Calender System

We are in the year of 2009, Common Era.

During my recent trip to Hyderabad, I attended the rock show that was held at IIIT. I was hanging out with the guys from Blind Image(metal band from Chennai) backstage, waiting for the rock show to get underway. I remained a mute spectator for most part of the conversations that were held when Kitha(bass player for Shruti Haasan band), broached the topic of Anno Domini and how one ought to use After Christ instead. This was my chance to hog the limelight and make my presence felt.

B.C and A.D are designations used to represent the number of years before and after the birth of Christ. There is a popular misconception that because B.C stands for Before Christ, A.D would stand for After Death. If that were the case, then thirty odd years of Christ's life wouldn't be in any era.

A.D actually stands for Anno Domini, a medieval Latin term slated as In the year of (the/Our) Lord).It is sometimes specified more fully as Anno Domini Nostri Iesu (Jesu) Christi ("In the Year of Our Lord Jesus Christ").The Anno Domini dating system was devised in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus, and was later popularized by an English monk Bede(672/673–May 26, 735) in his book Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (The Ecclesiastical History of the English People). In this book he used anno ab incarnatione Domini (in the year from the incarnation of the Lord) or anno incarnationis dominicae (in the year of the incarnation of the Lord) to denote the era after the birth of Christ and ante incarnationis dominicae tempus (before the time of the incarnation of the Lord) for the era before Christ. However, only the former mentioned usage became popular while the latter era is now commonly referred to as Before Christ. In this dating system, a year before Christ would be written as 350 B.C (for example) and the current year would be A.D 2009.

The calender system that is now gaining popularity (in fact it has already done so) in most parts of the world is that of Common Era. The numbering of years under this system is similar to the one used in the A.D system sans the reference to Jesus Christ. This system is being increasingly adopted in Western world, especially by non-Christians who don't believe Jesus that is their lord and in communist countries, most notably China where the Common Era system was adopted back in 1949. Under this system, the year 350 before Christ would be written as 350 BCE(“Before the Common Era” or “Before the Current Era”) and the current year as 2009 CE(Common Era).

While most publications still use A.D, because of A.D.'s obvious Christian overtones, many(including me) prefer to use the more secular abbreviation C.E. My reason for the using the latter has got more to do with me being an agnostic than a non-Christian, and I suggest my friends who consider themselves to be agnostics or atheists, and followers of other religions as well to start using the C.E system to avoid being politically incorrect.

It's just a movie Goddamnit!!!

While writing my review on Slumdog Millionaire, I read a few articles on the movie and its depiction of life in Mumbai and the skewed views on the movie and the articles by the Western and Indian audience.

I stumbled across an article that appeared in the Daily Mail titled “The real Slumdog Millionaires: Behind the cinema fantasy, mafia gangs are deliberately crippling children for profit” by Andrew Malone.( Read ). The article is well written and does in fact show the true plight of the poor and homeless children who are mutilated and forced to beg and young girls who are forced into prostitution. The thing that bothers me most is that the article has rubbed some people the wrong way. Quite a few of the westerners seem to be making a sweeping generalization of what Mumbai and India really is, and that is ridiculous. I wonder how they would react when Asians and West Indians would deem all Whites as racists after watching “Made In England” or the rest of the world concluding that all the African-American and Hispanic people in the U.S were criminals after playing a game of Grand Theft Auto. There have been movies made in the west about neo-nazi groups(American History X) and child pornography (8mm) and no one drew any generalization about what was depicted in those movies(and the countless other such movies). So why such fuss over this movie( Slumdog Millionaire)? The thing that people (especially those who are ignorant about India) have to understand is that “beggar-mafia” is a very serious social issue that plagues India just like child pornography, drug abuse, and violence among various ethnic groups are crippling their own countries. Dharavi in Mumbai is no different from South Bronx in New York. While westerners talk about the growing inequality between rich and poor in India, they must also look at the economic disparity that exists in their own countries, especially in our current times of economic slowdown that has affected the West more than India.

