Hindutva Brigade versus Kasab’s Case: Will we do the right thing?

In legal world sometimes redundant & obvious things has to be done so as to maintain system and order. Same is the case with Kasab’s case. Even though his guilt has been proven beyond doubt yet his prosecution can not be any different from those whose guilt is yet to be proven. That is that system we have adopted where every suspect has to be given a fair trial to defend his position and present his side of story and only when both of the sides, i.e. prosecution and defense, are properly heard then only the verdict can be pronounced. This is the legal system we had inherited from Britishers. This system is based on the premise that “All men are equal and they are equally entitled for protection of law”.

Now in Kasab’s case Maharashtrian association of Advocates had decided not to take up his case and thus rendered him defenseless. This step of theirs is motivated partly by their distorted definition of patriotism and mostly by the fear of being by the Hindutva Brigade.

Hindutva Brigade and the group of vigilantes think that being Indian means being Hindu and every Indian tradition, belief and custom has to confirm to the Hindu ideology. In nutshell, “if it is not Hindu then it is not Indian”. Adding insult to the injury their Hindutva’s definition is the most distorted and biased definition as far as true Hindutva is considered. They refuse to accept Hindutva as defined by liberals or enlightened people rather they offer such a parochial version of Hindutva that is not much different from the Ladenian definition of Islam. Their “Har Har Mahadev” battle cry sounds almost identical to “Allah ho Akber” of so called Jihadis.

So they are imposing their ideology as if it is shared be all of the Hindus and present themselves as crusaders of Hindutva. However Hindutva is among the most tolerant and understanding ideologies of world. In this the dissenting voices are not only heard and protected but also respected (if they have any grain of truth or wisdom). That is the reason why rendering Kasab defenseless is the most heinous crime that our system can do. Remember the cases of all Revolutionaries during Indian freedom struggle were given a trial as well opportunity for defense (no matter how superficial it was in reality) by the almost despotic British regime. If Britishers had done that in past then why can not we set a great precedence and give the fellow a fair trial.

On the other hand we have to understand that Kasab is also a victim, victim of hate groups that had corrupted his mind and soul. That is why it is more important to give him a fair trail as this will give a strong message to both the Jihadi’s as well as Hindutva Brigade that we will stick to whatever is right and will act neither with hate nor with favour.

However, I know that it is not an easy task in a nation like India where fear monger run free but then the toughest task is the stick to the right thing even when everyone pressurizes you to loose your sanity and righteousness. That will be a befitting tribute to Gandhi and an appropriate answer to “hate-spreading groups”.

Slumdog Millionaire Controversy: Its time to throw away our hypocrisy

Recently there is too much controversy going on in India regarding the movie and mainly there are two camps. One camp is of the supporters of the movie, who believes that the movie had brought glory to India and they are writing all praises for the movie. On the other hand there are group of people who think that this movie should be denounced as it portrays the westernized version of India rather than the actual shining India.

I humbly reject both of these camps as the “supporter camp” forgets that this is not an Indian movie per se rather it is an international movie that uses Indian storyline and some Indian artists as the theme is Indian. Thus all the accolades should belong to the foreign crew rather than to Indian film industry. On the other hand those who are crying foul for the movies as they complain that India is not that poor and downtrodden as depicted in the movie. They are the people who went overboard 5 years ago with their version of shining India despite the facts that in contemporary India the gulf between poor and affluent strata of society has actually increased.

Further I am a bitter critic of the “crying-foul camp” as they are the biggest hypocrites who would not have bet an eyelash if the same movie was made by some Indian. Their pain is that “how the hell one English man dares to show us mirror? Though India is “shining” and if there are some segments of society that feels left out then it should be an Indian who shall bring out their plight”.

What the hell? Are there two versions of truth? Shall we reject a truth as a conspiracy just because some outsider has threw it in out face? Come on morons, the degree to which a society is truly modernized can be measured by the degree of criticism and debate it can take as well as initiate. After all at the end of the day an only open and self criticizing society can say itself as a developed or developing society.

