PhD - Passing with High Difficulty?

About a year ago, when I read about Kamal Hassan being conferred a PhD by some random university in Chennai, I felt that the so called custodians of the Indian education system (most of them ex-convicts or politicians; well they are actually one and the same) have tampered with and squeezed enough profit out of undergraduate education through engineering colleges that they are now targeting the doctorate degree for their next butchering act (poor Masters, nobody cares about it). And now when I read about Vijay, I was reminded of a very bad pj that my friend used to tell when we were in 3rd or 4th grade - "What is Phd? Passing with High Difficulty." That is precisely what the acronym has been reduced to. I wouldn't be surprised if I don't hear about Ajith being offered one soon (after all, the thalai can never be lagging behind the thalapadhi). So as this burlesque act continues, like a uncontrolled nuclear reaction, the PhDs will multiply and eventually destroy the system.

So what does it take to earn a PhD in India - act in a few movies? Maybe I could digest this parody if the movies that we are taking about here were at least original. But that not being the case, (90% of the movies are being made are rehashes of English or still worse, Tamil movies) what did these so called experts in the art of movie making create to be worthy of the highest academic degree. Maybe the actors associations (Since most actors are owners of some Engineering college and are also affiliated with one of two political parties, actors associations are synonymous with legislative assembly/parliament or the Directorate of Education) got together and thought "well, we cant win Academy awards with the kind of movies we make, lets honor ourselves with something that a Kurosawa, Nicholson or a Bergman don't have - a PhD".

Well, to all my friends who are still slogging it out in research labs solving differential equations and developing inventory models to obtain that coveted degree, I really really feel bad for you, because I am taking off to Kodambakkam to get my PhD in...Copyrights Violation?

East or West, India is a land of snake charmers at its best

I saw two ads on cable TV today (Vitamin Water & Tanqueray Rangpur) on different channels within a span of 20 minutes and interestingly enough both featured India, symbolized not by the Taj or the Himalayas, not Gandhi or Aishwarya (supposedly the two most recognized Indians in the world) and definitely not the sprawling IT corridors of Bangalore or Hyderabad. India was proudly represented by the antediluvian images of snake charmers and their pets showing off their latest moves. I would have had a good laugh had the ads shown a call center in Bangalore or Noida.

So what is it with the West and its perception of India as a land of magic, swamis, snakes and most bizarre of cultures and spiritualism. Is the West oblivious to the developments that have taken place in the country over the last 20 years, from becoming the services hub of the world to housing R&D centers for global leaders like GE and Intel and becoming the twelfth largest economy in the world in that process (with a GDP growth rate of 9.4% in 2006-07)? Or is it just a blurred vision of a few that keeps reinforcing the stigmatic images of the country that was made popular by BBC shows and the Indiana Jones adventures? A third possibility is that though the West has embraced India when it comes to recruiting its brilliant engineers, setting up its latest product centers or accepting the importance of Yoga and Karma in their day today lives, it continues to market the country to its common man as it has always done - deliberately choosing to ignore the sublime growth of a new nation, perhaps as a result of the inertia to preserve the mystique and exoticness that has been long associated with the country. Having spent the last 6 years in the US, my personal opinion is that it is the listless work of a few that continues to project India in such deprecating ways.

Shaolin Soccer

I am not a big soccer fan and so I restrict myself to just the World Cups. (NBA, NFL, Tennis and cricket continue to hold sway over me). The glorified initiation that got kicked off with Maradona's genius in '86 never really grew on me as it did on some of my other friends who follow English Premier League and Spanish League with their own fantasy teams just like I follow NFL.

Recently I happened to watch a soccer game on TV as part of Copa America and it got me to wonder why the game never really got my adrenalin pumping. Even Golf, which I thought could never be a TV sport because of the snail like pace and Boxing, which always got me to wonder why the two guys are fighting in the first place, eventually won over me, but Soccer remains my neglected step-child. Why?

The primary reason is that the game's ultimate motive - to score goals - happens very infrequently. The average number of goals in in the 2006 World Cup was 2.27 (Source: Wikipedia, where else?). Assuming a 90 minute average time per game, that translates to a wait of 40 mins per goal. Though for the rest of time we might be treated to excellent dribbling, solid defense and swerving free kicks, 40 minutes is too long a wait for a single piece of action that moves the game forward.