The article I now wish to discuss is the one that appeared on Amitabh Bachchan’s blog.( Read ). He wrote , "If SM projects India as Third World dirty under belly developing nation and causes pain and disgust among nationalists and patriots, let it be known that a murky under belly exists and thrives even in the most developed nations." Bachchan also states, "It's just that the SM idea authored by an Indian and conceived and cinematically put together by a Westerner, gets creative Globe recognition. The other would perhaps not."
Further Bachchan recalled that the "commercial escapist world of Indian cinema" has vociferously battled for years, on the attention paid and adulation given to legendary Satyajit Ray at all prestigious film festivals of the West and not a word of appreciation for the entertaining mass-oriented box office blockbusters that were being churned out from Mumbai. "The argument: Ray portrayed reality. The other escapism, fantasy and incredulous posturing. Unimpressive for Cannes, Berlin and Venice. But look at how rapidly all that is changing," he said.( Read)


In regards to the first statement that Mr. Bachchan made, with the operative word being “If”, I have a similar opinion and have explicitly stated it in my previous paragraph. As for whether the movie does infact do that? My answer is an emphatic “NO”.

The plot of Slumdog Millionaire as pointed by Bachchan and others is indeed no different from the typical Hindi movies of the yore. Some of the movies made during that time were actually good. But the needless naach-gaana, dishum-dishum, and the rona-dhona scenes would be difficult for the movie goers in the west to relate to. I myself find these (especially the songs) a deviation from the main plot. I’m pretty sure that if Slumdog Millionaire wouldn’t have fared so well in the West if it had 6 -7 songs and Jamal and Latika running around trees with a dozen boys and girls wearing matching dresses dancing behind them.(This does happen in the movie, but thankfully it is just one song and that too at the end with the rolling credits). Having said that, most Indians consider these(the songs and maudlin scenes) to be an integral part of a movie, which probably explains why Slumdog Millionaire(Crorepati) has been a box office dud back home.

Most of Amitabh’s recent movies: Kaante, Nishabd, Ek Ajnabee, Aitbaar, Bunty Aur Babli to name a few are Hollywood rip offs (Reservoir Dogs, Lolita, Man On Fire, Fear, Bonnie and Clyde respectively). In fact the biggest movie in Bollywood history, Sholay, is heavily drawn from Hollywood western movies(which in turn have been heavily borrowed from Kurosawa’s work). So my question to Mr. Bachchan is,” Why would the audience in the west want to a typical Bollywood masala film which has been ripped off from one of their own movies?” The Hollywood directors/producers remake movies Asian movies too, but they don’t plagiarize it like most Bollywood producers and directors. They obtain legal rights to remake a movie.

I agree that the Mumbai underground has been captured effectively and more deeply in films like Satya, Salaam Bombay, Company and Dharavi, as compared to SM. I’ve already mentioned in my review of SM that there are a few loopholes in the plot, but to discredit SM just because it has been made by a westerner, and saying that ‘Danny Boyle has picked up and glorified every stereotype about India, sensationalized it and packaged it in a film’(as written on BigB blog) is a bit over the top. For those who have and haven’t seen the movie, don’t try reading too much into it. I personally thought it just about above average.

Aamir Khan stated in an interview with NDTV that he doesn't "see ‘Slumdog…’ as an Indian film. I think it is a film about India like Gandhi (that) was made by Sir Richard Attenborough. Similarly, ‘Slumdog…’ is about India but it is not an Indian film. Well, then how does one decide whether or not a movie is Indian? What does or does not make a movie Indian? More on that in my next post.

My Take On Slumdog Millionare

I’ve finally gotten around to watching the much publicized “Slumdog Millionaire” by Danny Boyle. Everyone from Bollywood actors like Amitabh Bachchan and Aamir Khan, to the media in the US and UK have had their say about this movie. I was initially put off by the over hype surrounding the movie, but then decided to watch the movie and find out what the fuss was all about.

Even though the overall story is akin to typical 50’s to 70’s Bollywood formula, where the audience accompanies Jamal thorough his odyssey from a young child in the slums of Mumbai to a young man who is determined to save the girl he loves, we are thankfully spared from the typical Bollywood melodrama. The acting of young Jamal and Salim is pretty commendable, and so is the cinematography and the background score.

There are some aspects of the film that disappointed me. I believe when Danny Boyle started making this movie he sensed that this movie could get him the much coveted Academy Award (popularly known as The Oscars). What is incomprehensible though is, why two thirds of the film was made in English, and how come the main characters speak in English with an accent more akin to the typical Indian metrosexuals? How can you explain street urchins who turn start speaking flawless English as soon as they reach adolescence? It is plausible for them to be speaking in broken English as tourist guides in India do, but the “slumdog” with his brit accent is pretty ridiculous. Given that the movie is a British-American production being distributed by Fox Searchlight and Warner Independent Pictures, it would have been nominated for the Best Picture category even if the entire film was shot in Hindi. Movies like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon and City of God have shown that the English speaking audience are receptive and appreciative of a movie even if it is made in non-English speaking language as long as the content of the movie is good. Using the local language (in this case Hindi) would have added a layer of authenticity to the film.

