Desicritics Opinion

Why Does Ragging Happen?

Freya — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:49:35 EDT

I have never been ragged. In Mumbai, thankfully, many colleges either have Anti-Ragging Squads or the seniors are really good people who just mind their business. In my college too, there's no ragging and seniors are real sweethearts. I once ended up in a third year classroom by mistake, but still they all were very nice to me and neither did they tease or bully when I realized my folly. But that's another story.

The recent news of a 19 year old boy named Aman Kachroo who succumbed to the severe injuries inflicted upon him by his drunk seniors doesn't shock me. This is not the first time someone's killed due to ragging. The authorities of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Govt Medical College are trying to pass this off as a suicide case which makes it sound more heinous. I'm sure that either the seniors boys involved here mostly come from rich families who can silence the authorities with their money or the authorities are trying to just protect their image. So, when is this going to be stopped?

Ragging is a part of college-dom. Every college prospectus says that "Ragging is strictly prohibited". But how many colleges actually have no ragging? Very few.

I would first blame the college authorities. It is their college and the students belong to it. Strict steps should be taken against ragging of any form. In residential colleges, there should be more than one warden for every dorm. If possible, they should have separate dorms for juniors and seniors. Alcohol should be banned and there should be raids in dorms regularly. I have studied in a residential school myself and though there wasn't much ragging, bullying surely existed. I had some senior friends who used to proudly boast how they gave "treatments" to their juniors.

Next, I would blame the parents who don't believe their children or don't care. Most parents who have sons have this habit. They have the "ladka-hai-toh-sambhal-lega" kind of attitude. When it comes to girls, parents become overprotective. I say, stop idolizing your male children as supermen. THEY ARE NOT! Males are definitely more physically powerful than females but when 5 grown-up boys or even 5 girls attack a boy who's equally grown up, he cannot definitely do a Shaktiman there. Now, how do you expect your sons to protect themselves?

I cannot blame the first-years much. Though they can do something to protect themselves like forming groups of students who complain the same thing and demand an explanation from the administration. Sadly, there is a different kind of student politics in every institution. There are so many colleges who don't care what's happening or just ignore whatever is happening. There are still parents who think of their children(boys, especially) as superhuman. Only the tormentors can stop what they do. Senior students should be matured enough not to behave in this fashion. They needn't be godfathers to their juniors but at least think about their own future or their conscience which can prick them later.

Poem: Only The Light

Kashkin — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:42:31 EDT

Absent and not in view
The golden words of our past
Still there, an old craving to explore
Only in view, the shackles of time
The separation of days from its demise
As I write, to form a soul
Of once that was, now a dream

As I labor to turn,
The old wheels of fortune
In the land of my ancestors and poets
Only the words I have
At my disposal and at my service
As I rotate with the earth and its burdens
Through labyrinth of time and space
Not guilty my conscience and my soul
Of all my crimes, still there some peace
Always in debt to serve, in tattered clothes
The land up in smoke and in fury of hatred

When will you awake, from this slumber?
Of mayhem and of shames,
What will you do to these traditions of past
The murderous routines and ghastly crimes
The future is yours, belongs it to you
Only the steps, you need to take
Silence is a crime if you chose to remain
In surrender to the desires of the world
The glory will come, only if you refrain
From these acts of crime, to your land
Plenty of enemies in view but it's within
Distinguish it well, as there it remains
The clues to your success and dreams

Hold it well and keep it close
The memories of your past
The promise of the future
Shine, my friends, shine
As it is in there you will find
The story of your being and its land
Do not wait or hope for others to come
Summon your souls and bodies to perform
The miracles of change, the miracle of unity
It's time for you to form a soul
Still there, an old craving to explore
In shackles of time and despair of days
Only the light, only the light, in your fate

A Letter to Our Neighbour

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:34:27 EDT

With a sense of deep foreboding, I am observing the same old story repeat itself again in Pakistan. The attack on the Sri Lankan Cricket team, the situation in Punjab, the corruption allegations, the threats from the military, the chatterati returning to their old way of thinking that its the military's or the rotten politicians' fault or that Pakistan needs Jinnah again or blaming Zia or needing Allah.

And this opinion is, by and large, found across the spectrum. Always the easy way out, reaching for the army!. I am reading messages which seem to say that President Musharraf was better than the existing leadership. Or it would be good that the current Army Chief should step in or when would be a good time for them to step in. But no, that’s not going to work. Here’s a question. Zardari is a corrupt man. So? What are your choices? Tell me an available choice that means that in 5 years time, you will have a better state?