So what can be done to make this game more appealing to me and the others (mostly Americans I would imagine) who share the same view of the most popular game in the globe. Here is a simple solution - take out the goal keeper.

What does this do to the game?

1. It takes away the use of hands from the game completely. All players are now bound by the same rules.
2. In my opinion if the person has taken the ball past the midfielders and defenders, there is no need for him to go past one more opponent who can can use his hands, to score a goal. Having a goal keeper in soccer is akin to having Shaq guard the basket in NBA for the full 48 minutes (imagine the scoreline of Basketball games in such a scenario) or playing cricket with 15 players, all of them planted on the boundary.
3. Taking goalkeepers out of the game would definitely improve the quality of defense and offense. All players are now forced to play tough defense and block shots and not rely on the goalie and to score, they must work the ball close to the goal and not take long shots; so control, dribbling, passing and movement are all better than the regular game.
4. Most importantly it would increase the number of goals scored in a soccer game without sacrificing its quality thus making it more attractive for people like me to watch.

What do we call this? Shaolin Soccer?

Getting nostalgic over a piece of paper

During my recent visit to India, I happened to browse through the pages of the Hindu and suddenly I noticed how much the newspaper has changed in the last 20 years. Glossy colorful pages have replaced the black and white print and a new wave of journalists have taken over the pen - the Hindu had definitely changed. I couldn't help but get nostalgic just perusing over the edition.

My schooldays always started the same way - eyes scanning The Hindu, hot cup of filter coffee in one hand, and the other hand alternating between holding a bowl (davara) to cool down the coffee and turning the pages of the paper. I always started in the second last page - the sports section - which had a good share of R Mohan's late cuts from the cricket pitch and Nirmal Shekhar's verbal volleys from the tennis court and if it had news of a Lara/Sachin century or a Boris Becker triumph at Wimbledon, that was about the best way to start my day. It was then time to read the international news and especially during my younger days the active quizzer in me used to learn capitals of countries by looking at the city of origination of the news article. A quick glance at the city news on page 3 and the national headlines, and that was about what I could digest at that age. I slowly graduated to reading the middle pages (business, letters to the editor and the columns), but the routine has more or less remained the same over the years except that the paper has been replaced by my laptop - Cricinfo, Rediff and WSJ with a hot mug of tea on my left hand and the mousepad on my right.

Though the Hindu has grown in technology and quality of print, their quality of journalists has definitely diminished. With the exit of R Mohan, the quality of the Hindu's cricket coverage had plummeted to new depths. The likes of Vijay Lokapally and G Viswanath (not the cricketer) are a great insult to The Hindu‘s great cricketing history. S Dinakar and Sanjay Rajan are passable but Ram Mahesh has come as a breath of fresh air and seems poised to restore its glorious cricketing heritage.

Many fond memories - scanning S Krishnan’s ‘Between you and me’ column for the “Parthasarathy” joke every Tuesday, fighting with dad for the paper during the precious morning hours before school, religiously clipping the Know Your English column every week for future reference, appreciating the paper's effort to penetrate the young reader's mind with the ‘Young World’ supplement and appreciating the simplicity and humor in V. Gangadhar's ‘Slice of Life’ will be cherished for a dozen lifetimes. Nowadays, I eagerly look forward to Ramachandra Guha’s Past and Present, Sevanti Ninan’s Media Matters and Shashi Tharoor’s eponymous column, despite his tendency to make a reference to his books in every fourth line. The regulars who review movies – Chitra Mahesh, Malathi Rangarajan, Sudhish Kamath et al – need to be taught that lines like “Santhosh Sivan has done good camera work” does not constitute a review. Gautaman Bhaskaran is their Roger Ebert, if you can discount a propensity to make movies seem more ponderous than they actually are. And lastly, what’s a piece on The Hindu without a mention of its legendary crossword. Being a cruciverbalist myself, it took me a while to develop the patience (read skill) to finish a full crossword, but it was always fun cracking the cryptic clues.

Today, in an industry where smut sells and sensationalism is the norm, The Hindu is still standing rock-solid on its foundation of journalistic integrity. It has fallen a bit from the lofty perch it held earlier. Their political reporting is probably a little biased and the quality of the sports coverage has fallen from its glory days in the early 90s. But the fact remains that they prioritize news the way it should be (Their front page won’t be filled with all the gory details of the Big B’s abdominal problem like Times of India), write with a strong social conscience, haven’t sold out to the glamor mafia, and, in my experience, offer the best writing available in Indian newspapers today.

