Vantage point

Shashi Tharoor and Free Speech Restrictions

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 14:15:00 +0000

Yesterday, Shashi Tharoor pointed me to a Deccan Chronicle article where he lays out his rationale in detail. Let me address some of the examples, analogies, and references in the article. These rhetorical tools Tharoor used are frequently used by others who support some curtailment of free speech, so it's important to analyze them.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in the US, put it memorably when he said that freedom of speech does not extend to the right to shout “fire!” in a crowded theatre.

This quote has been misused so often in free speech arguments, that it is like the also-misused Einstein quote "God does not play dice" frequently employed by religious people against atheists. There are a couple of brilliant dissections of the Holmes quote, along with the context in which it was said here (scroll down) and here.

But in short,

a. Tharoor, like most people misquoting the line, has conveniently left out the falsely in the falsely shouting fire part.
b. The judgment restricting free speech where Holmes wrote it was overturned by the US Supreme Court in 1969.
c. Holmes himself changed his mind and when a similar case came to the bench, voted against curtailing free speech.

The irony here is that Tharoor has misused the quote in much the same way that Justice Holmes did in the original context. The Supreme Court case wasn't about whether to prosecute a man shouting fire in a crowded theater. It was about whether a couple of people distributing fliers criticizing the US government's draft order for World War 1 were right. Holmes wrongly used the analogy in a context where the government wanted to stop an individual from criticizing the government.

Mr Sibal’s main concern was not with politics, but with scurrilous material about certain religions that could have incited retaliatory violence.

And Tharoor is using it in a context where, despite all this talk about wanting to curb vile incitements, the fact remains that 2/3rds of the postings that the Indian government asked Google to remove were criticisms of the Government. Tharoor keeps insisting in his column and on twitter that Sibal's concern is not politics. But he refuses to explain why most postings sought to be removed criticized the government, and had no overt or covert scurrility about religion, or anything that could incite retaliatory violence.

Free speech absolutists tend to say that freedom is a universal right that must not be abridged.

This is a mischaracterization. Free speech supporters actually say that GOVERNMENTS should not abridge this right. Which brings us to....

But in practice such abridgement often takes place, if not by law then by convention. No American editor would allow the “n” word to be used to describe black Americans, not because it’s against the law, but because it would cause great offence.

And most free speech absolutists, including me, have no problems with abridgment by convention or social pressure, as long as it is not by law. Yes, the American society has placed a high cost on using the n-word. But it has not, will not, and thanks to a solid constitution and a generally rigorous legal system, cannot legally penalize someone for saying the n-word.

I don't know of anyone who insists that free speech means the editor should have no say in what his publication publishes. It's his publication. He gets to decide what goes in there. Similarly, I don't have a problem with Google or Facebook or Twitter voluntarily deciding to delete content that they don't like. Their servers, their decision.

The problem is with the government placing restrictions or handing down convictions in case some editor does decide to publish the n-word. Or Facebook has no problems with someone publishing a post critical of Sonia Gandhi.

As for the general points regarding free speech, and using the excuses of its possible consequences to restrict it, they have been wonderfully made by Greatbong and Amit Varma. And in response to Tharoor's points in an earlier context, by Christopher Hitchens here (do watch the video!). I will not repeat them here.

But will end with one last question for Shashi Tharoor. If a group of people band together and decide that The Great Indian Novel is insulting enough to the Hindu epic Mahabharat and the Indian freedom movement to go on a riot, would you ask for a ban on it? After all, riots in India have been sparked (engineered?) by text much tamer than referring to the father of the nation as Public Enema Number One.

Open Letter to Shashi Tharoor

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 21:19:00 +0000

Dear Shashi

First up, let me admit that I find the whole idea of "open letters" a bit grandiose and moronic. An exercise in conscience massaging more than anything useful. Kinda like..... I don't know.....maybe the United Nations? But still, I was annoyed enough by your craven volte face on the Indian government's proposed censorship measure to write this damned thing.

So here are a few tweets you posted about Kapil Sibal's proposal to censor the social media.

Spoke to KapilSibal. He assured me he opposes political censorship. Concern is re communally inflammatory images&language which he described.

As I said in my debate w/Hitchens that many of u have cited,all societies observe certain restraints re language&images acceptable in public

I understand Facebook is indeed taking down some pages that KapilSibal showed them. Pretty vile stuff. Sadly public didn't object2them 1st

I reject censorship. Art,literature&political opinion are sacrosanct. But inflammatory communal incitement is like a match at a petrol pump.

@KanchanGupta Kanchan, come on. Nowhere have I supported political censorship. I have a pretty long record of standing up for press freedom

You then tweeted that we should wait for some Deccan Chronicle and/or Asian Age article from you so you can expound at length on what the heck it is you mean.

So what the heck do you mean, Shashi? Do you support censorship or don't you? Because from what I read in your tweets, you are not opposed to censorship per se, only to "political" censorship.

What is "political" censorship? Censoring your political opponents? So if party A which is in the opposition says something and party B, which is in power censors it, that is wrong, and you're against it? Great! So you don't really support the "freedom" of speech. You support the "privilege" of speech, a privilege which is only extended to politicians, not to common voters.

So if I, as a common voter, say, something on my Facebook wall questioning the great place that Chhatrapati Shivaji holds in Maharashtra politics. And if the Sena or NCP decide to censor me, that is fine, because it is "pretty vile" or "communally inflammatory". But if I first enroll in some political party, file papers for a legislative seat, and say the same thing, then it is "political censorship" that you oppose?

So if I say something about Shivaji and am censored, whether it is wrong or not will depend on whether I am a politician or not? Do you realize how utterly ridiculous that sounds?

Oh oh oh.... I am sorry. Of course! It depends on what I exactly say, doesn't it? The speech has to be "vile" enough to be "inflammatory communal incitement is like a match at a petrol pump". So if I say something that in your or Sibal's (or according to Sibal, Zuckerberg's) infinite wisdom is just a mature critique of Shivaji's place in Maharashtra, then I have the right to free speech. If what I say is "vile" or "inflammatory" then it should be censored, huh?

And who makes that call?

Let me take a short detour here. And bring in an uncle. This uncle and I, over the years, shared a lot of conversations about literature. We recommended books to each other, and discussed them at length. We grew to trust each other's judgment on books, and took each other's opinions seriously.

Until one day in 1999. I recommended a book to him. He told me he was going to buy it. He read it. The next time I met him, he was more upset at me than when I had accidentally broken a rare vase he bought from Hong Kong.

"What crap are you reading, Gaurav?" he thundered.

"Huh???"

"Is this how little you respect you country and your culture?"

"What?"

"Public ENEMA number one? Is that how you'd talk about Gandhiji?"

"Ohhh....."

"You would read a book that jokes about Gandhiji shoving something up his own butt?"

"Uncle...."

"What offensive nonsense is this? Using our glorious and heroic freedom struggle and the most venerated Mahabharat for toilet humor and disgusting innuendos? This is some vile stuff!"

(I swear he used the word 'vile'!)

"Uncle, come on!" I protested and tried to reason with him.

And so the conversation went.

The book that he got so offended and inflamed by....well Shashi, I don't need to tell you what book it was. But in case someone eavesdropping on this open letter is wondering, it was The Great Indian Novel by Shashi Tharoor which jokes about things much more irreverent than Gandhiji getting an enema.

Obviously, I don't think the book is inflammatory. But my uncle did. I also know people who think the great Indian cult comedy Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron should be banned, because it insults the Mahabharat.

And in case you think these are just some fringe loonies, here's a sobering thought. I knew a guy a decade ago or so who though the Marathi play Yadakadachit (which used the Mahabharat as a satirical setting, not dissimilar to The Great Indian Novel and Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron) was offensive. The guy later entered local politics, and worked with right wing parties in Maharashtra to actually get that play banned!

That's the thing, Shashi. Anything and everything that even tangentially touches upon religion can be branded by someone out there as "vile" or "inflammatory". Who draws the line? And once someone draws a line, what stops it from being redrawn and redrawn until it has a chilling effect on any kind of speech that is critical of religion or community beliefs? Don't even think of bandying that old Potter Stewart quote here - "I know it when I see it", because no, you don't, and neither do I. No one does. Which is why speech should be FREE, not hostage to the opinion of the knowledgeable or even the majority. Some principles of democracy are too important to be left to the mercy of the majority's opinion.

Heck, I know people who insist that even atheists like me who say "there is no god....this whole god idea makes no sense" should be censored...because apparently listening to people like us could "confuse religious children who are unsure about their beliefs."

And as I said before, I know people who believe The Great Indian Novel is "vile", offensive to Hindus and to the freedom movement, and should be banned.

So my question to you, Shashi Tharoor, one-time nominee for the United Nations Secretary General, and member of the Indian Parliament, is, what the heck, dude?

Yours in Utter Revulsion
Gaurav

Re-Appreciating Sherlock

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 21:20:00 +0000

Like most of you, I read Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes books in my teens. Loved them. Sherlock Holmes became an elusive nerdy ideal I dreamed of copying. His mysteries were as spine-tingling as they were educational (my first exposure to the Ku-Klux-Klan was through Sherlock Holmes). Then, like all of you, I grew up. Moved on to other literary heroes, and other practical considerations in life.

Then a couple of years back, I heard that there were two different Sherlock Holmes "interpretations" in the works. Both being conceived by creators I was a fan of - Guy Ritchie of Snatch Fame and Steven Moffat of Coupling fame. Hmm, I said to myself, reinterpreting Sherlock Holmes while keeping his "soul" intact was no easy job. I had sen Granada Television's TV series, and as faithful as it was to the original, I still had issues with it. Translating Doyle's work into something you can put on the screen seems tough. But if I had to choose 2 guys to do it, Ritchie and Moffat would be in my list.

Furthermore, Ritchie's interpretation would feature Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes. I am a BIIIIG fan of Downey's. And Watson would be played by Jude Law whom I have a healthy regard for. I also heard that Irene Adler would be played by Rachel McAdams, whom I consider one of the most talented actresses around. So all in all, I was positively predisposed toward's Guy Ritchie's Sherlock.

Then the movie came out5. I went to watch it, "first day first show". And it left a bad taste in my mouth. I didn't have any major problems with how Downey played Holmes or Law played Watson. I just plain didn't like the movie. Didn't like the underlying "mystery" which I found too Dan-Brown-ish for my taste.

