WITH statements like “for us, everyday is no smoking day,” and his seemingly relentless pursuit of celebrities to knock away the cigarette, Union Minister Anbumani Ramadoss comes across, with best intentions though, as a desperate man.
In an era of coalition politics, it is the small parties that call the rook when it matters the most (as was seen during the last trust vote). So it boils down to not what is done while one is in power but the amount of visibility and media space one has managed to achieve then.
If Ramadoss was ‘really’ concerned about the health of the nation, his focus should have been on the thousands of PHCs that are crying for attention. With the medical supplies system plagued by an archaic approach, it is a miracle that vital health figures are intact. Moreover, to get a grasp of the problem, one does not need a WHO study or a mortality rate figure. A visit to a government-run facility would be a revealing experience.
Ramadoss’ anti-smoking drive, at its best, can be seen as an effort to occupy media space. There is no denying that smoking is a dreaded practice and the effects it has on the individual and society are perilous, but targeting an individual for his supposed influence upon society or by banning smoking is immature. The liberty of making an informed choice should be given to every individual. Moreover, with an election in the near future, one cannot but read between the lines.
The countless studies by his department and NGOs are proof enough that more than smoking, tobacco-chewing affects crores of Indians. Maybe, the Minister could turn to his high-profile colleagues and ask them to stop painting their mouth red. Politicians, thanks to the ever-growing media coverage, have more visibility than any professional in the country. Ramadoss would have got a glimpse of this lately because he readjusted his target from Bollywood to West Bengal Chief Minster Buddhadeb Bhattacharya.
If the Minister is sincere about his efforts of putting out the light, he should look at the world and learn from it. With an estimated budget of nothing short of $40 billion spent every year, AIDS research, prevention and treatment is the largest funded health project in the world. AIDS gets this royal treatment much to the dislike of health experts who often claim that with this focus, many other vital diseases are ignored. But this was not the case 10 years ago. Dr Peter Piot, executive director UNAIDS, has been in the field of AIDS research and programme management for three decades. Piot who was trying to bring world leaders to understand the enormity of the disease hit upon an idea as the millennium approached. “I asked myself what political leaders really cared about. The truth is, it’s not health. It’s economics and security. Health is what they talk about if there is money left at the end of the day,” Piot was quoted telling the Newsweek. Piot said that the disease would wipe away a young generation, destroy the health system and in turn reverse the economic progress achieved. Soon diplomats, policy-makers and world leaders were paying attention. The Unites States that was allocating $100 million a year in the 90’s for AIDS in 2003 allocated $15 billion.
Dr Ramadoss would be aware of this but he is part of a government that fills its coffers with the revenue earned from tobacco trade in the country. Probably the Minister prefers this kind of publicity. The one that is seen before a boxing match - A match between the Minister and the shadow of a heavyweight industry.
(Edited version of the post is published in The New Indian Express: http://epaper.newindpress.com/NE/NE/2008/10/13/index.shtml )
Monday, 13 October 2008
Wednesday, 6 August 2008
I AND THE OTHERS
It can be a backlash of the twin blasts in Bangalore and Ahmadabad, security has tightened in all the metros and seeing lot of checks-and-stops in Chennai is strange. I think more than the physical caution that has been taken, it is the mental precaution that has set all minds alert. The repeated images in the print and electronic media or security measures, have for sure, pushed the level of alertness a notch above than the usual. This can be seen in the number of false alarms that ring at the control rooms everyday.
After the alert was sounded I’ve been on the lookout for a probable unclaimed bag, abandoned car in a crowded place and so on, more so because I frequent the public transport. It was July 29 and two days after the blasts rocked the psyche of the nation. As usual, the bus which I got in, to my office, was crowded. Finding a seat was impossible and it was always book-the-seats-by-standing-in-front-of-it game which all standees engaged in. To my surprise there was this one seat on the right side facing the aisle which was empty. Without thinking twice I jumped for it. Adjusting my big frame I tried being courteous to the passenger sharing the seat by smiling at him. He was a gentle soul who obliged and turned away as though he was in the middle of looking at something.
The passengers in front turned and stared at me. A few among the standees also did the same. The conductor was rash and quick to issue a ticket. He too gave a what-the-hell gawk. It is not uncommon to have these reactions on an MTC but I was intrigued. It might have been the ‘level of alertness’ that was the cause for such a reaction. I looked at my neighbour and found the answer. The gentle soul was in casuals, wearing a white cap, a beard which long due needed a trim. He had a bag with him, a black one. In the sweltering humidity he was wearing a full-sleeved shirt and had an uneasy calm on his face.
