Another day with a pair'a'dice

Do you enjoy going to work? As in, do you wake up in the morning and think - Yes! Today is a wonderful day to go into work, and put in a good productive 8 hours?

Not many people do and I feel that this has more to do with the atmosphere in the office than the work itself. Yes, I admit, somedays it's just about the fact that you would rather stay at home, in bed, under the covers, with a hot cup of tea (or coffee, or something else) and a good book, than you would like to get up, get ready and go to work.But then there are those times, when the work you are doing is really worth it... the times when you are just rearing to go, and you know what you need to do to get something done.

Of course, for me, those days are rarer nowadays than they ever were. And it is very clear that it has to do with the office atmosphere. My boss, is getting on everyone's nerves, not just my own. My colleagues are all bitching about the work atmosphere and other similar things. My team is telling me that they are planning to quit - nothing to do with me, they graciously admit.

But my situation isn't even as bad (putting it mildly) as N's. Her situation is the kind that one never ever imagines would happen in an office of an MNC with progressive, intelligent people. It is unfortunately, a problem that many people, not only women, face in an office environment. I don't mean necessarily that the men are subject to sexual harassment, but rather that the work culture does not allow for a happy, healthy working space.

If you are one of those people who feels vaguely (or not so vaguely) unhappy about the way people in your office behave, please make a point of it - fight for a better working atmosphere.

Or at least give N as much support as you can. She is fighting (as someone has said) for "all working women".

Every year, it comes around and each year I react somewhat similarly and somewhat differently. This year, on my birthday (which was yesterday), I was in my most blah mood.

Why? Because I had been working on the weekend before. Yes, Saturday and Sunday. So instead of feeling lazy, relaxed or (god-forbid) happy, I woke up on Monday morning, despairing the fact that my birthday was likely to be not-so-much-fun.

So, I woke up, got out of bed, dragged a comb across my head... Looking up I realised I was late, and rushed to work.

After a dull, dragging day at work, I got home, and found candles, and home made cake and Grover Washington Jr on the stereo, and A dressed up gorgeously (in only the way she can), and almost (though not quite) immediately, I felt happier. It was my birthday after all.

We didn't go out for dinner, like we thought we might. We didn't have friends over, like we often do. But somehow, feeling relaxed after a tense week(end) and day, remembering the good things of life, I feel that I had a birthday I could remember after all!

And I can still dream about beaches of Goa for my next birthday, can't I?

Well, the weekend was upon me and gone before I knew it. Working Saturdays tend to do that! But we tried to enjoy ourselves on Sunday by getting a DVD of Friends from our local rental, and then ordering Pizza.

So, Domino's picks up the phone and I place my order (Pepperoni and Cheese - yum!). Unfortunately they don't deliver to our place, and since I don't feel like ordering from elsewhere, I decide to go pick it up while I'm picking up some beer. (Why don't we have beer delivery guys by the way? Separate topic though!)

A little while later they call back to say No pepperoni, no spicy chicken, only BBQ chicken. So I ask them to put extra jalapenos on top, and that I would be there in 10 minutes.

So I get out the car, drive down in the rain, pick up the beer and park in front of Domino's 20 minutes later. This should be a simple task. I'm already 10 minutes late, so all I need to do is dash in, grab the pizza, pay the guy and dash out again - Friends here I come!

Of course, real life has a way of disappointing you sometimes. I was asked to wait for 2 minutes, the pizza was ready and needed to be taken out of the oven. 5 minutes later, I was told the same thing. In fact, 20 minutes later, I got so fed up, I left without the pizza and being my optimistic self, drove to the next Domino's outlet.

When I got there, and this was only 9pm, I was told that they only had Chicken Kheema, which I despise - who eats Kheema on a Pizza for God's Sake!

