Grand old man of Hindi cinema

Oct 13th is a day of significance for Hindi cinema- it is the day Kishore Kumar – perhaps the most versatile person ever seen in Hindi cinema- died – 24 years ago. However, it is also of great significance because it is also the birthday of his elder brother Ashok Kumar – one of the finest actors the industry has seen – and one of its most influential ever. And this year would have been his 100th birthday.

For many people today, especially the younger lot, Ashok Kumar is probably better known as one of the various characters with very typical mannerisms whom Johny Lever always parodied. Some people would remember him from TV either in Bahadur Shah Zafar or as the presenter of Hum Log. Otherwise, he’s just one of those characters who played roles in some old films. Some might remember “Main ban ki chidiya” with Devika Rani…or him walking around while Madhubala sings “Aayega aanewala”…but not much more. A great and influential actor might not be what you would immediately think of when his name comes up. I think that is because most people today simply have not seen enough of him at his best nor do they have much of an idea of what he did.

Let’s start with the “great”. In an industry which has been around for almost a century there have obviously been a number of fine and talented actors- it is very difficult to name a few great ones. So, we can follow the usual strategy of categorization, which is not such a bad thing. Let us consider male lead Hindi film actors. This allows us to exclude a number of fine actors. It excludes various supporting actors (like Pran, Anupam Kher, Nana Palsikar, Boman Irani and so on). It excludes female lead actors (like Meena Kumari, Nutan, Jaya Bhaduri, Kajol and so on). And it excludes those who were not primarily in the Hindi film industry, though they might have made the odd Hindi film (like Kamal Hasan, Mohanlal, Soumitra Chatterji and so on)

With these caveats, I would place Ashok Kumar among the top 3 or 4 actors of all time – the others in that league, in my opinion, being Dilip Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar and Amir Khan.

Now, that is an opinion and it is difficult to substantiate that in a blog – you are going to have sit through the person’s films. The only thing I would say is that while you might disagree, I am not sure how much of Ashok Kumar’s oeuvre you might have seen. In any case, it is a personal opinion.

However, the issue of influence is not so dependent on personal opinion. If one looks back at the last 100 odd years of Hindi films and asks who has been the most influential actor of all time, I think a vast majority would say Amitabh Bachchan. And there is merit in that. Certainly Amitabh defined the industry in the 70’s and 80’s.

However, in my opinion a lot of what Amitabh Bachchan did and stood for was actually pioneered by Ashok Kumar. The “angry” young man was undoubtedly a creation of Salim Javed for Amitabh but a lot of the story plots and devices, things which became fairly standard in Hindi films were initially done by Ashok Kumar, way back in the 40’s and 50’s. In many ways Ashok Kumar laid the groundwork for what Amitabh, and other actors, then took to a different level. His films created, one could say, the blueprint for modern Hindi cinema.

Consider some of the following plot devices and films

Anti Hero
A staple of Amitabh, who supposedly created this image as the anti hero, it was actually Ashok Kumar who first played the anti hero way back in 1943, with Kismat. He played a convicted pick pocket and thief in this film which is still one of the dozen or so biggest hits of all time in Indian cinema (and the longest running film till Sholay was released- it ran for over 190 weeks)

Lost and Found
Would the Manmohan Desai /Amitabh combination been so successful without this? They made 8 films, of which all other than Gunga Jumna Saraswati were super hits; and they were all lost and found films. In any case, lost and found goes far beyond the MD/AB combination, it is perhaps the most staple theme of Hindi films. But it all started, once again in 1943 with Kismat – the original lost and found film, where Ashok Kumar is separated from his parents as a child (he runs away from home) and is reunited only in the last scene.
Frankly, if you see the film today, it does feel a little amateurish and certainly the denouement, far from being dramatic is honestly, a bit silly. But given the period it was made in and the effect it has had on the type of films made after that, Kismat would certainly be a nominee for the most impactful Hindi film of all time.

Brothers separated in a “mela”
One issue with “lost and found” is to find a plausible reason for the “lost” bit. The standard way for brothers to be separated has been in a fair- in fact “Kumbh ke mele me bichad jaana” is almost idiomatic in Hindi today. But it was Ashok Kumar who first got separated from his twin brother at childhood in a mela, in “Afsana” in 1951. This is actually a fabulous film…the really great bit is that this is not a lost and found film at all – the brothers meet for just a couple of hours and never realize they are brothers, which makes it quite unique (it is also BR Chopra’s directorial debut). But it certainly gave all lost and found makers an ideal plot device.

Retrieved Reformation
The “retrieved reformation” theme is not uncommon in Hindi films. A crook, on the run from the law, lands up in a village where he is mistaken for someone positive. Being forced to lead a life of rectitude, the crook slowly reforms and becomes a good citizen. Think Thanedaar or Pratigya or even Guide. But, I think this was perhaps first done by Ashok Kumar in Savera (sometime in the 50’s)

Cop Father Criminal Son
Another common theme – the most famous example perhaps being Shakti. A popular variation of this is 2 brothers – one a cop, the other a criminal – most famously seen in Deewar but also in films like Gunga Jumna and Lakshman Rekha. But Ashok Kumar played the criminal son in Sangram in 1950 who is finally shot in the climactic scene by his cop father.

The Suspense film
Suspense films have not been very common in Hindi cinema. There have been some notable exceptions – Woh Kaun Thi, Kaun, Khamosh, Bees Saal Baad- but it is by no means a common occurence. But what could be considered as the first suspense film ever made remains one of the best ever – Mahal, in 1949. Most people today probably remember it for “Aayega aanewala” and the fact that it was Madhubala’s move to stardom. But the fact remains that it was a big gamble at the time – a gamble taken by Ashok Kumar and Sashadhar Mukherjee to revive Bombay talkies – which only partially worked. Mahal was a huge hit…but the studio still had to shut down five years later.
But it introduced a new genre to Indian cinema. And it has been the blueprint for many reincarnation films in Indian cinema – from Madhumati to Om Shanti Om. Wikipedia also says that Mahal was perhaps the ultimate inspiration for “The reincarnation of Peter Proud” which, of course was remade later as Karz.


