could have been tampered with after Newton is beaten. But then Newton is not foolish! Can’t he see what all of us can see? He can, but he has decided to take a stand. He is not a hero, he is just standing for the right without thinking about the consequences. That is where he is showing others off - that the line between right and wrong is not as smudged as we want to believe and that right is worth standing for for its own sake - to escape it by giving the argument of it being inconsequential is to take the easy way out.

Nevertheless, the film also suggests a lighter hand, a patient, wise approach through Malko. Malko too is an idealist, but her idealism is tempered. She suggests to Newton - “Change takes time, jungle took years to grow.” Yes, that too, but the problem is that there is greater danger of cynicism creeping in over the years. Malko also poses this question - to all who care to listen - how well do we know this country. Newton has no clue, and Malko is used to this neglect, of this callous approach.

The writing and dialogues are taut and crisp. My favourite was when Newton questions, ‘Aap ashawadi hain yah nirashawadi?’ and Malko replies ‘Main aadivasi hoon’. Translating into English would rob the beautiful wordplay. The bit role by Sanjay Mishra too is a gem, especially the message he gives on the profound social impact of Isaac Newton’s work - it takes vision to understand past with such clarity. In fact the movie shows him to be the older version of Newton - one senses a natural connection between them. His argument that you are not doing a favour to the country by being sincere and honest, while resonating with Newton’s character, is at contrast with almost everything else in the movie. Converting name from Nutan to Newton established the anti-establishment nature of the central character brilliantly. Or the name of Aatma Singh - was he reflecting the true soul of this country which is cynical, and is Newton standing for something foreign to us?

I would not call out anybody’s acting in particular. Rajkumar Rao, though good, has done what he is easily capable of doing. He gives the automaton appearance, the restlessness, and the fire in the belly quite easily. Pankaj Tripathi too appears to be on easy ground here. But then again, all this is testimony to the skills of these actors.

The problems shown in the movie are wide, multifarious and messy - with long lineage. One can make many sequels or versions of such a movie, but still not achieve much more. At the end, the movie leaves thoughts and questions in your mind. The answers are tough, personal or non-existent.

Blade Runner 2049 - musings

This is going to be a long post! And it is not a movie review because I am incompetent, intellectually and artistically to analyse such movies. Also, this post has many flights of fantasy which, to anybody with some knowledge on the subject, show my absolute imbecility, and ignorance. As the topic line goes, these are ‘my’ musings. I am not sure that not having read Alvin Toffler before writing this is a good thing or not.

Thank goodness I had seen the original Blade Runner 1982 on laptop a few days back. I was prepared to watch the latest Blade Runner 2049, which got released to great critic reviews. I have never been able to appreciate completely cerebral movies like Interstellar or Inception because I am not knowledgeable enough to understand the concept fully, nor do I have the imagination to understand the world beyond the way I see it. So to bolster my appreciation of such movies, I read storyline and detailed reviews. Of course, it dilutes or moulds my own unadulterated view on the movie. But it is better than not understanding most of the movie. So I read review of Blade Runner 1982 after watching the movie to know if there was anything deeper that I had not understood. On reading the reviews, I realised that while the movie had deep connotations but it was more appreciated for its path-breaking vision of the future world and its technical finesse. People of my generation who have grown up on many future-gazing movies with designs of how people, cities, automobiles, gadgets will look like would find it a tad difficult to appreciate that Blade Runner 1982 was path-breaker in the genre. It gave the first blueprint which the later movies built on.

Visionary presentation aside, Blade Runner raises important existential questions. And I admit upfront that I dare to plunge into this discussion without adequate conceptual understanding, or reading of literature on the subject, including novels by Philip Dick (on whose novel ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Sleep’ this movie is based); and without the philosophical bent of mind. Nevertheless, my one and half cents. The premise is that of a future world where a powerful corporation has created bioengineered robots, or androids, whose advancement has pitted them against humans. Mind you, what we are talking about here is many steps ahead of Artificial Intelligence or AI as is is vogue nowadays. It is not just about machines becoming intelligent, it is about machines becoming more and more human-like. The movie calls these androids replicants.

Blade Runner 2049 shows the world few decades after the first edition of the movie. From the violent, outcast replicants of the first movie, replicants now are more docile, have become part of the mainstream, and do not have a fixed life span.