So I left Domino's to it's own miseries and crossed the road to US Pizza, which told me that they hadn't got Pepperoni, and I didn't want their other Pizzas which were pretty much Tandoori food on a Pizza. (I mean if I want Tandoori food, I'd eat Tandoori - why would I want it on my Pizza?)

So then I head to Pizza Hut, which thank heaven's has got Pepperoni. I promptly bang down my money and am told that it would take another 20 minutes for the Medium Pepperoni and Cheese pizza to get ready. 30 minutes later, the guy brings it out.

Sorry Sir, we ran out of Medium Pizza base, so I've made 2 personal pan pizzas for you instead.

Oh well, at least two small pizzas is better than no pizza at all. (Although not really what I wanted!)

So how difficult is it to get a Pizza in this city? Something good, and hot and fast? Or if you have a secret to getting your pizza, do let me know.

So after yesterday's post, I was really kicked about the fact that I could blog directly from my Treo to Blogger and not need to use the email blog system.

That joy was shortlived, however, as I, very cleverly, updated from Blogger to Blogger Beta! And now my mobile blogging doesn't work. That's not all, even my Windows Live Writer doesn't work! In fact, no third party blogging tool works anymore!

This was a really stupid move by Google. The problem starts because you need to use your Google Account to login to Blogger Beta, and not your regular blogger login. And the methods of logging in have also changed.

Why, o why, did they not keep the same interface working? Why disable it altogether?

Anyway, if you use any 3rd party application to blog on Blogger - DON'T upgrade to Blogger Beta!

Wow! On my new Treo I can post from anywhere!

This is posted using mBlogger

Those of you who read my poetry blog might know that my oldest friend just died recently. But lfe does go on, somehow, slowly and painfully. And sometimes, you almost (but not quite) forget the thought.

You're busy with your life. Your own life is good. Problems seem to have faded. But you feel guilty as well. Should I really be happy? Shouldn't I let the weight of death press down upon my shoulders and let the world see the burden of my loss? I am not actually being corny here. This is the way that a lot of people think.

I think, remembering him, that trying to be happy is the best way to be. I remember laughter lines through all sadness.

That is my memory of him, after everything.

I got a new job! Yes Yes! Ra Ra!

... and all that jazz.

And before you ask, I like it. I like it a lot.

But...

and here's the big but(t?) :

I have a team of twelve to manage. Which in itself isn't so bad, but the guy who was leading the team before I joined is now to be my subordinate!

Hoo boy!

And then the big bang! He's quit!

Possibly not because of me, but still - what does that mean for the rest of the team. Within a month they go from interacting with a guy they've known for over a year, to a new guy, with new ideas, who speaks a different geek-speak from them.

Yea, verily the alien has landed.

Leaving a job after four years is difficult. You get used to the people, the places, the things. (Hist: The things are also people. Okay okay, the people, the places, the... other... people! For reference read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy!)

The company I work for is on the verge of shutting shop, so I'm out looking for a new job. That's not necessarily too hard for a techie in Bangalore. Maybe I should write my own song Ah'm a techie, Ah'm a techie, in Bangalore *grin*.

But it's still scary. It's a cold world out there... okay, not because Bangalore temperatures seem to be reaching boiling point - but you know what I mean!

Now, of course, you're saying - Ah! he's using humour as an antidote to tension. Too true.

I'm tense because I'm looking for a new job. I'm tense because I'm leaving a place I've worked at for four years and I've had good times there (bad times too, but let's not talk about that on my blog!). I'm tense because A is giving me these dirty looks (quickly hidden) which say something like 'I told you to change your job long ago, I never liked your boss anyway!'. I'm tense because I don't adapt well to change - it's not that I can't cope. Of course I can cope, but it's not easy. And to top it off, I'm not a natural extrovert. So I have to make an effort every time I need to meet or talk to someone I don't meet regularly. And of course, when you're job hunting, you need to meet and talk and interact with a bunch of strangers! Wow! Whatafunthing I hear you extroverts out there going! But not for me, you see.

