Phir Mile (Beep) Mera Tumhara

So, Phir Mile Sur Mera Tumhara is out, and nearly everybody has nearly unequivocally ripped it apart; but when somebody like KrishAshok tears into something, the funniest lines will have been written and the most appropriate analogies will have been drawn, leaving us less funny mortals to scrap for the residual raping rights. Anyway, the video has piqued me enough to unleash upon you unsuspecting readers another review.

There are two ways we can rate the new PMSMT- either by comparing it to the original MSMT, which we all acknowledge is an outright classic, or by critiquing the video itself. But as Linkin Park will inform you at 200 decibels and 300 words per minute, in the end it doesn’t even matter. The video- running an incredibly long 16 minutes- has its moments, but all the good work is undone by the halo effect, according to which we allow our impression about one aspect of an object to spill over to all other aspects; so the few priceless moments in PMSMT are overshadowed by nearly 12 minutes of unadulterated drivel. Allow me to elaborate.

1. The Intro & other good bits

The video started like a dream- Rahman playing a melodious classical piece on a snazzy little continuum keyboard, followed by Bachchan Sr kicking off the verse in front of the Gateway. Honestly, the start couldn’t have been better. The scene shifts to a beach where Shankar Mahadevan arm-twists the tune Hariharan-style, with Loy and Ehsaan smiling broadly and playing the keyboard and guitar respectively. Impressive, but would’ve been better if Ehsaan wasn’t frozen on one chord and Loy turned the volume up a notch.

Everybody who actually sang or played an instrument was good (with the dishonorable exception of Sonu Nigam and Bhupen Hazarika)- Pt.Shivkumar Sharma, Ustad Amjad Ali Khan & Sons, Ustad Zakir Hussain, Shreya Ghoshal, Yesudas, Bengali contingent, Gurdas Mann, Unidentified Marwadi Singer, the rock band, etc. Kavita Krishnamurti/y/hi/hy and co. were good too, but why were they in the middle of a forest? And why did L.Subramaniam’s son have to do the arms wide open thing? Subramaniamji, please call pest control and exterminate all traces of Shahrukh Khan from your house.

2. The Tamil bit

If you ask me what the best part of MSMT was (even if you don’t), I’d instantly say –and this has nothing to do with my Tamilianness- it was Balamuralikrishna walking along the beach singing his Isaindhal bit with a host of Tamilian celebrities ranging from Revathi and Kamal Hassan to Ramesh Krishnan and Srinivas finger-up-my neighbour’s-nose Venkataraghavan listening obediently. The way BMK intonates at the final Namm Isai still gives me goose bumps.

Circa 2010- Two well-rehearsed, well-dressed, well-exercised Tamil actors- Vikram and Surya- replace the balding, ugly, black patch-on-face BMK who just happens to be a fantastic singer. What we want to see of course is two actors, who probably need 25 takes to give a passable expression, charming us with their signature chest thumping and arms-wide-open poses while lip-syncing to a singer who discovered just yesterday he had a vocal cord. I’ll never forgive him for raping the final Namm Isai.

3. Bollywood ladies

MSMT had Sharmila, Tanuja, Hema, Waheeda, Shabana and probably one or two others mouth one line and vanish immediately. This time around, we have lengthy individual bits with the talking point being, as you must already know, Deepika being dragged out of her bed for the song because of which the poor girl couldn’t even wear a pyjama. So sad. The ladies’ bits were like having the trailers of their next films playing back to back. But I still fail to understand, why Deepika? Why Shilpa Shetty? And it was all so artificial, especially Aishwaxrya Rai making soft eyes first to the overhead electrical cables and then to the ants on the floor of the bus.

4. Shiamuck and Shobana

This bit was, well, hmm, let’s see…I can’t do justice to it- stop all current activity and head to KrishAshok’s blog. What he says is so true!