In addition to these films, Ashok Kumar also influenced modern hindi cinema in other ways. His films were much more urban and racy than the typical films of his contemporaries. His acting was generally less theatrical than the stars of the time – and a move away from the stage influences of people like Sohrab Modi and Prithviraj Kapoor. Though he has sung on screen, he was not a singing star at a time when Saigal and Surendra were the rage. He was, essentially building the prototype for the modern film hero.

On the negative side, he was also the first lead actor to actually regularly smoke on screen – at a time when heroes were supposed to be holier than thou. I remember reading a reason for why he chose to take this revolutionary step and it is quite intriguing. Ashok Kumar came to acting by accident and had to “learn on the job”. One of the most difficult things to do while acting, which any of you who have ever acted in a school play will probably agree with, is to decide what to do with one’s hands. Since he had this problem as well, he decided he would solve this by smoking on screen wherever possible. That gave his hands something natural to do. And it ensured that smoking was no longer the preserve of the villain.

Very importantly, he was also, I believe, a very intelligent actor who knew his limitations and hence there is hardly a film where he looks out of place. Hindi film heroes are known for long careers where they keep doing the same things. And over time, it clearly looks out of place. Having a 40+ year old play a college kid is nothing strange in Indian cinema – from the times of Dilip Kumar in Leader right up to Amir Khan in 3 idiots. Seeing Amitabh Bachchan in the 1990’s in some of his films, still trying to strut out the angry “young” man at the age of nearly 50 was cringeworthy. Hindi film stars don’t often seem to realize that they age.

This was almost never true for Ashok Kumar. The transition from young lead star to mature hero to parallel lead to strong character roles to minor roles was almost flawless. Even in the odd case like Mamta where, at the age of 55 he does play a person out of college in the initial parts of the film, it is really a 5 minute interlude setting the stage for the major part of the film where he is a middle aged lawyer. I honestly cannot think of a film where he looked a fish out of water; where one wondered “what the hell is this man doing in this role?” And it meant a wide variety of roles with almost no typecasting. At least off hand, I cannot think of another male actor in Indian cinema who has managed this as well as he did.

With all this, I think there is sufficient reason to believe that he was perhaps as influential, if not more, as Amitabh Bachchan in shaping the Hindi film industry of today. Add that to his outstanding acting abilities and I doubt there has been a taller acting figure in the history of Hindi cinema. On his birth centenary, I pay tribute to this great man.

Shakespeare and Monkeys

While I was in India last week, I read an article about how some “virtual” monkeys had recreated the works of Shakespeare.

This, of course is one of the fundamental pieces which is used to explain the concepts of probability and infinity. The concept is that infinity is so large that even those events with an extremely small probability would eventually occur given an infinite number of attempts. And monkeys randomly typing out on a typewriter is the classic example.

However, it is just a conceptual example. It’s like the Brownian motion example – air particles in a closed room randomly move about…and in theory all of them could end up in one corner of the room- thereby suffocating someone at the other end, just by chance. Of course, something like that is going to happen only once in a billion years …but that once could be tomorrow, in the room you are in.

Not that that should worry you much. It’s not going to happen! Period!!

That’s why I was so intrigued by this story…it was extremely interesting and made the chance of suffocating in a normal room just that much more likely.

Alas, the story did not however live up to the reality. They haven’t really typed out the whole of Shakespeare. They have typed out nine letter strings and if they match any nine letter string in Shakespeare, they mark it as complete. In that way, they have gone through the entire text- or at least 99% of it.

Let’s look at that it in more detail. Say, the monkey typed “otinourst”. I am sure there is no such word in Shakespeare. But it would count towards having written out Shakespeare (“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”). Similarly “ityisthes” would also count ("Brevity is the soul of wit")

In this way, they have apparently written more than 90% of Shakespeare. I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry!! And this has been reported widely! And I am sure there are many who have just seen the sound bite and now truly believe that Shakespeare has been recreated. That’s what the world has come to – useless research and sensational news. Sad.

Frankly, I can’t believe the natural absurdity of this did not strike the researcher. It probably did but perhaps he still chose to do this as a bit of fun. I certainly hope that this is the truth rather than the alternative which is that somebody seriously thought that one could randomly type out all of Shakespeare using nine letter strings.

If you are not getting why this is so then let me tell you that I have through random typing been able to write out every book which has ever been written in English. In order to do this, I have however had to put in certain restrictions. The restrictions are not absurd; as I am sure you will agree on reading them

• Punctuation marks have been omitted
• Books which were written in Old English will have to be transliterated to the modern 26 letter English alphabet (so letters like æ and ð will be represented by “a” or “th”)
• Upper case and lower case are ignored
  

I think we can all agree that these are not unreasonable restrictions.

So, now here for posterity are all the books ever written in English

1

Q

A

Z

2

W

S

X

3

E

D

C

4

R

F

V

5

T

G

B

6

Y

H

N

7

U

J

M

8

I

K

9

O

L

0

P

(hint- start at the top left hand corner of your keyboard and go diagonally down)

Working within the three restrictions above, every book ever written in English, broken down into 1 letter strings, is contained in these 36 lines.

Who needs monkeys!

Visiting the Houses of Parliament

Last week I attended a talk at the Houses of Parliament. The talk was by a senior person at the Fed and someone from the European Central Bank on the situation of the US economy and the likelihood of further quantitative easing. The talk was decent (yes, we are probably going to have more QE in the US in the coming times) and had some insights – the point of central banks traditionally focusing on inflation to the avoidance of everything was a good point in the current environment, etc etc.

But what was most interesting to me was the way Parliament functioned. Not the actual debating chambers but the administrative machine around it. It was actually quite surprising how easy it was to get in but how it was still rather thorough in its checking.

I was not directly invited to this talk. The talk was organized by London Business School for its students and alumni. My neighbour, S. is an alumnus of LBS and had been invited. He had forwarded the email invite to me and asked me if I was interested in attending. I RSVPed to the email id given but did not receive any response from them. Come the day of the talk, S. suggested that we meet at 4 at Westminster station. But I had not yet got confirmation whether I could attend. I printed out a copy of the email S. had forwarded me. So, he had an invite which was for S.V. and I had an invite which was also for S.V….and we were going together. And twins we do not look!