On the other hand, merely a movie and its depiction of India can not change the global understanding of “Indian phenomenon”. Dude, it is a movie. It has the creative liberty to tell whatever it seems entertaining. So hwy do not you all just shut up for a while and accept that despite all your pleas for general public about not to watch the movie, you had watch and enjoyed this flick.

Only by admitting our guilt and weakness, we stand a chance to grow and not by turning a blind eye to it and call it propaganda. It is same thing when our leaders label each act of terrorism as “perpetrated by foreign power” and thus loose an important opportunity to look inward and have a permanent solution for the menace by bring structural reforms.
So in the end, even if the movie had shown us a distorted and diabolical version of India, we should treat it an opportunity to change this misconception by ameliorating the problems of slums and slumdogs rather then fighting over whether or not the word slumdog exists in dictionary.

Its amazing as wel las ironical that years ago it was an foreigner who made an movie on our national father Gandhi and brought his story to us and now it is an another foreigner who had told us a story of one of us. I give a damn that he calls that character a “Slumdog”.

The Distorted defition of a "Good Person"

Finally IAS mains exams are over and I have joined back to my "not-so-interesting" job. But then, a man has to earn his bread and butter. Now as I have come back to office thus my interaction with normal mundane earthlings has started and I have started to have a glimpse of their "World View".

Yesterday I was having a talk with my subordinates and they were talking to about the Area under my authority and in the same vein were trying to describe few of the people residing in that area. During their discussion, they had described few peoples as being Achchha Admi (Good Person). Their continuous labeling has made me think and abstract what exactly they were referring to. I realized that all those people who abide by the social mores, customs and sanctions are considered as “good persons”. The other qualifying qualities are, he should follow the social hierarchy and most importantly this “good man” should act in a manner that is beneficial to the other person who will later label the person as a “good man”.

In nutshell, in order to qualify as a “good man” one should not challenge any social phenomenon and should provide some benefit to the person. On the other hand, all those who question the decadent social customs, challenges the old, regressive and oppressive social hierarchy and act according to their reason and rational were labeled as “sanaki”, eccentric or sometimes as “social misfits”.

Thus through this the society exerts control on independent thinking as every one wants to called as “Good Person” even if that means sacrificing independent thinking as being a “social automaton”

Now the question is “is this a fair price, loose identity for being labeled as good?”

In my opinion, I’ll take my chances by being applying for a social misfit title rather then being a puppet in society’s hand.

Damn the Religious Gurus and Great Authors

I am highly dissatisfied with all those “talk-shops” who call themselves as the intellectuals or otherwise. This dissatisfaction is highest in case of religious gurus who most of the times do nothing other than talking. After watching few of these gurus on various religious channels, I came to the conclusion that all that they do is:

1. Pick some story from the mythical text such as some episode from Ramayana, Mahabharata and Old/New Testament etc
2. Or take any story attached with Lord Rama, Shiva etc, Prophet Mohammad, Jesus etc
3. Mix it some philosophical mumbo-jumbo
4. Deliver it with Lots of Voice Modulation, Postures and Gestures

But nowhere have I seen any talk about concrete and structural change. They talk about how one should spent his rest of life in devotion and prayer, how one should respect the divine entities, how one should get detached from this world and related pleasures but nowhere they “lead by deed”. These gurus have life of Kings where they have Lofty Ashramas and Institutes, all the Luxuries that money can buy despite the fact that all this money is earn through teaching that calls for detachment from the material objects. Ironical but true.

This confuses me as what is the relevance of any teaching if it can’t bring any tangible change in life of others. In my opinion a true prayer should incorporate an “action tendency”. In other words every prayer should include some activity that helps in uplifting the downtrodden and provide help to needy. Any other form of prayer is just a “just verbal gymnastic” for me.