5. 2/3 Khans

It was nice to have a segment on sign language for the deaf and dumb. But was it really necessary to have a celebrity sitting in their midst? Why not have the caretaker of that lovely school instead? And if they had to use Salman why couldn’t he cover himself up? Yes, yes Salman, we know your biceps and chest are the only things visible from the moon- but this is a video on national integration, not a concert where you measure the cubic centimeters of saliva shed by the female folk. And besides, why caricature yourself? We laugh at you anyway.

And Aamir, O Aamir, he whose quality control sieve would not allow a fake moustache to pass through ,agreed to fuse Aati Kya Khandala and Mile Sur Mera Tumhara? The tune was bad, out of sur with the song, and had the kids –the object of that piece- languishing in the background while you-the savior of the tyrannical education system- take centre stage. Looks like Ghajini really hit you with that rod the other day, which is why you come up with names like Phunsuk Wangdu and now this.

4. Sonu Nigam and the super heroes

So we are 13 minutes into the song and have already ODed on Bollywood; the song is already on the edge of the precipice with one foot over the edge and the suicide speech into its 13^th minute- time for a Bollywood-style rescue and a classic finish? Or a kick to the butt and subsequent freefall? The latter. The wrecker-in-chief is Sonu Nigam, who tried to look hep in is new hairdo but was really George Harrison-meets-poodle. The man has a lovely voice and doesn’t need to wohohowohoho like the anti-talented Anu Malik. Anyway, that was the least of the problems considering what was to follow.

Sonu sings for Messrs Shahid Kapoor, Ranbir Kapoor, and – drumroll- Shahrukh Khan who are present at an empty stage, an arbit hilltop in an arbit jungle (unless it the place YSR’s copter crashed or Veerappan entertained his hostages, I don’t see the significance of the location), and the magnificent Worli Sea Link respectively. The problem with this segment was that the tune was raped beyond salvage, neither Shahid nor Ranbir merited a place in the video, and SRK did his arms-wide-open ™ again. As KrishAshok said, if Gabbar was alive, “he would take those hands and spare us all.”

5. And finally

After 15 minutes of B/K/M/Tollywood and seeing varieties of celebrities in varieties of clothes with a variety of postcard backgrounds, our sportsmen and women possessing mediocre credentials such as Olympic medals and World Championships make a slideshow appearance- many of them were actually running in the video- symbolic perhaps of their running to the producers to find a place. The video was wrapped up with a token few seconds of our Armed Forces- the guys directly responsible for every breath we take.

6. Conspicuous by their absence

MSMT premiered in 1988. In the ensuing 22 years, what have been India’s biggest stories? A liberalized economy characterized by the blossoming of first generation (NRM), second generation (Ambani and Ambani), and nth generation (Ratan Tata) entrepreneurs; a demi god felling people around the world with a piece of blunt wood and going by the mysterious initials of SRT; a couple of tennis players who collect Grand Slams like SRK collects Filmfares; the Green Revolution attaining critical mass; and a scientist and visionary par excellence who also happened to be the most loved President of India- a post which, till then, was just the fastest way to collect frequent flyer miles. But none of these icons have made it to the video because, come on admit it, they have ungainly pot-bellies and cannot do a rockstar impersonation like Shahid Kapoor can.

7. Final thoughts

Sequels are rarely well-received; especially when the original is still so fresh in our memories. Probably a 15-year old who has been watching Friends and Aaj Tak ever since he’s learned to flush the toilet will like it; for people like me who grew up with DD, it’s impossible to watch the video without bias; so I didn’t try. When you call the song Phir MSMT, you had better be prepared to stand up to comparisons. The old video had celebrities sharing screen space with each other- not only did this save time but also symbolized unity in a way. The celebs were only part of the picture and you could almost not notice them at times (I only recently realized it had Om Puri). The aam aadmi mouthed a number of lines- who can forget that Malayali on the elephant singing Ende Swaramum or the Bengalis milling out of the train with Tomar Sur Moder Sur playing in the background? PMSMT sadly needed a recognizable face for every segment, and every celeb needed exclusive air time; no Amitabh-Jeetendra-Mithun style camaraderie here. I wouldn’t blame the celebs for this- Mile Sur is a legendary video, and nobody will turn down an offer to be a part of it; hell, even Aamir agreed!