On reaching Parliament we were asked by the policewoman outside where we wanted to go. We said that we were going for a talk on the US economy – and we were clutching the print out of the invites – wondering if she would notice the names of the recipients of the email. However, she hardly looked – well, probably took a fleeting glance- and waved us through to a long corridor which went to a security room.

Now this was a proper security check. Airport style. Scanners, full body pat down, metal detectors, empty one’s pockets, etc. Apart from asking for liquids to be put in transparent sachets, it was a proper airline check. However, I don’t remember them checking our invites. In other words, they didn’t really know why we were there. They just assumed that we had legitimate business to be there and that the staff at the outside gates had already verified that. Yes, the check was thorough enough to probably stop us getting anything dangerous inside but why we were there was perhaps not entirely clear.

Once through this, we came out on to the grounds from whence we turned right and entered the actual building. There were a lot of tourists mulling around in what was a sort of inner courtyard to the actual rooms. We walked down this and came up to a decision point of left or right…and asked the security guard sitting there where Committee room 10 was. Without batting an eyelid he pointed to a staircase and told us to go up. Again, no questions of when, what, where, why, who, how, etc. Going up the staircase, past a number of awesome busts, including Gladstone, Disraeli and Peel, we reached a sort of lobby, to the left of which was the House of Commons and the right was the House of Lords with reception desks manned by security personnel.

The same routine followed – “Which way to committee room 10?” “That way, sir” pointing to a small flight of stairs in corner. Up we went and there we were at the entrance of Committee room 10. There was a slight queue of people there because some people were matching names and identities against a list which they had - a list of confirmed attendees. Since nobody had replied to my RSVP mail, it was a good shot that my name was not in the list. And if they were to ask to see my invite…well, I didn’t have one…I had just printed out S’s invite. This had the potential to be embarrassing…or even worse!

Still, I had to play the game. S went off in front of me and was accosted by one of the gatekeepers. I met the other and confidently said my name –“Sanjeev Chandran” and looked around nonchalantly while he tried to find my name in a list which I was sure did not contain my name. While he was scouring through his list, I saw that S was also not making progress- his name also did not seem to be in the list…though he had RSVPed as well…and indeed he had officially received the invite. Curious.

Then, the light seemed to glow and the two of them switched lists around – they didn’t both have copies of the same list but halves of the same list. That explained why S was untraceable…I, of course, was unlikely to be traceable. However, that didn’t work too… they still couldn’t find both of us. Curiouser and Curiouser, I thought.

At this stage, it seemed that after all the easy way through, we finally weren’t going to be able attend the talk after all. The security apparatus had finally clicked in…der aaye durust aaye. But then the penny dropped. The chap turned around, handed me the list and asked me to add in my name at the end of the list. I wondered for a second if it was worth filling in “Ayman al Zawahiri” but decided that discretion was the better part of valour…after all, even if it was a little more der, the durust could still be spectacularly durust. So, there it was – once I had filled in Sanjeev Chandran, I was through to attend the talk…even though I had not received an invitation. Incidentally, S. too got in after filling in his name…but at least he had had a genuine invitation. I, on the other hand did not…and the system had not just let me in, it had been extremely kind and accommodating to me.

I am sure there is a lesson in this somewhere but I am not too sure what….is it about how relaxed one can keep security as long as one checks everyone thoroughly. Or does there need to be a complete overhaul of processes at the Parliament, just in case there is an inside job? Or is just that the British simply haven’t cottoned on to the real threats possible because they haven’t had an Afzal Guru like incident? The impression I do leave with, however is the unfailing politeness of everyone in the system. Even if processes need to be far more stringent, that is a good lesson for all personnel at all such important buildings. Be polite and helpful and visitors will just appreciate the entire experience much more.

And, oh yes, next time you are in London, do try and visit Parliament…it’s a good experience…

London riots

So, for the last few days London has been rioting…and while London itself has quietened down, the riots have spread to Manchester, Salford, Wolverhampton, Birmingham and other places.

The riots here have, in a personal sense, been quite weird. Coming from India, I am no stranger to riots. I have lived through the ‘84 riots while in delhi (of course, I was a child then), I was in TN when Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated. And have seen different types of unrest over the years in Bombay, Pune and so on.

To that extent, in human life terms, this was not that serious a riot. Three days of looting and pillaging across London, and I believe one person in London has died. It was almost very “civilized” rioting. Some of the footage was surreal- a tv reporter was actually walking around the rioters at Clapham and having general conversation with them – watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gqj1N9qeWXI and then http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXcI-NL3Tro . “Getting our taxes back” has to be one of the most memorable lines from this entire episode.

However, what was even more weird for me was that in spite of all these incidences in India, I don’t think I have ever been more close to riots in my life. In India, luckily, I have never got caught in a situation in the middle of riots…somehow one always got home in time. And perhaps, the places I stayed in were safe enough. In Delhi, which have to be the worst riots I have lived through, we were in the air force station- so once the bus ride from school to home happened (which was after the assassination but before the worst of the riots)- we were in one of the safest places in town.

But here, it was happening next to us. If you consider our block of flats to be a parallelogram, then on 2 sides of it there are main roads (which intersect at right angles in a traffic signal) and on the other 2 sides there are other houses with smaller, side roads. On the other side of both the main roads are shopping centres - the priory retail park on one side and the tandem retail centre on the other. Both these were vandalized and looted.

http://www.demotix.com/news/782970/aftermath-looting-colliers-wood-retail-park

http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/pictures/picturegalleries/collierswoodriots/

But again, it was completely civilized, nothing happened outside these two retail parks and nothing could be seen on the roads. Riots are not the nicest thing in the world…but if you have to have them, this is perhaps a better model!!!!!

That doesn’t change the fact that this was an absolutely absurd event, as are all riots. There have been a number of commentators giving their views on why this happened and what the lessons are, etc etc. Not surprisingly, there has been some party politics on this with Ken Livingstone especially going for the jugular of the government

"I am concerned that there is growing social dislocation in London and a threat that the police will be forced into escalating conflict with some London communities. We do not want to go back to the 1980s.

The economic stagnation and cuts being imposed by the Tory government inevitably create social division. As when Margaret Thatcher imposed such policies during her recessions this creates the threat of people losing control, acting in completely unacceptable ways that threaten everyone, and culminating in events of the type we saw in Tottenham.”