So while the going is good, I hope to wheedle out every ounce of sympathy from anybody who is willing to give it - and a job at the end of it, I hope!

Last week - or rather, the weekend starting Friday before last - was a mad movie weekend. Not as mad as some that I've had before - I remember one time I watched six movies in a single day and then added another three the next, but that's another story!

Coming back to the mad movie weekend recently, A and I watched a range of movies, and finally didn't end up seeing the movie that we had planned to watch finally!

It started off with us watching Gangster with a few of A's colleagues. Of course, the plan was to go watch Darna Zaroori Hai, but due to a lack of planning and co-ordination, all the tickets were sold out (I guess most people forgot that it was opening night!).

I went into the movie with trepidation considering that I quite dislike one of the two heroes of the movie, Emraan Hashmi, otherwise known as the Serial Kisser of Bollywood! I really can't figure out why he's considered so great. In any case, the other male star Shiney Ahuja, I really like, so it wasn't like I didn't want to watch the movie at all.

And I was pleasantly surprised at the movie. Remember this is a commercial Hindi movie, so those of you who can't handle the style will not like the movie; but for those of you who can - well, be prepared for a interesting, but not great flick.

A young bargirl in Mumbai has a gangster fall in love with her and take her away from her horrid life. But he is hunted by the cops and his former criminal associates and has to send her off to Seoul after a young boy they adopted is shot by the cops. Being a *good* guy (inspite of his criminal tendencies), he hasn't slept with her because they're not married yet. In Seoul, all alone and getting drunk every night, she meets the other guy (Emraan), who takes care of her and seduces her at the same time. I won't let out any more otherwise I'll give away the ending.

While Kangana as the girl was good in bits, she has a funny way of speaking, so I found that a bit distracting. Emraan Hashmi was his usual self, if you've seen any of his other movies, you'll know what I mean. But Shiney truly carried the movie. He was brilliant in almost every single scene.

The movie was a decent thriller with good music especially compared to the crap coming out of Bollywood nowadays. The camera-work up close was odd considering there were too many close-ups of the actors noses for some reason!

Not a great recommendation, but watch it if you have some time on your hands and nothing better to do.

---

Neither A nor I felt like stirring out to watch a movie in the theatre the next day. So we decided to do pick up something to watch at home. After not watching some of the Oscar movies before, we took a plunge and picked up both Walk the Line and Brokeback Mountain.

First up was Brokeback. When Ang Lee's previous movie, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon came out, both of us were hugely underwhelmed. I really couldn't see what the hype was about. And this time too, I was prepared for disappointment. Unfortunately, some of my fears were not unfounded.

Let me start off by saying - Yes, this is a brave movie. Yes, we need more movies like this. Yes, congrats and all that. BUT(t?) it is not a great MOVIE by any means. I am sorry, but Heath Ledger cannot act. Mumbling your lines doesn't make you a mid-western cowboy. And where is his passion for Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhall)? It's supposed to be a romance for god's sake. What about the chemistry (rather lack of it)? I've seen more chemistry between men on Will and Grace for god's sake! I thought it wasn't supposed to be about two men who f**k just because they aren't getting any with the women. But the first time they do it, it seems just like that.

I am really glad that the Oscar went to Crash. As a work of movie making, it's far far better than Brokeback. I understand that movies talking about uncomfortable topics are necessary, but one needs to make a good movie as well. Remember Philadelphia? It talks about homosexuality, AIDS, racism - you name it. And it was a brilliantly made, brilliantly acted movie.

Watch Brokeback, if nothing else, for the visual beauty. And for Jake - he was good, but let down by his partner!

Walk the Line, on the other hand, is a really good movie. The story of Johnny Cash well told. I hadn't expected much from the movie and wasn't sure why Reese Witherspoon won best actress. But after watching the movie, I can understand. Understatedly made, with really good performances from Joaquin Phoenix as Johnny Cash and Reese as June Carter.