Moreover, MSMT was crisp at 6 minutes and even though it featured a number of languages, the flow was beautiful- you always knew you were listening to one song. Here, there were too many breaks- total breaks; it might as well have been 8 different songs some engineering kid merged on Windows Movie Maker on a lazy Monday morning. The only perfect transition was Zakir Hussain-to-Bengali group; that was well done.

I’d say shoot the damn video again; let AR Rahman and Amit Trivedi compose it together so that we can at least shut our eyes and listen to a good song.

Breaking News Update- Raj Thackeray has threatened to pull all posters of the song off Mumbai’s walls and ban its release. His party objected to Marathi being featured in the 12^th minute and getting only an 8-second coverage, a gross underrepresentation for a state that contributes 15% to the national GDP. When he was informed the song began in Mumbai and featured the sea link, and that the song had no posters and was released on TV, the MNS, in an official reply said, "Jai Maharashtra".

Wheel of Fortune

Hindi vs India?

A few days back - after a really long time - I saw an excellent debate on NDTV about Kapil Sibal's controversial 3 language formula that seems to have rekindled old anti-Hindi passions. Now, being a 1980s-born guy, I haven't had first-hand experience of the anti-Hindi agitations in the 1960s. I do know Hindi was to become the sole official language in 1965, and I also know there were large-scale protests against this, especially in Tamil Nadu. For those not in the know, Kapil Sibal has proposed that schools adopt a three language formula, with English and Hindi as two of them. Though the matter has been extensively debated and written about, I feel compelled to put my two cents in. I'll beat around the bush a little first and come to the formula later.

Hindi and National Integration

When Vallabhbhai Patel set about integrating 562 kingdoms and numerous provinces into what we know today as India, our leaders were keen to identify, and establish, opportunities for national integration. This was a time when secession from the Union was a very real threat, thus prompting the likes of Nehru and Gandhi to try and integrate the country in spirit, and not just politically. This, and the urge to uproot all things colonial, spurred the efforts to replace English with an Indian language. Gandhi pushed for Hindustani -the utilitarian blend of Hindi and Urdu- as the national language. Even Rajagopalachari was in favour of establishing Hindustani as the national language. Nehru, the eternal democrat, proposed that linguists evolve a simplified version of Hindustani that South Indians could learn with ease.

Post-partition, however, the Jana Sangh and other Hindi groups pushed for the 'purification' of the language by ridding it of its Urdu influences. Eventually, after the violent protests in Tamil Nadu in 1965, Lal Bahadur Shastri, himself an advocate of Hindi, permitted the use of English alongside Hindi for conducting business in India. In addition, states were left free to conduct their business in the language of their choice.

Circa 2009. Apart from secessionary tendencies in some North-Eastern states and J&K, India is largely a united nation. While the motive of designating a national language made sense in a volatile and brittle post-partition India, the current obsession with establishing a "common link" stems from a puerile notion of national integration. National integration is not about making Tamilian children learn Hindi, teaching Malayalis to do the bhangra, or forcing Gujaratis to eat maacher jhol. National integration is about tolerance; about peaceful coexistence of culturally diverse communities; about every Indian acknowledging every other Indian an equal citizen- an ideal I think India has achieved (with the caste system and occasional riots as notable exceptions).

Isn't it better to have Hindi rather than English as the universal language of communication? At least it's not a foreign language.

No. When you have 22 national languages and want to make one of them the sole official language, efforts by one language to assert itself will obviously be seen as one-upmanship. This is exactly what happened with Hindi. In such an environment, it's best to let the language of global commerce stay as the language of communication within the country and let the regional languages develop and spread to other parts of the country through cinema and literature, which Rajnikanth and Bollywood do with tremendous success.