There have been other commentators who have spoken about how we need to look deeper and understand what is causing these problems, how social disaffection is causing this alienation of the youngsters, etc etc. Harriet Harman went on about the cutting of the EMA was causing youngsters to leave school. And Lee Jasper seemed to suggest (albeit obliquely) that Curry’s not spending CSR money on local projects was the reason they were attacked by “disaffected youth”

Balderdash!!

There is no greater reason behind all this than plain, simple thuggery and the urge to make a quick buck in the spur of the moment. There was simply no other reason. Most of the cuts that are being planned have not even come into force.

There are 2 serious cuts which have come into force - the cut in the educational maintenance allowance and the increase in tuition fees- both of which impact students (albeit, in my view, marginally). It would have had some logical sense if these riots had happened in college campuses and schools – one could have understood it.

However, these riots happened in city centres and the people involved were not just college students. There’s been an 11 year old arrested – he should have been in school – which is free in this country. There’s a 31 year old primary school worker who was arrested – who was no doubt putting in a blow on behalf of his wards for the future. Yet another is a convicted drug dealer who was out on probation. Clearly a cut in public services might mean that some of his unemployed customers might not get benefits anymore to spend with him – so the cut in public spending will directly impact him, won’t it?

And, just listen to some of the statements which some of the looters have been making

From Croydon

“It was good fun, free alcohol, lovely.”

“It’s the government’s fault. I don’t know – Conservatives or whoever it is. We have shown the police we can do what we want. That’s what it’s about – showing the police we can do what we want. And now we have. Hopefully it will go on.”

“We are targeting the rich people, people who have got businesses and that’s why all of this has happened. We are just showing the rich people we can do what we want”

From Clapham Junction

“hey, let’s go in and get some watches”

From Manchester

On being asked couldn’t he afford to buy some of the stuff he looted, one guy said – “Why am I going to miss the opportunity to get free stuff, stuff that’s worth loads of money.” He went on to say “I'll keep doing this every day until I get caught. When I get home nothing is going to happen to me."

On being asked what if he got caught the response was classic

“This will be my first offence, I will take a caution. The Prisons are overcrowded, what are they going to do to me, give me an ASBO”

Clearly from the responses, there is no great disaffection; instead the rioters are enjoying themselves. And the last response shows that the riots grew because there was no fear of reprisal. And that’s the key point, isn’t it?

The events in Tottenham were sad and one could understand some form of spontaneous violence happening there. Not justified but understandable. But unfortunately, when the police were not able to handle that well, there were enough gangs who thought through it. If the police found it difficult to handle rioting at one location how would they manage 5 or 6? And once the gangs were out, I guess everyone had a go. And the blackberry meesenger made it very simple to mobilize people.

(As an aside, maybe it’s because I am from a third world country- but if you have a blackberry messenger, you are not that deprived, are you?)

And as the police got its act together in London and got in forces from other cities, the violence in London died down and the violence in other cities picked up. I am sure there is no Moriarty like creature in the background…but it does give one something to think about.

That’s the reason for these events – plain simple thuggery and greed. People got a chance to get free stuff with what they thought was almost no chance of getting caught and they took it. There was no other agenda, there was no deep rooted, long planned social upheaval, there was no back to the wall. This was wanton violence - not mindless – in fact, it was calculated…that in the midst of all this, they won’t get caught - but nonetheless, gratuitous violence.

While it does not justify any such act, this is not to deny that large parts of the population are stuck in a deadend welfare situation. And they have, as Cameron put it, a sense of entitlement – a legacy of government policy where you threw money at a problem, hoping it would go away. And that’s going to take ages to get rid of. Because, today it has seeped into British public life- all discussions centre around how much money the government is spending (or not spending)- and nothing else.

My knowledge of UK politics over the last decade or so is based on what I have seen and read after coming to London in 2007. There has been ongoing and continual debate about Tony Blair’s legacy – Iraq and Rwanda, etc. I am not sure of how things were before Tony Blair but, looking at public spending figures, I think the biggest legacy Tony Blair has left this country is that he has changed all public debate on the role of the government to inputs rather than outputs.

Today, any debate on public services is only about how much money is being spent – never about what happens to that money. “We will spend 5 bn more on the NHS” – never “Can we get the same type of care for the patient but spend a little less?” It is “Oh, my god, there will be 1000 officers less” – never “so, can we manage the same level of security by changing the way we deploy the forces.” Even on the rare occasions when outputs are discussed, the solutions always focus on inputs and almost never on the process which converts inputs to outputs. So, if doctors are spending only 50% of their time seeing patients and thereby only seeing 70% of patients on time, the solution is not to see how one can free up 75% of a doctor’s time to see patients. It is to get 50% more doctors.

Nobody in any debate is concerned with anything but how much the government is spending. All governments are profligate…that is not new. But a complete disregard for output and a belief that the panacea to all evils is “Go forth and spend”, means that no effort has been made to do things differently and that any reduction in spending is automatically seen as a disaster. I have not seen any department, other than perhaps the defence, which has said –yes, there is less money but we will do things differently and ensure that services are as good.

Perhaps I expect too much from government but when the public sector gets paid better than the private sector, surely the civil servants can deliver some better solutions than saying “there is less money, so things will suffer”

But this is a diversion from the last few days – the riots. There is, however, a linkage – the mentality of throwing money at problems has meant that there is a large section of population which has had money thrown at them. Actually, everyone had some money thrown at them, in the Labour days. But some sections got so much thrown at them, that they did not have to bother getting any of their own. And that has created a sense of entitlement among many people. The feeling that the world anyway owed them something coupled with a feeling, post Tottenham, that no one (read the police) could catch them gave rise to greed and these riots.

That’s all these riots are about - greed – not social dislocation, not unemployment, not a class war…but greed - generated perhaps by a sense of entitlement, but nonetheless, greed. And that’s all there is to it.

Journey to the ends of London

This piece was written more than a week ago but in the run of things happening this last week I never got around to posting it. But a week doesn’t really matter since it isn’t exactly a very topical post but more a general rambling post.

A country's borders are normally fairly well defined (yes, I know there are exceptions) but a city's borders are much more amorphous. For practical purposes Thane and Mira Road are part of Bombay just as Noida and Gurgaon are Delhi. But technically they are not. There are such technical definitions for each city, including municipal limits or postal codes. And there would be other definitions which would be unique to a given city.