The countless images that were dished out in the past few days played in my head. I smiled at him and looked at the others. I felt sorry for them. How could they stigmatise a person based on stereotypes? Their prejudices were amounting to discrimination which was uncalled for. I found answers for my doubts. I knew why the seat was not occupied, why the passengers and conductor gave me the stares.
The ease at which he was taking it surprised me. He was enjoying the ride, occasionally attending a call, unaware of the bias he was subjected to. I knew he was a good person, probably religious and had a family waiting for him to get back. When his stop to alight came, he excused himself and went away. I felt so much at peace with myself for standing apart from the rest of the passengers. I saw myself as a person who did not further the marginalisation that was prevalent.
As the bus left no one cared to occupy the seat that was vacant.
It might have been the ‘level of alertness’ that was a notch up lately, I checked under the seats if there was any unclaimed bag even though I remember seeing him take his bag with him. I tried memorising his visage and other features – he had a mole on his left wrist, was carrying a blue mobile and spoke fluent Tamil and Hindi. Probably English as well, was middle-aged, dark complexion, nose had a long bridge and eyes which drooped. And yes, he was carrying a black bag which was a compliment from a company next to Britannia in Padi.
Was I more other than the others?
After the alert was sounded I’ve been on the lookout for a probable unclaimed bag, abandoned car in a crowded place and so on, more so because I frequent the public transport. It was July 29 and two days after the blasts rocked the psyche of the nation. As usual, the bus which I got in, to my office, was crowded. Finding a seat was impossible and it was always book-the-seats-by-standing-in-front-of-it game which all standees engaged in. To my surprise there was this one seat on the right side facing the aisle which was empty. Without thinking twice I jumped for it. Adjusting my big frame I tried being courteous to the passenger sharing the seat by smiling at him. He was a gentle soul who obliged and turned away as though he was in the middle of looking at something.
The passengers in front turned and stared at me. A few among the standees also did the same. The conductor was rash and quick to issue a ticket. He too gave a what-the-hell gawk. It is not uncommon to have these reactions on an MTC but I was intrigued. It might have been the ‘level of alertness’ that was the cause for such a reaction. I looked at my neighbour and found the answer. The gentle soul was in casuals, wearing a white cap, a beard which long due needed a trim. He had a bag with him, a black one. In the sweltering humidity he was wearing a full-sleeved shirt and had an uneasy calm on his face.
The countless images that were dished out in the past few days played in my head. I smiled at him and looked at the others. I felt sorry for them. How could they stigmatise a person based on stereotypes? Their prejudices were amounting to discrimination which was uncalled for. I found answers for my doubts. I knew why the seat was not occupied, why the passengers and conductor gave me the stares.
The ease at which he was taking it surprised me. He was enjoying the ride, occasionally attending a call, unaware of the bias he was subjected to. I knew he was a good person, probably religious and had a family waiting for him to get back. When his stop to alight came, he excused himself and went away. I felt so much at peace with myself for standing apart from the rest of the passengers. I saw myself as a person who did not further the marginalisation that was prevalent.
As the bus left no one cared to occupy the seat that was vacant.
It might have been the ‘level of alertness’ that was a notch up lately, I checked under the seats if there was any unclaimed bag even though I remember seeing him take his bag with him. I tried memorising his visage and other features – he had a mole on his left wrist, was carrying a blue mobile and spoke fluent Tamil and Hindi. Probably English as well, was middle-aged, dark complexion, nose had a long bridge and eyes which drooped. And yes, he was carrying a black bag which was a compliment from a company next to Britannia in Padi.
Was I more other than the others?
(edited version of this article has appeared in The New Indian Express http://epaper.newindpress.com/Articletext.aspx?article=06_08_2008_011_005&mode=1 )
Monday, 30 June 2008
Dasavaatharam – how Kamal and the media took us for a ride
What do you do when you are old (read 50+) and probably running out of steam? What would you do if you've delivered amazing characters early in your life and not matching them of late? You are a script-dialogue-screenplay, find a fat producer, cast yourself in all possible avathars (how I dread that word now) and call it Dasavaatharam.
For a person who has always rated Kamal Hasaan as a superior actor, especially when compared to his contemporary Rajinikanth, for various critical reasons, this latest offering by the 'Universal Hero' is nothing but a desperate show of glorified nothingness. Only if we had it, I would have dialled 911 to save me from the ordeal, torture and trauma that came in the form of 180-odd minute diarrhoea on celluloid. Not only is the actor a shadow of what he used to be but it seems that he has lost the ground beneath his feet. Often quoted by the mavericks of the industry as an all-season actor, his recent movies only glare one message – this is an actor who is in search of a genre which can befit his ventures, an actor who is trying to make a point, an actor who is desperately trying to make the audience gasp, tears roll down their cheeks, give that edge-of-the-seat feeling.
