Went to see it with trepidation: a 40 year-old lead masquerading as a college student was a recipe that was sure to go horribly, predictably, utterly, irredemiably, excruciatingly, writhingly-embarassingly wrong.
So as penance the least I can do is give a constipated smile here :-\
There. I was wrong.
Loved every moment of it - almost. Loved the oh-so-real contrast of Chatur. Loved the downplaying of mushy-mushy moments. Loved the absence of cynicism. Most of all, loved the unabashed idealism; not the preachy Swades kind, but a more believable kind of let's-go-about-it-and-let-the-devil-take-the-hindmost-kind of glowing goodness.
The childbirth sequence is painful, but it is a small price to pay. The only other crib: why make the prospective dulha, the Wildesian guy-who-knows-the-price-of-everything-but-value-of-nothing, a caricature? (Sigh! I'm in the mood for hyphens today. Well, let me make the most of it)
To me the standout thing about the movie was the attempt at mainstreaming hitherto obscure elements of India and Indians. Wangdu is the unlikeliest of names for a hero in Hindi commercial cinema. Here it was slipped in without a whiff of majority-smarminess that we often see when dealing with any minority issue. The Muslim character and his family are not built-up as a shining beacon of secularism - they are a regular family with regular problems who happen to be Muslims. Chatur could have been seen as a madrasi-from-uganda jester who mixes up his tenses and genders while wafting in noxious farts; but we see him as a desperate anally-retentive man who takes himself so seriously that he loses any sense of proportion that might have given him a peaceful night's sleep. We don't make fun of him. We want to shake him by the scruff of his Hugo Boss jacket and drill some sense into him.
The Director played by Boman Irani teeters on the edge of caricature but redeems himself as only an artiste can. It is not difficult to find such people in our campuses and schools - isolated from the world by years of cotton-balled environs, so devoid of a sense of otherness! I know of headmasters and teachers and lecturers who are uncannily like the character we saw - maybe each with different tics and idiosyncracies, but vivid in their colouration and exotic as a menagerie.
All of these elements mingled in this film and they crafted a story for us that was both overdue and is boilingly-hot. After this film one should not now be surprised to see many more youngsters in our IITs and IIMs and RECs questioning the relationship between career and desire. They have found an ally and a tongue. However, it is not just Kapil Sibal who is responsible to open the windows, it is actually the parents and teachers and employers who need to look out of this opened window and realise that the horizon really meets at infinity.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Google Games
An interesting fact from the google pages - as this article shows, Google shows Arunachal as Chinese to users in China; Indian to the users in India; and disputed to the rest of the world.
I thought I'd check it for myself at the maps.google.com instead. Here's what I see: All of J&K is shown as disputed, all of AP is. However Tibet is shown as Chinese and Taiwan is left to interpretation as it is not on mainland, hence no contiguous boundary. As it happens, google maps don't show international maritime boundaries. So there is no way of knowing.
Tomorrow if India were to claim Bhutan as it's own, would it be seen as disputed by Google? After all, one sovereign nation, India, thinks Bhutan is her's.
Another case: Srinagar is shown as India, Gilgit as Pakistan; and funnily enough, Siachen too is shown as Pakistan!
Further afield, in Palestine, the land between the '49 Armistice and the '74 Ceasefire line is shown under Israel, and not as disputed. It is occupied by Israel.
So, what to make of it all? Siachen is occupied by India, but is shown as Pakistan. But Ein Zivan, for instance is occupied by Israel but not shown as Syria.
Clearly, there is evidence to show that Google it towing the US line - it is in alignment with the overt and covert US foreign policy. It cannot be termed as business sense; it is anything but that. It is jingoistic.
So why can't India, a country that has some clout, not make it difficult for Google? China has. Israel has. Why should India be seen as pusillanimous? I'm all for making it tough for companies like Google - companies who, in the military parlance, are nothing more than mercenaries; ronin.
They should be treated as one.
I thought I'd check it for myself at the maps.google.com instead. Here's what I see: All of J&K is shown as disputed, all of AP is. However Tibet is shown as Chinese and Taiwan is left to interpretation as it is not on mainland, hence no contiguous boundary. As it happens, google maps don't show international maritime boundaries. So there is no way of knowing.
Tomorrow if India were to claim Bhutan as it's own, would it be seen as disputed by Google? After all, one sovereign nation, India, thinks Bhutan is her's.
Another case: Srinagar is shown as India, Gilgit as Pakistan; and funnily enough, Siachen too is shown as Pakistan!
Further afield, in Palestine, the land between the '49 Armistice and the '74 Ceasefire line is shown under Israel, and not as disputed. It is occupied by Israel.
So, what to make of it all? Siachen is occupied by India, but is shown as Pakistan. But Ein Zivan, for instance is occupied by Israel but not shown as Syria.
Clearly, there is evidence to show that Google it towing the US line - it is in alignment with the overt and covert US foreign policy. It cannot be termed as business sense; it is anything but that. It is jingoistic.
So why can't India, a country that has some clout, not make it difficult for Google? China has. Israel has. Why should India be seen as pusillanimous? I'm all for making it tough for companies like Google - companies who, in the military parlance, are nothing more than mercenaries; ronin.
They should be treated as one.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
India's 'new' military doctrine
This article by Dr. Maleeha Lodhi raises some interesting points.
The summary of the thesis is that India has over-reached and has aspirations that it cannot possibly meet in the future. This has been translated as a show of arrogance and misplaced self-importance.