In London, a post code definition would be useless as vast parts of London have historical non London post codes. The most 'correct' definition is probably the GLC borders but who remembers those. A more common definition would be "within the M25".

Given the importance of mass rapid transport in major cities there is another way to define the ends of a city – the ends of its mass rapid transport system. Till where can you get within the city on its public transport? In the context of London that means the ends of the tube, the DLR, the overground and the tram – basically all things which move on rail. I am ignoring buses and cab- not really mass transit. I am also not considering the national rail network as that is not a London based network – it’s just that major portions of it run via and through London. Hence the ends of London are the terminus stops of the various tube, tram, overground and DLR lines – those run by TFL (transport for London), effectively.

I realize this is a highly incorrect definition. It leaves out vast swathes of London – especially south London – and takes in areas outside greater London, especially in the North West. But it is a fairly romantic definition, in my opinion, as it comes with a 150 years of history of the underground. London has developed greatly, especially in the northwest, along with the tube. And even today, it is the arrival of a new line which often causes regeneration in an area – as we are seeing today with the Overground. And it is, for practical purposes, a fairly good definition of where one can easily get to in London.

London has 14 lines and around 45 terminus stations (for exact details see the end of the post) and over the last few years, in my normal travels, I had visited a number of them. About 2 years ago, I realized that I had been to more than half of them. I decided to visit all of them and actually made trips, whenever I was free and had the time, to various terminus stations. For example, once I had to meet Anita for a film at Leicester square at 9 pm. She wasn’t going to be free till about 8.30 whereas I was done by 6-6.30 or so. So, I took off to Mill Hill East, spent half an hour there, had a salad at the Waitrose and then got back.
By the end of 2009, I had been to all but 3 of them (excluding tramlink) . Then the overground opened and a new set of terminuses were created. Slowly, over time I visited them as well, whenever, I had some free time…or had a meeting in that general direction. For example, I had a meeting once at Amersham and post the meeting I went over to Chesham…and saw the ducks in the park outside the station. Quite nice…and it was 2 birds with one stone- figuratively.


A couple of weeks ago, when I finished early at work, I went and visited Watford Junction on the overground and thought that with that, I had done it all. Then I realized that, though I was staying near Wimbledon, I hadn’t gone on the tramlink beyond Croydon. So, last week, one evening I went on the tram all the way to Elmers End, Beckenham Junction and New Addington. With that, I had visited every terminus stop on the TFL network. And in the process, had been past every station on the network.

Now, frankly, these were just train rides- nothing much else. So, there really isn’t much to write about them. It’s more about the impressions once has got about London, its transport network and its extremities which I am sharing here.

• The trains are all so different. By their very design the DLR and the tramlink have different carriages. But even the different tube lines are very different. There are 3 or 4 distinct carriage designs and upholstery is different in most lines. Which means in that most cases, one can get into a train and know which line it is (yes, it is rather a stupid way of figuring out which line one is on….but there it is)
  I am assuming that the track width is the same on all trains so I am surprised that TFL has not been able to figure out the best model for the carriages and ensure that they are all designed that way. Still, it does add variety to the network. Interestingly, the latest trains, on the overground network are actually inspired by the Delhi Metro trains.
  



• London is so different at its ends. The stations and the general area at the different terminuses are like different worlds. Those on the western side, especially on the metropolitan line are quiet and, often bucolic. Get out at Watford Station on the met line and you are in front of Cassiobury Park - about 77 ha in area, it goes back to the Domesday Book and has a variety of bird life. Mill Hill East, while not so pastoral is still quite idyllic. Uxbridge was a bustling small town but still with a quaint feel.
  On the other hand, the eastern terminuses are very different in feel. Woolwich Arsenal reminded me of the Bombay local train stations with many small shops and difficult to walk through – at least at one end. Similarly Barking seemed very drab and commercial.
  But the most amazing terminus is perhaps the eastern most station on the network; Epping - not because of the station itself but because it is the gateway to Epping Forest – the hiding place of Dick Turpin. There is actually a forest of about 25 sq km in area within the tube confines and is spread over many tube stations. Anita and I have traipsed a full day all across Epping forest, including those areas which are supposed to be haunted. And I would recommend it to all and sundry.
  



• The actual stations seem a bit grander as one goes outwards. Probably because there is more space than in central London. The entrances to the station are not necessarily grand (though some like Uxbridge have beautiful arches), indeed some of them have tiny entrances. But there is a majesty about them and their facades which the central London stations don’t always have. Incidentally, 3 central London stations have no external facades at all –Bank, Regent’s Park and Piccadilly Circus.
  



• As you travel about, outside Zone 1, you realize how much of the system is not underground. In fact according to TFL only 45% of the Underground is underground. (

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/modesoftransport/londonunderground/1608.aspx). If one adds the DLR and the overground, both of which are primarily not underground, the actual length underground is perhaps less than 40%. When you also consider that only 7 out of the 14 lines (counting DLR, Overground and Tramlink as one line each) are actually “tubes”, the entire nomenclature begins to seem very suspect.

London is a very beautiful city as one gets out – in almost any direction, except the DLR. It is green and quiet and relatively peaceful.

In spite of the network crisscrossing across the whole of London there are eight terminuses within Zone 1 - that’s almost 20% of all of them. Indeed, there is a line which runs entirely within Zone 1 and till a couple of years ago, there were two. So, some of the “ends” are quite central.

All in all, it’s been an interesting way to get to see to London. I have seen a lot of London because of my trips to various pubs for the Quiz league. But this has also been quite a good way to see around the city – not as detailed - because I typically spent half an hour or so at a terminus, if I had no other work there. Certainly not enough to generate an informed view – but enough to form an impression.

And now Boris is planning to extend the northern line to Battersea creating another terminus. It’s going to require another outing….