The Presidency is dead...long live the President

I am as sad today as I was happy 5 years ago when I heard about the election of Dr. Kalam as President of India. After a famed reign at the highest office, inspiring a billion countrymen along the way, the aeronautical engineer goes back to the company of students and scholars, far removed from the muddled world of politics that prevented him from a second term. Like a lotus over dirty water, he was never comfortable with politics nor was he tainted by it, but nevertheless he blossomed amidst the politicians. Whether his successor will inspire the country or be swept away in the tides of politics will decide Pratibha Patil's legacy.

Wikipedia describes the POI as "the head of state and first citizen of India and the Supreme Commander of the Indian armed forces. The President's role is largely ceremonial, with real executive authority vested in the Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister. The powers of the President of India are comparable to those of the monarch of UK." To paraphrase, the POI is powerless and ceremonial; a rubber stamp of sorts. Why then do we need a President? After all, the qualifications needed to become one are as exploitable as those needed to get into nursery school. All the executive powers of the President that we studied about in 8th grade Civics being the reasons, the primary one is the fact that the President has discretionary powers which give him the ultimate power - to over rule the government on critical issues. So, the ideal candidate should have two important qualities - neutrality and objectivity. One look at the President-elect and I can see neither.

The POI is also the "first citizen" of the country and the face of the country around the globe. Hence the person should have distinguished himself in his chosen field of excellence, be it science, law or public service. A retrospective look at the past Presidents made me feel that most of them fit the description - most of them - be it the brilliant law maker in Dr. Rajendra Prasad (freedom fighter and President of the Constituent Assembly that framed the Constitution of India), the scholastic Dr. Radhakrishnan (of Oxford and Harvard fame), the idealistic S.D Sharma (Harvard Law) or the ultimate diplomat in K.R Narayanan (London School of Economics and Ambassador to the US, UK and China during the difficult NAM days). Along the way, there have been others like Zail Singh, who was more famous for his subservient attitude towards Indira Gandhi than his social reforms in Punjab. But no one brought more honor and elegance to the position than Dr. APJ - the people's president who increased the amplitude of the position and redefined its appositeness. So, who is Pratibha Patil? Is she the equitable doyen or the government's pawn?

For starters, she is a politician, and unlike some of the inspiring names mentioned above she doesn't quite tickle the "I am proud to be an Indian" nerve in your body. Nor has she achieved anything of note apart from being a Congress activist and the Governor of a state, a feat achieved by myriad others. Numerous controversies and allegations preceded her election and the one billion dollar question (one for each person in the country I suppose) is - Why her? Couldn't we find a candidate in the second most populous country in the world, that befitted the position and filled our hearts with pride? The answer is that the politicians didn't bother to find one and thats what makes me sad today.

Criticism of Greatness

Is imitation the highest form of flattery? I think criticism is an equally exalted form and it seems to be the more attractive option when it comes to journalism.

I read two articles yesterday, one from The Guardian and the other from The Telegraph and I was surprised to find that the central topic of debate in both articles is the same - Tendulkar, his failure at Lords and the loss of his once brilliant armory of strokes, apparently replaced by a fear of the short ball and failure in general.

Interestingly both articles use success at Lord's as a measure of greatness, a huge flaw considering the fact that the single most stellar batting performance at Lord's is by a batsman, definitely not considered to be amongst the cream of all time greats (333 and 123 against India in 1990 by Graham Gooch). The last Indian name to make it to the Lords honors board is the person so affectionately named "Bombay Duck" and "Olympic Rings" (in honor of his 5 consecutive ducks against Australia) and I can bet the last dollar in my wallet that Ajit Agarkar will not feature in your all time cricketing XI. Also, given the number of grounds Sachin has played in, there are bound to be ones where he has a bad average; he averages a monumental 249 runs at Sydney, which certainly highlights the triviality of the argument.