Difference between humans and machines

To me, the key idea of the Blade Runner movies is to question the differences between humans and machines. In every frame, every dialogue, the movies bring this issue to the core. Further as a corollary, the movies question ‘what makes humans human?’ And then it attempts to debunk all possible answers. The idea of intelligence being a differentiator has been long rested, we are way past that in these movies - replicants are as intelligent as humans, if not more. The movies explore the possibility of machines acquiring more complex human-only preserves such as emotions, memories, experiences, even reproduction. So we have replicants who are crying when they commit a crime, replicants with planted memories, replicants who feel love, desire sex, even sacrifice.

In Blade Runner 2049, to me the most intriguing part was the relationship between K, a replicant and Joi - now how to explain her - she is the embodiment of a computer program, a hologram. The movie seems to be challenging the viewers - ‘In case you were disbelieving androids, here is a hologram which can behave like humans. So Joi fills up for a wife to K - possibly satirizing the price we humans put on relationships. And she ‘learns’ to be as good a wife as she can - tries out new dishes, changes her clothes as per K’s mood, not just arranges for a prostitute - so that K can have real sex - but also superimposes herself on the prostitute to give K the best of both worlds. It does not stop here - Joi is also processing information, analysing the events as they unfold and discussing possibilities with K. And when the danger is near, she is willing to sacrifice her existence so that K’s life is not compromised. There is a scene where K is about to kiss Joi in rain (the edges of the hologram jar slightly when the raindrops fall), and just then his phone rings and Joi’s image freezes and K (a machine himself) wistfully realises the futility of loving a hologram. It is like the director is showing the boundless possibility of a machined life and yet pointing out the limitations.

At all times, replicants behave so much like humans that it is difficult to differentiate between the two. For people like me who are not submerged in the world of sci-fi, AI and cybertronics, it is strange to see such machines. I am not able to fathom how does a machine cry? While Blade Runner 2049 is premised on the concept on replicants reproducing, I think that is only where you draw the line on the possibilities. Replicants having sex is unbelievable enough, the fact that they reproduce is just an extension. Ironically, it appears that there is a race between humans and machines to reach to the other end of evolution - just as replicants want to become more like humans, humans are becoming heartless like machines.  

What gives humans superiority? Is it possible that we are all replicants of another world?

Increasingly, Blade Runner has characters for whom it is difficult to decipher whether they are humans or replicants (the famous puzzle of whether Rick Deckard, central character of Blade Runner 1982, is human or replicant). More interestingly in Blade Runner 2049, K, at one point, doubts that he is not a replicant but a human. This again goes back to the central question - what makes humans human? Can all those things which make us human be ‘replicated’? And further, if we make something with all replicated features, is it not human?

Inherently, I believe there is a superiority complex in humans and we treat everything else (machines, animals) with disdain for being under-developed, on parameters we are not sure of. In fact, this superiority complex may be the root of our complacency and thus our fall. Why do we have this superiority complex? Possibly because collectively we have not been beaten as yet.  Another offshoot of the superiority angle is - is it not possible that we are replicants to ‘humans’ of some other universe, humans who are more evolved than us on totally different parameters. What can be those parameters? I have no clue. Are all the possible parameters which can define something a finite set? I know I am bordering on questioning what defines ‘life’ or ‘live’ forms. But what the heck - for all we know Earth may be an off-world of another world.    

Can humans and machines peacefully coexist?

Whatever sci-fi I have seen around evolution of machines sees them as taking evil form, once fully developed. They would enslave, or completely eradicate the humans. To me, Blade Runner raises the possibility of peaceful coexistence. What if humans get out of their superiority trap and see developed machines as inevitable. In a sense, humans need to accept that just like we start with a clean slate and learn everything from our birth onwards, then why to hate machines learning gradually?

Can the two reach a pact to live together. One argument is that humans, over more than 5000 years, have not been able to live peacefully amongst themselves, it is difficult to have hope for them living with replicants. So, what if the world has only replicants? Given the reducing differences between them and humans, there does not appear to be much of loss. But can the cycle turn again? Can the world comprised only of replicants see the development and overtake by another kind?

Why does the future always have to be grim?