Appendix - List of Terminuses

I am defining a terminus as the last stop on a regular service which does not ever extend on either direction while following the same route. To explain with some examples
1. There is a regular High Barnet/Edgware to Kennington (via Charing Cross) service but because some times the trains extend to Morden, Kennington is not considered a terminus.
2. There is a regular Chesham to Chalfont service but sometimes it extends; often to Baker Street and on occasion all the way to Aldgate. Hence neither Chalfont nor Baker Street is considered a terminus but Aldgate is.
3. There is a regular Woodford via Hainault service. There is also a regular Epping service via Woodford, which does not go via Hainault. Hence, even though trains go past Woodford all the way to Epping, Woodford is considered a terminus.

With this in mind, the terminuses are

1. Harrow and Wealdstone (Bakerloo)



2. Elephant and Castle (Bakerloo)



3. Epping (Central)



4. Woodford (Central)



5. West Ruislip (Central)



6. Ealing Broadway (Central/District)



7. Richmond (District/Overground)



8. Wimbledon (District/Tramlink)



9. Upminster (District)



10. Kensington Olympia (District)



11. High Street Kensington (District)



12. Edgware Road (District/Circle)



13. Hammersmith (Circle/Hammersmith and City)



14. Barking (Hammersmith and City)



15. Watford (Metropolitan)



16. Chesham (Metropolitan)



17. Amersham (Metropolitan)



18. Aldgate (Metropolitan)



19. Uxbridge (Metropolitan/Piccadilly)



20. Heathrow Terminal 4 (and 1,2,3) (Piccadilly)



21. Heathrow Terminal 5 (Piccadilly)



22. Cockfosters (Piccadilly)



23. Edgware (Northern)



24. High Barnet (Northern)



25. Morden (Northern)



26. Walthamstow Central (Victoria)



27. Brixton (Victoria)



28. Stanmore (Jubilee)



29. Stratford (Jubilee/DLR)



30. Tower Gateway (DLR)



31. Lewisham (DLR)



32. Woolwich Arsenal (DLR)



33. Beckton (DLR)



34. Bank (DLR/Waterloo and City)



35. Waterloo (Waterloo and City)



36. New Addington (Tramlink)



37. Elmer’s End (Tramlink)



38. Beckenham Junction (Tramlink)



39. West Croydon (Tramlink/Overground)



40. New Cross (Overground)



41. Crystal Palace (Overground)



42. Clapham Junction (Overground)



43. Highbury and Islington (Overground)



44. Gspel Oak (Overground)



45. Euston (Overground)



46. Watford Junction (Overground)
    


47. Mill Hill East (Northern)

The changing face of diplomacy

The recent weeks have been the making of Obama – the killing of the world’s most wanted terrorist followed by an Irish homecoming have made him hot property again. But in the middle of all this, he gave an interview to Andrew Marr of the BBC- an interview in which he fundamentally re wrote international diplomacy- something which perhaps has not been given enough publicity.

Now, what he did in the case of Osama Bin Laden was clearly a gross violation of all international diplomacy. And yes, it was a complete decimation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. If Bin Laden had not been there in the house, it would have been an act of war on Pakistan. However, it was Bin Laden…and that meant that for the world, everything else was forgiven. Even Pakistan, which protested the violation of its sovereignty had to applaud for the killing of Bin Laden.

But in his interview with Andrew Marr, Obama said something else. He basically said that if any one posed a threat to the United States he would be okay to go after them…irrespective of where they were!! The wording was slightly vague. Here’s an excerpt from that interview

And if you find another very high value target at the top of al-Qaeda, Mullah Omar or whoever it might be in Pakistani territory or other sovereign territory, would you do the same again?

Well I've always been clear to the Pakistanis. And I'm not the first administration to say this. That our job is to secure the United States. We are very respectful of the sovereignty of Pakistan. But we cannot allow someone who is actively planning to kill our people or our our allies' people we can't allow those kind of active plans to come to fruition without us taking some action.
And our hope is and our expectation is that we can achieve that in a way that is fully respectful of Pakistan's sovereignty. But I had made no secret. I had said this when I was running for the presidency, that if I had a clear shot at Bin Laden.

You'd take it.

That we'd take it.

That basically destroys the whole meaning of independent nations with respect for each other. “Our job is to secure ourselves”. Yes and war has always been an “acceptable” form of aggression between nations, once there are reasons for war. But this has basically legitimized aggression within another country even when there is no aggression against the country itself – as long as the “security” is about a country-less individual

Unfortunately, I believe Andrew Marr let Obama off the hook a bit. Marr asked about “Pakistani territory or other sovereign territory” but Obama managed to make it a answer about Pakistan – and in the current scenario it is generally acceptable that Pakistan’s sovereignty has been compromised for the killing of Bin Laden- while leaving the door open for any unilateral aggression against any country in order to “secure the United States”

The implications of that statement- especially if one is willing to interpret security in a slightly broader context , such as energy security- are mind boggling.

Not that the US has been against unilateral aggression, e.g. twenty years ago, they went in and took out President Noreiga from his presidential palace. But generally, they have always tried to build a legal case for it before the action. In this case, the attorney general has tried to build a legal case after the incident. But Obama has taken it further now by effectively eliminating a legal reason altogether and putting self interest as the only reason.

Now, of course, nations act only in their interest…and hypocrisy on legalese always exists. And yes, often might is right! But even just the need to find a legal reason for something creates a pause and makes a more measured response. And gives a chance for something else to emerge.

But Obama has now thrown that out of the window. In the new “Obama doctrine“ all that is required is for the POTUS to feel that his country’s security is at threat….and boom

• Ecological Security is at threat – let’s take out BP


• Job security is at threat – let’s take out Indian call centres and IT shops


• Border security is at threat because of Mexico – let’s shoot all illegal immigrants coming - they are threats to our security and can be hence considered legal combatants


• The price of oil is so high it is affecting our energy security – let’s invade some of the oil producing countries and give ourselves free oil

Now, I know this is absurd, but still it proves a point. Even hypocrisy has its uses. Such blatant disregard for established diplomatic procedures- and clearly enunciating this disregard is dangerous. And with the US remaining the clear superpower for some time to come it could signal an intention of “do what I say, or else.”
Alas, the US does not seem to want other nations, in dealing with them, to have any more choice than Bernard Woolley did when he told Hacker –“your wish is my cooperation”

The changing face of reading

Amazon has announced that it now has more ebook downloads than actual book sales. The actual statement they made was "Amazon.com is now selling more Kindle books than paperback books. Since the beginning of the year, for every 100 paperback books Amazon has sold, the company has sold 115 Kindle books. Additionally, during this same time period the company has sold three times as many Kindle books as hardcover books.”

