Desicritics Author: Roshan

Only For People Like You - Visiting The Udaipur City Palace

Roshan — Fri, 26 May 2006 03:51:14 EDT

Udaipur is perhaps the most charming city in Rajasthan, with its picturesque lake and quirky winding lanes. Like most big cities in the state, it also boasts a lovely palace that has been converted partly into a musuem and partly into a swanky hotel (or two, as in this case). But unlike Jodhpur or Jaisalmer or Jaipur, the Udaipur City Palace is also an unabashed money-making mela. You are charged Rs. 25 just to enter; Rs. 150 to use your camera; the musuem tour costs Rs. 50; the boat-ride Rs. 150; the Crystal Collection Rs. 300...and so on. Fine, so they want to charge separately for each part of the palace, that's ok, be it exorbitant or not. But what about the Rs. 25 just to enter when every thing you'd want to see has its own charge anyway?

Well, apparently, the Rs. 25 can be redeemed if you buy something in one of the stores or in the restaurants or cafes of the hotels. So, in the evening, after a pleasant sunset boat-trip to Jagmandir Island (Octopussy's women-only haven in the James Bond movie) and some fruitless attempts to photograph enormous bats as they flew under the full moon, we strolled over to the Sunset View Terrace to get a drink and redeem our Rs. 25. A polished suited-and-booted steward greeted us at the entrance and informed us that the money was only redeemable on a full meal and not a drink.

I see, we said. But the full meal was too expensive for our backpacking budgets so we gave up on our Rs. 25 and began to walk way. Half-turned around, I looked over my shoulder and asked the steward what the purpose of the entry fee was, given everything else also had their own charges.

"Well, you see, sir, it is to keep out the public", he said.

"What do you mean?" Now I turned back to face him.

"The palace is a heritage property, sir, and it's very important to preserve it accordingly so that" - he smiles ingratiatingly - "people like you can come and enjoy it. For you, I'm sure paying Rs. 25 is nothing so we do it to keep the local public out. Otherwise they will spoil the place."

How the 'local public' would spoil the place, he didn't say. As my blood began to boil, I wondered if it isn't the 'local public' who have the greatest claim and right to the palace, to their heritage? Why should tourists be allowed to tramp all over the grounds but sons of the Udaipur soil be discouraged from soaking in their own magnificent history?

Is it any wonder then that today's youth seek out Western culture when we impose ridiculous apartheid-like constraints against embracing our own heritage?

Why Do We Go Cuckoo In Mourning?

Roshan — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:33:11 EDT

So Rajkumar unfortunately died of a cardiac arrest this evening. And people all over Bangalore have taken the opportunity to express their grief with some good old-fashioned bus burning, vandalism, and general holding of the city to ransom. Many shops and offices closed early today in anticipation of vandalism, although the official reason given was 'mourning'. The Karnataka government has endorsed this mourning for another two days. Two days to mourn the death of an actor - not a Prime Minister or a freedom fighter or a Nobel Peace Laureate, but a man whose claim to fame was that he was really good at pretending to be other people.

Let me say also that I'm annoyed because I drove half an hour across town to get something I really wanted, only to find the shop closed. Later, a family gathering to commemorate my grandmother's 20th death anniversary had to called off because it wasn't considered safe to be on the streets of Bangalore tonight.

He's an actor, for God's sake. Yes, I know he's revered and beloved by millions in the peculiar way we Indians have of conferring Godliness on people who act for a living. I recently wondered why we don't allow even our minor celebrities any chance of a normal life. People commented that this isn't restricted to India, and that the paparazzi culture exists everywhere. Which is true, but at least the rest of the world doesn't literally worship its celebrities.

Regardless, even if your hero has died and you're overcome by grief, then cry or wear a black armband or hold memorial services or quit eating something you love for a while. But burn buses? Threaten to destroy shops? Vandalize the cars of people going around minding their business? What kind of insanity is that?

The Movie Star Goes to the Movies

Roshan — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 01:20:22 EST

A relative of mine recently went to see a movie in the company of Urmila Matondkar. This is how it goes:

- Tickets are reserved by phone and kept at the ticket office.
- The star must arrive after the show begins - forget about watching previews - dressed as inconspicuously as possible, and is ushered to her seat.
- The seat itself is the one closest to the exit, in case of a fire alarm or any other need for a quick getaway.
- During intermission, the star is not advised to leave her seat.
- Towards the end, she gets a tap on the shoulder and is escorted to the exit during the final scene. - She is whisked away the moment "The End" flashes on the screen, and escorted down to where her car has been informed to wait. No walking through the parking lot or standing out front waiting for the driver to bring the car around. Rather, the driver has been informed already and he is there waiting with the engine running.
- She gets in and the car heads off at once, probably just as the end credits are fading away on the screen inside.

The whole experience was quite stressful, according to my relative. But why does this happen? Why do all these precautions need to be taken? Because the actress is always in danger of being mobbed if she appears in public.

Yet, let's face it, Urmila Matondkar's Rangeela days are behind her. She is, at best, a B-list movie star. But if even she has to go through such protective measures to simply watch a movie, what then is necessary to protect the superstars? Can Amitabh Bacchan ever go watch a film in a theatre? Or Shah Rukh Khan, Aishwarya Rai, Abhishek Bacchan, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Sania Mirza, Rajkumar?

Stardom comes at a huge prize in this country and, on the flip side, there are many benefits to being unknown and just part of the crowd. But what is wrong with us as a people that we do not let those who entertain us have a normal evening's entertainment themselves?

Can, say, Oprah Winfrey or George Clooney walk down a street in Los Angeles without being mobbed? I wonder...

Hooked For Life

Roshan — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:13:39 EST

"...even today, each time I drive past an oval and notice a game in progress, I'll slow down to make certain I see the bowler deliver the ball with enthusiastic anticipation to a batsman who has equally ambitious aspirations, as the fielders hover with intent...There's nothing like it, the excitement of the unknown. Once it seduces you, you're hooked for life."

With this, Steve Waugh ends his excellent autobiography, Out of My Comfort Zone. I know exactly what he means. Whenever I pass a game of cricket, in a field or a village or a school ground or even on the street, be it in Bangalore or Ladakh or Arunachal Pradesh, I can't resist stopping to watch an over or two. If I'm going past in a car or auto, I turn and follow the bowler with my eyes until he delivers the ball or until the game is out of sight.

I had never thought of it before in the way Waugh writes, but he's spot on. As usual.