Similarly all those authors and writers who claim to bring out the plight of human race in eloquent manner are also useless group of intelligent people who use their knowledge to create different combinations of verbal utterances that means nothing except expressing something in which they themselves do not believe. They use their knowledge to label themselves as visionaries and all others as foolish and misguided lot who is too stupid to understand the deeper meaning of life and is fixated with acquiring comfort of life.
In my opinion both of these, gurus and Authors are criminals of humanity who not only waste their talent and time for “useless cognitive garbage” but also confuse and influence million of others by making them dissatisfied from their current form of “world view” without providing them any other practical and feasible “world view”.

To me, a true prayer involves bringing smile to the people who has nothing to feel good about and a true literature master piece creation occurs when something concrete and structural in put forward that can and should enhance the capacity of masses to feed, cloth and develop them.

Now the question is “what you think is right????”

May be TERRORISTS are not that Wrong!!!! Alternative Viewpoint

In a democracy, the popular method to ventilate and express your demands as well as your grievances has to be within the constitutional boundaries and thus has to be peaceful. The basic assumption behind this line of argument is that in democracy the constitution as well as the government is formed by the people themselves thus should be obeyed, even while disobeying them. Therefore, all the activities that are extra-constitutional and illegal (not according the prevailing law) are considered wrong and inappropriate.

However, it is nowhere applied that these laws and constitution are correct or representative of the desire of the masses (for example in the British India, the laws and constitution were present but they represented the colonial interests rather than the Indian interests). Similarly, even the laws representing the wishes of majority can also not be blindly justified as they may represent the tyranny of the majority and can be used to repress or even exterminate the minority (remember the regime of Hitler over Nazi Germany where the Jews were lawfully and systematically butchered).

On the other side what options does any group of people when the enemy they are fighting is a systematic, organized, well-resourceful and determined state power (for example, the zanzaweeds of Darfur, Sudan) except raising arms and matching power with power. In earlier times of monarchy that would have meant revolution/rebellion against the monarch but in the democratic times terrorism is generally used as a strategy.

In democracy, government is responsible towards masses and thus by killing civilians and destroying their property, so called terrorists attempt to create popular pressure on the government to listen to their demands and later to accept them.

Even in India, revolutionary terrorism was an integral part of Indian national movement which had moved the masses and pressurized the government. The revolutionaries had assassinated various government officials, killed various white-civilians, organized robberies and destroyed public as well as private property. As back then both the weapons as well as planning mechanism were not so advanced thus the scope of operations was relatively small. Apart from that, we were passing through a nation building process as thus the revolutionaries were not that much enthusiastically supported. On the other hand, the so called “Islamic terrorism” has better weapons and communication, resources, sympathy among the fraternity (though this sympathy may be unreasonable or is due to illiteracy and/or poverty or feeling of alienation but sympathy it is) thus their scope or grotesqueness of their acts is much more. However, the question remains what our own revolutionaries would have done or how would have they been portrayed by the British media, if they would executed their missions in contemporary settings?

Nowhere am I trying to justify the terrorist acts though I am trying to provide an alternative viewpoint. As on the basis of its etymology, one can say that “terrorism” means a systematic advancement of intense fear (i.e. terror). However, fear is not something which can be used in the same way as a hammer or a knife. Fear, roughly speaking, is an affective response to a pending state of affairs which one wants not to occur. In order to get this response, one has to apply fear-provoking means. Since one of the main (if not the sole) means for provoking fear is violence (or threat to use violence),

Terrorism in a narrow sense is: the systematic use of fear-provoking violence, perpetrated either by a recognized state or by private individuals, in order to achieve political goals. Now in light of this understanding of terrorism, all the state activities that systematically use violence for obtaining political goals such as maintaining or extending authorities or quashing the dissenting forces/voices can also be called terrorism. My question is that, what options minorities have in case of such state sponsored terrorism except meeting force by force and as they are less organized and resourceful thus this force gets directed either towards soft targets such as civilians or high valued targets such as poiticians or taj hotel etc that yields them highest psychological and strategic returns then the resources required.
An act is a terrorist act if and only if