The most intriguing aspect of this film for me, was the character of Salim which I believe has been misconstrued by most. The common perception of him seems to be that of a villain who redeems himself at the end of the movie. Though his “change of heart” at the end might seem implausible to most, he was just a victim of his environment with shades of rage and jealousy and despite his shortcomings, he still loved his brother. Below I’ve tried to present the events from Salim’s perspective, and not justify his actions.

1. When Salim sells the autographed picture of Amitabh Bachchan, he tells his brother that he sold it because he got a good price for it. It goes to show that for him money was more important to him than an autographed picture. That money earned could help them get through another day.

2. In the scene following the riots, he tells Jamal that he was the elder now and that Jamal was his responsibility and that he would take care of Jamal. And then when he turns away from Jamal, you can see how scared he really was. The reason for Salim not allowing Latika to take shelter with them was because he figured she would burden him/them.

3. During the scene where he lets go off her hand when she tries to get on to the train, he only does so because she would have slowed him and his brother down and put their lives at risk.

4. He agrees to return to Mumbai with Jamal to look for Latika, albeit reluctantly, and then saves her and his own life by killing Maman so that he wouldn’t hunt them down. If all Salim cared about was separating Jamal and Latika, he wouldn’t have agreed to look for her in the first place.

5. After killing Maman and rescuing Latika, Salim realizes that after killing Maman he wouldn’t be safe on his own, and decides to join Javed’s gang. Just before killing Maman, Maman tells Salim and Jamal that Latika was worth a fortune. Salim realizes that Javed would have had her anyway and if Jamal protested at that time, both he and his brother would be killed. This was probably why he pushes Jamal out of the hotel room.

6. In an attempt to redeem himself at the end, he sends Latika away and kills Javed and in the process gets killed as well.

Having said that, I still found the ending a bit abrupt. There should have been something that Jamal or Latika did or said that would enable the viewers to draw an inference as to what made Salim do what he did at the end. Also I found the scene where Salim gets killed a bit cheesy.

So do I think the movie deserves an Oscar? Well, Milk and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button are the other front runners for the award. I haven’t seen the former and didn’t like the latter. I liked “The Wrestler” and “Gran Torino” and expected them to make the cut, but they didn’t, so I’d able to take a call only after watching the other nominated movies.

My Rating of Slumdog Millionare:- 7 out of 10. (And as I pointed out of earlier, the only reason I’m giving this high rating is because of the performances of young Salim and Jamal and the complexity of Salim’s character)

And now comes the “Million Dollar Question”:Will Slumdog Millionaire win the Best Picture award at the Oscars? The movie has been receiving raves from one section and at the same time there is a hullabaloo among the other section who believe that the movie portrays India as a corrupt and violent country. But given the emotional content of the film along with the fairy tale ending it just might pip the others. Let’s just say for Danny Boyle’s sake ...”It is written”.

Brothers in Alms

I've just finished reading a post written by my schoolmate Kiran Rao about his encounter with a "child-beggar" and how it got him thinking if he was committing a moral offense by giving alms. I've always been against the idea of giving alms to beggars irrespective of how old/young they are. But now, it has really got me thinking.

A few months back my cousin and I were waiting at a busy traffic signal waiting for the light to turn green, when an old man walked up to us asking for money. I firmly but politely turned him down, only for him to be called back by cousin, who gave him a Rs. 10 note. Needless to say, I didn't approve of my cousin's deed of charity. I told him that he was encouraging begging, a social evil eating up our society, instead of fighting it, and that one should work to earn a living. My cousin argued that the guy had probably got so used to begging through all his years that he just lacked the motivation to work for food. So does that mean that we do our bit in killing whatever little motivation is left in him by offering him easy money, I quipped. The signal turned green, and our topic of discussion changed as my bike soared through the busy streets of Ameerpet. Come to think of it now, what if that old man didn't receive any alms that day, and he turned to stealing to sustain himself ? And then made a habit of it, because he finds it more convenient and less despicable, if not honourable.