English is the undisputed language of global commerce, and hence the ultimate functional language, as most panelists in the debate agreed. Those who cite examples of France and Japan perhaps don't realize that a lion's share of our GDP comes from services, and that's thanks, in no small measure, to the urban youth's knowledge of English. So all the "foreign language" sentiment against English fails in the face of practicality and convenience.

Sibal and the three-language formula

Kapil Sibal, the poster-boy of radical education reforms, mooted the idea of teaching children three languages, two of which should be English and Hindi. The first pleasant observation is he understands knowledge of English is necessary; the second pleasant observation is the room given to students to learn any language of their choice; the third observation is what's causing all the hungama- why Hindi?

Hindi, as an early critic of the Hindi movement said, is just another regional language. It is the most-spoken language in the country, but is by no means a language of the majority of the country. It does not even serve a functional purpose; so it is absolutely pointless for a child in a remote Tamil Nadu village to learn five paryayvaachi shabd for 'elephant'.

A common grouse among all Indians is their inability to communicate in the southern states. Shouldn't there be a language all Indians should speak? Doesn't it give us a national identity? Yes, there should. No, it doesn't. It will be nice if a Haryanvi can communicate freely in Kerala, but it's not the government's business to decide what that language should be. Anyway, are things really that bad? Some people in every state do know Hindi and English, and I've never heard of anybody unable to survive in an Indian state because of a language problem. And about national identity, isn’t our national identity the multitude of languages? Isn’t it something we boast about to the firangs?

The three-language formula, stripped of its specifics, is an excellent proposal. It is a great idea to teach children two Indian languages. It is good not only for their individual development, but also for giving regional languages a pan-India appeal. I know Sibal is not a Hindi hardliner; he just has a misplaced notion of establishing linguistic uniformity in a country that takes pride in its linguistic diversity.

For me, the best way to structure the three-language formula is to let the children learn any 2 Indian languages. I have absolutely no doubt many parents will choose Hindi. But if a Kannadiga family is living in West Bengal, it might want its children to learn Bengali and Kannada- something the current formula does not allow.

Finally, as Mukul Kesavan said in the debate, there is a difference between learning a language and being literate in it. People watch Hindi movies and understand rudimentary Hindi without knowing the Devnagri script. That should suffice. Must every child in the country be able to read Premchand and Maithili Sharan Gupt?

Microscopy 101

The Probabalistic God

Let me confess at the outset that my practical knowledge of religion is limited to what I see around me and what I have experienced in these 23 years. Most of my notions of God are a result of these experiences and of my contemplations on the subject. In addition, I have been influenced by Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion, Stephen Hawking’s The Theory of Everything, and Klaus Klostermaier’s A Brief Introduction to Hinduism.

I’m sure most people of my age would already have contemplated about religion, and most would’ve made peace with their faith or the lack of it. So, if you think most of what you read is clichéd, please consider this a personal diary that I feel like baring. This post is, not surprisingly, very long. I've added some pictures for relief, but with the hope that they don't trivialize the issue.

What we all know

We all agree that God as a subject has been debated for years now, and will be debated for many more without a logical conclusion. As we all know, the closing line in all such debates is, “It’s finally down to your faith.”

I don’t know about you, but for me, faith is based partly on reason, so I can’t just “feel” my faith; it’s something I need to decide- especially if it’s about faith in an entity that we cannot see; whose presence we assume; whose influence we consider all-pervading; who is considered the ultimate Chief Justice, Scientist, and Engineer; and whose identity depends on the average of each man’s religion.

Most of us have had a religious upbringing and understandably so, because until recently there was very little ammunition available to the doubter in us. In fact, by the time we’re old enough to be inquisitive, we begin taking God and his existence for granted. Even those of us who contemplate know that we can never conclusively disprove God’s existence just as believers can never conclusively prove the same. Read this masterpiece about Russell's teapot. This is where faith (a euphemism for gut) steps in.