There is merit to this argument. It is not for the first time that Indian foreign policy has been discussed by people who should know better and by people who ought to be discreet. Our FO mandarins have never shied away from bombast. Pity! It does not behoove a country of India's pedigree to allow such loose talk from its elite.
It would have been far more effective to not discuss the specifics at this stage and to bend all the powers of the mind, statecraft and the military to achieving the vision.
However, let's examine the main points of the new strategy. First the cold-start doctrine. It's been in place since 2004. This doctrine is totally Pak-centric. And that is my first objection. When we sat down to craft a Pak-centric strategy, why did we not at the same time sit to design a China-centric strategy? Surely we have the thinkers in this country and enough experts in geo-politics and military strategies? It seems inconcievable that the only foe which has defeated us does not figure in our primary strategy. Well, perhaps the think-tank is and has a strategy; maybe it is chary of revealing it. If it is so, then kudos, well done!
The cold-start strategy itself has its pros and cons. The ultimate idea of creating smaller and more mobile 'Integrated Battle Groups' (IBG), capable of being deployed on the western front within 96 hours is a laudable one. Since it is being seen as an integrated exercise, the Navy and the Air Force will also bring their respective strengths on board. Whether or not we will even exercise this option and attack Pakistan is very moot. Perhaps a combination of political and tactical events may make it necessary - example: another Paliament-like/Mumbai-like attack by Jihadis and with Al Qaida being chased on Pakistan's western borders, India might think it is the right time to do large-scale damage to specific targets in Punjab or Sindh.
However, I doubt if we would ever think of a controlled strike as a strategy to retaliate against the game of attrition being played in the Kashmir vale - as this article from Walter Ladwig suggests. That game has become far too complicated.
Second, to the articulation of a 'two-front war' - Ms. Lodhi has a pathogenic dislike to anything that the Indians might want to say about themselves that throws them in good light. Is the 'two-front war' only a rhetoric meant to boast about our military prowess of handling two formidable foes at the same time? Is it not a reality for India that there could be a situation in the future where China and Pakistan gang-up on us? Is that too outre? I don't think so. In which case, is it not a smart thing to be prepared for that eventuality? If Raja Mohan is to be believed, the strategic think-tank has not been too active in making these plans. In fact, he raises a far more disturbing point: that under the current political dispensation we have lost at least two opportunities to stake our leadership in this region.
Either way, if there is a move to articulate our defence and offence strategy for the northern border it ought to be welcomed. One only wishes that not too much is divulged - or only misleading bits are divulged. We need to be far more crafty in dealing with China - we need to believe in Chanakyaneeti. The buff and raucous way that we behave in dealing with such matters needs to change, or it needs to be part of a brilliant side-stepping strategy to pull several fast ones. If the latter is true then even as I write and as we speak, we are being out-flanked by the FO mandarins. In which case, FO guys (and gals), Good show!
The only way to figure what is the reality would come from mapping the strategy to the purchases and from the recruitment and from the slow and invisible changes in the command-structure. I'll post something about this later - at the moment I don't even have the starting data. Readers are welcome to direct my attention to links and web resources.
The summary of the thesis is that India has over-reached and has aspirations that it cannot possibly meet in the future. This has been translated as a show of arrogance and misplaced self-importance.
There is merit to this argument. It is not for the first time that Indian foreign policy has been discussed by people who should know better and by people who ought to be discreet. Our FO mandarins have never shied away from bombast. Pity! It does not behoove a country of India's pedigree to allow such loose talk from its elite.
It would have been far more effective to not discuss the specifics at this stage and to bend all the powers of the mind, statecraft and the military to achieving the vision.
However, let's examine the main points of the new strategy. First the cold-start doctrine. It's been in place since 2004. This doctrine is totally Pak-centric. And that is my first objection. When we sat down to craft a Pak-centric strategy, why did we not at the same time sit to design a China-centric strategy? Surely we have the thinkers in this country and enough experts in geo-politics and military strategies? It seems inconcievable that the only foe which has defeated us does not figure in our primary strategy. Well, perhaps the think-tank is and has a strategy; maybe it is chary of revealing it. If it is so, then kudos, well done!
The cold-start strategy itself has its pros and cons. The ultimate idea of creating smaller and more mobile 'Integrated Battle Groups' (IBG), capable of being deployed on the western front within 96 hours is a laudable one. Since it is being seen as an integrated exercise, the Navy and the Air Force will also bring their respective strengths on board. Whether or not we will even exercise this option and attack Pakistan is very moot. Perhaps a combination of political and tactical events may make it necessary - example: another Paliament-like/Mumbai-like attack by Jihadis and with Al Qaida being chased on Pakistan's western borders, India might think it is the right time to do large-scale damage to specific targets in Punjab or Sindh.
However, I doubt if we would ever think of a controlled strike as a strategy to retaliate against the game of attrition being played in the Kashmir vale - as this article from Walter Ladwig suggests. That game has become far too complicated.
Second, to the articulation of a 'two-front war' - Ms. Lodhi has a pathogenic dislike to anything that the Indians might want to say about themselves that throws them in good light. Is the 'two-front war' only a rhetoric meant to boast about our military prowess of handling two formidable foes at the same time? Is it not a reality for India that there could be a situation in the future where China and Pakistan gang-up on us? Is that too outre? I don't think so. In which case, is it not a smart thing to be prepared for that eventuality? If Raja Mohan is to be believed, the strategic think-tank has not been too active in making these plans. In fact, he raises a far more disturbing point: that under the current political dispensation we have lost at least two opportunities to stake our leadership in this region.