That blunted my enthusiasm for Steven Moffat's BBC TV series. As a tempered Sherlck Holmes fan, I had already been disillusioned by Guy Ritchie. Did I want to give another Brit the opportunity to disappoint me? No thanks! Plus I knew that Moffat's interpretation placed Sherlock Holmes in the 21st century, a tough ask. Yup, definitely NO THANKS! I steered clear of watching the show.

But then, a bunch of my friends got the better of me. "Give it a shot, just one shot!", they said. BBC's series Sherlock, although it is set in present times, is wayyyyy more true to the original than Ritchie's abomination, they said. So I thought, fine, let me give it a shot.

The result astounded me. I loved it, no I LOVED it! Steven Moffat's Sherlock, set in the 21st century, resonated wayyyyyyy more with me than Ritchie's Sherlock, set in Victorian times. The 3 episodes, all "movie length" (i.e., 90 minutes each)felt more genuine than anything Guy Ritchie served up. I didn't know why! How could Sherlock Holmes set in 2010, with text messaging, websites, and GPS, resonate with me more than Guy Ritchie's decidedly Victorian interpretation? I had no idea! But it did!

Then recently, I moved to New York City. Started spending a long time in suubways. So I downloaded the Kindle app on my phone. Looked for free books. Found a lot of Sherlock Holmes books. Started (re) reading them during my subway rides.

And I got why I loved BBC's Moffat series! Over the years, my mind retained the "essence" of Sherlock Holmes, but had forgotten the specifics. When I watched Moffat's series, I felt he had captured the "essence". Re-reading the books told me why I felt that way. Because despite throwing Holmes and Watson into 2011, Moffat retained their basic appeal, with some amazing attention to detail that, my mind forgot, but my subconscious mind appreciated!

For example, the way Holmes asks Watson "Afghanistan or Iraq" when they first meet. It's a clear reference to the way Doyle's Holmes guessed Watson's military background in Afghanistan. How he guesses....I am sorry....deduces several facts about Watson's sibling based on his cellphone (clear and direct reference to how Holmes deduced facts about Watson's brother in the original books).

But these are blatant references. The series is full of references to facts that the generic Holmes fan, who read the books years ago, is likely to forget. For instance, in the series, Sherlock randomly shoots at the wall because he is bored. Seemed gratuitous to me. But after reading the books, I realized it was faithful to the original, in which Doyle writes that Holmes does that!

Or the cipher in the 2nd episode. Such a clear reference to the cipher in the Valley of Fear! The series is studded with loyal references like that. Which makes it, despite being set in present times, the most loyal interpretation of Doyle's Sherlock Holmes ever!

Watch it!

Rickshawwallahs

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:07:00 +0000

Do you remember that pretty bungalow in your neighborhood owned by a rickshaw driver? Do you remember those groups of rickshawwallahs that sit in Barista or Cafe Coffee Day sipping lattes and mochas as they take a break from their shifts? Do you remember how the expensive box seats at IPL matches are mostly taken up by rickshawwallahs? Do you remember all those rickshaw drivers, with their wives and kids buying up all the designer clothing and shoes in malls?

No?

Me neither!

The IC 814 Fallacy

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:49:00 +0000

I am opposed to the death penalty. In all circumstances and situations, no matter how evil the perpetrator. This draws me into occasional debates (the latest triggered by the Troy Davis execution) with my friends who support the death penalty, at least in the rarest of rare cases.

This post is not about why I believe the death penalty is wrong. Rather, it is to address a fallacious argument that pops into death penalty debates among Indians with predictable regularity - the IC 814 argument. This argument typically unfolds as follows. A supporter of the death penalty says that executing the rarest of rare cold blooded murderers protects society from likely repeat offenses. To which my answer is, lifelong incarceration in a secure prison could protect society from the murderer just as well. The counter-point then is, ah, but what about an IC 814 type situation?

For those who came late, IC 814 was an Indian Airlines plane hijacked by Pakistani terrorists in 1999, demanding the release of three dangerous Pakistani terrorists in Indian custody. The hijackers killed one passenger, and threatened to kill all others unless the three terrorists were released. The Indian government gave in to pressure from the hijacked passengers' families, and released the terrorists. So the IC 814 argument in support of the death penalty, at least for terrorists, is that if we incarcerate terrorists without executing them, their supporters may threaten or kill more people to secure their release. That's why convicted terrorists like Ajmal Kasab should be executed.

I find this argument deeply fallacious, perhaps the most flawed argument that a supporter of the death penalty can make.

The first and biggest flaw in this logic is the assumption that terrorists' supporters will only carry out an act of terrorism to negotiate their release, not to seek revenge for the execution. In fact, a follow-up act of terrorism is much more likely to be motivated by revenge, considering that the stated objective of almost all terrorist acts is retribution.

Another flaw is that when you provide prevention of possible murder by someone else as grounds for killing the convicted, the whole logic about the validity of the death penalty goes for a toss. Because you're implicitly saying that the convict's own acts or potential to himself kill again is secondary to what someone else may do. The argument is thus very utilitarian, driven by convenience or precaution against something the convict himself possibly cannot do. Utilitarian or convenience based arguments are rather hollow in justifying execution, don't you think?

If preventing the headache of hijacks or hostage-takings is such a strong motivation, why can't it be utilized against people who haven't committed murders? In the 70s, when the Janata government arrested Indira Gandhi, two men hijacked a plane and threatened to blow it up unless she was immediately released from prison. The aforementioned argument implies that Indira Gandhi should have been executed to prevent such hijackings by her fanatical supporters. There have been other hijackings demanding the release of jailed individuals who had never killed anyone. Should these individuals be executed because their supporters are crazy enough to threaten others for their release?

I am sure any reasonable person's reply is, no, they shouldn't. Because it is absurd to kill someone as a precautionary measure against something someone else might do. The same is then true regardless of what the jailed individual's crime is - fraud or corruption in the case of Indira Gandhi, or cold blooded mass murder in case of Ajmal Kasab. Argue the merits of executing someone on the basis of what THEY have done, not what someone else MIGHT do.

There are many cogent and respectable arguments in favor of the death penalty that I may not agree with, but understand where they are coming from. The IC 814 argument however, is just fallacious and wrong.

Public Servants - America vs India

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Sun, 28 Aug 2011 02:14:00 +0000

I usually don't partake in the "XYZ is so cool in America, but the same XYZ in India sucks!" talk. But a recent observation drove me to think that way.

In New York City, I got into a subway train at its first stop at evening rush hour after a day spent on my feet. The compartment had only a dozen or so people - an exhausted me, 6-7 exhausted looking young uniformed guys, and a few others. We all sat on the easily empty seats, as anyone getting on at the first stop of a commuter train would. I looked at the uniforms. They all said "New York City Police Academy". So the guys were all new recruits in training to join the New York Police Department. They all were drenched in sweat and looked tired. It was clear that they'd spent a day in training or drills so demanding that my own day seemed luxurious in comparison.

The next stop was one situated in a busy office zone, and where a lot of subway lines intersect. So as the train pulled into the station at rush hour, there were heavy crowds waiting to get on. It was obvious that the remaining seats would be filled in a matter of seconds, AND there'd be dozens of people standing.

Just as the train was about to stop, ALL the police academy guys got up from their seats, without a word. I assumed they were going to get off at the stop. But no! They got up. And they stood, clutching the bars. The door opened, the crowds came in. the quick ones took the seats, the rest stood. And the police academy guys, who had rightfully earned the seats by the universal public transport law of "first come first serve", voluntarily stood with them.

In the grand scheme of things, a minor incident. But I couldn't help stare at them all in admiration. These young men, still in training, had the sense to think - it's the public we serve, and it's not fair that we sit while the public stands. There's no law requiring that cops give up their seats for civilians. yet they did it, without comment or provocation, in tandem, indicating that all of them thought it was the most obvious thing to do.

I could not help but contrast it with the hundreds of occasions in Indian buses or trains that I have seen Indian cops claim scarce seats as if they were royalty. Indian "public servants" take the phrase to mean that the public are their servants. In the US, it is clearly the other way around.

IIPM and Caravan Magazine

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:03:00 +0000

As is usually the case, whenever something noteworthy related to IIPM happens, I get a surge of emails, IMs and tweets from people asking about it. So yesterday when Caravan made it public that they had been sued by IIPM, I saw the incoming communication surge. Rather than individually answer everyone who asked my opinion on it, I thought of making this post, summarizing it.

Firstly, I have been aware of IIPM serving Caravan a legal notice for a couple of weeks now. The Director of Delhi Press and Managing Editor of Caravan, Anant Nath is a friend (we were in the same batch at IIM Lucknow). He told me about the lawsuit and his intention to fight it. Anant is a great guy, with outstanding vision that has made Caravan one of the best magazines in India in recent years. He also has a great sense of morality, personal conviction, and courage, which is why I am happy but not surprised by his decision to take on IIPM.

As for the lawsuit itself, it is a painful reminder of how someone can manipulate the legal system in India. Just like JAM magazine, Caravan has been sued in a court in remote Silchar, although neither or JAM, Caravan, or IIPM are based in Silchar. In both cases, the court in Silchar ordered an "ex-parte injuction" asking both magazines to take down the posts without ever hearing from them. And the court has asked the magazines to keep the posts down until the case has decided. Apparently, the legal system in India allows for this.

However you can still access both articles, not on the magazine sites, but on private blogs. Here is the JAM article and here is the Caravan article.

Will IIPM manage to win the cases against JAM and Caravan? Based on what lawyer friends tell me, unlikely. The Indian libel laws give a decent amount of leeway under freedom of speech, and the plaintiff has quite a challenge in proving libel.

But it is my guess/opinion that IIPM is not interested in actually "winning" these cases. Now that the court injunctions have taken the articles offline, their purpose is served. As we know, court cases in India can drag on for years, and as long as the cases drag on, the injunction will forbid the two brave magazines to publish the articles.

Well, what can I say? My opinions about IIPM are well known. I can only extend my full support and any help possible to my friends at Caravan (and JAM). I hope they can somehow manage to get the cases thrown out or decided in their favor soon.

The Culinary Underdogs - "Simple" Indian Dishes

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:09:00 +0000

This week, Floyd Cardoz, a New York-based Bombay-born-and-raised chef won Top Chef Masters. In the finale, the first course was supposed to be a dish that was associated with an early memory. Cardoz made the humble upma, by elevating it with subtle variations, like using chicken stock and adding mushrooms. In the third course, along with an Indonesian braised beef dish, he served a side of what he called "tapioca pilaf", but which essentially looked like good ole sabudana khichdi.