It does not matter if its Zardari or Sharif really. What I am trying to say is that you have to stick with your leaders. Who are on the second rung? Have you seen your Nazims? How about the third rung of leaders? Say the chaps who are in University right now? Who will be the leader making decisions in your old age? Or for your children or grand-children?

What kind of politicians and leaders are you creating and developing? Look at your political landscape! It is shattered, but it is the only one you have. Stick with your civilian government and try to improve it rather than replace it, because you tried replacing your governments so many times before. Every time you replaced a government either through that silly Doctrine of Necessity or through a coup or what have you, the leader turned out to be not what you expected.

What else do you expect? That you will have messiah's? That somebody will drop down from Jannat to lead Pakistan into the heavenly kingdom? No Sir, I am afraid it wont happen that easily. You have to work hard - very hard indeed starting with tiny steps. Very small steps, which mean trying to improve things little by little and yes, having faith in your democracy. You have an elected government, work with it. Try to improve it. The Army is not meant for governing but is meant for security purposes. If the army is going to govern, will the politicians fight? A rather silly notion!

Don't give up, neighbours, keep on working, keep the army where it belongs, namely in the barracks, not in your parliament or in your municipal corporations. You also do not want to do regicide. I know there were 4 sessions where you had BB and Sharifs alternating in ruining your country, but that does not mean you let the army back in. It just means that you try for a while longer so that the politicians improve. Allow the 2nd and 3rd rung of leaders to start moving up into positions of influence, so that you can improve the political system.

But the sheer amount of cynicism? Come on, folks, life is tough enough. Instead of moaning and whining, try your best to think positive about your country, who else will?

Why Do Political Dynasties Flourish?

Sandeep Bansal — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:19:02 EDT

I came across a nice article on the Political Dynasties around the world. While in India, we may sulk about how our Politics has been captured by a few dynasties who continue to rule us, this isn't a unique phenomenon in India alone.

George W. Bush got elected as president eight years after his father left the White House. This is the second instance of American history of a father-son presidency. Kennedys remain as the most famous Western political dynasty.
Former U.S. vice president Al Gore’s father was a senator, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's son was a Cabinet official under Clinton and campaign manager for Gore. Teamsters Union president Jimmy Hoffa's son is now filling his father's shoes in the same slot.
Makiko Tanaka inducted as Japan's foreign minister some 25 years after her father was premier.
In North Korea after the death of President Kim Il-Sung, his son Kim Jong-Il became his successor in 1994, thereby creating the communist world's first dynasty.
After the death of Syria's President Hafez al Assad, his son Bashar became his successor.
South Asia has proved the most fertile ground for political dynasties. Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal all have a resilient tradition of electing dynasties to the top office. Take Nepal, for instance. After the recent massacre of the entire royal family, the king's brother took over. Prime Minister G.P. Koirala's two other brothers were prime ministers as well — the only instance of three brothers serving in such high elective office. Sri Lanka started its tradition in 1960 when Prime Minister Solomon Bandranaike's widow, Sirimavo Bandranaike, became prime minister. Now her daughter, Chandrika Kumaratunga, is president. Bangladesh will see the coming electoral contest between two iron-willed women, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, daughter of President Mujibur Rahman, and Khaleda Zia, widow of President Ziaur Rahman.
India's Nehru family is probably the world's oldest democratic dynasty, now spanning four generations, producing the only team of grandfather-daughter-grandson prime ministers, ruling for 37 of India's 53 years as an independent state.
In Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was prime minister during 1971- 1977, and his daughter Benazir was elected for two stints as prime minister during the 1990s, the first woman from a Muslim state to head a government.
In the Philippines too, dynastic politics is quite widespread -- President Gloria Macapagal is daughter of a president, and political dynasties dominate local politics so much that there have been demands for laws against these dynasties.

Even in India, its not just the Congress that has been indulging in dynastic politics. Omar Abdullah is just 38 but he became the Chief Minister even though there are many senior leaders in the party. Similarly, elsewhere Karunanidhi has been grooming his younger son Stalin, the Patnnaiks in Orissa, Shiv Sena, Dev Gowda's JD(S), RJD in Bihar are no different. Even in BJP, son's and daughters of several leaders like Jaswant Singh, Vasundhra Raje Scindhia, Yedurappa and Pramod Mahajan are being promoted. In Congress, besides the Gandhi dynasty there is the Sandeep Dikshit, son of Shiela Dikshit; Ashok Chavan, son of late SB Chavan;Deepender Singh Hooda son of Bhupinder Singh Hooda. The list goes on.