Either way, if there is a move to articulate our defence and offence strategy for the northern border it ought to be welcomed. One only wishes that not too much is divulged - or only misleading bits are divulged. We need to be far more crafty in dealing with China - we need to believe in Chanakyaneeti. The buff and raucous way that we behave in dealing with such matters needs to change, or it needs to be part of a brilliant side-stepping strategy to pull several fast ones. If the latter is true then even as I write and as we speak, we are being out-flanked by the FO mandarins. In which case, FO guys (and gals), Good show!
The only way to figure what is the reality would come from mapping the strategy to the purchases and from the recruitment and from the slow and invisible changes in the command-structure. I'll post something about this later - at the moment I don't even have the starting data. Readers are welcome to direct my attention to links and web resources.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
On Avatar
The special effects are so dazzling and the digital world of Pandora is so bewitching that one postpones the niggling feeling that this is a story that reeks of Judaeo-Christian simplification of a heathen world. Poor, simple-minded, artless children of nature, tramelled under the foot of a superior race of humans (all Americans, mostly white).
Whilst the innocents talk environmental cliches, the one neat trick all Pandorans have is the tassled synaptic ends that act as USB connectors to a massive Central Consciousness Centre (Oh! Sri Sri, we missed your gabble!), which later reveals itself as a large tree built with Faerie Lights. This idea is a cool one and would have been plausible had the contrast between the simple-mindedness of the ten-foooters and the sophistication of the inter-synaptic connections not been too great. Imagine! The Pandoran Pterodactyls, the 6-footed horses (more like Threstals, really), all were instantly docile the moment the mutual tassles connected; imagine the transformation of the 'soul' from a human - an alien race - to an ten-footer (though Sigourney Weaver does not make it): breath-takingly advanced. (One curious aside: I don't remember any Na'vi eating in the film. There is only a brief shot of the gurrl drinking off a Pandoran lily and that was more to show her limpid eyes and trembling lips than victualising)
To then imagine the same people to go into that chanting trance like the chak-chak dancers of Bali and to seek a messiah to emerge from the enemy race. Of course it had to be the Human who would tame the red Pandoran pterodactyl! (How could we have doubted that!). Ah! finally a person who shows the poor natives what the real stuff is about. Poor duds, what did they know! Well. dunno about you, but I found it a tad too similar to the telling of the history of the heathen world from the eyes of Roman Catholic conquistadores. A history that still helps the West stereotype just about everything that is Eastern, and hence by default, Dionysian.
Look also, at the other actors: the military commander of evil intent - he seemed to have not a single redeeming bone in his body - the glowing facsimile of Lucifer. Along with Ribisi (Phoebe's kid-bro from Friends) they were more the Judy and Punch from the neighbourhood Pantomime. There is a moment where Ribisi is shown to be in two minds, he seems unsure. Hopefully it is meant to portray an inner turmoil. We have no way of getting any deeper for this nano-second of insight has not been developed further. The commander suffers from no such pussy-footedness. He is of the brawny Republican mein - perhaps a Cheney in one dimension?
What boggles the mind is that such majesty of technical sophistication in the film was matched with the characterization that only a Jellyfish would consider nuanced (hang on! perhaps that's insulting to the Cniderians, maybe the amoebas then?). The story could still have been a simple one (well, there's only so much one can absorb after being bedazzled with such digital artistry), but surely some realistic layers could have been introduced in the Humans and the Na'vis? Some controlled nuances of the heroes and villians? (did you see a baaaaad Na'vi? No, only one who is jealous and blinded-by-love). It would then have been a memorable movie.
In the end, all one remembers is the awesome spactacle of Pandora seen through 3-D glasses. Nothing more.
Whilst the innocents talk environmental cliches, the one neat trick all Pandorans have is the tassled synaptic ends that act as USB connectors to a massive Central Consciousness Centre (Oh! Sri Sri, we missed your gabble!), which later reveals itself as a large tree built with Faerie Lights. This idea is a cool one and would have been plausible had the contrast between the simple-mindedness of the ten-foooters and the sophistication of the inter-synaptic connections not been too great. Imagine! The Pandoran Pterodactyls, the 6-footed horses (more like Threstals, really), all were instantly docile the moment the mutual tassles connected; imagine the transformation of the 'soul' from a human - an alien race - to an ten-footer (though Sigourney Weaver does not make it): breath-takingly advanced. (One curious aside: I don't remember any Na'vi eating in the film. There is only a brief shot of the gurrl drinking off a Pandoran lily and that was more to show her limpid eyes and trembling lips than victualising)
To then imagine the same people to go into that chanting trance like the chak-chak dancers of Bali and to seek a messiah to emerge from the enemy race. Of course it had to be the Human who would tame the red Pandoran pterodactyl! (How could we have doubted that!). Ah! finally a person who shows the poor natives what the real stuff is about. Poor duds, what did they know! Well. dunno about you, but I found it a tad too similar to the telling of the history of the heathen world from the eyes of Roman Catholic conquistadores. A history that still helps the West stereotype just about everything that is Eastern, and hence by default, Dionysian.
Look also, at the other actors: the military commander of evil intent - he seemed to have not a single redeeming bone in his body - the glowing facsimile of Lucifer. Along with Ribisi (Phoebe's kid-bro from Friends) they were more the Judy and Punch from the neighbourhood Pantomime. There is a moment where Ribisi is shown to be in two minds, he seems unsure. Hopefully it is meant to portray an inner turmoil. We have no way of getting any deeper for this nano-second of insight has not been developed further. The commander suffers from no such pussy-footedness. He is of the brawny Republican mein - perhaps a Cheney in one dimension?