My twitter timeline and facebook newsfeed are full of Indians marvelling at, confused at, and even laughing at an Indian chef winning a prize of $100,000 after serving *snicker* upma and sabudana khichdi. And that triggered a post I have been composing in my head for a while now - simple Indian dishes, the culinary underdogs.

Indian cuisine's foremost ambassadors have been Punjabi restaurateurs. So what the rest of the world thinks of as "Indian" cuisine is essentially Punjabi (plus some mughlai). These dishes are elaborate, requiring a dozen or more spices and ingredients, including but not limited to the standard pantheon of turmeric-chili-cumin-coriander-ginger-garlic-onion. Then there's garam masala, cloves, cinnamon, cardamom, poppy, dry fruits, and much more. The main ingredient, whether meat or veggies or dairy, needs to be cooked thoroughly. So the cooking time is at least half an hour.

The end result is usually yummy. I have spent a couple of hours on biryani, nihari, haleem, murgh musallam, and always found the food worth the time and effort.

But.

The elaborate cooking is just one facet of Indian cuisine. Not that this is news to any Indians out there. We have all grown up eating the simplest of dishes that our moms could whip up in no time. And we love eating them. But for some reason, most of these dishes have not made it to fancy restaurant menus, and the few that have, like upma, are treated like stepkids. Subsequently, they have not been the subject of experimentation and enhancements with a few exceptions like Floyd Cardoz and Jehangir Mehta in New York. If an Indian dish is simple, it is considered infra-dig.

Why?

Some of the most fancied dishes in the world are refreshingly simple. But they are fancied because their proponents have, without any sense of shame or inferiority, held them up as special dishes. So if you think "upma", you think, oh, this simple lame dish I have had a million times. But take the same concept, apply it to a different grain - corn, give it a fancy name like "polenta", and suddenly people are willing to pay big bucks to eat it at a posh restaurant. Or, take yet another dish based on the same idea - "grits", and people will wax eloquent about the magic of soul food, southern American cuisine, and so on.

In a Frasier episode, Frasier and his brother Niles, who considered themselves refined gourmands, realize that the fancy French and Italian dishes they swoon over are essentially "peasant food", so why should they look down upon American "peasant food" like burgers and sandwiches? They get rid of their snooty attitude and enjoy pleasant meals.

Similarly, my dear Indians, most of the non-Indian dishes we eat are simple, yet delicious. So why not share with the world our own simple dishes? And why not take pride in them?

I have enjoyed cooking and eating all sorts of dishes from different cuisines. I love a good risotto, but don't see why bisibelebaath or dahibutti or tempered-curd-rice shouldn't be considered in the same league. Why are savory crepes so la-di-dah but dhirde/ghavan (served as "veg tomato omelet" in Indian udipi joints) infra-dig? Why is couscous such a posh choice, but sabudana khichdi sold only in tiny college canteens? Why is Neapolitan Eggplant Parmesan so eclectic but simple vaangyaache kaap are not even seen on a menu? Et cetera et cetera...

Growing up, I have eaten dozens of simple Indian dishes at home (or at friends' homes) that have given me as much pleasure as elaborate dishes. On the few occasions that I made and shared such simple dishes with non-Indian friends in the US, I got a great response, with them wondering why Indian restaurants don't serve these dishes. I am convinced that if Indian foodies and cooks go forth and boldly serve a different kind of Indian cuisine - simple low-on-ingredients dishes, it will be just as successful as the spice-and-effort-heavy food that everyone now thinks of as Indian food abroad.

Do your part!

As for me, I can't wait to try making upma with chicken or beef stock!

Why Outsourced Failed

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Sat, 14 May 2011 19:06:00 +0000

In an expected move, NBC has canceled Outsourced, thus ending the experiment with a sitcom based in India. The show debuted at 9:30 on Thursday nights, which means it got the strongest lead-in* an NBC sitcom could get - The Office. The early ratings were decent, and the show got picked up for an entire season. However, after a promising start in ratings, the viewership declined, and by the end of the season, it was obvious that the show wouldn't survive. Let's see why Outsourced failed.

Like all Indians, I tuned in to watch the early episodes, and like most Indians, I was underwhelmed. Despite the heavy dose of cliches (jokes about cows, traffic, arranged marriage, diarrhea, pronouncing Manmeet as man-Meat), I didn't really find the show offensive like several commentators did. I just found it lazy. This was an opinion shared by my non-Indian friends as well.

As an Indian, I also found it a bit jarring that all the Indian characters on the show, played by Indian immigrants from UK or US, had horrible accents. Except for Rizwan Manji's Rajiv Gidwani, all other actors sounded like poor imitations of Apu from The Simpsons. The worst by far was Rebecca Hazlewood, who played Asha. After a few episodes, she seemed to have stopped even trying to sound Indian, and everything she said was in a mild British accent. But these are minor points. The biggest problem was writing.

After a few episodes, I still continued to watch the show (mainly because it aired between two shows I usually watch). And I was pleased to see that the show improved. The improvement wasn't vast, but the jokes were at least going beyond the cliches. Some of the characters, especially Rajiv and Charlie, were actually starting to seem funny. I know others like Gupta, but I always hated that character. Very badly written and clumsily portrayed, I thought.

As the season went on, the show became watchable. Not something you would heartily recommend to your friends, but not something you'd necessarily hate either. The scope of jokes and humorous situations widened, and in fact trained guns more on the white folks than the Indians. The India-centric jokes were also funnier and not cliched - like the huge line of people (including an actual grandma) applying for a call center job, the scenes involving haggling with shopkeepers, and so on.

Throughout Fall, ratings stayed decent. Then came the Christmas break. And when the Spring schedule started, NBC pushed Outsourced to 1030 PM, giving the 9:30 slot instead to Parks & Recreation's 2nd season. Personally, I welcomed the decision. I think Parks&Rec is one of the best comedies on TV right now, light years ahead of Outsourced or any other comedy on network TV. But this demotion meant that Outsourced would get a smaller captive audience to begin with.

And that's when ratings faltered. It meant that the show didn't have enough dedicated fans who would tune in to watch it no matter when it was aired. Its respectable Fall ratings had more to do with The Office lead-in than any inherent fan base.

Through the spring, the episodes were decent. I didn't watch most of them when they aired, but caught it later on Hulu or ONDemand. And it's losing viewers like me that eventually spelled doom for Outsourced.

Even though I thought the show improved vastly compared to its first 3 episodes, I found nothing in the show that really grabbed me. The plots for the most part were just rehashed from standard sitcom fare - misunderstandings, silly pranks, will-they-wont-they romance, and so on. There isn't a single episode that stands out as really good.

But the biggest problem with the show, that I think made its cancellation inevitable - the lukewarm lead character/actor. Todd Dempsy, the American executive forced to go to India just did not strike a chord with me or anyone else. He was just a unidimensional bemused/amused smiler who didn't really speak to the audience. Ask any Outsourced viewer who their favorite character is, and all of them will say Gupta or Manmeet or Charlie or Madhuri. I don't think anyone would say Todd. Ben Rappaport didn't do a great job portraying him either. I don't think he had the range. In contrast, the Todd from the movie from which the sitcom was spun off was portrayed very well by Josh Hamilton.

Most sitcoms, especially on NBC, need the lead character to do most of the heavy lifting at least in the first season. 30Rock would've been nowhere without Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin. Parks&Rec was carried by Amy Poehler in the first season, as was The Office by Steve Carell. And even Community, with a much stronger ensemble cast, needed Joel McHale's Jeff Winger to resonate with the audience first. With Outsourced, Todd had nothing for you. I cannot think of a single hilarious scene carried by Rappaport, although i can think of many with Manji and Bader.

Another problem was, I don't think the creators or writers knew exactly what they were setting out to create. In marketing lingo, the positioning of Outsourced was very muddled. Was it going to be a fairly formulaic, easy-to-laugh-at, simple sitcom with fairly predictable plots and arcs, but in a different setting (e.g., The Big Bang Theory, How I Met Your Mother, Two and a Half Men)? In which case, it would get panned by reviewers but have a large, mostly "simple" audience who prefer their sitcoms straightforward. Or was it going to be an intelligent and bold show, subversive, charting new territory hoping to find a niche but loyal audience (e.g., Community, Parks&Rec, Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia)? In which case its ratings would never go through the roof, but good reviews and a loyal following from the coveted educated demographic would keep it on air.

Outsourced fell somewhere between the two. It was heavy on formula for sure. But it also used things from Indian culture as the premise, which made the LCD audience think too much. It had some slapstick humor, but did not go all the way with it. It introduced some complex humor based on Indian realities, but did not jump into it either. It ended up being neither here nor there. So as the season came to a close, it didn't have the masses-who-love-easy-laughs on its side. And it didn't have the reviewers or the niche intelligent audience base on its side.

And it was canceled. Not because the premise was bad. But because the execution was not up to par.

* - Lead-in is an advantage a show gets from TV viewers' inertia. Research shows that more than half the viewers don't switch the channel after a show. So if a new show airs after a very popular show, it gets a larger captive audience to start with.

India-US Relationship Parallels with Angsty College Non-Romances

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Fri, 06 May 2011 15:33:00 +0000

I have been amused at the self-righteous outrage in the Indian media over the US supposedly "refraining from drawing a parallel between 9/11 and 26/11". So what did we expect? That the US will say - "yes, yes, you absolutely have the right to go after LeT guys in Pakistan. In fact, allow us to do that for you! How many navy SEALs would you like?"

On one hand, the Indian government, most of the Indian media, and a large chuck of the laregly-lefty intellectual class want India to maintain an arm's length distance from the US. They cheer and support steps like snubbing US firms in the $10bn fighter jet deal. They want us to be pro-Iran. They find nothing wrong with India's protectionist measures against the US.

Which is fine. Not something I agree with, but these positions, stressing independence from the US, are fair ones to take.

But on the other hand, they also want the US to go out of its way in supporting India. They want explicit blessings for our "hot pursuit" dreams (And dreams is what they are. Are we really capable of taking out anyone inside Pakistan? Get real!"). They want the US to increase the number of H1B visas and are opposed to hikes in visa fees. They want the US to carry us into the UN Security Council and execute the nuclear deal according to our wishes.

India's general attitude towards the US reminds me of a species of girls that are all too common in colleges in India and among Indian grad students in the US - the "chaste good friend" species.