The three reasons for this that were given in the article were:

Money
Political connections
Public recognition and thus easy Acceptability from the public

Access to the political system in most countries is costly in terms of money and only those who can afford the time, money, resources and have the requisite connections find an entry into what is often an exclusive if not closed club. Political lineage buttressed by money helps facilitate that entry.Bush, Gore, Tanaka, Macapagal-Arroyo fit the bill for what can be termed as politicians from Establishment families, with enough credentials due to a famous political surname to ensure a place on the political pedestal.

Then there are those who are respected for rendering services to their country during crucial periods, such as an independence struggle — hence, their legitimacy is unquestioned and widely accepted. The Nehru family in India, Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma, Megawati Sukarnoputri in Indonesia, Hafez al Assad in Syria, Kim Il-Sung are some examples from this genre. Finally, there are those whose leadership is etched in the popular imagination, and for people to identify with such a charismatic leader comes almost automatically.

Bhutto, Bandranaike, Peron of Argentina, Ziaur Rahman and Mujibur Rahman in Bangladesh, the Kennedys in the United States all were populists with charisma, which is then sometimes "transferred" to their scions and close relatives.

By and large, these reasons are logical. Moreover, these reasons not only explain why such a large number of political dynasties exist, but also explains why such a large number film stars and sport stars have made it to political offices. They satisfy two of the three conditions - Money and Public recognition.

South India is famous for its film stars turning into politicians and Chiru is the latest one to join that list. In north India, we have Shatrughan Sinha, Vinod Khanna. Rajesh Khanna, Dhamendra, Amitabh Bachan, Govinda, Sidhu, etc. Even in the US, we have Arnold who is now the Governor of California.

But there is a major difference between India and US. US has a presidential form of Govt. and hence the president is directly elected by the people. Moreover, his term is restricted to two. Also, there is complete inner party democracy in US. In India, the leader is elected by the elected representatives and there is no limit on the number of terms. This ensures the hold of dynasties. And if someone tries to raise the issue of dynasties, he/she is instantly thrown out. For example, Sharad Pawar was shown the door in Congress. Maran was also recalled as a Union minister by the Karunanidhi.

So unlike popular belief, dynastic politics isn't the real issue. The real issue is lack of inner party democracy. Dynasty and Movie/Sports stars shall continue to play major part in democracy everywhere, whether we like it or not.

The Catholic Church Once Again Proves It Cares More About Dogma than Humans

smallsquirrel — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:27:29 EDT

A shocking report out of Brazil details the saddening situation of a nine year old girl who was repeatedly raped by her step-father. The young child became pregnant with twins, and her mother decided that the best thing for the child was to have an abortion.

When the Catholic diocese of Recife, Brazil heard of this act, the Archbishop excommunicated the doctor who performed the procedure, the team that assisted him and the mother of the assaulted child.

The stepfather, who committed the brutal raped and impregnated a child was allowed to remain in the church.

To add insult to injury, Archbishop Don Jose Cardoso Sobrinho added the following statement: "A graver act than (rape) is abortion, to eliminate an innocent life."

This whole situation proves to me that the Catholic church is much more interested in rhetoric and dogma than it is in the physical and spiritual well-being of its parishioners. They have offered no support to this child, this horribly abused and now physically and mentally broken child. But they will publicly pass judgment on her. And yet they take no stand against a man who is a pedophile and a rapist. The church need not change its views on abortion, but in extreme cases such as the well-being of a nine year old child, it is perhaps appropriate that they remain on the sidelines. Or maybe they could offer counseling to the family. Something, anything other than criticism, rhetoric and hateful judgment.

In my eyes it does not get more depraved and disgusting than this. This act by the Archbishop is not only indefensible, it is also inexcusable. The church is supposed to be a refuge for people to bring them closer to God. It is not meant to stand in judgment publicly and turn an already bad situation into a heinous media circus.

And perhaps not surprisingly, the Vatican has decided to stand behind the decision of the Archbishop. Not really newsworthy, as it recently defended the Holocaust-denying Bishop, and reinstated him into the church even though he continued to espouse anti-semetic and generally offensive views.

The Catholic Church has sunk to the lowest of the low.