What boggles the mind is that such majesty of technical sophistication in the film was matched with the characterization that only a Jellyfish would consider nuanced (hang on! perhaps that's insulting to the Cniderians, maybe the amoebas then?). The story could still have been a simple one (well, there's only so much one can absorb after being bedazzled with such digital artistry), but surely some realistic layers could have been introduced in the Humans and the Na'vis? Some controlled nuances of the heroes and villians? (did you see a baaaaad Na'vi? No, only one who is jealous and blinded-by-love). It would then have been a memorable movie.
In the end, all one remembers is the awesome spactacle of Pandora seen through 3-D glasses. Nothing more.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Rajkot Drama
825 runs scored in under 8 hours. 15 wickets given scoring them.
One team lost by 3 runs.
A remarkable match. Because in the end it was not the 414 that India scored that won them the match. A huge score by any reckoning. Yet, one cannot say that it was the scoring of 400 that led us to win.
Nor was it the 411 that SL scored chasing. Under any circumstances one would have thought that a team scoring 400 would have won. Well, they didn't.
India won because it held its collective nerve in the last two overs. So it didn't really matter to all of us who were watching if the score was 400 or 200. The important thing in the 50th over was was that Ashish Nehra should not give a 4 and should preferably take a wicket every ball. I did not think of 414. And I bet you didn't either. It was all about Nehra bowling those yorkers and SL not being able to score of the last 6 balls. The actual score was inconsequential; it could have been anything!
However the match will always be remembered, not for its close verdict, but for the two teams that scored 400 apiece. In a way it is fair - after all, we have seen so many close matches with all kinds of scores. But nail-biters with 400 runs apiece? well, just 2! This and the one that SA and Oz played in 2006.
The cynic would say that there now is no need for the bowler. They anyway get carted for boundaries. They might as well have bowling machines instead. Yet while watching this match, it is impossible to imagine India winning had Zaheer and Ashish N. not bowled those yorkers in the last two overs.
However, the credit, 100% credit, to make this match a nail-biter goes to the SL team. As Sanga said, they did not, 'roll over and die' (haha, Oh! the wit of a budding lawyer) thinking of chasing 414. They matched India blow for blow and held a slight advantage at the 35 over mark.
Which is why I would have given my MoM to the 160 by Dilshan. Maybe the adjudicators could have been cheesy and given it jointly to Viru and Dilshan? This SL team is a proud team and Sanga is the most gracious of leaders. Perhaps is is better to not rub in the salt and give this the flavour of a 'consolation' by going joint or giving it to Dilshan. You know what? I think, it's fine that SL walk away with the head held high and without people throwing scraps at them.
It is amusing to see Mahi do the deliberate nonchalant act after we win. He does this after every match of consequence. It looks cool. Suits Mahi.
One last thing. I don't want to make a big deal out of this. But I can't help mentioning that the last two Test matches and this ODI were far more riveting and satisfying than the two 2020s. I'm just saying...thats all.
:-)
Well, in the end we won. Good for us.
One team lost by 3 runs.
A remarkable match. Because in the end it was not the 414 that India scored that won them the match. A huge score by any reckoning. Yet, one cannot say that it was the scoring of 400 that led us to win.
Nor was it the 411 that SL scored chasing. Under any circumstances one would have thought that a team scoring 400 would have won. Well, they didn't.
India won because it held its collective nerve in the last two overs. So it didn't really matter to all of us who were watching if the score was 400 or 200. The important thing in the 50th over was was that Ashish Nehra should not give a 4 and should preferably take a wicket every ball. I did not think of 414. And I bet you didn't either. It was all about Nehra bowling those yorkers and SL not being able to score of the last 6 balls. The actual score was inconsequential; it could have been anything!
However the match will always be remembered, not for its close verdict, but for the two teams that scored 400 apiece. In a way it is fair - after all, we have seen so many close matches with all kinds of scores. But nail-biters with 400 runs apiece? well, just 2! This and the one that SA and Oz played in 2006.
The cynic would say that there now is no need for the bowler. They anyway get carted for boundaries. They might as well have bowling machines instead. Yet while watching this match, it is impossible to imagine India winning had Zaheer and Ashish N. not bowled those yorkers in the last two overs.
However, the credit, 100% credit, to make this match a nail-biter goes to the SL team. As Sanga said, they did not, 'roll over and die' (haha, Oh! the wit of a budding lawyer) thinking of chasing 414. They matched India blow for blow and held a slight advantage at the 35 over mark.
Which is why I would have given my MoM to the 160 by Dilshan. Maybe the adjudicators could have been cheesy and given it jointly to Viru and Dilshan? This SL team is a proud team and Sanga is the most gracious of leaders. Perhaps is is better to not rub in the salt and give this the flavour of a 'consolation' by going joint or giving it to Dilshan. You know what? I think, it's fine that SL walk away with the head held high and without people throwing scraps at them.
It is amusing to see Mahi do the deliberate nonchalant act after we win. He does this after every match of consequence. It looks cool. Suits Mahi.
One last thing. I don't want to make a big deal out of this. But I can't help mentioning that the last two Test matches and this ODI were far more riveting and satisfying than the two 2020s. I'm just saying...thats all.
:-)
Well, in the end we won. Good for us.