You all know the "chaste good friend"! She is very friendly with a couple of guys in college. She proudly says "I find guys easier to be friends with than girls". These guys will fix her ailing laptop, give her rides to class or for some work, help her with her homework, do her share in a group project, and generally be her unofficial handymen. They do all this because they generally have the hots for her.

But remember, she is "chaste"! So when one such guy's feelings come out in the open, she either "thinks of you only as a friend" or "hasn't thought about him THAT way" or "feels this is the time for her to focus on her studies/career" or "doesn't think her parents, whom she respects too much would approve". But but but, "your friendship still means a lot to her, we should stay friends". So the guy continues to be her handyman/driver because they are such good friends! And of course, he is optimistic that some day, she will upgrade their friendship.

That is India's general attitude towards the US. India wants the US to go out of its way because "we are such good friends". But India doesn't want to go that extra mile (or "put out" if you will), because it doesn't think of the US "that" way.

The thing is, America is not a socially awkward grad student with limited prospects. If India won't "put out", America isn't giving India a ride anywhere. America has other options, several girls who will put out. Heck, they even have a dysfunctional relationship with this superhot but schizophrenic chick that they can just visit late at night and do anything they wish, as long as they keep paying for her meals on dates. They don't need to keep carrying the water for India hoping that one night, India might invite them up for a cup of chai.

So Indian media, the next time you feel like outraging about the US not exhorting India to attack Pakistan or raising visa fees or suchlike, remember the "chaste good friend". And calm down.

On Anna Hazare and Fasting

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:04:00 +0000

I am surprised at the degree to which Anna Hazare's fast-unto-death for the Lokpal bill has caught the entire Indian middle class' imagination. The internates and the blogosphares and twittervarses are abuzz with posts that either support Hazare's idealistic cause, or cynically dismiss it as something futile and/or a publicity stunt.

As someone who grew up in Maharashtra in the 90s and early 2000s, the headline "Anna Hazare declares fast unto death" is not a new one. No un-elected official, not even Bal Thackeray, has had as much impact on Maharashtra politics in the last two decades as Anna Hazare. Obviously, most non-Maharashtrians have little idea about Hazare, his track record, and so on. So I thought of writing a post to address the problems with what I have been hearing from both sides - the Anna-doubters as well as the Anna-cheerleaders.

Let's first look at what the Anna-doubters say. The talk of this being a publicity stunt is so outrageously wrong, it doesn't even deserve a rebuttal. The man has dedicated his life to social work and activisim, with a reasonable level of success, without gaining anything for himself. He doesn't need publicity. There is nothing in it for him. Even if Anna Hazare ended his fast today, and retired from his activism to spend his time gardening and watching TV, he will still be remembered as a moral and utilitarian colossus in the fight against corruption.

The other point raised by Anna-doubters merits rebuttal - that fasting or protesting against corruption doesn't really serve any purpose or solve any problems. That his heart is in the right place, but all his agitations do is give the media and the middle class something to talk about sanctimoniously for a few days, and then everything goes back to the way it was.

While Anna Hazare never has and never could "root out corruption", the record shows that his agitations and/or fasts have hardly been futile. Anna Hazare's anti-corruption agitation in 1994 or so (combined with the whistleblowing by BMC official Khairnar) played a big role in turning the public opinion against Sharad Pawar's Maharashtra government. They lost the election, bringing the BJP-Shiv Sena combine to power.

Hazare's crusade against corruption continued despite the change in guard in the Vidhan Sabha. Throughout the SS-BJP rule, Hazare exposed corruption, occasionally going on fasts to demand action. I can recall at least a half a dozen Ministers (including Shashikant Sutar, then MLA for my own constituency in Pune) having to resign or being forced out because of Hazare's agitation.

In one instance, the accused minister...I think his name was Gholap, filed a defamation case against Hazare. Our great court system found Hazare guilty and sentenced him to a few months in prison. He was sent to jail, but the public outcry was so large that Thackeray himself ordered the government to commute his sentence and let him go. Gholap's right hand man was arrested for corruption, and Gholap himself was eased out of the party. Nevertheless, Hazare's continued agitation demonstrated to the Maharashtra voters the extent of corruption even in the (then perceived as) clean Shiv Sena party. The SS-BJP lost the next election in 1999 and haven't been able to return to power since.

Who replaced the SS-BJP? Obviously, Congress-NCP, i.e. Pawar and co, against whom Hazare had first started his agitation. Anna-doubters will point to this regression-to-mean as an example of the futility of his fasts. Well, it's hardly his fault that there is no viable alternative in the Indian polity, is it? The fact remains that his agitations have caught public imagination, made heads roll, and played a big role in toppling governments.

Until about 2000, Hazare's agitation was focused on corrupt individuals. After that, he focused more on systemic problems. He started demanding, among other things, a Right to Information Act for Maharashtra. In the first half of the last decade, he went on a couple of fasts, first to demand that the Maharashtra government pass the Right to Information Act, and then to ask that it be implemented, not just kept on the books.

I remember one particular agitation in 2002 or 2003. The Maharashtra government had passed the RTI, but was not implementing it yet, citing flimsy procedural excuses. Hazare declared...no, not a fast-unto-death, but a maun vrat! A vow of silence! he refused to speak until the government acted on his demands, the chief among them, to implement the RTI.

I remember thinking that the old man had lost it. Fasts carry the weight of the "what if he dies?" question that can spur the powers that be into action. Who the heck is going to care if this dude sitting in Ralegan-Siddhi talks or not. But it worked!

The public response even to the maun vrat was so powerful that the Maharashtra government immediately passed an ordinance implementing the RTI law. Hazare broke his vow of silence only after the government took that step. And over the next couple of years, Hazare kept tabs on the RTI implementation, threatening hunger strikes, until it was fully operational to his satisfaction.

Although other states had their own RTIs several years before, it was the much-more-powerful Maharashtra RTI and the activism surrounding it that played a big role in getting the RTI passed at the Union government level too. If I recall correctly, the national RTI law was almost identifcal to the Maharashtra law.

So Hazare's impact has gone beyond just getting a few corrupt Ministers early (or temporary) exits and replacing one corrupt Maharashtra government with another. The RTI movement owes a lot to him and his fasts.

Now on to the Anna-cheerleaders. Yes, his integrity and devotion is impeccable. His zeal for fighting corruption is more intense than any on-screen Bollywood vigilante's. But his tactic of fasting worries me. As a libertarian, I believe everyone has a right to do whatever they want with their body, and that includes fasting unto death. But the tactic is fraught with ethical issues.

It is "do as I say, or I will kill myself", so is fundamentally no different from someone standing on the ledge of a tall building and threatening to jump unless their demands are met. In Anna's hands, the weapon of fasting unto death has mostly been used for the right reasons. But do you know that nation-wide prohibition of alcohol is (or at least used to be until a few years back) one of his causes? If you like your occasional drink, how will you feel if his next fast is for prohibition?

I am not saying it will be. Hazare has so far used the fasting tactic only for important issues. But imagining your own response to someone fasting unto death or killing himself demanding prohibition, or a Ram temple, or a book ban will demonstrate the ethical problems with the tactic itself. It amounts to blackmail. Blackmail in a just cause is still blackmail.

Then there is this specific Lokpal bill issue that he is fasting for. I agree with Hazare's broad sentiment about the need for checks and balances against widespread corruption, but I am not sure the Lokpal bill, or the way he demands it, is the way forward. My thoughts on the perils of such a bill closely mirror those of Pratap Bhanu Mehta so I will point you to his superb article.

To summarize, Anna-doubters and Anna-cheerleaders both have some of it right and some of it wrong. Whether you agree or disagree with me on the efficacy of his hunger strikes in the past, depends on where you set the bar for efficacy in a country as rife with corruption and a lack of accountability as India. Whether you agree or disagree with me on the ethical issues with hunger strikes depends on your moral compass and the ends-v-means debate.

One thing we can all agree on - Anna Hazare is a strong, motivated, and morally gigantic individual, whose self-control and passion for a cause is something few of us could even dream of emulating. Agree or disagree with him, you have to doff your hat to him.

Growing up with the World Cup

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 14:55:00 +0000

Read this beautiful post by my good friend daddysan, tying World Cups at different stages in his life with people who meant the most to him, and charting a full circle. It has inspired me to look back at how the World Cup was a part of my growing up.

1983 - Pune
I was 3 years old when we won. I have a very vague visual memory of watching *a* match with my parents and grandparents in my grandparents' small Pune house. The visual memory is very clear - I remember the wooden TV stand, where the couch was, what tree was outside the window, and where everyone was sitting. I am not sure if it's from the World Cup final. But I have no problems pretending that it is.

1987 - Rajahmundry
My dad had been transferred to this small town in Andhra Pradesh. I was 7 years old, in a strange land, not knowing how to speak the native language yet (we had only moved 2 months before). My mom, a housewife, was my only and closest friend (later of course, I picked up telugu, and made friends in the neighborhood and the school). There was a narrow passage next to our house where mom and I played cricket after school every day.

Back then, she was a lot more into cricket than she is nowadays. She subscribed to a marathi cricket magazine called Ekach Shatkar (edited by Sandip Patil), and read me out detailed reports of local matches. I remember her telling me of two promising kids - Sachin Tendulkar and Vinod Kambli, who were the talk of Bombay. Most of all, I remember laughing at hilarious Zaltzman-ish articles by Dilip Prabhavalkar (non-Marathis will know him as Gandhi from Lage Raho Munnabhai).

Of the World Cup itself, I retain only two memories. Sharing in my parents' disappointment as Australia beat India by one run in the tournament opener as Maninder Singh was bowled by Steve Waugh. And a few weeks later, returning from school to be told that my then favorite player, Sunil Gavaskar, had scored a "Srikanth-like" century to beat New Zealand. For several years, Sunny's sole ODI century remained my favorite cricketing moment.

I don't remember the semi-final loss to England at all. Just as well. Doesn't seem like a memory worth ruminating over.

1992 - Pune
From this point onwards, the memories become crystal clear. Duh, obviously, I was 12! We had moved to Pune for good. I had made friends in the neighborhood, and we had even set up a local cricket league. I remember all the matches clearly, not just from the World Cup, but also from the Ind-WI-Aus tri-series before it. That was when Tendulkar truly captured everyone's imagination as the sole hope.