1. It is committed by an individual or group of individuals privately, i.e. without a legitimate authority of a recognized state;
2. It is directed indiscriminately against non-combatants;
3. The goal of it is to achieve something politically relevant by means of fear-provoking violence

Thus all the “collateral damage” done by the armed forces to the innocent civilians residing in the conflict-affected area, on the name of law enforcement can also be safely concluded as “acts of terrorism” and if they are justified than so as the terrorists (provided their cause is just like the cause of revolutionary terrorists) but as there is no neutral, open, honest and fundamental discussion is taken on terrorism and the terrorist demands, this issue will remain unresolved.

Apart from that, if the J&K people are willing and are ready the die for their “Azad Kashmir” then what moral right do we remaining Indian have over them to keep them within Indian fold? The laim excuses of better future are not sufficient as since ages the freedom fighters have maintained that “Azad desh ki Ghaas ki roti is better than Paradhinta ki chupdi roti”. However, if Indian authorities believe that there are only handful of people who have their selfish motive in partition of J&K then why not they conduct a referendum (as promised by honorable pt Nehru in UN)?

In the end “one’s terrorist is another’s martyr” and the differentiating factor between both is not the damage caused or the moral stand but rather the victory. Victors are always martyrs and defeated people are always terrorists (even Gandhi was labeled as terrorist by Britain during the Indian national movement).

So what we need is open and honest discussion and equal treatment to all viewpoints rather than merely suppressing the voices that are inimical to “so called Indian interests”. After all India belongs to all and not to few.

I am 3, Transporter 3. (A caricature remix of Bond and Bourne)

First there was Bond, then came the Bourne(my personal favorite) which was later followed by our own "Transporter". The first movie as quite entertaining because of the normality of the plot as it was about a person who delivers,that to without any fuss. But from the second edition and onwards he idea started to lose its edge because of its superficial characterization of the protagonist and one line plots. Andthis is the point where Frank Martin (aka The Transporter)is different from James Bond as well as Jason Bourne. Therefore, transporter series comes out as a caricatured version of other similar movie series.

Now coming back to the current movie "Transporter 3", all one gets is an action flick with some cool martial art moves and some adrenaline pumping "car stunts" but nowhere the movie lift itself from being a mediocre action movie. Basically the problem with the movie is that it never answers some vital questions such as:

1. Who is this Frank Miller? What is his past?
2. Why he is doing all this transportation stuff, especially when he is being portrayed as a good soul?
3. Why the hell some odd goons trust him for some small package delivery especially when they seem very much capable and resourceful by themselves and given the past track record of Frank where he had proved himself as a "Black knight in shining Armour"?
4. Above all, how many times one can actually convert a single line plot into a full-length movie?

Our Frank Miller tries to copy the elegance, style and resourcefulness of Bond and hand-to-hand combat kills and doggedness of Bourne so as to better both. However, he falls short of both of these characters. So in the end we are left with a B grade movie that has been publicized as well as packaged like an A grade movie.

Indian versus International Movies

Let’s get first thing first and that is "Indian movies cannot compete at international level". It can not happen because international movies do not accept any commercial compulsions (at least not as rigidly as Indian movies) and thus stays true to the plot and basic premise and try for a realistic portrayal of its characters. However, Indian movies are soaking wet with commercial compulsions of our Indian cinema such as

• The 180 minutes movie length (so as to give paisa vasool to the public),
• Heroine (to bring sex appeal to the movie otherwise movie will labeled as "ekdum thunda") and amazingly a movie may get labeled as “Experimental” merely by the fact that it does not have a female protagonist,
• Love angle (not the little bit of romance rather full blown, in your face, absolutely clearly defined Love angle) but the makers somehow forget the basic premise of romance “subtler it is, better it is”
• A clear cut defined, all-evil villain (to allow viewers to project their hatred and frustration to a particular character and feel catharsis of their own violent urges while watching