Thai Pavilion after the makeover
I had dinner last week at the Thai Pavilion. Long had I wished to go, and this article by Vir Sanghvi tipped it over. I had to go. At least to see the coloured glasses by Super Potato. It's not fair to talk about the decor - after all Thai Pavilion is known for its food. The coloured glass jars - rows and rows of it filling up an entire wall - seem to be 3/4th filled with rangoli powder. Cute.
Now to the food.
The build-up was immense. Just last week I had read that it is the top five destinations in India - with Bukhara at the top and TP third. Till the last week, the only Thai places I had eaten were: Thai Ban (several times), The Thai Restaurant next to National College in Bandra Linking Road (now closed; I forget the name), A Thai joint in San Dimas, Calif, US; and a few Chinese eating paces that also serve Thai.
The water being served was directly bottled from the Himalayan springs. So much for the build-up! Tom Kha first, then Som Tam. The soup was nice; bland-ish, not hot enough and the veggies were - well, normal. Did not spot anything that surprised me (pleasantly!) and made me say, 'mmmmm. hhh, mmmm'. I did that on 5th Dec. when served with the T. Kha at Thai Ban.
A decidedly tepid start, I thought.
The papaya salad was, again, ok. Nothing that one did not expect a posh and famous place to serve. It was again bland-ish. The the papaya gratings could have been a tad finer and perhaps the peanut a little less coarse. Definitely more lemon juice, and a little bit of magic perhaps. Well, I had to rely heavier that I would have liked to on the sauces provided.
The portion was small considering it cost INR 500. (In fact all the portions for whatever we had that night were just under what one would expect. Hmmm. Not that we are big eaters. One likes to see a surfeit, I guess! After all there are doggie bags to consider)
By this time I was apprehensive that the meal was going only in one direction - down!!!
Then came the raw mango and water chestnut salad. Nice. But too simple. Just two basic tastes and two basic textures: the mango and the water chestnut; sour and bland. One thought it could have been made faaaaar more interesting. After all a Thai kitchen probably has the most astonishing array of condiments, sauces, dips and relishes. Once again, we all got too busy with the (four, yes, only four) sauces at the table. I asked for more - and was given a bowl of garlic in chili oil. Nice, but not Thai enough. The nam pla, though, was excellent!
By this time the main course had been ordered and we were looking at each other with trepidation. Oh Lord! What a disappointment!! I was already making mental plans - perhaps it's still not too late to nip in to Thai Ban.... perhaps one should call them, just in case...
Then came broccoli in some kind of a black-bean based gravy - very dry and aromatic. It was delicious! It went just perfectly with the plain rice. The black bean paste was flavorful, light and it did not have the bitterness that the Chinese one has. The garlic was just right. The dish was sweet and succulent and lovely!
Revived, at last!
Then came the old favourite. Green curry with veggies. It was fantastic! The best I had eaten. It had pieces of okra, plantain, barbatti and it has lots of flavours that kept popping and bursting in my mouth.
I left it mid-course to try the Phad Thai, thinking that it would be good to leave the tastiest for the last. Well the rice noodles was terrific as well. The textures were varied and perfect, the taste was fresh, the gravy was savoury enough to satiate my Indian palate. It was great! Only complaint - the portions! Oh! Did I already say that the portions were small?
Hmmm.
Well, it didn't take long to finish the noodles and get back to the rice and the green curry. Thankfully, the rice bowls seemed to be like Draupadi's - the spoonfuls kept dropping on my plate. Usually, I eat till I'm just over a-half full. That night, I was maybe a little over that. So yes, it was a nice meal, in the end!
And BTW, the service was chaotic at times, but the main server was knowledgeable. He stopped me from ordering a perfectly ghastly affair of batter-fried squashes (I have a horror for batter fried stuff), and recommended this-and-that-and-the-other. Good!
Learning: Do not order starters in this new Thai Pavilion. Go straight for the jugular. Score: 3.5/5
Now to the food.
The build-up was immense. Just last week I had read that it is the top five destinations in India - with Bukhara at the top and TP third. Till the last week, the only Thai places I had eaten were: Thai Ban (several times), The Thai Restaurant next to National College in Bandra Linking Road (now closed; I forget the name), A Thai joint in San Dimas, Calif, US; and a few Chinese eating paces that also serve Thai.
The water being served was directly bottled from the Himalayan springs. So much for the build-up! Tom Kha first, then Som Tam. The soup was nice; bland-ish, not hot enough and the veggies were - well, normal. Did not spot anything that surprised me (pleasantly!) and made me say, 'mmmmm. hhh, mmmm'. I did that on 5th Dec. when served with the T. Kha at Thai Ban.
A decidedly tepid start, I thought.
The papaya salad was, again, ok. Nothing that one did not expect a posh and famous place to serve. It was again bland-ish. The the papaya gratings could have been a tad finer and perhaps the peanut a little less coarse. Definitely more lemon juice, and a little bit of magic perhaps. Well, I had to rely heavier that I would have liked to on the sauces provided.
The portion was small considering it cost INR 500. (In fact all the portions for whatever we had that night were just under what one would expect. Hmmm. Not that we are big eaters. One likes to see a surfeit, I guess! After all there are doggie bags to consider)
By this time I was apprehensive that the meal was going only in one direction - down!!!
Then came the raw mango and water chestnut salad. Nice. But too simple. Just two basic tastes and two basic textures: the mango and the water chestnut; sour and bland. One thought it could have been made faaaaar more interesting. After all a Thai kitchen probably has the most astonishing array of condiments, sauces, dips and relishes. Once again, we all got too busy with the (four, yes, only four) sauces at the table. I asked for more - and was given a bowl of garlic in chili oil. Nice, but not Thai enough. The nam pla, though, was excellent!