I remember our first match - the narrow loss against England by 9 runs or so, when 3 of the last 4 wickets fell to stupid run-outs. A few days later, I probably had my first ever deja vu as India again lost to Australia by 1 run. I remember how tense my mom was during the India-Pakistan match. The memories of Miandad's last-ball-six were fresh in her mind. When Miandad jumped like a kangaroo to imitate Kiran More, I laughed, but my mom didn't. She feared that this might be the very motivation Javed needed to beat us again. It did not happen. We won.

I remember marveling at how great the South Africans were, even after such a long hiatus. I remember Jonty running our Inzy. I remember the calmness and ease with which they chased down 180 in 30 overs against India. I remember being amused at the plaintive "Zimbaa-boo-ee Zimbaa-boo-ee" chants by a handful of supporters during the tricky India-Zimbabwe match. My parents and I shared South Africans' despair when the target was reduced to 22 off 1 ball.

But most of all, I remember the final. My mom is from the generation of women that swooned over Imran Khan. As soon as India got knocked out, our family shifted their support to Pakistan. During the finals, we cheered Imran's (now, Dhoni-esque) gutsy move to promote himself up the order and take charge of the innings. We cheered every England wicket. And when Pakistan finally won, our entire family was as happy as if India had won. This perhaps explains why Pakistan is my 2nd favorite team, and I have never been able to share most of my compatriots' visceral hatred for them.

1996
In your teenage years, your parents become your adversaries. This was the first World Cup where I avoided watching matches at home and sought friends' company. Compounding the matters was the fact that the World Cup coincided with my 10th boards. So regardless of their love for the game, my parents' focus was on getting me to study. I remember being aghast when my dad said "Don't obsess with the World Cup. Focus on your studies. World Cup will be back in 4 years." Such blasphemy!

I did get my priorities right/wrong (depending on how you look at cricket) and focused more on that interminably long tournament than my studies. I watched the India-Pakistan match with my friends, all of screaming ourselves hoarse at Jadeja's slogging. We all but broke our hand bones with the high-fives after Sohail self-destructed. But my mom's voice was still in my head, saying, as long as Javed is around, we can't be sure of a win. Javed's last hurrah wasn't much of a hurrah we won. Then, the semi-final loss to Sri Lanka. Even after the win in Mumbai on Saturday, it's too painful to talk of that shame. Not because we lost. But because for the first time in my life, as I watched the Eden crowd throw a tantrum, I was ashamed of being an Indian.

The finals. First, shaking my head at Ranatunga's foolhardy decision to field after winning the toss, when every previous World Cup final had been won by the team batting first. By the end of the night, marveling the ease with which Ranatunga and Desilva chased down the total after losing the openers early (Saturday's final reminded me of this match)

1999 - Pune/Bangalore
Engineering first year. It seemed as if the ICC organized World Cups just to coincide with crucial exams. When I was in 10th and the exams were in March, the tournament was in March. In engineering, when the exams moved to May and June, so did the damn World Cup! Our entire group found refuge in the house of a friend whose parents worked late. We were thrilled to see Ganguly and Dravid annihilate Sri Lanka and get a small measure of revenge for 1996. We were aghast at how our team contrived to lose against Zimbabwe. We were touched when Sachin flew back after cremating his father to score a century against Kenya.

It was fun to knock England out over the course of 2 days, with a little help from the Zimbabweans. It was even more fun to titter at the commentators' suggestion that this tall fat oafish kid, reminiscent of Moose from Archie comics, who had taken on Kumble and failed miserably, was supposed to be the next big thing in English cricket. Andrew Flintoff I believe his name was.

The Pakistan match was played against the backdrop of the Kargil war, and maybe it was the comparison to actual war that made it seem like very boring, even though we won. The chase in the do-or-die match against Australia started disastrously. When McGrath dismissed Sachin in the first over, a few of us actually opened our engineering textbooks and started studying. No matter what Jadeja did, we knew the World Cup was over.

By the end of the tournament, the engineering exams were done, and we had traveled to Bangalore for sight-seeing. Mihir's dad worked there and his apartment was our base. I still remember the tied semi-finals. We watched Australia labor towards a modest score. Then went to an Andhra restaurant with Mihir's dad where we watched the Proteas get off to a comfortable start. Then Warne's awesome dismissal of Gibbs (among his best deliveries ever). Then rushing back to Mihir's dad's place to watch the end of the match. Marveling at Warne and Klusener. Being divided evenly into Australia and South Africa supporters. And finally, laughing at how Klusener and Donald threw it away.

2003 - Lucknow
A big shift in cricketing fortunes and my personal life. I was towards the end of my 1st year in the MBA at IIM Lucknow. Cricket was now watched with dozens of fellow-students in the hostel's TV room. The closest approximation to watching it in a stadium surrounded by frenzied strangers. The sweetest memories - Nehra tearing England apart, Sachin hitting the loudmouthed Caddick for a six, and of course, the epic at Centurion. Enduring memory of the finals - cheering for Sehwag's blistering knock, and then cheering for the gathering clouds to open up before it was too late. They never did. The dream died.

2007 - State College/Princeton
My first year in a strange land, away from family and most friends. Satyen was the only one in driving distance. Watched the Bangladesh defeat with Satyen in Princeton. Then Pakistan lost, knocking both my favorite teams out of the World Cup. Followed the rest of the tournament, but it was the diaster it is universally recognized to be.

2011 - State College/Olean/Arlington
By now, America has stopped being a strange land. All childhood friends are now in the North East. Watched most of India's matches together - staying up all night in Olean NY at Mihir's for the Bangladesh, then everyone gathering here in State College for the narrow defeat to South Africa. And the finals in Arlington at Walya's place. It was just like childhood. High-fiving till hands started hurting, hugging each other and dancing around, and randomly pumping fists. It's too soon to look back at it. It hasn't even sunk in completely yet.

Recreating Indian Chinese Street Food

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 18:10:00 +0000

In response to my recent post on recreating Marzorin chicken sandwiches, a few of my friends pinged me on chat and started talking about recreating other idiosyncratic fast food from back home. Two of them separately asked me the same question - do I have any insights on recreating Indian Chinese or Indo-Chinese street food?

Ah yes! The good old "laal gaaDi" or "laal tapri", the red shacks or stalls by the street-side selling India's take on Chinese food. For most of us middle class Indians, street Chinese was the first taste of "foreign" cuisine, before we grew up, got jobs, and experimented with real foreign cuisine. Street Chinese was cheap, so affordable to us students on our meager allowances, yet at that time seemed "exotic" enough to seem more unconventional than the purely desi affordable fare of vadapav and bhelpuri.

Having grown up, traveled abroad, and tasted all sorts of authentic East Asian cuisines, from curry-based Thai to barbecue-based Korean to different varieties of real Chinese cuisine like Guangdong, Lu and (my favorite) Sichuan, it is tempting to dismiss street Indo-Chinese food as some low brow faux-fusion. After all, those authentic cuisines have varying diverse components, sophisticated and subtle flavors, delightfully balances textures, and complexity built over centuries of experimentation. In contrast, street Indo-Chinese is, let's face it, basically an overpowering blast of ginger, garlic, chilies, soy sauce, and usually a whole lot of MSG.

But honestly, I relish good ole Indo-Chinese as much as any of those complex cuisines developed over centuries. Maybe it's the memories from my teen years, all those one-by-two or two-by-three Manchow soups that my friends Aniruddha, Chinmay, and I shared after somehow coming up with 15 rupees between us. Those chicken schezwan rice and chicken lollipops we sneaked out of our houses to share when our moms made something we really hated for dinner (usually, over-cooked cabbage). And the countless hours of conversations and leg-pulling.

So every few weeks, I get a strong craving for Indo-Chinese. On trips to New York, I have found the Indo-Chinese joints in Journal Square (NJ) to be more "authentic" (whatever that means in the context of the cuisine) than the more fancied Chinese Mirch on Lexington Ave in Manhattan. But still, it just doesn't feel the same. So I have found that my attempts at recreating desi Chinese street food at home are more successful. Especially in terms of texture.

So here are some tips on recreating Indo-Chinese street food, based on my experiments over the last 5 years in the US. I'll focus on the most basic stuff - fried rice and hakka noodles.

The Importance of Un-Fresh Rice

During my initial attempts at making fried rice, I always boiled the rice right before it. The rice turned out more like mushy pulao or masalebhaat. Then I read this superb post on making perfect fried rice by my friend Madhu. I learned the importance of using un-fresh rice. So, to recreate the desi-Chinese fried rice, you need to boil the rice a day before and put it in the fridge.

Another tip is, boil the rice as you would when making by-the-book biryani. You boil it in lots and LOTS of water (I use 5 cups of water for every cup of rice), and turn the stove off when the rice is about 75% cooked, not all the way through. Then you drain it using a colander, and wash it under cold water to stop it from continuing to cook from residual heat. Toss it gently when doing this. Don't turn the faucet on at full strength, or it will break the grains of rice. This technique gets rid of a lot of excess starch that might make your rice sticky or mushy.

Once the 75% cooked rice is washed, drained, and tossed under cold water, drain it a bit more by shaking the colander, flipping the rice, gently pressing it against the holes. Basically, get rid of as much water as you can. Then, toss it around gently a little more, and make sure the grains aren't sticking together. Now put it in the fridge. For at least 24 hours for best results, although 8-10 hours will also give you decent fried rice.

Noddles also Un-Fresh!

I usually make noodles fresh before cooking with them. I make sure they are a little al dente, washed under cold water, and tossed in some oil. It works well for making authentic East Asian noddle dishes. They are moist, juicy, and tasty.

BUT! But this is a post about recreating street Indo-Chinese. Those noddles are texturally different from what you get in authentic East Asian cuisine. They are drier, and a bit more al dente, even slightly crunchy. So I decided to apply the un-fresh concept to noodles as well.

I followed pretty much the same process that I have mentioned above for the rice. The only difference being, after the noddles were washed in cold water, I drained them, then tossed them in a bit of oil. Tossed with a gentle hand for a good ten minutes or so, disentagling them all, making sure that if I pulled at one strand of the noodle, no others came with it. Then, into the fridge for 24 hours. And it worked! Just like with rice, this technique of storing them in the fridge gets rid of extra moisture. The noodles turned out just the way they did on the streets of Pune or Bombay.

Looking back, this insight seems fairly duh! Indo-Chinese on the streets is usually cooked in front of our eyes. Have we ever seen them boiling noodles in front of us? They have huge pots full of pre-cooked noodles, obviously prepped hours before.

