Photograph - Flows like a river

More than halfway through the film, Rafi's grandmother asks him if their impoverished and difficult life in rural UP was devoid of laughter. Perhaps not - she frequently refers to his smile, indicating a childhood that had its share of happiness. But as an adult, making a living as a photographer at the Gateway of India in Mumbai, his desire to come out of his economic deprivation and perhaps also emerge out of his rural background is so intense, he seems to have lost the ability to laugh, to seek happiness.

Miloni has been raised by her middle class parents with a clear mission to excel academically. They are ruthless in this pursuit: there are to be no distractions; happiness and pleasure could come later. And she doesn't disappoint, topping her CA foundation course and well on her way towards "success". But she is conscious of the prison that her life seems to her and longs to find a world outside the prison. She expresses this longing in one of the most endearing moments in the film: she is meeting a prospective husband (organized by her parents because he has good "prospects", living as he is in America) and in response to his question about where she would like to live, she says she wants to live in a village, farming and taking mid-day naps under a tree.

This apparent contradiction in what each wants out of their lives is shown with great subtlety through an incident in a taxi. The taxi driver is from a village not 40 miles from Rafi's village. While the taxi driver is fondly narrating a story to somebody he thinks his own, Rafi rudely cuts him off. It is a past that Rafi clearly wants to leave behind. But it is a future that Miloni looks forward to.

The dreamy eyed Rafi wants to start a cola manufacturing company. And Miloni disowns her past by not accepting it is she on the posters that advertise her academic excellence. They are moving towards their own destinies. But perhaps in so, they could also be moving away from each other.

Louis Malle's Humain, Trop Humain

I would often get frustrated with mechanically going about my daily routines at work. My efforts to spice things up by dreaming up novel ways of doing things has paid off sometimes, but also back-fired at other times. Nevertheless, mechanical work always made me sad.

On the other hand (and quite contradictorily), I would look at animals and the (seemingly mechanical / instinctive) way they would go about their lives and understand the uncluttered way of their lives. I always thought most animals in the wild are graceful.

Watching Malle's Humain, Trop Humain has clarified this apparent contradiction for me. Humans can go about their tasks mechanically, and yet be graceful. Somehow, accepting the way of life and living it without comment, in a sort of dispassionate way, can make what I would have thought mundane and abhorrent quite graceful. Malle's tremendous respect for the the lives of ordinary people portrays the most mechanical of work (in an automotive plant) appear graceful and makes the viewer respect the people performing these monotonous unthinking jobs. Come to think of it, intelligence and thought can only take us so far. It can't make us do work. And without doing work, we can't be healthy individuals. Work has to have the quality of mechanical and monotony (what may also be called rigour). It is impossible for a person to just think. That would just make one a dreamer and one day you find 10 years have got behind you.

So, there. I need to accept some aspects of daily life to be monotonous, mechanical. Especially, at work. And perform them without comment, dispassionately. Just like buying weekly groceries.

"The Bicycle Thief" is not depressing

Inspite of touching me deeply with his helplessness, Antonio Ricci in "The Bicycle Thief" is a hero, fighting for his and his family's survival. And thats why the film doesn't bring me down or depress me. Though there are many other films are based on the subject of human misery, I dislike watching films that underplay the heroism inherent in all humans. Life is cruel and unfair, but humans (and all life) are heroic in their struggle to survive. That heroism is what makes a film memorable and enduring.

Dialogue in Cinema
Bhopal, Nov 2006

“Most film dialogue seems to have been interpolated for the sake of clarification. It is a false approach. Dialogue is a part of the theme and reveals character. For the real theme is the person, whom dialogue, picture, situation, setting, temperature and lighting all combine together to depict. The world is one whole”
- Jean Renoir

Why I wanted to work at S3IDF
Hyderabad, Dec 2006

My interest in seeking a role with S3IDF is a result of beliefs that have been shaped by my experiences, observations and reading during the past few years. It is only in recent months that these beliefs have assumed an urgency of action prompting me to seek a role with S3IDF. I will describe the pertinent thoughts below.

It is generally believed that large-scale enterprises competing in the global economy hold the key to poverty alleviation. However, due to a large number of Indian poor being agrarian in remote, rural areas that are a long way from being part of the global economy, it will be impossible to effectively address poverty unless large-scale enterprises are complemented by strong self-sufficient local economies at the level of district and below. By definition, self-sufficiency requires local economies to be powered by small-scale enterprises that are run by the poor for the poor. And since the whole becomes stronger when the parts are strengthened, strong self-sufficient local economies strengthen national and global economies.