Watch the movie - it's really one of the best movies of the last year.

---

The next day, we again planned to watch DZH, this time with A's mom and brother, but he didn't want to watch it, so we switched to Mistress of Spices. A had read the book, and I had skimmed through it, so we knew the plot. Don't bother reading the book, it's not worth it. Of course, the reviews of the movie weren't great either, so we didn't have any high expectations of the movie.

Unfortunately our fears were not unfounded. Aishwarya Rai cannot act to save her life. The few roles where she was better than a mannequin were those with really great directors (in Raincoat, Devdas and Chokher Bali) and even there she was limited. Dylan McDermott was better, but there was no chemistry between the two of them. Some reviewers have harped on the inane conversations between Aishwarya and the spices in her spice shop, but seem to forget that these conversations are there in the original text (and are just as inane)!

The movie is so bad that I won't waste any time telling you the plot - just imagine a watered down version of Chocolat. There are just too many things wrong with the movie. The director for some reason seemed to have insisted on the voice-overs being spoken extra slowly in order to make everyone sound short of intelligence. He also doesn't seem to know much about India - while he sets the opening scenes very obviously in Kerala, the younger version of Aishwarya screams 'Mummy' and 'Papa' when her parents are attacked by thugs!

The only real redeeming factors about the movie are visual. The spice shop is beautifully created and Santosh Sivan's cinematography is stunning.

Don't watch the movie except as a visual treat. In fact, just turn off the sound and play a nice blues cd in the background. It might be far more worthwhile thatway!

Here I am in Dubai. Or rather, I have been in Dubai for the last ten days on work. But it seems like I've not left home (Bangalore)!

I get off the flight and the immigration officer at passport control speaks to me in Hindi, the cab drivers pushing and shoving to get my attention are speaking Hindi. I walk into the hotel and the receptionist and the manager are speaking in Malayalam. The room next to mine seems to have Tamil music on at top volume. Everyone seems to speak an Indian language, even the Arabs themselves!

Where have I come, I think to myself!

But the comparison doesn't end there. Especially when you know what Bangalore is like nowadays. Two words! Traffic Jams.

With endless road improvement and a huge number of new complexes coming up, it feels just like home. In fact, two hour commutes to work (in Jebel Ali) are the norm rather than the exception.

But there are differences. The primary one being cleanliness. For a city in the middle of a desert you might expect it to be dirtier, but it's quite clean, except in certain parts where the red tobacco stains line the walls! The other is the obvious wealth. Ferrari's and Porche's are seen regularly, while the idea of a small car is a Hyundai Accent!


There are the obviously beautiful things too, like the Dubai creek, which you can see above. But then you have the really, really weird. At the Mall of the Emirates - a new shopping mall designed to look somewhat like a Middle-Eastern palace - you will find a ski-slope! In the middle of a desert country! But that's not the weirdest. The weirdest thing about this, is that the ski slope is the shiny metal structure sticking out of the palace building, complete with changing lights! You can't see the lights in the picture, but trust me, it looks like Steven Spielberg crossed with Lawrence of Arabia!



But I still miss my home. I still have another 4 days to go, but I am counting down the days!

despondent recently had an entry Open Your Mouth and Die about the shooting of Meher Bhargav. When I was writing about the furore about Rang De Basanti (see earlier posts), what I was most upset about was the fact that there could be very few things in the world that would make people take up arms and kill a defence minister. I felt that people couldn't be more wrong. What about Meher Bhargav? If I were her husband/son/daughter, I would very strongly like to take a gun and... Okay, maybe I am more prone to violence than other people. But I still feel outraged about the lack of anger for her and her family. It's like people don't care anymore.

Coming back to Rang De Basanti, there were those who came out of the movie saying that it was too idealistic. But is anger against the shooting of Mehar Bhargav too idealistic? Was she being 'too idealistic' when she tried to stop the b***** eve-teasers? Or are we expected to sit back and say Chalta Hai or Let it go?