I think that deep inside, most people are optimists. Otherwise life itself is not possible. Even if this hope is not for oneself but for one’s progeny or for the future generations. Anybody who plants a tree hopes that it will flower and bear fruit long after he is gone, many scientific journeys are undertaken despite knowing fully that they will not bear results in one’s lifetime but on the hope that the next generation would take it up. The act of raising a child is premised on hope for a better future for them. When one goes to sleep, one is hopeful of waking up alive, mostly. Just imagine if populace at large is totally hopeless about the future, the society and the life as we know, would collapse. Of course, survival instinct is a strong tenet as well, but that alone cannot take humanity far. Hope is essential.

But seeing all movies which gaze into the future, it is easy to lose hope. All of them portray a grim world. The common themes which play across such movies (Blade Runner, Mad Max, Children of Men, Hunger Games, Equilibrium, Wall-E, Minority Report) are - authoritarian governments ruling with the fist and distant from the masses both literally and figuratively, over-indulgence of technology, cities filled with grey towers, masses which are famished and grisly, large tracts of barren land, absence of any greenery or natural beauty, large metal junkyards, ghost devastated cities, no laughter, only a sense of survival instinct. These movies inspire no hope. They only talk of a world where most human traits like love, empathy, sympathy, happiness, hope have been crushed.

But why is most future prediction so pessimistic. I was reading the book Civilisation by Nialll Ferguson which mention how many Christian religious texts talk about an impending apocalypse, how many thinkers talk about civilisations containing within them the germ of their destruction, as an example - The Course of Empire paintings by Thomas Cole. There is a cyclicality to the whole thing - cycle of destruction and resurrection.

Put it another way, why is past always rosy?

To deviate slightly, I have a felt a preponderance in people to view past more favourably than the future. I am not necessarily contradicting my initial argument of people being optimists, just that past is largely loved. It is not unusual for those of certain vintage to feel that most things - life, emotions, habits, values were better in their heydey. In fact that was the message that I took from the Woody Allen movie ‘Midnight in Paris’. The central character, in 2010 travels back in time to 1920, the period he loves more than his present. In that period, the characters are more appreciative of 1800s. We attach beauty to nostalgia, to memories. This is my side theory - apart from really horrific events, we tend to forget, or at least overlook, painful events of the past. The human mind is eternally satisficing, looking for things to hold on to, and it is very difficult, emotionally sapping, to hold on to pains of the past. We like to hold only to beautiful events of the past.

Old and new will always joust - I think it is more about how that conflict is managed. Increasingly the conflict is becoming violent. The pace of change has increased over the last few decades which people find difficult to keep up with. It is an accepted fact that generation changes in 10-15 years instead of longer earlier. I find people around me mostly exclaiming - ‘how glorious yesteryears were’, ‘in our times, things used to be so better’, or ‘we are living in such depraved times!’. I think people accept material improvement but think that the value system has degraded. Life has seemingly become more complex than what is used to be.

Is technological progress inversely related to moral and value systems?

Cutting aside the rhetoric in India around degradation due to increasing western influence, is there some merit in seeing the moral effects of technological progress? I believe there is and that is the price we pay for a seemingly better life. Born in 1982 and growing through the last three decades, I feel I have seen a period of very rapid change which has been out of grasp of everyone. Most of this change has been technological, mainly in the mode of communication. Television, telephone and internet have been at the center of the change and these changes are so closely spaced that people have found difficult to catch breath and realign the social structures.

Despite all the developments purportedly to ease life, people now complain of ‘fast life’, ‘paucity of time’. Social connections are reducing and becoming tenuous. Mobile and internet allow us to get most work done without having to interact with anybody (in fact most business models nowadays are built around reducing the need for human interaction). Over the years, the smallest social unit has reduced - from a village few centuries ago, to a neighbourhood, to a family, to an individual now. And the gradations of the society have increased - from relatively flat structures to long hierarchies now.