Out on the streets we have the able bodied and the physically impaired beggars. Some of these beggars have families and are forced to beg by their parents who in all likelihood are beggars themselves. The others beg and earn money for their dalaals, who in return for the money earned by these kids, provides them with food and shelter.

Kiran writes "what the parents don’t see are that if the kid goes to school instead of wasting his childhood in begging, he’ll probably get a proper "job" and in the long run make more money". Kids in poor families, are looked upon as a source of income, which explains why most of the maids who have worked/work in our houses have more than 3 kids who do odd jobs to support her (there may be exceptions, but these would be very few in number, so few that one could actually count them on their fingers and toes). These kids are expected are contribute to the expenses of the family, and sending them to school would not only mean that they wouldn't be contributing much financially, but would also be an added expense to their parents.

This pops up another question... Why are some kids forced to beg by their parents instead of being encouraged to work? Well, this happens only in the case of those whose parents are lazy bums, and want their kids to make money without breaking a sweat.


I don't think I have ever given money to an able bodied child. I've always believed that when a child begged for money, they ought to be turned down and told to work instead of begging. Even if one kid out of 100 pays heed and actually works to earn his/her money, our society would change for good. The parents of such at the end of the day only care if the money is in and not really worry about how their kid got it. Mind you, by asking kids to work I am in no way endorsing the idea of child-labour.

I was just about to finish this post with a couple of more lines, when I realized that all along I was just talking about the able-bodied. What about those who are genuinely handicapped? What work could a man with no hands possibly get? Begging racket in India is as prevalent and affluent as the drug cartel in South America. Infants and homeless young kids are nabbed or enticed with the lure of food and shelter and their body parts are then mutilated and are forced into begging. What about the torture that they go through? Who will save these unfortunate ones from their misery? Will we ever be able to do that? I believe I've answered some of the questions my friend raised. Who's gonna answer the questions that I've raised? Or will some questions forever remain unanswered???

My First Blog

I'm writing this seated at office desk at half-past midnight. ( It has taken me a good 20 mintues to write the next sentence). Can't recall the first time I heard about blog, proabably around a year and half back. The impression(which lasted until a couple of months back) I had was that it something was the programmers and hackers used to post their endeavours, and hence i did not start blogging until tonight. I know many(especially those work in the software industry) would consider this indifference towards my source of livelihood as a blasphemy, but over the little time I've spent here, it has dawned on me that life as a software worker(sounds more appropriate than professional) SUCKS! (a fresher speaks his mind. i'll probably write a separate article on this after speaking to my ilk and sharing experiences with them).



A couple of months back I was having a conversation with a child hood friend of mine on orkut, and I happened to visit his blog, not of curiosity but just because I had nothing better to do at work (days/nights like that are far and few between). His blog visit turned out to be a pleasant surprise. I quickly went through blogs of my other friends and saw that they wrote about stuff which happened in their normal life. College gatherings, long drives, interviews, even movie reviews(most of which were about so called off-beat crappy bollywood movies). That's when i thought that maybe I should start blogging as well.



I do not have/never had exceptional writing skills(I intend to get better at it), but I always did okay at school(except for 12th standard which was a total disaster). The first time I realized this was when I got into 9th class. I still somehow remember this day very well, it was an English class and were supposed to write an essay comparing the lives of 2 kids, one was from a well-off family and the other who worked at a tea-stall or something to support his mum and sis. Our teacher was instrucintg the students to come up with a kick-ass beginnning to their essay. She turned to me and asked how I would begin mine, probably because I was the new kid in school. I blurted out "Life is not a bed of roses and this saying is apt in the case of the poor kid". The teacher acknowledged that it was a decent way to start off an essay and that was the first time it occured to me that I could probably do a decent job on writing. Sadly, I did not work on building my writing skills, even though my dad constantly kept prodding me(and at times yelling out of frustration) to keep reading and writing articles (He still does, and I hope this is a start).



It was not until I started preapring for my GRE examination that I started writing on articles again. The rekindling happened as it was an obligation, if I wanted a decent overall score, I had to do well in my Analytical Writing Module. Though it was an obligation, I started anjoying writing again, and I did fairly well in this section during the two times I answered my exam. A 5/6 which isn't all that bad.

Haven't written anything since 30-10-2006, the day i answered my TOEFL exam, and I've made a promise to myself to make this a habit. Gotta stop now, this is turning out to be boring! Anymore and no one's gonna read this crap, not even me.