While I have pretty radical views on what to do with rapists and eve-teasers (castrate the bloody b********!), I think the law is still far too lenient with such individuals. And in the case of Meher Bhargav, I would still like to shoot the perpetrators in the b***s even if I don't kill them.

Stand up! Make yourself heard. Change the attitude because of which people can get away with such an atrocity!

Because Meher Bhargav stood up for what she believed in, she was killed. But there are only 6 bullets in a revolver. If we all stand up, at least the 7th person will still be able to make a difference. In a country of a billion people, that's not too big a sacrifice to make for what's right.

A long time ago, I was tagged by anjaan. I started this post, and then didn't finish for whatever reasons. Now I bring you my tag!

The Rules of the game are:
1. The tagged victim has to come up with 8 different points of their perfect lover.
2. You need to mention the sex of the target.
3. Tag 8 victims to join this game and leave a comment on their comments saying they’ve been tagged.
4. If tagged the 2nd time, there’s no need to post again.

My 8 points for a perfect woman! Wow, that's tough! It got me thinking - why eight? Why not 5 or 10 or 50? Hmmm.... anyway, leaving all that aside - and without further ado -

1. She should be slim (but curvaceous), shorter than me (so that she can rest her head on my chest while we're watching a romantic movie). She should have large expressive eyes and a cute face (I know this is subjective, but my decision is final!).
2. She should be able to give and take space. I hate clingy people. I should be able to get some time to myself during a day without having to fight for it.
3. She should be able to stick with me through vast jumps of thought from Kafka to Rang De Basanti, to Mexican Food. I think like that. If you can't keep up, too bad. But she should still keep me focussed when neccesary.
   
4. She should be willing to experiment in bed... nothing weird, just different. Maybe the word bed is too limiting?
5. Wine, long walks on the beach, starry nights. If she doesn't like them then she doesn't like me.
6. Books - that's a biggy - Shakespeare to Dan Brown - brilliant to time-pass; even if she's not read everything, she should know what's what.
7. Writing and speaking good English. I don't want or need perfect Queen's English, but I can't deal with people who have too strong an accent, or translate from some other language when speaking english.
8. And most importantly, she should have her own personality. I don't want a shadow. But I don't want a dominating partner. Someone with her own identity with whom I form a new entity - bigger (and hopefully better) than either of us.

Now, about the tagging 8 other people... well, all the people I'd like to tag have already been tagged, so... I will avoid for now. If I feel the need to tag someone, I will edit this post again.

What is it with the Templars and bestsellers? Currently three out of the top ten hardcover fiction works on the New York Times bestseller list have to do with the Templars. Heading the list is of course The Da Vinci Code followed in sixth and eight places by The Templar Legacy and The Last Templar respectively.

Most of us have heard about the Knight's Templar. We've read about them in school and we've seen books and movies either denigrating them (remember Ivanhoe?) or making them objects of intense curiosity, as in Dan Brown's most famous book.

I seem to have been interested in the Templar worlds for as long as I can remember, well before the latest fad. (This may of course be largely due to my thirst for lots of bits of useless facts!) I had done my reading and one of my favourites was Umberto Eco's brilliant tragic parody of the Templar legacy in Foucault's Pendulum.

Short Recap about the Templars:

Here were these bunch of guys who went out around the world fighting the enemies of civilization (read: Christian Church). Now, the thing is, although these guys were supposedly monastic, they decided to accumulate a whole lot of wealth. They took money from Kings to fight the Arabs; they took money from the church because they were upholding Christianity in a Pagan part of the world; the took money from traders, priest and other sundries to protect them while they travelled to the Holy Land. And then they became the world's first truly international bankers. Give them some money, they'd look after it, and give it back to you when and where you wanted, for a fee.