It is disappointing, however, that projects aimed at developing small-scale enterprises in rural areas don’t attract sufficient investments. I am confident, though, that rural people are both capable and willing to participate in operating such projects and using the services they offer. V. R. Krishna Iyer, in his efforts to establish minor irrigation and electricity projects in Kerala, insisted on people’s participation and labour, “which came voluntarily and abundantly”. He writes, “This productive contribution was largely drawn from the local villages, which gave the people a sense of possession and gram swaraj … rural youth can play a substantially creative role”. To quote a Chinese proverb, “Tell me and I'll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I'll understand”.

While I am convinced with the soundness of the above thoughts in principle, I am aware of the limitations under which they are formed – lack of exposure to the poor and rural environment. Having been brought up in middle class urban environment and worked in protected IT parks solving business problems several layers above basic human needs, the problems of the poor and rural people appear clear and solutions easy. I would like exposure to the poor and rural environment so that my thoughts can be moulded by direct contact with the issues they address. It is an intellectual pursuit as well as a pursuit for meaning in my life.

Being part of the S3IDF team, the most important personal objective I would achieve is having direct exposure to the rural environment. My project interests, in line with my beliefs, would be to build small-scale enterprises that can feed off each other and contribute in the construction of self-sufficient local economies.

Thoughts on gated communities
Hyderabad, 2006

I came across an article in ‘The Hindu’ titled, ‘The Tale of Two Cities’ that talked about the poor-rich divide that is growing steadily into geographic separation of the city of Chennai. The poor are being relocated out of some localities to make them more attractive to investors. What struck me was not the relocation itself but the fact that we want to blind ourselves to the existence of poverty. The development of real estate in Bangalore and Hyderabad drive this point home. Apartment complexes, office spaces, shopping malls, etc. express our innate desire to model our environment after the developed countries. There remain a few grievances, though – the corridors that separate them, the roads, remain Indian. Link them with elevated highways and that just seems to complete the illusion of living in USA. By building these pleasure domes and barricading ourselves from the have-nots, we are not only blinding ourselves to the rampant poverty around us but also making the polarity between the haves and have-nots all the more visible. By building palaces, we are not only showing our new found wealth but are highlighting the condition of the poor. We could just be making ourselves more vulnerable. In the past, such polarities have been leveled by way of revolutions – not always peaceful.

Until about 10 – 15 years ago, most of us were apathetic to the state of our country and people. But the crucial difference is that there were very few rich and there was no visible polarity among the others. The middle class lived beside the poor. The poor were not shooed away, nor did the middle class build palaces. With poverty largely visible, there was a possibility for affirmative action. By cordoning off ourselves from poverty and blinding ourselves, we are eliminating what little chance there is for affirmative action.

Ardh Satya and the Art Cinema, Commercial Cinema debate
Bhopal, Sep 2006

I haven’t seen many Govind Nihalani films. I saw Drohkaal during my college days, which I liked. After a break of nearly a decade, I watched Dev. It was a sensitive subject, brilliantly handled by Nihalani by means of a taut script and sensitive portrayals. A couple of years later I had time and opportunity to watch Ardh Satya.

Ardh Satya starts off without preamble. Though it is disconcerting, it makes its intentions clear – its paring-down of the plot, story, environment, people, etc. to the absolute minimum, a conscious effort to de-dramatize. All three Nihalani films that I had seen are essentially police stories. Drohkaal and Dev are about terrorism and communalism. In Dev, the characters’ views towards communalism and the ensuing violence are clearly defined and firm. The theme is examined and illuminated by incidents and debates in the narrative. By showing different perspectives and by means of the story itself, Dev aims to put the viewer in a position of introspection. The evolution of characters is absent and irrelevant to the film. Contrastingly, Ardh Satya’s theme is the protagonist’s struggle to harmonize his thoughts and actions. Ananth Welankar, the protagonist, is repeatedly put into situations of conflict between thought and action, his moments of truth (MoT). It is not until the closing frames of the film, the last few seconds that Ananth finds redemption. In his biggest MoT, he is able to cast-off his ‘Napunsaktha’ (cowardice, in this context) and performs an act of courage. By surrendering himself to the police and face the consequences rather than bail himself out, he tilts the balance firmly in favour of ‘Paurush’ (courage). Nihalani exercises tremendous self-restraint in de-dramatizing this pivotal moment. In fact, it is as though he was getting late for his dinner and therefore, wrapped-up the movie in a rush. It is over even before you realize it.