Our gut is heavily influenced by our early experiences, which are almost always pro-God. The existence of an omnipotent God also seems intuitive when we are young, because we look at our bodies, at the marvels of nature, at stars and the Sun, and realize that there must really be a super-intelligent being designing all this. All those who don’t read or hear about Charles Darwin and the history of the universe have very little reason to believe that our bodies are not God’s handiwork and that the universe is not created by God. But even among those who believe in evolution and natural selection, there are those who believe that our daily lives, our future, and our every action are governed by God’s will, and are judged by Him. How can we ever defend or contest this?

The problem with prayers

Many believers in God believe prayers have the power to help them achieve an end that they might not have been able to achieve otherwise. Even if they agree that their prayers are more an expression of hope than a demand for action, they somehow feel praying helps them. Now this is the ultimate Russell’s teapot. How can you ever prove or disprove the power of prayers? Whether you are a believer, an agnost, or an atheist, you will agree that not all prayers are answered. For atheists, the reason is simple- since God does not exist, why God does not answer some prayers is a non-question. But how do believers explain unanswered prayers?

Believers believe that some prayers are not answered because of God’s will, where as non-believers believe that prayers that are answered are pure strokes of luck. Non-believers use this selective answering of prayers as one of their proofs against god; they ask: Why are some sincere, well-intentioned, and desperate prayers unanswered? I came up with some possible answers for this question, and one of these answers gives this post its name. The answers:

The sincere believer’s answer (my assumption)

Because this is how it was meant to be. God doesn’t always give you everything you want; there must be a good reason why your prayer has not been answered; maybe God has better plans for you. Just have faith.

My answer

Well, this is not really an answer but something I was contemplating and found appealing. If God exists, I don’t believe He has a supercomputer to process all supplications and allot receivables to each stakeholder according to merit. It’s easier to imagine God being a little inefficient, and thus He doesn’t answer your prayer because it is still enqueued in Wishamp.

An alternative explanation that I found appealing is that God doesn’t decide the final outcome of the prayer and what each stakeholder in the prayer should get in the end. He probably just tweaks the probabilities in favour of the person praying, and thus if your prayer is not answered, it just means the probability has not worked in your favour. For example, if you roll a die praying to God that you get a number between 1 and 3, God might just bias the die against 4,5, or 6 so that the probability of your winning increases from ½ to 3/5. You might still lose the game, but your prayer has not gone unanswered. Thinking about God this way naturally leads one to wonder how much influence God has over these probabilities. Will more fervent praying bring the probability closer to 1? On the other hand, is it possible that God works within the realms of probability and the laws of nature, and thus has no real power to tweak either?

The other problem with analyzing prayers is that they are often not object-oriented. In fact, true devotees will tell you that it’s selfish to pray for something specific, and that we should pray regularly without a selfish motive. The problem is, the benefits of this genre of selfless prayers are tough to ascertain, unless we can create a parallel identical universe where we can test the consequences of not praying. For most believers, benefits do not matter because the process of praying gives them a contentment and sense of fulfillment that make prayer-analysis and stupid calculations of probability irrelevant. I cannot, and will not make an attempt to, shake this belief in prayers- people are entitled to indulge in whatever makes them feel good irrespective of their truth-value.

Destiny vs. God

The trade-off between destiny and God has always puzzled me. Most believers in God also believe in destiny, which essentially means they believe what happens to us is part of a grand cosmic plan that has been written at the start of time (the “honi ko kaun taal sakta hai” school of thought). So if you believe in destiny, and you also believe in God’s power to make things happen, it means you believe God can alter destiny. If you don’t believe that, praying serves no practical purpose. The problem is, since none of us knows our destiny, we can never conclusively prove God’s ability to change it- this lack of knowledge is the ideal breeding ground for all manners of faiths and superstitions such as wearing rings and amulets, and performing pujas and havans. But most believers nowadays don’t consider destiny sacrosanct; they know astrologers’ predictions are fallible, and use destiny only as a crutch in times of distress, which I think is pretty fair.