Now, King Philip IV of France wanted some of the Templar's money, so, he said that they didn't believe in Christ and were guilty of a dozen odd crimes against the Lord and his Church and he had them all rounded up and tortured.

Of course he never found the money. The then Grand Master Jaques Molay was burnt at the stake apparently not having breathed a word as to the whereabouts of the great wealth of the Templars (which also supposedly included the Holy Grail - another topic of great literary value - also included in DVC!).

End Recap!

The big thing among writers nowadays is the great treasure hunt. Find the pot of gold at the end of the Templar rainbow!

But it doesn't exist!!!! That's my point.

Ok. Assume that there were a few million gold coins or whatever among the remaining Templars. They needed to live, so they spent a few. So over the centuries there'd be a hundred thousand less left. And you've forgotten inflation. The equivalent of 1 gold coin in the 15th century might be equal to 1 US Dollar (though unlikely - far less to buy beyond food and clothes!) but look around you today. Even if there were half a billion gold coins (highly unlikely to start off with) there are enough people with far more than that nowadays. And that money had to be split up among the few templars! So it has almost no value today!

But coming back to the books themselves. Ok, fine, you've got yourself some sort of idea as to how to go about finding the money. If your idea was really practical, would you spend five years writing it into a book that other people would read? No. You'd get on the next flight to Israel and dig up the money with your grubby little hands and tell as few people as possible!

Unless you know that your ideas are a crock of s**t. So you put them down somehow into a 500 page or more page-turner (hopefully) and send it out to the publishers to earn your 10% per book royalty! That's the good way to make the money.

The only people who suffer are the long-suffering readers. On one hand you've got those who buy the book as a way to pass time in hotel airports. This kind of book is okay for them because it's better than staring at the blank airport walls or at TV screens filled with people speaking in a language you don't understand. The second kind is the people who read pulp. Whether they read only pulp or whether they also read pulp is besides the point. They know that what they're reading ain't exactly literature. So it's time-pass (as we Indians say!).

The third kind of reader comes into this thinking - Wow! A LITERARY thriller! Now I can boast to all my friends about my LITERARY reading habits. I can talk about the HOLY GRAIL and the KNIGHTS TEMPLAR and can be well read like that show-offy Aditya down the hall!

These are the people I feel sorry for. Because these books are junk. Pure and simple. Da Vinci Code was passable as a thriller, but had nothing great style-wise. The Templar Legacy, which I have the good(?) fortune to be reading now, isn't even that good. In fact the writing is so bad it's hard to not put down.

In the second chapter of the book, a bookseller is being questioned at gun point:
He picked up his mug and savored another gulp of beer.

I mean who savors their beer when they are afraid of being shot? And does anyone savor anything when you gulp it down? Wow!

One of the main protagonists, Stephanie, is supposedly someone high up in the US Justice Department. But she is so stupid, that she never listens to any advice, always manages to get into trouble, depends on the help of the man (Malone) she never listens to, and is rude to people she meets even without having met them before!

Also, the classic bad pulp elements are there- two sets of bad guys, or rather one bad guy out to get the money and one bad/good guy out to save the church, the supposedly clever but actually dumb heroine, the ex-SAS type hero who always forgets just the one important thing which would compress the story into just 40 pages, the rich helpful friend, the dying master and the helpful servant.

And the events are so unimaginative themselves. I've got to a point in the book where the hero and the heroine are asking the rich for information at his isolated house in Europe. He lives austerely and has few servants. There is no guard at the gate. The bad guys just walk into his compund and start listening to their conversation through the window. Sounds familiar?

Of course I am going to finish the book, if for no other reason than the fact that I'm travelling on work and prefer reading crap to staring at blank hotel walls in the middle of the night.

But unless you are like me, or have a good understanding that this is not even good pulp, I really suggest that you don't read it. Read Eco instead, or if you don't want something so heavy, Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown is far more entertaining.

This is not a review of Rang de Basanti. For my own review you can read it at my other blog.