WOK ONLY, VERY VERY HOT

An unmistakable characteristic of street Chinese food is that smoky almost-burnt flavor that the rice and noodles are infused with. Few people focus on this aspect when trying to cook it at home. I know I didn't. I used the good ole kadhai or even more stupidly, non-stick pans on a couple of occasion.

In street Indo-Chinese, the fried rice or noodles have the sauces and flavoring you add. But the sauces aren't making the rice grains or noodles stick together. The way i used to cook it, I would get greasy, even stewed-like rice or noodles. I was trying to make fried rice, and instead, it seemed more like an Asian-flavored risotto.

I don't know what it is about the kadhai, but you can see why the non-stick wouldn't work. Non-stick, by definition, umm, doesn't stick. It's not like we want food to stick or burn when we're making fried rice or noodles, but surely, the temperature should be pretty darn close to it. So the cooking surface should not have teflon. Why does the kadhai not work? No idea! All I know is that when I eventually decided to buy a proper wok, it worked a lot better.

Of course, the first couple of times I used the wok, I didn't see too much improvement. I didn't get that smoky-burnt-ish flavor. The food was either undercooked or mushy. And the fried rice was still a tad greasy, the noodles still saucy. So what was I doing wrong? Once again, Madhu Menon to the rescue! As he notes here, the temperature of the wok should be quite hot before you pour oil.

Also, when making fried rice, like Madhu suggests, make sure you add the rice and coat it in the oil BEFORE you add the sauces. The same principle works for noodles.

So firstly, get a wok. Secondly, make sure it is hot enough before adding the oil. Thirdly, add the rice or noodles BEFORE you add the sauces, and make sure the wok is hot enough throughout.

The right way of sauteing vegetables

Another problem I used to have with my rice or noodles - the veggies would either get too mushy or stay raw. The problem here arises from our Indian instincts to often overcook the vegetables. The carrots, bell pepper, onions etc in fried rice and noodles is not overcooked like in subji. It isn't raw either. It took me a while to get the level of al dente-ness right.

I have found that the best way of cooking veggies is in a hot wok, after the oil has heated. Make sure you veggies are sliced thin. They don't have to be diced really tiny. I usually julienne them. And then, keep stirring them as you saute them. The idea is to sear the veggies, not cook them through. Also remember that they will continue to cook even after you add the rice and noodles. So leaving them a bit more al dente than you like works well.

These are some basic tips. There are more tips about the combinations of sauces, flavoring, and making the soups that I will cover in the very near future. But for now, try these tips and tell me if your attempts at recreating Indo-Chinese street food don't give better results.

Recreating the Marzorin Sandwich: The Non-Resident Puneri's Holy Grail

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:40:00 +0000

If you're a Puneri settled abroad, or even in some other Indian city, you will crave many foods associated with Pune that even outsiders readily appreciate. Be it the bakarvadi or amba barfi from Chitale, the misal from Bedekar, the sambhar from Vaishali, the thali from Shreyas, the mastani from Sujata, khichadi from Appa's canteen, or the vadapav from numerous stalls dotting the city, all these delicacies are easy to link with Pune's cultural history and culinary identity.

But there is one item that baffles outsiders, and that only those who have lived in Pune can appreciate - chicken sandwich from Marzorin (or as the signboard says Marz-O-Rin) in Camp, called Marzo for convenience. What's so great about a chicken sandwich, they wonder. You can get chicken sandwiches anywhere in the world. How different can it be?

When I was reminiscing about those sandwiches in the presence of a non-Indian friend he assumed, understandably or erroneously, that the sandwiches had some "Indian" touch. He asked me if it has shredded tandoori chicken or chicken tikka, if the sauce had some Indian spices, if some chutney was used as spread. As "Marzo" lovers know, the place does sell some kick-ass chutney sandwiches too, but the chicken sandwich does not have the chutney or any spices or components that are uniquely Indian.

So what is the Marzorin chicken sandwich like, he asked. And I described it. Shredded chicken in a mayo-like sauce, with salt and pepper, between two slices of white bread, cut into triangles along the diagonal. He was confused. That sounds very mundane, he said. You could probably get a sandwich like that at thousands of joints in the US.

Only a Puneri who has grown up eating those sandwiches at "Marzo" will understand the unique appeal of those sandwiches. That specific taste. The moistness of the chicken with the sauce. The hint of pepper. Ah, those triangular pieces of heaven!

As an amateur cook, I have made several attempts at re-creating the sandwich. After all, it is "just" a sandwich, right? Way easier that trying to recreate the complex bakarvadi. But after a dozen or so attempts, THAT combination still eludes me. The sandwiches I make are still pretty good. But they haven't come close to that Marzo taste.

A few weeks back, I was talking to a friend's friend who was also from Pune, and the conversation turned towards Marzo. She said she had been trying in vain to recreate those chicken sandwiches, as had been many of her non-resident Puneri friends. So there were others after this holy grail! I don't know why that surprised me. A targeted online search had already taken me to a blog that had discussed similar attempts. There must be hundreds, even thousands of people trying to do the same.

So I decided to write this post chronicling my efforts to recreate that sandwich. It wasn't all random trial and error. I tried my best to remember the taste (I last ate at Marzo 3 years ago), tried to break down the flavors, the textures, the physical construction. And occasionally, I had epiphanies about the sandwich when I was making something totally different.

The Bread

In my first couple of attempts, I used the regular store-bought sliced white bread. The bread, I realized, was nothing like Marzo which is also a bakery, so they bake their bread in-house. Packaged breads such as Sara Lee or Nickles are a little too moist. Marzo bread isn't dry by any means. It is soft but with only a hint of moistness, and the texture is dry enough to compliment the filling.

Now I have made bread at home a few times. But I am not accomplished enough a baker to get it perfectly right. So I experimented with freshly baked breads from grocery stores nearby. I found the "farmstyle" fresh bread from Wegmans to be the closest to the Marzo bread in terms of the balance of moisture and dryness. I am sure freshly baked bread from grocery stores in your area - Trader Joe's, Giant etc, will also work.

In keeping with the Marzo technique, you slice the crust off. Make sure you keep two slices on top of each other while doing this, so the sandwich is shaped just right.

The Chicken

My first couple of attempts were lazy. I used canned chicken. Which wasn't too bad, but had that peculiar aftertaste any canned meat has. So I decided to use fresh chicken. Following the suggestion from this blog, I tried grilling the chicken. Specifically, I used chicken breasts. Did not taste too good. But then chicken breasts are almost completely fat-free. I tried thighs. Still not the same effect.

Then I read on the Marzo website that their chicken is "thoroughly pressure cooked". Tried that with some drumsticks. That worked like a charm. At least in terms of texture, shredded meat from pressure cooked chicken drumsticks was the closest to Marzo. Even pressure-cooked thighs will do - anything except for the fat-free breasts.

The Sauce

Obviously, the toughest part. That damn sauce, which to my then-inexperienced palate, just seemed like mayo with salt and pepper. So I first tried store-bought mayo. Not even close. Did some trial-and-error with different brands of mayo, mixed butter in it, even margarine. Tried cream cheese once. The sandwiches tasted good, but nothing like Marzo.

Then I wondered if there was an "utterly butterly delicious" factor at play. If as an Indian abroad, you think that there is something uniquely tasty about Amul butter that no American brands can replicate, you are right. As Vikram Doctor explains, that flavor is the legacy of Polson butter, and was the result of using stale cream. Amul substituted that flavor by adding diacetyl and extra salt. I wondered if the margarine used by Marzorin had something similar. So I used Amul butter. It took me a few feet closer to the Marzo taste, but there were still miles to go.

The latest "breakthrough" in my quest of the Marzo chicken sandwich holy grail came about serendipitously. The wife loves Eggs Benedict, so recently, I tried to make it from scratch. Which of course, involved making Hollandaise sauce from scratch. I messed up in some way. It was not creamy the way it is supposed to be, but runny. However, the taste rang a bunch of bells. That mixture of egg yolk, lemon juice, and melted (non-Amul) butter tasted a lot like the Marzorin chicken sandwich sauce! That specific tartness combined with the egg yolk taste. So the next step is using my Hollandaise-sauce-gone-wrong with the shredded chicken.

And so the experiments continue. if any of you have been lucky enough to replicate the sandwich, let me know.

Dale Steyn - The Best in My Lifetime

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:00:00 +0000

Wholeheartedly agreeing with Dileep Premachandran's article, I recently tweeted that I think Dale Steyn is the best fast bowler that I have seen since I started sentiently watching cricket (1990-present). The best???, some asked. Yes, THE best, I said. Better than Allan Donald, Curtly Ambrose, Glenn McGrath, and Wasim Akram who are the other contenders for the spot. This post is to explain why I think Steyn is better than those legends.

First a few standard caveats. All these men are giants, so if I talk about a weakness or a shortcoming, it is from comparison at those astronomic levels. Secondly, my assessment is obviously subjective and based on some assumptions that you may or may not agree with. Thirdly, I am not going to use statistics, although in terms on average, Steyn is comparable to the rest of them, and in terms of strike rate, is miles ahead.

Let's start with Allan Donald. Fearsome pace, smooth action, and probably the best in-swingers I have seen a right-hander bowl. The biggest point that Steyn scores over him is in the out-swing department. And that brings me to my first assumption. I believe that as lethal as a good in-swinger can be, good out-swing is more difficult to play, score against, even survive against. Donald's in-swingers were lethal, and at his pace, it made him unplayable on his day. But without that prodigious outward swing that Steyn generates, it would be relatively easier to survive against Donald. Of course, another assumption I should clarify - I am thinking from the perspective of right handed batsmen because that's the majority. Against left-handers, Donald's in-swinger was just as lethal and potent. Which is why some of his most memorable spells came against left-handers. Against right-handers, his memorable spells (like THAT Trent Bridge spell to Atherton) consisted primarily of in-swingers, and while difficult to handle, were not as probing as Steyn's out-swing spells. If you however disagree with my assumption and rate in-swing as being equally if not more potent than out-swing, I can see you won't agree with my assessment.

The comparison with Ambrose and McGrath, similar bowlers, is somewhat easier. Those two lanky greats relied on bounce and movement off the seam. Not easy by any stretch of the imagination. But personally, I rate swing tougher to handle than movement off the seam. That's another assumption for you. Ambrose and McGrath's height meant they got disconcerting bounce. It also meant their length was a touch short. But it also meant that relatively...relatively more of their deliveries could be left alone. Not that batsmen always left them alone. But potentially, they were relatively easier to see off. Steyn's swing combined with the length he consistently bowls at means that a batsman has to play at most of his deliveries. In other words, if Sachin Tendulkar is batting at his best, I'd expect him to find Steyn tougher to handle than Ambrose or McGrath.