Now, there is a slight bit of sophistry, because it means that for every 115 kindle ebooks sold, there are 138 physical books which Amazon has sold. And, i am not sure if this includes marketplace sales or not which i believe is 30% of all amazon sales (though this is not just books, but extrapolating that...) Which means another 108 books sold which are all likely to be physical. So, the real numbers are more like 115 ebooks to 246 physical books, making less than a third of all sales being electronic.

However, whatever I might prove with these numbers, the reality is that the e-book industry is only going to grow. And I am perhaps a bit old fashioned in still wanting to retain the physical book. There is a certain joy in holding a book in your hand and bending the pages which I believe cannot be matched. There is a joy in rummaging through a stack of old books and finding something you have been looking for which a Google search cannot replace.

I remember how kicked I was to find T.S Elliot’s “Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats” in an old road somewhere within Bricklane a year ago; and how I absolutely loved reading about Mungojerrie and Griddlebone (those of you who have read Macavity will know what i am talking about)- twenty years after I first wanted to. And it’s why i almost always visit Manney’s everytime I am back in Pune and have always visited the Strand book festival when I was in Bombay. Unfortunately, I have had no chance of going to the Calcutta book festival...but someday.

I do realize that it is an old fashioned view. Google search does have its advantages. I was able to find “And yet I don’t know”, a poem which Riyaz Bharucha, a senior at school had recited at our elocution contest on August 15th, 1989. I can still remember him going “and yet i don’t know and yet i don’t know...”. And it was because of search I was able to find this gem again. And yes, I did read it online...and it was fabulous.

But then, it was a one page poem, not a book! How can one read 200 pages electronically! I don’t know and as long as physical books are so easily available, do i really need to find out? Many years ago, I installed Microsoft Reader on my work PC and read a lot of stuff on it but it just didn’t seem right. Maybe the kindle is different...but i am sceptical – sceptical enough not to spend the £150 for it.

So, as a via media, I have today downloaded Kindle for Android on my HTC. Read a few of Aesop’s fables on it and I must admit it was not a great feeling. Perhaps I need to read more...and I shall try. Admittedly, it is sub optimal but worth a try. However, I am not complacent of an imminent change in consumer behaviour. Let’s see. Maybe it will need Graphene to drive that change.

But I am sure many of you have already changed your behaviour and I would love to hear from you on how easy you found the transition.

Just to round off on a different note, while the announcement of more ebook sales than physical sales is a momentous one, I read a small article in City AM which is perhaps equally momentous – I believe China now consumes more gold than India. And India has been knocked off its top perch after god knows how long. The year still has some time to go, so I would urge all of you in India – go out and buy gold...you have a national duty to do so now :)

My favourite Hindi film songs

Some weeks ago I had listed what I had thought were the finest song picturizations in Hindi film history. I suppose the logical next step is to look at the top songs itself.

However, choosing just ten songs is really difficult. A way out of it is to make slots and fit things into those slots. The Hindi film industry began in 1931 and we are in 2011, 80 years hence. I have decided to choose one song from each decade, giving 8 in all and then adding 2 more songs from the 1950-1970 period. Those twenty years have been chosen as I believe that they are perhaps the finest period in Hindi film music .

So, these 10 probably wouldn’t be my top ten songs but they do cover the spectrum of Hindi film songs across time. As usual, “another time, another place” applies to these as well.

So, here goes

1930’s

I have actually heard perhaps the least amount of music from this decade. So, it is quite difficult to choose one song. I hardly know of a handful of songs from this period so any choice is limiting. I am greatly tempted to go with “In the world’s broadfield of battle” sung by Shanta Apte in Duniya na mane (1937). But I realize that a part of that decision is being influenced by the fact that it is perhaps the first English song in a Hindi film.

So, I am finally going to go with a very famous song, one which Saigal refused to give playback for and insisted that it be recorded live because that would be the only way to get the sentiment right. Thus Saigal 'walked the streets' singing, with the entire orchestra following him out of the camera's reach. The result was magic. The song has been sung by singers through time but there is still something in Saigal’s rendition which is touching. And of course, Wajid Ali Shah’s lyrics are also very moving- with a poem which operates at two levels - wedding and death. I give you – Babul Mora (Street Singer, 1937)

1940’s

Finally, this proved to be the most difficult decade for me to decide on one song. From the second half of this decade is when I have heard hindi film music. There is a lot of good stuff as singers like Lata, Geeta Dutt, Rafi, Mukesh, Talat, Suraiya all began in this decade as did music directors like Naushad, SJ, C Ramchandra. And of course Saigal, Noor Jehan, Anil Biswas all remained very prolific in this decade.

Finally, I have gone for a song towards the end of the decade – a song which still defines Mohammed Rafi and is one of the earliest examples of the Rafi- Naushad-Shakeel combination working magic. It isn’t picturized on Dilip Kumar though – thankfully, because it a highly boring picturization. I remember when I first saw this song, sometime in the 80’s or 90’s in a Chitrahaar, I was so disappointed at how stupid it looked. But it can’t take away from Rafi’s superlative singing- slow, sentimental and finally out of the Saigal shadow. So, when you listen to listen to this online, close your eyes and just listen – Suhani Raat dhal chuki (Dulari- 1949)

1950’s and 1960’s

I had anticipated that this period would be the most difficult for me to decide. That’s why I decided to have 4 songs from this 20 year period. But it wasn’t so bad. I am surprised that finally I did not pick up a song from Chori Chori or indeed any song of either SJ or Naushad. But actually, for me 2 songs almost picked themselves – indeed, if I had to choose only one song from the 50’s and one from the 60’s it would have been really difficult (as these 2 songs are from 1960 and 1966). But the cushion of 4 songs allowed to me to pick them both and then think about the other two. That was difficult, though finally I did choose 2 songs…but highly debatable, even in my mind.

1. Ye raat ye chandni, Jaal- 1952

There are 2 versions of this song- there is a duet with Lata and Hemant but I am going with the solo by Hemant Kumar. This is Sachin Dev Burman at his best and the music between the stanzas is truly haunting; as is the “hmmhmmhmm” by Hemant Kumar (is this his best Hindi film song?)