Him destroying a good and settled person’s Life in the initial reels (we all derive a kind of pervert subconscious pleasure in witnessing pain and suffering, after all that’s why snuff is having such a hard-to-be-believed following)

Him getting destroyed by the protagonist, under the revenge-vendetta (we all are animals; basically, and thus have a violent streak in us. No denial to that)

• Making movies for utterly wrong reasons. Indian movie makers make movies not because they had found such a compelling and interesting story that should be told (in a commercially successful manner, off course!) rather for

Launching some star son or star daughter by showcasing all that he/she can do under the guise of a story and that’s why we have so many of unnecessary dance, action and emotional sequences in many of the movies

Making some easy money by making a scene by scene copy of some successful (not original/creative) movie under the guise of fancy jargons such as “remake of xyz” (used by the honest movie makers), “influenced by xyz” (used by those who still have some decency left in them) and “never heard of/viewed xyz” (used by the majority of these empty headed businessmen as they are not movie makers per se)

Showcasing some superstar’s rivalry with another superstar (I would love to place Ghajini under this heading)

• Apart form 150+ minutes movie length, 2 other compulsions are my personal worst-offs:

SONGS: I am not against having soundtrack but what really Pisses me off is the have a bizarre song and dance sequence, out of the blues, at most unexpected and inappropriate times. Again, this compulsion is so strong that merely absence of songs can make a movie experimental.

HAPPY ENDING: We Indian like to go home with leaving the movie behind, at the theater. After all, sweets are integral part of Indian styled celebrations and to an average middle class. family, movie watching (200+ Rs @person) is a kind of celebration

Now coming back to a our discussion that why Indian movies cannot compete at international level, I find there is one other reason that we are tied down to present and thus do not explore much of our past as well as probable future. On the other hand, international movies have gone up to 10000 BC and had imagined the future up till 4000 AD or so. This range of time had given them more flexibility as well as novelty when it had come to the stories.

So a nutshell if we have to ensure that people take notice of our moviemaking than we had to get rid of these compulsions and have to make ourselves more flexible and probing so as to dig new stories and have to think of new ways of telling them.

Any comments???

Ghajini: Memento meets Cindrella

In totality, it is a good movie. It's a movie that was not only successfully made but also successfully promoted. Though, there is always some anticipation associated with Amir's movies as most of the time he promotes the movie through many channels and for many days and Ghajini was not an exception. Since last one year, he had walked and talked about Ghajini. And as if it is not enough, he had offered a scheme along with the offer, "watch the movie and watch the newly chisled body of Amir for free". The movie was properly made and infact better made than the original Ghajini (which was overly dramatic in its treatment). The climax of the movie is different from the original one and is far better.

The new face of the movie, Asin, came as surprise package and she not only looked great but also acted nicely. The background score is well executed and is able to hold the mood as well as to engage the audience. However, the songs are too many and are at wrong times and except "Guzarish", most of them failed to create any lasting impact on the audience.

Now comes the action that is the greatest part of the movie and is thoroughly well executed. The action choreography was done brilliantly and was completely able to convey the anguish and frustration of Amir. The action sequences are well executed and for the first time (Ghulam can be treated as an exception) Amir looked convincing when he beats up a whole lot of bad guys that are too many and too big for man of his size. Amir had not only sculpted a good body but also presented it nicely on the screen.

However, the most entertaining and soul touching part of the movie was not the climax but rather the comic as well as emotional scenes between Amir and Asin. The soft, funny and soul touching Cinderella type love story of A business tycoon (Amir) and a gold hearted, beautiful looking middle-class girl (Asin) was so brilliantly written and executed that I felt that it had all the potential for a separate movie. However, the another Highpoint of the movie is that the way both sides and stories of Amir, pre and post the murder of his beloved, were told. The alternative narrating style was well executed and able to build suspense.