Northern Ireland : Peace Will Prevail

Vijay Sappani — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:42:10 EDT

The recent attack on soldiers in Northern Ireland is a shameful act of terror that is motivated by sheer hatred to divide and create a rift between the Protestants and Catholics, who have learnt to put their past behind them and live in peace.

The immediate reaction of the public is an example of how societies should learn to adapt and develop learning from the past. Thousands of them have taken to the streets against the criminals and people on both sides of the fence are united in their fight against the detractors whose only goal is to break the civic harmony that now exists in N.Ireland and create havoc.

The "defiance and determination" of people to "stand up to the evil of criminal violence" is the begging of the end of those who pursue violence as a means to communicate their grievance. The resilience seen among the people of Northern Ireland to oppose the hatred feelings of a select few to return to their violent past should be an example to civilian population in Middle East, war torn Africa, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Kashmir and many other regions affected by violent conflict.

Nothing can be achieved through violence and nothing can not be achieved through peaceful negotiations. You just need to try enough and be patient. Let us not forget that the biggest hero's of the world are Gandhiji, Mandela, Martin L.King, Dalai Lama, Aung suu Kyi and not the self proclaimed leaders of groups that use violence including state leaders of Iran, Sri Lanka, Burma, N.Korea.

We can not predict the future, but if we can learn from history, then we know what has worked. Peace will prevail in N.Ireland because the people are smarter than the terrorists and they will not fall to their trap - again. Never.

Poessay: Honesty and Trust

temporal — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:01:07 EDT

San's favourite phrase once used to be 'to be honest...' I would wince and say under the breadth "wohi tau" in the acerbic tone of the actor in the sit-com 'office office'.

Why must honesty precede with vocal reaffirmations? Are we less honest without such declarations?

Or are such 'warnings' part of some nefarious truth in advertising or packaging guideline revelations?

Truth has a way of penetrating armour. It does not need a preamble nor a warning. We can feel its piercing pain if it is unpleasant (which it mostly is).

Have you noticed when things do not affect us directly we can afford to be brutally truthful? I call it the BSS - Bitch-Slut Syndrome. (according to the narrator one who sleeps around is a bitch, but if she does not sleep with the narrator then she turns into a slut.)

And when there is a remote chance of it affecting us or a person dear to us than we embellish it with sugar coats. Like David Frum in that essay in the Newsweek where he wanted to bash Rush Limbaugh and blast him into space: but being Barbara's son he stepped around that ardent wish. Oh, he may be a drug addict, philanderer, has several failed marriages, jets in a private plane, is obnoxious, irrational, overweight, but he has a voice and we must respect it as one of the several voices in the republican fold.

We mention rationality, justification, weather, conditions, considerations doing the amazing tap dance on needle head to reveal the truth while trying not to upset ourselves or another person.

***

janay kaun dekhay ga
muskurati aankhion
kay chalakhtay aansoo

(who'd witness
the downpour
of smiling eyes)

Drop by drop, they fall, and morph into layers of disregard...mingling, partying, disappearing, re appearing, fading in euphemisms of memories labeled as past...distant or near...

I wrote reappearing...as in mujh se pehli si mohabbat m'ray mehboob na maang

Is the lover demanding it? Or is it the flutter of heartbeats ignited at a chance encounter with the past lover? A flicker of flame that was once a fire?

But as Faiz continues:

aur bhee dukh haiN zamaanay meiN muhabbat ke sivaa
raahateN aur bhi vas'l ki raahat ke sivaa
mujh se pehli si mohabbat meray mehbub na maaNg

There are heartaches aplenty (in the world) other than those of love
There is peace and joy aplenty other than the ecstacy of love
Don't ask me to rekindle that love, O Love

To be honest, agar maaNg bhee lay tou bura kiya hay. Dil ko achcha lagay ga. [tr: to be honest, even if the lover is reminiscing about lost love it has a nice feel about it.]

Trust me!

All Visitors are Gods, But Some Visitors are Higher Gods

Vinod Joseph — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:23:23 EDT

Recently, an Indian I know suffered verbal abuse of a racist nature at a public place in the UK. Commiserations from friends and well-wishers flowed in. Amidst all the support and handholding, which were all on the usual lines (not every Brit is racist, it’s the recession which makes people so nasty, don’t let a sicko disrupt your life), one comment stood out and set me thinking: ‘We (Indians) treat these people so well when they come to India.’