I am disappointed that many people have felt the movie is bad because of personal prejudice. The contentions raised by these individuals varies from 'Advocating violence is wrong' to 'the characters are daft' to 'nobody in their right minds would do such a thing' to 'Bhagat Singh & Co. were seriously stupid' and of course the grand-daddy of them all 'non-violence is the only true solution!'

*Please note that I am using Bhagat Singh & Co. as a mere shortcut. Each member of the group had his/her own very important part to play in their activities. No flaming please, in this regard at least!

I have nothing personally against any of the individuals linked to above, and while they have every right to their own opinions, I do feel the need to balance the perspectives somewhat.

Firstly, let's look at the historical perspective.

1. Indian independence was not won by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. For those of you who think I'm being blasphemous, let me clarify: Mahatma Gandhi was a brilliant leader of the masses. But he did not act in isolation. It took every single person who participated in the freedom movement to make any impact on the Raj. Both the violent and non-violent protests were necessary. And more importantly, the British left India, only because their hold on the country had become tenuous following WWII. They no longer had the men and money to fight to keep ruling over the country. And the protests (both violent and non violent) were getting too difficult to handle.

2. If Bhagat Singh & Co. had not decided to act in the fashion they did nearly 80 years ago, how many people would have realised that the machinery of the Raj could actually be damaged? One must remember that for over a century people believed that the power of the Queen over the country was inviolate. We were a country of people who had been ruled by kings for as long as we could remember. Nobody attacked the kings except for family and other kings. Bhagat Singh & Co. stood up to the establishment and the rest of the country realised that it was possible to change the system themselves. Not everyone decided to take arms against the Raj. Many of them joined the Gandhian movement. But people were jolted out of their current existence by the hope of a new order largely due to these men's actions. Ask your grandparents about it if you don't believe me.

3. There were many many people back then who decided that Bhagat Singh & Co. had no right to take the 'law into their own hands'. If it hadn't been for the others who did not sit back and agree with the 'law', we might not have gained freedom, because the British would not have to fight to keep control over India.

4. Bhagat Singh & Co. did not use assassination as their only tool. They participated in more non-violent protests than most people living in India today have ever done. The bombs they threw in the parliament were most clearly designed not to hurt anyone (a fact borne-out by the British themselves). They killed Saunders because they believed that he was responsible for murder.

To take a modern example. Today Saddam Hussein is under trial for genocide. The country that brought him to trial is America. American troops have killed more innocent Iraqis than the number of Americans killed by Iraqi troops. Shouldn't Bush be under trial for genocide too?

You will state that this argument is fallacious. And it is. My point is, why shouldn't Bhagat Singh & Co. have the right to decide if Saunders was guilty of murder? Who does have that right? Either one should say that nobody has that right. In which case anarchy would reign based on who has the greatest power (America in the example). Or one should say that it depends. On what? In Bhagat Singh & Co's case, they believed that Saunders was guilty as charged and should be taken away and hanged (or rather - shot). By law in most countries, 12 jury members are enough to convict a man of murder. So we've got half a dozen men convicting Saunders of murder. And there was no need for any defence. It was public knowledge that he was responsible for the deaths of many innocent lives. The 'law' at that time protected him from any action taken against any 'native' person. Who is to say that Bhagat Singh & Co. were wrong in what they did. Not me. None of us might be living the lives we are if it weren't for them.

Coming back to the film itself.