Despite all the good things I have written about the movie I am very sorry to say that "Ghajini is not Memento", it just cannot be. Basically Ghajini is just another love & revenge drama that has Amir in it. That is what the movie is and it never lift itself beyond that (though the potential was there). The only difference this movie has with other love and revenge dramas is that here the male protagonist is amnesiac. Sadly though, Amir acted below his standards and most of the time he acted as if there is no difference between being mentally retarded and being amnesiac. No Sir, they are not just one and the same thing. He had used too many stupid head moments and tilts, strange stares, acted unnecessarily confused and walk with abnormal gait.

The movie never attempts to explore the plight of an amnesiac. Only thing that it ever attempts to show that the male protagonist is suffering from anterograde amnesia that it gave Amir one or two scenes in which he forgets about his current past. Surprisingly, tatoos that have played an important part in the classic "Memento" are of no use in Ghajini, except for acting as an excuse to show how beefed up our Amir had become (come on Amir, stop this pseudo-rivalry of you and Sharukh, you are better than him even with both your hands tied down behind your back and a mask on your face).

Basically this movie has disappointing me more than anyone else as after this I had started to believe that Amir is more of interested in making movies that look different rather than being actually different, otherwise there could not have been so many holes in the script and treatment. All the time that he wasted on shaping up himself and subtly promoting the movie could have been utilised in making the movie more realistic and deeper (without actually losing its commercial value).

So, my verdict is, watch the movie for Asin and when you come back then rent "Memento", watch it and then calculate how high Christopher Nolan stands than A.R. Murugadoss.

One More Time Akshay goes to Alien Land: Chandni Chowk to China

I really don't know what had gotten to our producers, directors and stars as most of their time is wasted on promoting movie for things that are either absent or not actually worthy of promotion. CC2C is doing the same thing again. There is no problem in promoting a movie but what actually hurts me most is that these movies creates so much hype that every movie going soul becomes eager to have a "dekkho" and after their tryst with the movie before they can forewarn any of the other people, the movie collects a fortune and hailed as a commercial success. Now as you all know, our beloved Bollywood is slave of box office thus before the "janta" can say that what a bullsh*t movie it was, similar kind of movies will not only be announced but also will go on floor. this makes industry blind to good and experimental scripts and it keeps on churning out Hollywood's garbage with the thinking that our audience like this kind of movie.

Now coming back to CC2C, it is one of many travel stories in which Akki baba goes to Alien land to spread the "great Indian culture". In "Namste London", he went to London to rescue a confused damsel, in "Sinng is Kinng" he saved his friend from the clutches of organized crime and now he is saving a Chinese town from the wrath of a Villain named Hojo. What I am unable o understand is that why to set a movie in foreign location even if the same story can be told in India? Except making it sellable in foreign territories, I don't see any benefit whatsoever.

Apart from this the movie suffers from editorial negligence as at least 40-45 mins of movie could have and should have been edited to make the film interesting. In absence of that, after the initial 15 mins of movie, the movie becomes repetitive and boring. The main reason behind that they had put the same people (Akshay, Deepika, Ranbir and Hojo) in various situations again and again that too in a non creative way. Apart from that movie has only 3 main locations, Chinese village, Hojo's Hideout and the Great Wall of China. Same people in same locations with a one-line story, end product is a silly movie that takes itself very seriously.

Another Low point of movie is its songs as non of them is too hummable and are forgotten (along with the movie) as soon as one walks out of theater. Amazingly, the transformation and training of Akshay that has to be the highest point of the movie where audiences get connect with the anger. Frustration and emotions of the protagonist (remember ROCKY SERIES I-VI) is the totally non-happening last 1/2 hour where all of your hopes of compensating bad comedy with a good action, vanishes. So all I want to say is that all those who are looking for action, watch dubbed Chinese "kangfoo" (I don't know why Akshay pronounce kunfu as kangfoo?).