If his movies in the recent past were premonitions and signs of what were in the waiting, D-10 is the proof of the decline in the standard of cinema he chooses and is associated with.
This new movie, D-10, thanks to the new-age-marketing-gurus will be a hit. The regular talks in the media, the promos have over-satiated the audience that anyone and everyone would want to see the ‘magic’ in the ten-roles-rolled-into-one movie. It will be a hit, a hit to the scale that it would recover the invested money. Would this hold any relevance as a blip on the radar of Tamil cinema or in the actor’s personal profile? – I am sure not. For the best it can be cherished as a magnum opus that should not have happened. It is a blip on the radar – a sign of danger or an itch that is in the larger frame a sign of the times we are in. a time when marketing cacophony is good cinema and not performances.
For the industry this is just another movie which is in tune with the trend at the box office. Hyperbole media attention before the release, aggressive marketing and shrewd publicity is the underlying factor of any present day blockbuster-movie. Most of the movies are but the hero-action-songs-item numbers and D-10 has all of this. The technology is refreshing but not awe creating. There are a few scenes which can be counted as different but the difference ends there.
Kamal Hassan might be a happy man to have donned ten hats or perhaps nine different G-R-O-T-E-S-Q-U-E make-ups but sure not in the top few movies of his good movies. It seems that the actor came up with ten different characters – representing different countries, race, languages, and gender – and wove a movie around it. Or to a thread of a story got this brilliant idea of 10-roles-one-movie-first-time-in –history and made the movie. Except for two – being generous – three roles the others are but a glorified fancy dress competition. Probably Kamal got hooked to the Avaishanmughi routine of extreme-long-sessions-of-make-up and wanted to test it to the maximum in this ten-in-one.For an actor, a thespian of emotions, who has graced the silver screen for more than three decades, this is not just an amateur and uncalled movie but an uncalled and to-be-kind-to-the-movie – uncouth one.
For a person who has always rated Kamal Hasaan as a superior actor, especially when compared to his contemporary Rajinikanth, for various critical reasons, this latest offering by the 'Universal Hero' is nothing but a desperate show of glorified nothingness. Only if we had it, I would have dialled 911 to save me from the ordeal, torture and trauma that came in the form of 180-odd minute diarrhoea on celluloid. Not only is the actor a shadow of what he used to be but it seems that he has lost the ground beneath his feet. Often quoted by the mavericks of the industry as an all-season actor, his recent movies only glare one message – this is an actor who is in search of a genre which can befit his ventures, an actor who is trying to make a point, an actor who is desperately trying to make the audience gasp, tears roll down their cheeks, give that edge-of-the-seat feeling.
If his movies in the recent past were premonitions and signs of what were in the waiting, D-10 is the proof of the decline in the standard of cinema he chooses and is associated with.
This new movie, D-10, thanks to the new-age-marketing-gurus will be a hit. The regular talks in the media, the promos have over-satiated the audience that anyone and everyone would want to see the ‘magic’ in the ten-roles-rolled-into-one movie. It will be a hit, a hit to the scale that it would recover the invested money. Would this hold any relevance as a blip on the radar of Tamil cinema or in the actor’s personal profile? – I am sure not. For the best it can be cherished as a magnum opus that should not have happened. It is a blip on the radar – a sign of danger or an itch that is in the larger frame a sign of the times we are in. a time when marketing cacophony is good cinema and not performances.
For the industry this is just another movie which is in tune with the trend at the box office. Hyperbole media attention before the release, aggressive marketing and shrewd publicity is the underlying factor of any present day blockbuster-movie. Most of the movies are but the hero-action-songs-item numbers and D-10 has all of this. The technology is refreshing but not awe creating. There are a few scenes which can be counted as different but the difference ends there.
Kamal Hassan might be a happy man to have donned ten hats or perhaps nine different G-R-O-T-E-S-Q-U-E make-ups but sure not in the top few movies of his good movies. It seems that the actor came up with ten different characters – representing different countries, race, languages, and gender – and wove a movie around it. Or to a thread of a story got this brilliant idea of 10-roles-one-movie-first-time-in –history and made the movie. Except for two – being generous – three roles the others are but a glorified fancy dress competition. Probably Kamal got hooked to the Avaishanmughi routine of extreme-long-sessions-of-make-up and wanted to test it to the maximum in this ten-in-one.For an actor, a thespian of emotions, who has graced the silver screen for more than three decades, this is not just an amateur and uncalled movie but an uncalled and to-be-kind-to-the-movie – uncouth one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)