My initial reaction was to agree with that comment. I could think of so many instances when I used to work in Mumbai or study in Bangalore when I have gone out of my way to help foreign visitors. I have taken detours so that I could walk visitors to destinations they had trouble finding. I have spent valuable minutes answering questions in painstaking detail, questions on everything ranging from why Indians defecate in public to why Indian trains are usually late.

My initial reaction was buttressed by this blog post by Peter Foster, one-time Telegraph reporter based in Delhi who has very recently moved to Beijing with his family. In his post, Foster tells us of a recent experience in Beijing where an old man saved his life (from his kids) by doing some carpentry work for free. Foster goes on to wonder if he would be just as helpful to a newly arrived Chinese immigrant in London asking him for help in broken English.

So, on the fact of it, one gets the impression that Indians and other Asians and possibly even Africans are very helpful and friendly towards foreign visitors whilst nasty westerners are not. But is this true? Is this the full story, the whole truth?

How do Indians treat illegal Bangladeshi immigrants in India? You might well say that an illegal immigrant does not deserve any respect or warmth. Fine (though throwing them out of the country without even the semblance of a trial is not, in my opinion, the right thing to do), let’s look at the case of Nepalis in India. How do we treat them? I have known restaurants in Colaba (Mumbai) which has a small floating population of working class Africans, treat poor African customers shabbily (the treatment Indians reserve for servants) and at peak times, even turn them away. African students in India are frequent targets of racist abuse as are people from India’s north-east.

Arabs are legendary for their hospitality, (force) feeding their guests even after they say No, even when they don’t have enough food for themselves. Hospitality is supposed to be a duty and a matter of honour. However, this hospitality rarely extended towards the hundreds of thousands of Indian, Pakistani, Nepalese, Filipino and African workers in Arab lands.

In short, the fabled Indian or Arab hospitality is restricted to prosperous, white Western visitors. This phenomenon can be seen throughout Asia.

Bhutan is a country which strives for Gross National Happiness rather than GDP. However, it has always treated its Nepali-speaking population as second class citizens even though Nepali migration to Bhutan started in the beginning of the 20th century at the invitation of Bhutan’s rulers. Many Nepalese have been forced to leave Bhutan for refugee camps in eastern Nepal.

After the Chinese revolution, the Chinese government gave scholarships to African students to study in China. As elaborated in this article, the Chinese government’s enthusiasm for Chinese students was not shared by the Chinese populace. African students in China were frequent targets of racist abuse. Hatred towards African students was the focal point which helped galvanise Chinese students into organising themselves, which ultimately led to the student demonstration at Tienanmen Square.

Foster is right in saying that if a Chinese immigrant speaking broken English looks for help in London, he is unlikely to receive the sort of assistance which Foster (speaking broken Mandarin) received in Beijing. However, an African immigrant in China is unlikely to get more any help than a Chinese or Indian immigrant in London.

Prosperous Singapore, Hong Kong or Japan are no better than their poorer Asian neighbours in this regard.

I am not for a moment saying that a coloured person in the West who is the victim of racism doesn’t have the right to protest. However, Asians treating White people so well and treating other Asian minorities and Africans so shabbily, is a manifestation of the racism that is so deeply entrenched in the Asian psyche. In my opinion, if Asians can learn to treat all their visitors with respect and dignity, (rather than treating a few select ones as Gods and feeding them till they burst), if Asians can bury their prejudices and work with poor African countries in improving their common lot, they will be able to deal a death blow to racism.

If the World Becomes Colour Blind...

Hardik Ruparel — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:53:19 EDT

As the day passes by, the spirit of Holi seems more and more distant from me. Even more distant than the sun itself. I can see the sun and I can feel it. But I really cannot feel the spirit of Holi today.

Maybe Liverpool thrashed Real Madrid, and India did the same to New Zealand, but still today seems so gloomy. The colors on my face just seem to be another symbol. And I hate symbolism. I hate it when we wear headgear as a display of symbolism. I wear a cap because I protect myself from the sun.

Nothing seems to alienate me from the thought (or fact ? ) that the world is spiraling downwards. My friends here in college play around with water and colors as they know nothing. But it's hard to believe they're so ignorant. It's becoming harder to find a reason to smile. It's so hard to believe the world has come to this.