The article in the Telegraph points to Sachin's meticulous preparation before a series as an evidence of his fear of failure. I find it amusing that, ironically, both articles also refer to the preparation that the genius made in 1998 to counter Shane Warne's bowling around the wicket and the 155 n.o that resulted out of it (an innings that I had the fortune of witnessing live from the pavilion at Chepauk courtesy of an umpire cousin). To me, what is evident is the will to succeed and not the fear of failure. I still remember watching the game and listening to Ian Chappell on the microphone pointing out to the moment when Warne came around the wicket for the first time in the match as the turning point. Sachin slightly opened up his stance, marched down the wicket and majestically lofted the first ball over midwicket for a six, dictating the tone for that series, at the end of which the spin wizard proudly admitted to having nightmares of Sachin dancing down the pitch. Admiration, it seems, is an even greater form of flattery.

Though the author correctly notes the decline in Sachin's game by referring to the fact that in the last three years, Sachin has scored only one century against a notable opponent (Sri Lanka), he fails to mention that the period was interspersed by serious injuries, often limiting his participation to one or two games followed by a long layoff. Every great sportsman goes through a patch of mediocrity but they often bounce back with minor technical changes to the surprise of the world. Tiger Woods did that by changing his swing a couple of years ago after a 3-year lean period. Whether Sachin follows suit - only time will tell.

Finally, whether Sachin Tendulkar scores a test hundred at Lords or not, whether he is addressed "Sir Sachin" in the near future or not, his greatness has diminished or not, is immaterial; I and more than a billion others will always remember the man as an entertainer par excellence, who gave good value for their time and money.

Federer Wins Five

Ok, yet another Wimbledon comes to an end and yet another title for Federer. So what’s new? A look beyond the headlines and a contextual analysis of this match indicates that this might very well be a landmark match for this generation of tennis lovers.

Well, to start with there was a match, an even one at that, until the point in the fifth set when Federer hurried to the finish line like a rabbit towards carrot. Not since 2001 have I seen a final of fluctuating fortunes as this one. The match will be remembered for the quality of the tennis that the players were able to sustain for 4 hours and 5 sets, not once giving an edge to each other, with Nadal ensuring that Federer played a fifth set at least once in the finals en route to breaking Borg’s record of five consecutive championships. It was a clear case of aggressive tennis, with each player stretching the points with incredible athleticism and unimaginable shots. Michael Chang and Arantxa Sanchez possessed a similar knack of extending points albeit through high defensive lobs but these guys just kept hurling cannons at each other with each shot a definite winner against a lesser opponent. Yes, Federer was stretched. And for the first time in the last five years he looked vulnerable on grass (when Rafa had a 4-1 lead in the 4th set) - a frame worth freezing for any player aspiring to beat FedEx at SW19. Another key factor contributing to the evenness of the contest was the improvement of Nadal as a grass court player YOY. He seemed very confident at the net throughout the match and his serve was stabler than Federer’s for the most part. This is a key factor to note in the context of upcoming encounters between these two gladiators.

As I watched today’s match I could distinctly remember 3 Wimbledon finals that produced a similar high quality of aggressive tennis in the post Borg-McEnroe-Connors era that I had the misfortune of missing. Edberg vs Becker ’90, Agassi vs. Ivanisevic ’92 and Ivanisevic vs. Rafter ’01, in that order, would be best 3 finals that I ever watched and I will place Federer vs. Nadal ’07 right up there with them.

The ’90 finals was part of the famous trilogy that the 2 players enacted towards the end of the 80’s with the two previous encounters being one sided in favor of each player. The match which was a befitting end to the famous rivalry was one of the best exhibitions of grass court tennis. Edberg won the battle in 5 sets but the rivalry remains one of my fondest memories. In ’92 it was the battle between the man with the booming serve and the one with the best return of serve ever and what more can you ask on grass. Agassi shed his fears of grass to win the title in 5 sets and the hearts of Wimbledon fans forever. Goran lifted the trophy in 2001 winning the fifth set 9-7 and the match will always be remembered for him finally getting his hands on the trophy after thrice being stalled by the two greatest players of his generation (Pete Sampras ’94 and ’98, Andre Agassi ’92). Apart from being classics, the above mentioned matches also happen to be 3 of only 4, 5 set finals in the last 25 years.

Now that the context has been defined, what does today's match mean to tennis fans in the next few years. Given the high quality of the match, the maturity of Nadal as a player and its high ranking on the Wimbledon classicometer, the match might very well be remembered as the one that marked the maturity of the Rafa-FedEx rivalry which men’s tennis so badly needs. As with any prediction only time knows the answer.