By this time the main course had been ordered and we were looking at each other with trepidation. Oh Lord! What a disappointment!! I was already making mental plans - perhaps it's still not too late to nip in to Thai Ban.... perhaps one should call them, just in case...
Then came broccoli in some kind of a black-bean based gravy - very dry and aromatic. It was delicious! It went just perfectly with the plain rice. The black bean paste was flavorful, light and it did not have the bitterness that the Chinese one has. The garlic was just right. The dish was sweet and succulent and lovely!
Revived, at last!
Then came the old favourite. Green curry with veggies. It was fantastic! The best I had eaten. It had pieces of okra, plantain, barbatti and it has lots of flavours that kept popping and bursting in my mouth.
I left it mid-course to try the Phad Thai, thinking that it would be good to leave the tastiest for the last. Well the rice noodles was terrific as well. The textures were varied and perfect, the taste was fresh, the gravy was savoury enough to satiate my Indian palate. It was great! Only complaint - the portions! Oh! Did I already say that the portions were small?
Hmmm.
Well, it didn't take long to finish the noodles and get back to the rice and the green curry. Thankfully, the rice bowls seemed to be like Draupadi's - the spoonfuls kept dropping on my plate. Usually, I eat till I'm just over a-half full. That night, I was maybe a little over that. So yes, it was a nice meal, in the end!
And BTW, the service was chaotic at times, but the main server was knowledgeable. He stopped me from ordering a perfectly ghastly affair of batter-fried squashes (I have a horror for batter fried stuff), and recommended this-and-that-and-the-other. Good!
Learning: Do not order starters in this new Thai Pavilion. Go straight for the jugular. Score: 3.5/5
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Another angle to the Edwina-Nehru saga
Last week I read Pamela Mountbatten's interview and tried to map it to the generally-held view of the Jawahar-Edwina relationship. The general view is that it was an affair, kept under wraps, but plain for all to see including Edwina's husband. A film was almost made - and it may well be made in the future - about this torrid romance carried out in the heat and haze of Delhi.
Why would Pamela Mountbatten disagree with this version of truth and insist that it was not a sexual relationship but one brimming with love and friendship? For one, it may well be true. As in, really, really true. (Check this scene in Bend it Like Beckham, 2 mins into this youtube).
It is not a secret that there have been reports of Pandit Nehru having had gay leanings, at least while at school. Wolpert has written about it and many in India made a big deal out of it. Seen from that light, the Jawahar-Edwina relationship can be very well understood as that of a gay man and his fag-hag. It would have all the ingredients that Pamela has talked about - it would be intimate without being steamy, it would be deeply emotional, it would be physical as in hugs, and kisses and touches - but entirely without a tremor in the nether regions of either. It explains the equanimity of Lord Mountbatten, a handsome dasher if there ever was one, and an alpha male; casting an indulgent eye on the lady being frivolous with another good-looking man.
No one knows what the truth was. (Nor is it anybody's business, really. But it makes for interesting conjecture). I think it is sweet to imagine two grown-up people who are in love in the way that most people cannot imagine them to be, the fact that their friendship was 'more innocent' than what people thought it to be, and the fact that it probably suited the two (and the hubby) to let it be seen that way.
I wonder if a film will get made with this as the angle? To silence the critics who say it was sexual and to show how 'pure' the friendship was. How ironical would that be?
Am I the only one who thinks that this might be even more unpalatable to those who demand nothing less than perfection from our holy cows?
Why would Pamela Mountbatten disagree with this version of truth and insist that it was not a sexual relationship but one brimming with love and friendship? For one, it may well be true. As in, really, really true. (Check this scene in Bend it Like Beckham, 2 mins into this youtube).
It is not a secret that there have been reports of Pandit Nehru having had gay leanings, at least while at school. Wolpert has written about it and many in India made a big deal out of it. Seen from that light, the Jawahar-Edwina relationship can be very well understood as that of a gay man and his fag-hag. It would have all the ingredients that Pamela has talked about - it would be intimate without being steamy, it would be deeply emotional, it would be physical as in hugs, and kisses and touches - but entirely without a tremor in the nether regions of either. It explains the equanimity of Lord Mountbatten, a handsome dasher if there ever was one, and an alpha male; casting an indulgent eye on the lady being frivolous with another good-looking man.
No one knows what the truth was. (Nor is it anybody's business, really. But it makes for interesting conjecture). I think it is sweet to imagine two grown-up people who are in love in the way that most people cannot imagine them to be, the fact that their friendship was 'more innocent' than what people thought it to be, and the fact that it probably suited the two (and the hubby) to let it be seen that way.
I wonder if a film will get made with this as the angle? To silence the critics who say it was sexual and to show how 'pure' the friendship was. How ironical would that be?
Am I the only one who thinks that this might be even more unpalatable to those who demand nothing less than perfection from our holy cows?