Actors like Ranbir Shauri and Mithun are completely wasted as their roles were stereotyped and boring. Deepika fought well and convincingly for a bollywood heroine but hers double role was a completely non starter and she could not impress me. Chinese Villain Hojo (Chia Hui Liu) was portrayed as menacing but nowhere he looked or acted that evil, even his martial art skills were neither explored nor used. Both Chia Hui Liu and Roger Yuan (Father of Deepika) are very good Martial artist but Alas! What a Waste?

Basically CC2C fails as a action movie also as most the stunts are "visibly wired" thus lacks authenticity. Above that, the camera work was not that good as most of the time it fails to convey the ferocity or skill level of the fighters. On the other hand, Akshay has limited talent for Action, Comedy and Acting and by churning out movies after movies he is over streching himself as well as his fan base. What he actually need is to take a rest and wait for a Script, a real script.

So my verdict is: Do something else but don't go to theaters rather I have a better suggestion for you, Watch Sita aur Gita/ Chaalbaaz along with a Chinese martial art movie (Snake in Monkey's Shadow is my pick) at the comfort of your home. I promise you'll thank me..

Life is Nothing without an Impossible Dream: Slumdog Millionaire

What is worse, being Poor or being labeled as Poor?

This movie explores this question though an innovative narrative style in which life of a slum dweller, Jamal is explored through a series of question and answers. The treatment of movie is realistic and it successfully conveys the adventures and plight of an intelligent yet resource depleted slum dweller. I am saying adventures because plight and misfortunes of poor people is treated as adventure by the privileged section of the society. Most of the movies try to glamorize poverty and had tried to portray poor and rich people in a way where all the humanity is ascribed to poor people whereas all the selfishness and evils are ascribed to the rich people.

This cliché representation of poor people had long pained me but “Slumdog Millionaire” had been true in its depiction of characters. Here you will instantly fall in love with the characters of Jamal, His brother Salim and his love interest Lathika. All of them are so real that you may even feel as if you have seen these kinds of people around you. Similarly most of the social evils related with poverty are so intensely told that they create both warmth as well as disgust in you.

Now coming back to movie, Anil Kapoor and Irfan are true to their character portrayal as the Game show host and Police Inspector and are able to invoke the relevant emotions. Anil is especially good as a host who never wants to share limelight with anyone except himself. The scenes involving his confusion when he vacillates between being good human by acknowledging the guts and talent of Jamal and his frustration when he realize that a slumdog is stealing the limelight from him are marvelous. These scenes depict the mentality of most of us who like poor and are philanthropic as well socialist but only till their own resource are not under question. This show our attitude towards poor that “I love poor but only when it is played by Sharukh Khan”.

The background score is good though I believe that it is not the best of A R Rahman but as long as it gets us international acclaim, I will not complain.

The Dev Patel as Jamal, Madhur Mittal as Salim and Freida Pinto as Lathika are outstanding. However, I liked the character of Salim more than Jamal as he portrays the true gray shade of humanity, neither pure evil nor pure Good. But I believe that Sanjay Manjhrekar as the mafia boss Javed was under utilized by the director as he could have deliverd more and better.

In the end we get a story that tells us about a gutsy and good being, Jamal who despite all odds, answers few questions to win his sweetheart from the clutches of Goons despite the fact that no one expect the commoners want him to win. It shows the snobbish attitude of the privileged class who never wants to allow a slum dweller to be a part of their society. However, the it’s the triumph of Jamal that restores an “Aam Adami’s” hope in future and thus makes his otherwise unbearable life, livable.

Kudos to Danny Boyle (I liked his “28 Days Later” also) for showing us our double standards and making Jamal win 2 million Rupees despite all Odds. After all “Zindgi Kucch nahi Ek Namumkin Sapne ke Bina”.