The (so-called?) God we pray to has become the basis of hatred amongst each other. In the common room next to my room, some students do their Namaaz 5 times a day diligently. I don't understand what they're saying. It sounds beautiful. I stand in awe, listening hard, wishing I could understand them, their message, and tell the world how great they are. But then these students walk past the common room. They scoff and they laugh "Terrorists. "

I fail to believe what just happened. Have my ears defied me ? Should I trust my ears or should I trust the people ? I do not know. I fear to think what's the truth.

We haven't progressed much from the Dark Ages. We just don't execute and kill people the way they used to. We're not any more humane than they were. We're just some generations below them. Do we really think we're civilized enough ? We still think, imagine, in our hearts, how we could punish people that we don't like. We hate to admit it. But it's true.

It's true and the world has only gotten worse. Technology has done it's part. Before we could love each other and eradicate diseases like communal hatred, we've found myriad ways to destroy each other.

On such complicated days, nothing seems to cheer me up. Not even good jokes. They only bring a smile. Or probably two. I go back to my magic, and my deck of cards refuse to vanish like they should when I wave my hands ( I don't yet have a magic wand...)

I look around and see how colors have made a difference in the world. Skin colors from white to brown to black to yellow. The colors of things around us influence us. Thanks to The Discovery Channel, I know that colors play a major part in our personality, society, development and hence communalism : Orange, Green, Yellow, Blue and the Red.

That brings me to imagine a day we all woke up to be colorblind. Would we still discriminate against each other ? On religion, color, race, sex, minorities, political parties and other interests ? What if all our lives lost color ? Would we be distressed enough to forget our differences ? Or would we get further enraged and kill each other with nuke bombs ? Would we realize that color actually had no importance and meaning in our lives ? Would the European countries be able to distinguish one flag from the other ? Or would we use our memory to record which object was of which color and continue living pretending that we still saw colors ?

Pretense has been one of the most important factors for survival in this world. I'm sure someone would've said this :

"Shit happens. Just pretend it didn't and get on with life."

If nobody has said it before, well it was just too general and accepted a fact to be even stated explicitly.

Today literally has no significance to today. All we can do is go back to our lives and look at the simple things in life. That brings me to the age old question asked by so many wise men and women:

"Why are we here?"

And I say we are here to enjoy the simple things in life that delight us. For me it's chocolate. Chocolate has helped me resolve many a strife, and many internal disturbances. Chocolate is one of the biggest motivation factors for me. I'm off for a bar of Cadbury's. Happy Holi.

Mira Nair, You Are Clever!

Freya — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:27:13 EDT

I never got the opportunity to write about Slumdog Millionaire since I wasn't fortunate enough to see the movie, though I saw a few scenes. There was so much controversy when high profile people like Amitabh Bachchan and Arindham Choudary and the slum people were all against Slumdog because it portrayed India in bad light. I would just say there's nothing called bad and good when it comes to portraying something or somebody. Nobody can deny that Danny Boyle portrayed India truthfully. Naturally, all the controversy disappeared when the movie was picking up awards everywhere and our own Rahman and Resul won the coveted Oscars. Nobody had anything to say against it even though we all know that Rahman won because Danny Boyle took it. Jai Ho! was definitely not Rahman's best work.

Anyway, the point here is not that. But related to it. Since Slumdog released, so many people who were against or for it started comparing it with Mira Nair's Salaam Bombay! Asking why that didn't win any Oscars and why wasn't there a hype like this etc etc even though we know the reason- Mira is Indian. But after the Oscars, Salaam Bombay! got a whole different attention regarding the slum people who acted in it. Hearing what Boyle did for child actors Rubina and Azharuddin, the new question arose, what did Mira Nair do for her actors? Nothing great, it seems after that certain rickshaw-driver who acted in Salaam Bombay! 21 years ago expressed his grief. Now, Mira Nair with her films about to release certainly does not want bad publicity. So, what do we see here, fellas? Salaam Bombay! is getting re-released! Yes, according to Nair, it will release across the country tentatively in May.

"For the film's release" she says, "we will be bringing together everybody who was a part of the film all those years ago, including the kids. We want Salaam Bombay! to be seen by today's youngsters who might have never see the film."

True, I never saw it. It was released before I was born. But is that the real reason, Mira? I don't think so.

Nair talks about how she planned to share the profits of the film with the street kids, something which apparently didn't happen 21 years ago and she's decided to do it now. With Shobaa De writing about slum kids, Slumdog and Salaam wherever she could, Nair is unfortunately left only with this option. Mira Nair, you are damn smart.