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Generosity of companies
On the Thursday before Diwali night, I was given a box of chocolates. This brought back a flood of memories. My first 'meaningful' employer was Reliance and I joined the Patalganga factory as a trainee some 15 years ago. Within 2 months of joining, during Ganesh Chaturthi I received a bonus of 6000 rupees and a small box of sweets. During Diwali I received a bonus of 30,000, free coupons worth 7000 rupees (to 'buy' clothes, food, goods, et al) and a kilo of kesar kaju katli. We would also get regular supplies of Godrej towels (large ones), Cinthol soaps so that we could shower and clean up after getting our hands dirty in the plant. (I just took them home. Officers were not supposed to bathe in the factory like the 'common' technicians). Besides, we always got all the safety equipment that we ever wanted and uniforms (along with stitching charges). Plus we were fed every 2 hours, all 24 hours. late work meant getting dropped home in a car all by myself. This happened in all the four years that I was with them. The bonus amount kept mounting each year. I was a rich little bugger.
Since then I have been with 5 other employers, two of them for decent periods. Never have I seen that level of generosity. In fact, it embarrasses me to say that the other two places have been piteous, not just by Reliance standards, but by any reasonable standards of generosity. It left a hollow feeling of being seen as a burden. Such bitter aftertaste! It seems that generosity is now only shown to the top layer of leaders in the organization, who, by the way, are extraordinarily well paid and perked and who, seem to need the generosity least. I have always wondered how a 16 hour flight is more harrowing to the CEO who needs to travel first class. Must be some Vishnu-induced metaphysics where for the hoi polloi, it's merely a 2 hour jaunt across the Atlantic.
Have we, I wonder, outgrown the era of generosity? Have we entered, some would say re-entered, an era of gracelessness? Of course, I'm sure it works both ways. Employees too are so mercenary nowadays. It is the norm to be so.
Well! there you are! I meant this to be the post for Diwali.
Happy Diwali anyway!
Since then I have been with 5 other employers, two of them for decent periods. Never have I seen that level of generosity. In fact, it embarrasses me to say that the other two places have been piteous, not just by Reliance standards, but by any reasonable standards of generosity. It left a hollow feeling of being seen as a burden. Such bitter aftertaste! It seems that generosity is now only shown to the top layer of leaders in the organization, who, by the way, are extraordinarily well paid and perked and who, seem to need the generosity least. I have always wondered how a 16 hour flight is more harrowing to the CEO who needs to travel first class. Must be some Vishnu-induced metaphysics where for the hoi polloi, it's merely a 2 hour jaunt across the Atlantic.
Have we, I wonder, outgrown the era of generosity? Have we entered, some would say re-entered, an era of gracelessness? Of course, I'm sure it works both ways. Employees too are so mercenary nowadays. It is the norm to be so.
Well! there you are! I meant this to be the post for Diwali.
Happy Diwali anyway!
Monday, September 28, 2009
Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam: Connecting with our world
I met Max in 2007. He was in Mumbai for a 6-month internship. He is from Rennes. I got to know him during this internship - we would lunch at the same place. He came back next year with a few more friends. This time as a 6 week vacation. For the last 1 year he is in Australia, completing his Masters (and travelling all over the continent). In between he spent a few months vacationing in Portugal and Spain.
Jan and Tomas are friends who were in Brisbane along with me - all of us were there for some university education. I came back to Mumbai after my MBA. Jan and Tomas took a flight to Hong-Kong from where they chug-chugged their way in some kind of a pan-China railway stopping at all the interesting places. This railway met the Trans-Siberian along the way and the two transferred on and crossed over to Europe. They even made a detour to Mongolia!! From Europe they apparently made a brief stop over in Amsterdam and from there they went to Nairobi. Among other things, they hired a team of 12 helpers and mounted an assault on Kilimanjaro - burra sahib-style. The recce team would go ahead and clear the way, set up the tent, make the meals and drinks, smoothen the pillows and the blanket; and wait for the intrepid duo to puff in. Jan sent me a pic of Jan 'Hillary' and Tomas 'Norgay' atop the snowy peak, fluttering flag and smudgy unwashed grins and all. They went back home to Norway, settled down into jobs and are busy raising families now. Of course, they go vacationing every year - almost always to new, unexplored places and people.
Last year I was on my way to NY in a Jet flight. I was cursing my luck that I had the middle seat in the middle at the tail-end of the plane. I was greeted by a grinning, wire-haired, skinny guy who had pierced ears (3 places), pierced eyebrow (left), and a tattoo on the right forearm. His was the right hand-seat. Name - Rafael, Rafa. Percussionist from Barcelona. Rafa was in India for 6 months. Spent time in temples listening to panch-vadyam, attended all the recitals he could in Delhi, Chennai and Mumbai; was thrilled to bits watching pung-cholam in Delhi (I think). He was eager to come back. He loved every minute. So was he going home now, after six months of breathtaking excitement? No sir! He was going only as far as Brussels. Then he would attend some seminars in Netherlands and Belgium before leaving for Yaoundé, Cameroun. He would spend a month or two travelling along the coast - Accra, Abidjan right up to Dakar, meeting people, learning about African percussion. Why Yaoundé? Well, he had a contact.
There is a custom in Europe, Anzac and in North America for young adults, just out of college, being encouraged by parents, by neighbours, by teachers, by strangers and by the State to go out and see the world. To experience freedom, to face difficulties, to overcome impossibilities and come back enriched and hopefully, wiser. Or maybe to just let off steam, soak in alcohol and cheap drugs and cheaper sex. Whatever!
We seem to have the opposite culture. Start the career immediately after college, work, don't fritter away any time, stay at home, be mamma's good, dutiful boy; go vacationing to 'native' or with the family. If one is bold, then go with friends to Goa and drink cheap beer, ogle at whores (but do nothing), do a surreptitious skinny-dip for all of three minutes, piss on the beach in moonlight and come home braver.