The toughest comparison is with Wasim Akram whom I considered the best before Steyn came on the scene. Wasim's swing was probably better than Steyn's. Being a left-armer gave him the uncomfortable angle for right-handers. His superior ability to swing the ball both ways made him tough for left-handers to handle as well. And his length was a shade fuller than Steyn's, making him even more must-play. Akram at his best was a tougher bowler than Steyn at his best. So how can I put Steyn ahead of him? Solely based on their bowling actions. Akram's jerky action led to a lot of injuries throughout his career. It also meant that he was not as consistently at his best as Steyn is. Comparing the two over a longer period of time, Steyn's smoother action gives him the consistency and longevity that is far better than Akram's. I admit these are early days. Steyn has been around for just half a decade. But I believe his action will end up making him way more consistent, less injury-prone, and lethal than Akram.

So that's my explanation of why Steyn is the best I have seen in my lifetime. It probably isn't a water-tight argument and is based on assumptions I put forth. So I do expect healthy dissent.

A Day of Cricket to Regale Grandkids With

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 21:18:00 +0000

Decades from now, when I am an insufferable old codger, I'll occasionally grab my grandkids by the elbow (like uncle Leo from Seinfeld) and ramble on about test cricket. Today's 3rd day of play of the Capetown test between India and South Africa is bound to come up most of those times. For today was one of those rare, almost perfect examples of why test cricket is the most ultimate sport there is.

Sure, some of our best cricketing memories are of splendid individual achievements - double and triple centuries, eight wicket hauls, and close final sessions of play. Most of those memories feature one individual or team being utterly dominant or triumphing in the end against all odds. There's usually a win or loss involved. Be it Murali's mind-boggling 16 wicket haul at the Oval in 1996 or Sehwag's breath-taking 293 at Brabourne or the last day of the 2005 Edgbaston Ashes test, there's usually a winner and a loser.

Today at Newlands, there were no losers. What made it even more exciting - there were no statistically opulent "winners". No one ran through a side in quick time or scored a flawless epic. Heck, no one even achieved, in the duration of the day, those two basic benchmarks of cricketing success; scoring 100 runs or taking 5 wickets. Tendulkar added 97 runs to his overnight score, Steyn added 4 wickets.

And yet, today has to be the most memorable day of test cricket I have seen in many years....maybe ever!

This was the 51st century for Tendulkar, arguably the best batsman to ever play the game. Most of those have been dominant, fluent, and solid knocks. In this one, he looked human. He was made to concentrate hard, guard his wicket, score runs cautiously, and was aided by luck. He had to bat almost 8 hours and put in his best. Considering the flawless form he has been in, if he had faced any other attack today, he'd have gone past a double hundred with ease. But he was made to work hard. He was made to look human by Dale Steyn.

Steyn, easily the most destructive fast bowler the game has seen since the divine trinity of Akram-Donald-Ambrose, got his 16th 5-wicket haul. Most of his previous hauls have seen him run through sides with ease, typically in a couple of sessions. Half those fivers have come in 15 overs or less. Today, he bowled 31 overs, the most he's ever bowled for a fiver. He bowled with pace, made the ball move as much as a leg spinner does, tested the batsmen, and was hostile throughout. Against any other line-up, he would have probably ended up with 8-9 wickets for 30 runs in 15 overs. Tendulkar made him bend his back and work hard. He, and other Indian batsmen, made Steyn work hard for over 4 sessions to get 5 wickets.

It was a day that can't be fully appreciated by watching the highlights. The highlights will be great to watch, of course. But the tension, the drama, the intrigue of watching (pardon the cliche) an irresistible force meet an immovable object as it happens, without knowing how it will turn out, is incomparable. Fight Club is a great movie to re-watch many times even if you know the end. But the thrill of watching it that first time can never be replicated.

January 4th at Newlands in Capetown was one such day. It started off with Steyn bowling a hostile and flawless spell to Tendulkar, with Morkel bowling a brilliant spell to Gambhir at the other end. Both batsmen rode those spells out with fierce concentration, determination, admirable judgment about the length and swing, and firm knowledge of where their off-stump was. Tendulkar's expertise and mental strength is well known, and his negotiating the first hour play, even though laudable, was not completely unexpected. But Gautam Gambhir has been criticized by many (including yours truly) for not possessing the technique to survive in hostile conditions against top class pace bowling. He looked hopelessly out of place facing Morkel on the first day of the Centurion test just 3 weeks ago. From that arduous ordeal to this determined bout shows that what you lack in technique, you can make up in determination. He was assured in his leaves, confident in most of his strokes, a far cry from the first innings at Centurion. He too had some luck, but that was part of the appeal. His 93 may well end up as simply a footnote compared to the centuries by Kallis and Tendulkar. But to me, it was his finest innings yet, yes, even better than his gritty Napier graft.

What makes test cricket so beautiful is that the game moves through roughly 45-minute portions of suspense, with the outcome unknown. In the first 45 minutes, the suspense over whether Tendulkar and Gambhir could survive the opening burst from Steyn and Morkel, had been answered. They had. The question now was, could they and would they cash in on the bowling of the support crew - Tsotsobe and Harris? The could was answered before the would. They could have if the two bowlers had been wayward and sloppy. But the two bowlers, while not as hostile and probing as Steyn-Morkel, were still punching above their weights. There were few easy runs on offer, hardly any four-balls, and although Tendulkar and Gambhir scored more freely, they could not run away with the game.

A word about Paul Harris, the left-arm spinner. I don't like the guy. If he were in India, he couldn't make it to the top Ranji teams, forget the national team. he is low on talent, boring to watch, and quite obnoxious. I think India's capitulation to him at the same venue 3 years ago was disgraceful. And with Imran Tahir becoming eligible to play for South Africa, I am happy that this guy probably won't play many more tests.

But today, I grudgingly doff my hat to the effort he put in. Although he had no answers to Tendulkar's broad bat, he found the perfect line to Gambhir and stuck to it - well outside the off-stump. Gambhir, a much much batsmen off spin than pace, resisted, occasionally used his feet. Didn't look in trouble, but didn't look fully at ease either. Harris persisted. he didn't get much turn. He never does. But one delivery pitched in the rough and turned sharply, clipping the handle of Gambhir's bat. It was a near-impossible chance for Boucher, and Gambhir survived, but Harris' persistence, coupled with luck in form of the one-off turn from the rough, was enough to sow doubts. The next delivery, Gambhir played for the turn which wasn't there, and was safely pouched by Boucher. Harris deserved the wicket. And although Gambhir missed a century, he had fallen in a way that didn't reflect poorly on him.

This contest was typical of the entire day. Like I said, there were no losers. Laxman looked extremely at ease in his short stay at the crease. It was cut short by the unluckiest, most gut-wrenching way a batsman can be dismissed - run out to a straight drive deflected off a bowler's hand when backing up. In walked Pujara.

Pujara survived till lunch, looking generally assured. Steyn was bowling the same probing line to him - sharply outswinging deliveries pitched just outside off-stump. And he looked reasonably solid handling them. Then came what was the ball of the day, even the ball of the decade (yes, I know it's a 4 day old decade!) from Steyn. It deserves its own paragraph.

Usually a right handed bowler gets a right handed batsmen LBW off deliveries that either hold their line, or seam/swing into the batsman. Typically, bowlers set up such dismissals by bowling a few away-going deliveries and then slipping in one that doesn't. I am hard-pressed to remember an occasion when a right-hander, bowling over the wicket, bowled an away-going delivery that trapped the batsman plumb in front. The ball swung inwards after release, landed on the leg stump line, then, quite inexplicably, moved away, hitting Pujara on the pads on middle-and-off. 9 times out of 10...99 times out of hundred, even 999999 times out of 1000000, the delivery would be adjudged to miss the stumps. But this was plumb. NO ONE could have survived it. NO ONE.

On one hand, I was distraught to see India crumbling. On the other hand, I was thrilled to have seen such a physics-defying dismissal. Just as I was wrestling with these conflicting emotions, Dhoni suffered his first true failure of the series. Two wickets for Steyn in the same over. India were behind by 115. Unless the Indian tail emulated the South African effort from the first innings, the test would be in South Africa's pocket in half an hour.

Out came Harbhajan. He started the way he always does - attempting (and sometimes connecting with) flat batted swats after leaving his stumps open. Rode his luck a bit. Got to double figures. Then, the only "bad" bit of cricket happened. Smith spread the field, sending catchers to presumably have Harbhajan caught in the outfield. Harbhajan cleverly shifted gears, now protecting his stumps and playing in the traditional way. He kept scoring, but cautiously. Tendulkar, glad to have found an ally, also kept scoring at a decent pace. Excellent batting triumphed over earnest bowling in that 45 minute suspense interval, and kept going. Harbhajan survived for almost two hours, and by the time he fell to a rush of blood off a Seyn bouncer, India trailed by only 39.

Zaheer also started off with swats, but didn't seem to inspire much confidence from Tendulkar. But some risk-taking brought the deficit down to 20. Then Tendulkar fell to a fine delivery from Morkel, who was finally rewarded for his untiring efforts. It was a good ball, but Tendulkar had kept out most such balls. This time, he left a huge gap between bat and pad. He fell, but had done the most he could.

Some lusty blows by Zaheer and Sreesanth look India past the South African total, but by just 2 runs. For all practical purposes, the first innings ended dead even.

The South African reply started confidently, aided by some wayward bowling by the Indian pacers. Dhoni brought Harbhajan on towards the end of the day's play and he struck twice in 3 overs - removing Smith and the night watchman Harris LBW off deliveries that got more assistance from the rough than Harris' ever did.

The day ended with the test match on an even keel, the same way it had started. The next two days are bound to be absorbing. Barring dramatic collapses from either side, and given the quality of the bowling on offer combined with a wearing pitch, this contest should go to the final hour of the fifth day.

But whatever happens, is only tangentially relevant to the sheer ecstasy of watching today's play. No matter what happens, 40 years from now, I will narrate the details of Day 3 to my grandkids. Or to your grandkids. or to pigeons on a park bench.

The Daily SomeAchaar - ICC Announces Seminar on Sledging Etiquettes

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Tue, 28 Dec 2010 23:34:00 +0000

December 28, Dubai - The International Cricket Council (ICC) has announced a seminar on the etiquettes of sledging, to be held on the eve of the 2011 World Cup. The keynote speaker at this seminar will be retired Australian pacer Glenn McGrath. South African captain Graeme Smith and current (at least at the time of going to press) Australian captain Ricky Ponting will also be among the speakers.