While not directly a factor of the song, adding to its effect is the picturization by Guru Dutt and due credit to the cinematographer who makes it even more ethereal. See the moving leaves at the beginning, the waves, the coconut trees…and of course, this song cannot be thought of without mentioning Geeta Bali - not a word does she say but her expressions just add to the mystique of this song.

A clearer version at http://youtu.be/qvZpMRjuvq0

2. Vande Mataram, Anand Math, 1952

Again there are 2 versions of this song- one by Lata but I am going with the one by Hemant Kumar and chorus.

For me, this version is Vande Mataram- not the radio one so many of us grew up with, not the A.R. Rahman “maa tujhe salaam” but this one. A song which was meant to fire up all the revolutionaries should be something like this. Just listening to this makes you feel charged up.

This version uses a longer version of the poem than that which we are used to – some four odd stanzas, some of which many of us would have not heard. And it is so powerful just to feel the energy coursing- even if one doesn’t understand much of what is being sung. For a transliteration and translation of the complete poem (longer than this song) look here.

3. Na to karavan ki talash hai, Barsaat ki raat, 1960

Hindi films have always used qawwalis well; though to be fair, while they mostly retain the form of the qawwali, by far the majority of them do not stay true to the original devotional aspect of qawwalis. Be that as it may, from the famous “aahen na bhari” of Zeenat (1945) right up to “khwaja mere khwaja” in Jodha Akbar (2008), there have been some excellent qawwalis. None probably has been better than this one from Barsaat ki raat – a film which incidentally has two other very fine qawallis – nigah-e-naaz ke maaron ka haal, and ji chahta hai choom loon. But na to karavan is the supreme one.

The complete song is about 12 min long and is intoxicating. Starting off slowly, it builds up gradually and the tempo keeps on rising and rising. And by the time one reaches the line “inteha ye hai ke bande ko khuda karta hai ishq” at the end, one is just lost in the song and really forgotten everything else. This is not a song I can describe; it is an experience one has to undergo by listening to it.

4. Mere dushman tu meri dosti, Aaye din bahaar ke, 1966

A unique choice, in that it’s not the music or the singing or the orchestration that makes this a great song- it’s the lyrics. There are many songs with fine lyrics but only a handful where the lyrics can be the difference which take an otherwise ordinary, normal song and transform it into a brilliant one. Mere dushman is a prime example of that.

Typically, when one thinks of brilliant poetry one thinks of love or of beauty. One definition of “poetic” is “expressing ideas in a very sensitive way and with great beauty or imagination”. Similarly, “lyrical” is defined as expressing beauty and strong emotion.

But this song is different. I do not think I have ever come across a better exposition of hatred than in this song. If one has to answer the question “how much can one hate someone”, I think a pretty good limit on that would be set by the emotions expressed in this song. The tune and the actual singing are quite immaterial in this case- just the words are breath taking. And when I say “breath taking”, I don’t mean in the sense of “oh, what a beautiful view. It takes my breath away”, but more the sharp intake of breath one has when one is humiliated or shouted at. The strength of negativity described by these words is scary and dark. Just listen to the words and to read the (slightly incorrect and incomplete) lyrics go here

1970’s

With the decline of Rafi and the emergence of Kishore in this decade, it is perhaps not surprising that I am going for a song with Kishore kumar in it. Equally, with Asha Bhonsle becoming the more prolific of the sisters, not too surprising that she appears as the female voice in this duet.

The distinctive feature of this song is the abrupt shifts from high pitch to low pitch and vice versa which the 2 singers alternate between. The effect is magical – especially Asha Bhonsle at the low end of the scale. Her voice in this song at that pitch sounds, in my opinion, quite unlike anything else she has ever sung. Unfortunately for Kishore, though he has also sung this song exceptionally well (and it is a difficult song to sing) the distinctive memory for me is Asha Bhonsle…at low pitch. Jaane ja dhundhta fir raha (Jawani diwani – 1972)

1980’s

Perhaps the worst decade as far as Hindi film music goes. Part of the reason was the absolutely rubbish lyrics which started happening in this decade. Hence, it is perhaps appropriate to consider that when R.D. Burman was given the lyrics for this song his first reaction was "Huh, kal tu Times Of India le aayega aur bolega iski tune bana. Metre betre aata to hai nahin tujhe.”

At the same time, ironically, this is one of the more beautiful pieces of poetry one has come across in Hindi films and to that extent the anti thesis of a lot of music of the 80’s. And again Asha Bhonsle voice is silken.

What I really like about the song is the ending – I always feel it’s a bit abrupt but fits in very well with the general way of this song. Mera kuch saaman (Ijazat -1989)

1990’s

Absolutely no debate for me here- there’s only one song which could be selected here. Has there ever been a finer description of a beautiful girl than this. Perhaps “Chaudhvin ka Chand” comes close…but honestly the gap is quite wide. Even when I think of English poetry, say “She walks in beauty” or “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day”, I feel this poem can stand up to them and be considered one of the finest examples of a collection of similes in such a short piece of work.

Of course, the other thing about this song is that it does not just depend on its lyrics- however brilliant they are. The music is melodious and this song forgives Kumar Sanu anything else he might have sung in his life (not that he hasn’t sung some good stuff; but after this it is quite immaterial). And rarely has Manisha Koirala looked more beautiful than in this song- Ek ladki ko dekha (1942, A love story – 1994).

2000’s

Just as qawwali’s have been a staple in hindi films, so have been item numbers – indeed even more so. The term “item number” is probably from the 90’s but item numbers have been around forever. Helen sustained an entire career over more than 20 years as effectively an “item number girl” – which unfortunately does not do enough justice to her acting skills (but that’s another story) and before her there was Cuckoo who was the “cabaret” girl of the 40’s and 50’s. And of course the “mujra” song has been a staple in Hindi films.

So, in a way, it is fitting that one rounds up with this list with an item number featuring the biggest star ever in Indian films along with his son and future daughter-in-law.

I love this song – it’s highly infectious, very zestful and has very nice lyrics. There really isn’t much to write specifically about the song. I just like it a lot! Kajra re kajra re (Bunty aur Babli – 2005)