The What-if believers

There are those who believe in God, but do so mainly because they are unsure of His existence. These people pray because if He does exist, why take a chance? After all, it just takes a few minutes of our time every day or every week. Till very recently, I counted myself in this category. But as I started contemplating and reading more on the subject, I felt less and less sure about God’s existence.

Why I have almost pulled the shutters down on belief

Multiple Gods

The things that make me most unsure of God’s power are the multiple identities of God, the friction between these multiple identities, and our belief that He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. When we say God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, whose God are we talking about? Are there many o-o-o Gods fighting for this space, or is there only one God, as we all claim? We all know different religions originated at different points in time. Are the Gods of these religions avtars of the first God thus being consistent with him in some way, or were the new Gods free to expand their reign and challenge the authority of the existing Gods? When a war is fought in the name of religion, is it actually a proxy war between two Gods? That is, are Hindu-Muslim riots actually cosmic duels between Allah and Ram? And what of intra-religion warfare like the Sunni-Shia conflicts?

One God

And if there is only one God, how does He tolerate a Hindu leader masterminding a riot against Muslims because of a suspected Muslim hand in the burning of a train? How does He tolerate one group of Muslims branding people of other communities infidels, bombing them, and getting away with it? How does He tolerate one group of Christians printing lewd material about Hindu Gods, and in return how does He tolerate Hindus raping nuns and razing churches to the ground? How does he tolerate Bhindranwale’s men firing shots on the Harmandir Sahib, and subsequently tolerate some people calling Bhindranwale the eleventh Sikh guru? How does he tolerate men being executed for blasphemy, women being stoned to death for defying His strictures, and women being abused and assaulted for going against Hindu “culture”? If in these moments of crises, especially in crises caused by clashes over His identity, God can do nothing but watch people die and property burn, will we be wrong in assuming that God is just a figment of our imagination? And that if he does exist, he has little influence over what happens on earth, and is really just a slave of nature and of man’s perception?

The Last Word

I think imagining a world without God makes things simple. Things happen because circumstances make them happen, and each of those circumstances arise because of other sets of circumstances. That some of these circumstances coincide and lead to a particular event can be either due to human design or due to the vagaries of luck. Thus, if I walk out of my house today and get run over by a car, it’s a purely random event caused by the chance presence of the car and Akshay at the same point in space-time. It’s not because God intended to end my innings on earth and begin the driver’s behind bars, and facilitated this eventuality by finishing my stock of shaving cream and forcing a baaraat through Road A so that the driver had to use the road I was crossing.

God might exist, and I really am not as much concerned about the fact of His existence as I am about the power we think He wields. The notion most people have of God is of a friend, philosopher, and guide; of a hope and an inspiration in times of distress; and of a gentle, compassionate, and all-embracing entity. This notion is sustainable and harmless; and it doesn’t depend on the existence of God. The Calvins of the world need their Hobbes. It’s only when people start killing each other and doing other crazy things in the name of God is one forced to think whether the whole fuss about God is worth it. I don’t think it is. I don’t think a person with an atheistic upbringing in atheistic surroundings will ever feel the presence of or be able to visualize a power that is watching every step he takes- in other words, he will never need or miss God. If God exists and is reading this post, I want to assure Him that I am not disrespecting his role in making people’s lives better- it’s just that till I am completely convinced of his powers, I prefer to follow my gut and stay an agnost. I’m sure God will excuse this temporary suspension of belief.

I have a lot more opinions on this subject, but they have been articulated so beautifully by Richard Dawkins, that writing them in my own words here seems pointless. This post might sound very immature and even laughable to many believers. The fact is, these are my current thoughts on the subject, and I am far from convinced about them. I hope to read a lot more and either stand firmer on my ground or shift to the believers’ ground a happy man.

Knee-jerk Reactions