The movie is memorable because we can see ourselves in Ananth. Our beliefs and thoughts constantly challenged by reality and compromised in the interest of self-preservation. We all have our MoTs and our actions are not always in harmony with our beliefs. We jettison our beliefs in the interest of self-preservation. Ironically, we lose our “self” in the process to become just another among the crowd.The script of Ardh Satya is a live wire – never swaying from the central theme, brutal sometimes in not providing a respite. The locations, settings and characters are realistic without any artifice. The acting is fantastic. Om Puri is colossal.

Ardh Satya is classified as an art film. I don’t know what an art film is. I can understand westerns, comedies, tragedies, etc. What is an art film? There can only be good films and bad films. The talk of commercial films vs. art films is quite baffling. Every film director wants his / her film to be seen by people – be commercially successful. Even the “art film” directors. Some directors make movies confident (oftentimes misplaced) that their film will be a commercial success. Some directors make movies with hope that it will be commercially successful. The difference is conceit in the former case and humility in the latter. Not commercial and art. Ardh Satya is a great film. If it wasn’t commercially successful, the reasons could be numerous – but certainly not because it was an art film.

An extract from ‘The Discovery of India’ by Jawaharlal Nehru (1944)
Hyderabad, Aug 2006

“The independence of the United States of America is more or less contemporaneous with the loss of freedom of India. Surveying the past century and a half, an Indian looks somewhat wistfully and longingly at the vast progress made by the United States during this period, and compares with what has been done and what has not been done in his own country. It is true no doubt that the Americans have many virtues and we have many failings, that America offered a virgin field and an almost clean slate to write upon while we were cluttered up with ancient memories and traditions. And yet perhaps it is not inconceivable that if Britain had not undertaken this great burden in India and, as she tells us, endeavored for so long to teach us the difficult art of self-government, of which we had been so ignorant, India might not only have been freer and more prosperous, but also far more advanced in science and art and all that makes life worth living.”
I was really touched by this longing for things to have been different, for India not to be subjugated, for her to be free of colonialism, and become prosperous. This longing was shared, I am sure, by many people born in pre-independence India who strived for her freedom, and who in their passing have left their dreams for us to live. 59 years since our independence from British colonialism, I wonder if we are living this dream of a free-India, striving for prosperity and happiness of our people. Or have we long abandoned them, stashed away at the bottom of our bourgeois existence.

Where do we go from here?
Hyderabad, Dec 2006

4 billion years of events and circumstances have abetted in enabling our existence today. Given the low probability of this confluence of favorable conditions, many of us consider this more than chance. It is as if God or some unknown, all-powerful entity has shaped events thus, having had a clear vision of today all along. Evidence corroborates this, for none of the events – celestial or terrestrial triggered – appears to have occurred with the actors’ fore-knowledge of the consequences, nor was it a result of their choice. It was not out of choice that an asteroid collided with earth 65 million years ago. Nor is it earth’s awareness of the effect of Milankovitch’s cycles that it obeys them (read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovich_cycle).

For the first time however, actors shaping the future have a choice. Not a choice to make it better or worse – which in the final assessment is complete irrelevant – but purely a choice to shape it, one way or another. We, the human beings inhabiting earth, are aware of the consequences of our actions, and in a position to choose. One could contend that our development thus far, our scientific achievements and social development, were in a broader sense pre-ordained and we are inexorably moving towards a future that we don’t have control over. Nevertheless, we are certainly cognizant of the nature of this future and its implications for us and planet earth. It is my sincere belief, however, that we DO HAVE a choice. Watching a game of cricket convinces me that we HAVE a choice. It takes talent, mental toughness and enormous discipline, but I am convinced these qualities abound in many individuals who can and will influence the affairs of the world.

We have had awareness of the consequences of our actions on our immediate environment for several hundreds of years – consider the opposition to coal burning in medieval England. However, it was only in the past few decades that this awareness has become a subject of active discussion, among scientific as well as non-scientific communities. It is only in the past few decades that the impact of our increasing population, green-house gas emissions, environmental plundering for petty commercial gain has become evident (read ‘The Weather Makers’, by Tim Flannery).

So, for the first time, actors shaping the future of planet earth have choice, and awareness of the consequences of these choices. Are we going to make a conscious choice, fully aware of the consequences, or are we going to continue our unthinking inexorable journey towards an unsustainable future and possible extinction?