Another impact of the technological progress is the information overload which is having huge social and political repercussions. While it is good to be more informed, there are two downsides - a) more information means more noise also, and b) decreasing levels of faith or trust. The level of exposure which anybody is exposed to has increased manifold and this assault on senses has the tendency to confound than to make things simpler. Lot of information that one gets is either useless or incorrect or misrepresentation - to sift through all this requires greater skill which is not easy for anybody. So it is common to hear refrains of young kids being exposed to objectionable material, or to find governments going to great extremes, even violent at times, to prevent ‘sensitive’ information becoming common knowledge. More information, and the increasing amount of junk and misinterpretation that comes with it, also makes it difficult for people to trust, to be able to take anything on face value without reading about it on the internet. And there is lesser need to collaborate, to talk, to negotiate, thus lesser personal touch. All this is creating a fragmented, antagonistic society. Increasingly the society is grappling with the issue - balance between free flow of information, which is seen as the cornerstone of an evolved society, and the downsides of information overload. Then there is the challenge around human rights - does it apply to one person or to a  mass? At the same time, I admit all these are not necessary apocalyptic - societies have the ability to correct its course, but one never knows for sure.

And other problems..

I am sure less percentage of population now dies of epidemics or diseases then say 500 years ago. Further, I had read long back that we are living through a period of relative peace than ever in our history. This is counted as deaths through murders, armed conflicts, wars etc. These factors, along with increasing life expectancy, means we have a larger population to manage. And the increasing expectations of material comforts mean we need more resources. All this is putting stress on the resources and the environment, as we understand it now. Thus all the hue and cry. We are emitting more pollution; generating more non-recyclable waste; while we are comfortable with respect to most minerals, water resource is a concern; and the overall concern around making irreversible changes to weather cycles, geology, flora and fauna which can have sweeping, non-fully-comprehensible impact that would require undoing some bit of thousand years of evolution in order to survive.

And then there is the problems of political and economic systems around the world. After much trial and error over centuries, the world has largely settled on democracy as the standard way of government and capitalism as the de-facto economic model. While these are the best we seem to have, they are not without challenges. There has been a periodicity of financial meltdowns which creates huge financial and social instability; unequal distribution of wealth stratifying the society; control of resources by a few and growth of mega corporations. Further, the politics keeps oscillating between right-wing orthodoxy; left-wing egalitarianism; liberal carelessness; intellectual partisanship, each of which poses threats.

And I am not in a position to discuss the psychological implications of the way society is unfolding - incidents of road rage, student suicides, domestic violence, sexual assault, paedophile are some pointers. So is the increasing narcissism of the masses.

Is there a tipping point? Can we predict it? Can we avoid it?

Apocalypse can have many forms, but there are usual suspects for causal factors - nuclear holocaust triggered by a shaky hand on the button or declining trust; environmental disaster which is gradually boiling and which can turn for the worse; and of course the rise and rise of machines. Will the apocalypse happen in an instant - like a nuclear bomb, or will we reach it gradually - one sure step after another? I am not capable to answer. More likely, it is gradual with a tipping point which comes relatively suddenly. I find the parable of ‘frog in boiling water’ very interesting. Put a frog in boiling water and it will jump out instantly. Instead put it in normal water in a pot on fire and heat the water gradually, the frog will not jump out but will slowly burn to death. Are we all like frogs, burning slowly to our doom?  

Going into rise and fall of civilisations is a large study which I would not get into here. But in current times, to me it seems like we are on a path of progress which will eventually lead to the scary state portended by many futurists. I definitely feel that there are genuine concerns, the three gravest as per me are - technological (machine invasion), environmental (say an ice age), and socio-political (nuclear war/big-daddy). We are past the age of innocence, and there is greater cynicism and antagonism in the air. We are creating mega corporations which threaten to challenge individual freedom and free will some decades down the line.

Before I proceed, let me admit that a lot of what I say may not hold. One way to check is to compare the present with the prediction of this period made in the past. For eg. the original Blade Runner talks about the year 2019 which is just two years away but it will be nowhere as diabolical as the movie predicted. And we certainly will not have replicants or an off-world by that time. Or the novel 1984 by George Orwell published in 1949 predicted a dystopian future which eventually did not turn out ‘as’ bad. But fundamentally we may just be questioning the pace of change - the change itself is not being challenged.  

The real ordeal is that despite understanding a knowing a lot of it, it still seems inevitable. It is difficult to get off this path. While one would want a balanced approach - advancement without its pitfalls, it is a utopian wish. Technology will progress and it is difficult to say that only so much and no more. Nor is it possible to thresh good from the bad easily - it is a moving goal really. I believe there will be a tipping point, when we go off the cliff but only by experiencing apocalypse will we know that it exists - there is a degree of fatality to it.

Do any rules hold? What is future? Is it everything that we can make?