Paul Theroux talks about interacting with the gentle and helpful Vietnamese, and marvels at the absence of rancour against the Americans. How I wish we, the increasingly boorish, loud and pompous desi would go to Vietnam and learn a bit of humility. And there is no harm at all in starting young - right after college.
A generation or two of our youngsters travelling across the world would change the tone and even the substance of national debate. This present generation is far more mature and open minded than any in the past; and they are, I believe, free from many of the baggage older generations carry. With rising prosperity and expendable income (thanks to IT and BPO) perhaps the generation of intrepid Indian youngsters is not too far away!
Surge forth, children! The world is indeed our family. Go, meet them.
Jan and Tomas are friends who were in Brisbane along with me - all of us were there for some university education. I came back to Mumbai after my MBA. Jan and Tomas took a flight to Hong-Kong from where they chug-chugged their way in some kind of a pan-China railway stopping at all the interesting places. This railway met the Trans-Siberian along the way and the two transferred on and crossed over to Europe. They even made a detour to Mongolia!! From Europe they apparently made a brief stop over in Amsterdam and from there they went to Nairobi. Among other things, they hired a team of 12 helpers and mounted an assault on Kilimanjaro - burra sahib-style. The recce team would go ahead and clear the way, set up the tent, make the meals and drinks, smoothen the pillows and the blanket; and wait for the intrepid duo to puff in. Jan sent me a pic of Jan 'Hillary' and Tomas 'Norgay' atop the snowy peak, fluttering flag and smudgy unwashed grins and all. They went back home to Norway, settled down into jobs and are busy raising families now. Of course, they go vacationing every year - almost always to new, unexplored places and people.
Last year I was on my way to NY in a Jet flight. I was cursing my luck that I had the middle seat in the middle at the tail-end of the plane. I was greeted by a grinning, wire-haired, skinny guy who had pierced ears (3 places), pierced eyebrow (left), and a tattoo on the right forearm. His was the right hand-seat. Name - Rafael, Rafa. Percussionist from Barcelona. Rafa was in India for 6 months. Spent time in temples listening to panch-vadyam, attended all the recitals he could in Delhi, Chennai and Mumbai; was thrilled to bits watching pung-cholam in Delhi (I think). He was eager to come back. He loved every minute. So was he going home now, after six months of breathtaking excitement? No sir! He was going only as far as Brussels. Then he would attend some seminars in Netherlands and Belgium before leaving for Yaoundé, Cameroun. He would spend a month or two travelling along the coast - Accra, Abidjan right up to Dakar, meeting people, learning about African percussion. Why Yaoundé? Well, he had a contact.
There is a custom in Europe, Anzac and in North America for young adults, just out of college, being encouraged by parents, by neighbours, by teachers, by strangers and by the State to go out and see the world. To experience freedom, to face difficulties, to overcome impossibilities and come back enriched and hopefully, wiser. Or maybe to just let off steam, soak in alcohol and cheap drugs and cheaper sex. Whatever!
We seem to have the opposite culture. Start the career immediately after college, work, don't fritter away any time, stay at home, be mamma's good, dutiful boy; go vacationing to 'native' or with the family. If one is bold, then go with friends to Goa and drink cheap beer, ogle at whores (but do nothing), do a surreptitious skinny-dip for all of three minutes, piss on the beach in moonlight and come home braver.
Paul Theroux talks about interacting with the gentle and helpful Vietnamese, and marvels at the absence of rancour against the Americans. How I wish we, the increasingly boorish, loud and pompous desi would go to Vietnam and learn a bit of humility. And there is no harm at all in starting young - right after college.
A generation or two of our youngsters travelling across the world would change the tone and even the substance of national debate. This present generation is far more mature and open minded than any in the past; and they are, I believe, free from many of the baggage older generations carry. With rising prosperity and expendable income (thanks to IT and BPO) perhaps the generation of intrepid Indian youngsters is not too far away!
Surge forth, children! The world is indeed our family. Go, meet them.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Match schedule in Champions Trophy
Before India plays her first game, SA, SL and WI would have finished 2 of their 3 matches. India play Pakistan, for whom it will be the second match. Intriguingly, Pakistan then have to wait till the 30th for the last match with Australia; same as WI who will play us on the same day.
I wonder, why this lopsidedness?
Has it something to do with an early Indian departure? It's known that with the exit of the Indian team, the TV spectators too drop drastically. Some companies now release the new adverts only when assured of an Indian presence in the 'second week'. I cannot recall this kind of 'adjustments' being made in the itinerary for past world cups and major tournaments.
While it makes sense to ensure that everyone profits from cricket, it will be wise for the administrators to keep the interest of the game itself as the highest priority. For example, if a schedule is designed where a team goes off the boil (as Pak or WI might), it is not fair to them.
I'm not suggesting that the current schedule is inimical, but if the administrators are not vigilant, it will drift into that territory without them realising it.
I wonder, why this lopsidedness?
Has it something to do with an early Indian departure? It's known that with the exit of the Indian team, the TV spectators too drop drastically. Some companies now release the new adverts only when assured of an Indian presence in the 'second week'. I cannot recall this kind of 'adjustments' being made in the itinerary for past world cups and major tournaments.
While it makes sense to ensure that everyone profits from cricket, it will be wise for the administrators to keep the interest of the game itself as the highest priority. For example, if a schedule is designed where a team goes off the boil (as Pak or WI might), it is not fair to them.
I'm not suggesting that the current schedule is inimical, but if the administrators are not vigilant, it will drift into that territory without them realising it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