1. Even though some people find it disagreeable, the fact is that the events of our bunch of modern 'revolutionaries' (DJ & Co in short), paralleled the actions of BS & Co. almost exactly.
a. Systemic failure of some kind (Jalianwala Bagh vs. MIG crash)
b. Non violent protest (Simon go home vs. candles at Amar Jawan)
c. Police brutality at non-violent protest.
d. Violent retaliation against a single person identified as cause of said Systemic failure (Saunders vs. Defence Minister).
e. Death of the conspirators (Hanging vs. Shootout)

2. At no point during the film do any of the group advocate violence as a solution to any problem. Karan most clearly says at the end that he agrees that what they have done is wrong. He encourages everyone to change the system by joining the IAS or politics. He does not pretend to be a hero of any kind. Anyone who watches the movie and comes out saying that the movie is advocating violence needs to have his head checked. It's like saying that because Harry must kill Voldemort, JK Rowling is advocating violence. RDB is a movie that incites us to change our society just like HP is a series of books talking about good vs evil. Neither of them say use violence. They just point of that at times, when people are pushed too far, violence is the method that they used. Not that violence is the method you should use. Change what you can.

3. Some bloggers believe that nobody living the life of DJ & Co would do such a thing. Why not? Bhagat Singh & Co. did the same thing 80 years ago. They could have also lived 'normal' lives had they chosen to. My grandfather himself had a choice of joining the ICS and decided against it (during the Quit India movement). Had he joined it, he would have had a cushier life than most people in our country even today. When you love and care about someone or something (whether it is a friend, a lover, a child or even a country) enough, you will be willing to take up arms against injustice done to the object of your love. And you will be willing to die in that cause. It has happened in the past, and continues to happen today. A young person in college is highly likely to not use the long winding route to justice. Give him a gun and he will go out and kill someone. Babri Masjid anyone? Many of the people who brought the structure down were young students caught up in the moment. Ordinary young men from ordinary middle-class families. Many of them agreed later on that they had done something wrong and would not advocate it. What makes it so unbelievable that DJ & Co would so something so hot headed and then agree that they have done something wrong.

4. Do you really believe that suicide bombers go and attack their targets while pissing in their pants? Far from it. Most of them believe in their cause so strongly that it would take an army to stop them from achieving their purpose. (Of course now a huge number of people will link what DJ & Co did with terrorism. It is a wrong assumption. According to one of the primary working definitions of terrorism, it is the unconventional use of violence against civilians for political gain. The aim of terrorism is to terrify. The aim of DJ & Co was most clearly to administer justice in their eyes. They were not terrorising the government or the people of the country. It is very clear in that regard. If of course you did not recognise that - too bad)

5. Other bloggers believe that the government would not act the way it did. There would not be any attacks on unarmed peaceful protests in the heart of the capital. Nor would there be massed public killings of the group at the AIR headquarters. Wake up and smell the humus. The government in India and around the world does exactly that. Time and again. It can and will do that because it has the power to attack those who oppose it. The media is powerless to report on this beyond a point because most forms of mass media are commercial entities and can be bribed, bullied or coerced into reporting the news (or not) in the way the government wants. Look at Google in China!

But most importantly, this movie is NOT advocating violence. For those of you who misread this, it is NOT ADVOCATING VIOLENCE. Rather it is a movie that tries to tell you that things are wrong with our country in much the same way that things were wrong 80 years ago. If we sit back on our fat asses and type on our computers arguing about whether violence is right or wrong, nothing will change.

It is a MOVIE after all. It is NOT a documentary. It is designed to get your minds out from the little hole that it has dragged itself into and make you look at the world around you. And in that, it has achieved it purpose adequately. Because you are sitting there and criticising it, you have been affected. Good or bad. It doesn't matter. But criticise the right things. Don't go on about how the movie advocates violence or how violence doesn't change anything. Violence exists in this world. It does change things. For good or bad. The war on Iraq can be directly linked to the twin tower attacks. Did it improve life for the Al-Qaeda? Maybe not. But it changed things - most certainly. (Again I am not linking Dj & Co with Al-Qaeda. I am just pointing out that the effects of violence are far from negligible). And the movie most definitely does not advocate violence. Watch it again if you don't believe me. And this time, watch it with an open mind. And remember that you can watch a movie like this, today, in a free India, because of people like Bhagat Singh & Co.