Sivaji - The Boss

Magical - that's the word that comes to my mind if I have to describe "Sivaji", Rajnikanth's latest celluloid offering, in one word. From the moment, the innovative title graphics replace the retro style placard title of the namesake yesteryear thespian, to the last time the bald super star says "Cool" in his inimitable style, the movie simply mesmerizes you, despite a slow paced climax. Rajni acts in a very niche genre of movies, the so called "masala movies", and he does such an awesome job of it that it really exposes the many other inspired actors who simply ape the man - be it his mannerisms, known more popularly as his "shtyle", his penchant for punch dialogues (usually with philosophical undercurrents) or his speed of speech, walk and action.

Whatever he does, he and only he does it best; so move away cheap imitators!

It is a typical Shankar movie evident from the thematic nature of the movie, the grandeur of the songs and stunt sequences and the conceptual style of song picturization. As with all his movies, the protagonist is a one man crusader against the evils that exist in our society with help from his buddy/uncle, this time fighting against the black money that has percolated into (or out of) the Indian economy.

Rajni plays an NRI returning to India with dreams of doing something good for the country (a dream that all B-School aspirants only write about in their admission essays), but finds himself roadblocked by a corrupt system. How the Super Star fights the system and changes the color of money (much like he does the color of his skin. Boy - our thalaivar is really capable of doing anything and everything!) to fund his ambitious projects is pretty much the gist of the movie. Comedy and romance dominate the first half with Rajni and Vivek tickling our ribs with their punch dialogues and idiotic ideas to sway the girl and Shriya Saran's svelte figure capturing our attention. The second half is all Rajni the super hero, as he ups the tempo to reach his goals and, as in all his movies, loses all his wealth only to recapture it all over the course of the next 30 minutes...of course he gets the girl too.

Rajni has retained some of his famous "swish-swooshing" hand movements, with some changes though. The cigarette has been replaced by a chewing gum (and sometimes red chillies!) that bounces off anything around him and lands perfectly in his mouth and he defies the laws of gravity by zig-zagging a coin in air without touching it, every time he scores a point against the bad boys. Fans who remember his "ithu epdi irukku" from "In the 16th year" will be treated to an equally enjoyable "cool" much in line with the NRI Software Systems Architect role he plays.

The chemistry between Rajni and Vivek is excellent and Vivek has been entrusted with the responsibility of miming some of the best punch dialogues of the movie like "chittor thandina kaatpadi, sivajia seendina dead body" and "Sixkku appuram seven da, Sivajikku appuram yevenda" . Nothing new from Shankar on the story or screenplay front but credit goes to him for restoring Rajni to his best remembered looks - a combination of Billa and Basha, and that goes a long way in convincing the audience. Sujata's dialogues add comedy and satire appropriately and Rahman's catchy tunes have been matched by brilliant visuals and choreography. Shriya looks pleasing to the eye and others like Solomon Pappaiya come and go, but the real vehicle that the movie rides on is Rajni and his charismatic screen presence. The way he ups the "shtyle" meter as he transitions from the NRI, to the Boss, to the "mottai boss" is mind blowing. His looks and performance are a pleasurable combination of retro and novelty and leaves the audience with nothing but continued loyalty to the true super star of Indian cinema.

Another big contributing factor to the movie's success I must mention, is the marketing. During my recent trip to India, I was amazed by the amount of coverage the movie was getting in national news channels like NDTV and CNN-IBN and it has really transformed Rajni from a Tamil Super Star to a truly national one, if not international. I guess the movie has become such an integral part of Tamilians that almost all conversations (phone or in person, local or ISD) begin with a "Sivaji pathutiya?" and anybody who answers in the negative is perceived to be living a wasteful life.

What more do I need to say, the name says it all - "pera sonna summa adhiridhulla!"


P.S: Below is a list of punch dialogues rumored to be in the movie before its release but aren't

• Kanna, naan pakka dhan software, erangunan mavane hardware....(this is my favorite)
  
• Kanna andha sivajikku nadikka mattum dhan theriyum, indha sivajiku nadikkavum theriyum adikkavum theriyum
• unaku Aandavan vekkaraan da date annaiku unaku Shivaji vekkaraan paar vettu
• Naan nallavanukku sami, Nayavanjaganukku tsunami
• Kanna, vitukoduthavan ennaikum kettathillai, kettavan ennaikum vittukoduthathillai
• Nallavanukku naan DHARMAN Kettvanukku naan YEMa dharman da