"Cricket fans have become vocally confused about what kind of sledging is appropriate, and what crosses the line." Haroon Lorgat, CEO of the ICC said when making the announcements. "Today's episode at Durban where Graeme Smith got upset at Sreesanth for sledging and Paul Harris later speculated that the bowler crossed the line, is fresh in everyone's minds. There has also been some outrage over Ricky Ponting in Melbourne copping only a meager fine for arguing with both umpires and the batsman for over five minutes. We at ICC believe that Graeme Smith and Ricky Ponting, as shining examples of perfect gentlemen on the field, could not have been in the wrong at all. Clearly, the fault lay with Sreesanth in Durban and umpire Aleem Dar in Melbourne. This seminar will teach cricketers and umpires once and for all, when boorish behavior on the field is 'part of the game' and when it is just not cricket."

Lorgat further explained that the choice of Glenn McGrath as keynote speaker was a no-brainer. He reminded reporters of the episode when McGrath politely made an inquiry of Ramnaresh Sarwan about the flavors of Brian Lara's penis, only to be rather outrageously told by Sarwan to ask his (McGrath's) own wife. McGrath rightly felt that Sarwan had crossed some line and almost physically attacked him and threatened to decapitate him.

"Glenn is the ultimate authority on the subject, as his exemplary behavior throughout his career demonstrates. Whatever he said was polite, tasteful, competitive, and within the spirit of the game. Anything said to him that he found inappropriate was surely inappropriate. Similarly, Smith and Ponting's sledging or mild dissent with umpires is kosher without question. Thus, the ICC believes that the team of McGrath, Smith, and Ponting is ideal for teaching clueless players and umpires the rights and wrongs."

When this reporter contacted Glenn McGrath over the phone for a comment, the lanky great responded,

"Let me start by saying, Australia will still win the Ashes 5-0." he then went on to speak about the seminar, "I am glad the ICC has finally taken note of my real talent and asked me to headline this seminar. I am also happy to learn that Ricky and Graeme will be assisting me. In the past decade, there has been a disturbing trend of opponents of Australia and South Africa not meekly taking the sledging dished out, and rather brazenly, responding in kind. This trend threatens the very foundations of the game of cricket."

So when will McGrath meet Smith and Ponting to work on the materials for this seminar? Will there be slides or hand-outs?

"Oh, I just finished a conference call with Ricky and Graeme. The slides and hand-outs are finalized. They'll just contain a simple algorithm of self-help rules that will tell players what sort of on-field behavior crosses the line. Yes sure, I can email you a copy."

The algorithm, reproduced with permission from McGrath, the ICC, Ten Sports, ESPN, BCCI, and lalit Modi are -

1. Are you a Caucasian? (Y/N)
2. Is your opponent Caucasian? (Y/N)

a. IF 1 = N AND 2 = Y, then anything you say to the opponent crosses the line because it is personal OR racist OR obscene OR disrespectful OR all of the above.
ELSE, anything you say to the opponent is part of the game OR is par for the course for intense competition OR is something grown-ups say and do OR totally fine OR all of the above.

b. IF 1 = Y, then you can argue with the umpires' decisions, abuse them, literally point fingers at them, spit at them, and whip them with python skin canes, without any fear of being suspended.
ELSE, even the slightest non-verbal displeasure expressed at umpires' decisions is outrageously inappropriate, and must be punished with bans for anything from 5 tests to life.

"As you can see, these are simple rules that anyone can internalize." McGrath concluded, and before disconnecting the call said, "Mark my words, 5-0 whitewash is imminent."

Follow-Up

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 01:13:00 +0000

How do you know Twitter is definitely affecting blogging? Not just when bloggers (like me) who posted daily start posting on a monthly basis. That can happen for other reasons. But when bloggers who once ego-searched themselves on a daily basis now do so on a weekly basis. In such ego-searching, I came across this excellent post by Bharath. Do read. Very well said.

On Masala, Kitsch, and "Leave Your Brains Home"

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 14:25:00 +0000

Recently I met some friends after several years. These friends were going absolutely gaga over Dabangg, quoting lines from it and cracking up. They were aghast to learn that I found Dabangg extremely boring. One of them said,

"Of course it isn't "quality cinema". It is the sort of masala movie you should watch after leaving your brains home to truly enjoy it."

I've heard variants of this comment in reference to several movies that I have hated. And I really, well and truly disagree with the conclusion, for Dabangg and for many other movies.

Yes, there are movies...most movies...that require you to suspend disbelief, let your hair down, alter your expectations, and prepare for a baser, melodramatic, single-layered variety of entertainment. I have watched and enjoyed many such movies. But even then, there are masala kitschy movies and there are masala kitschy movies. Some movies, no matter how much slack you cut them, are just BAD.

But in recent years in India, there has been an exoticization of masala and kitsch. The exercise of "leaving your brains home" has gone from being an involuntary suspension of disbelief to a self-conscious, premeditated and elaborate effort in justification. You know how the typical tourists who come to India make themselves gets formulaically charmed by the cliched colorfulness, noisiness, chaos, yoga, and spirituality? Many Indian film fans are figuratively turning into fanny-pack wearing, camera clutching tourists looking in on Bollywood masala.

Kundera wrote about kitsch -

Kitsch causes two tears to flow in quick succession. The first tear says: How nice to see children running on the grass! The second tear says: How nice to be moved, together with all mankind, by children running on the grass! It is the second tear that makes kitsch kitsch.

Although what he wrote was in a different context, the point remains valid. Most Indian fans who claim to appreciate really bad masala brainless movies are actually moved and impressed at themselves for appreciating masala movies. It probably makes them feel less snobbier than usual. Also gives them the pompous self-satisfaction of appreciating something in unison with the unwashed masses.

It probably started with Govinda and David Dhawan movies going from lowbrow to "cool". People found themselves having a good time watching some of those movies, were probably unable to reconcile this enjoyment with their supposedly "refined" tastes, and concluded that the enjoyment they derived was of a meta-kind, arising from kitschiness. So kitsch became "cool".

Then the Gunda phenomenon happened. Finally, India had its own Plan 9 From Outer Space, a bad movie that was "cool" to watch and discuss. And then Farah Khan started making movies. She well and truly made this kitschiness being cool thing mainstream.

Until then, people who made unabashed masala movies truly believed, like Johnny Depp's Ed Wood, that they were making quality cinema. Either that or they did a great job of pretending to believe that. Until then, "masala movies" was a pejorative. Farah Khan went a separate route. She admitted upfront that what she was making were masala movies. She also threw in some nostalgic intention, saying she made her first film Main Hoon Na to recreate the masala magic of the 70s and 80s that she grew watching up.

With Om Shanti Om, she went one step further. While the atrocious dress sense and melodrama displayed by Govinda in his movies was organic, the kitsch Farah pumped into her movies was calculated and deliberate. And announced. People went from snickering at the kitsch to all of a sudden appreciating the meta-ironic-brilliance of intentionally putting kitsch in there.

Om Shanti Om was watched by usually discerning and hard-to-please elites, not as a movie, but as an ironic statement of kitschiness and nostalgia. And as an ironic statement, they loved it. I watched it simply as a movie. And I hated it. Found it beyond boring.

Now this post enters subjective territory. I am not saying that we always enjoy masala movies to enjoy our own enjoyment of them. I am not saying we can't actually enjoy masala brainless movies just for what they are. Sure we can. If the movies, going past the masala, kitsch and logical leaps, have stories and performances that make those 2-3 hours fun, it's a good movie to watch.

Speaking for myself, some enjoyable masala brainless movies have been Judwaa, Deewana Mastana, Dulhe Raja, Khiladi, Love Ke Liye Kuch Bhi Karega, Mujhse Shaadi Karogi, and Awara Paagal Deewana (which I found a lot funnier than The Whole Nine Yards). What made them enjoyable for me was that I found their stories interesting, several situations funny, performances decent, and they held my interest till the very end. Sure, these movies had memorable one-liners and over-the-top scenes that became topics of water cooler conversations. But beyond that, the movies had, in my purely subjective opinion, enough steam in their plots to last 3 hours.

With Dabangg, I was bored in 20 minutes. The Chulbul Pandey one-liners and antics that my friends keep cracking up at, I failed to see even absurdist humor. To make an apple-to-apple comparison in explicitly absurdist humor attempts, Salman's faux fight with Shakti Kapoor in AAA was funny. His weird ringtone dance in Dabangg was just too contrived.

I thought Om Shanti Om had a very weakly told story, which was quite an achievement in bad direction, given that it was based on Karz, one of my favorite masala movies ever. I am usually not a Shahrukh hater but his performance in that movie was truly groanworthy. The so-called twist in the end was stupid. And at the end of the movie, I just felt annoyed and pissed off.

It is possible that you hated the masala movies I liked, and liked the ones I hated. Tastes differ. I have no issue with that. But I get peeved when people self-congratulatorily praise a movie they thought was bad, but which was enjoyable if "you left your brains at home".

The Lara Crunch Innings Urban Legend

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 22:27:00 +0000

The thousands of man hours spent debating which one is "greater" - Lara or Tendulkar, far outnumber the thousands of runs both those men have scored. And the debates continue. As they would for a qualifier as subjective as "greater". Both men are inarguably legends, demigods not only in their own countries but throughout the cricketing world. They have given us many memorable moments or enchanting strokeplay and sheer genius. Which one of them is greater is less an argument that starts from first principles and ends on a conclusion, and more a rhetorical exercise that starts with a favored conclusion and goes on to provide supporting facts.

There is one side-show in the Lara-Tendulkar debates that has become somewhat of a pet peeve of mine. Many, indeed most cricket fans I know, including some extremely knowledgeable ones (and including some hardcore Sachin supporters), seem to take it as a given that Lara was a better fourth innings batsman than Tendulkar. Very often, someone will fling a variant of that claim my way. And it has me nearly frothing at the mouth, because it is at best a cherry-picking of facts, and at worst, an urban legend.

Le me first say that I absolutely LOVE Brian Lara. I have watched almost all his centuries live on television, whenever academics and work permitted. In terms of the sheer orgasmic delight of watching an elegant craftsman at work, it is my (admittedly subjective) opinion that Lara is miles ahead of Tendulkar. If I were forced to watch the recordings of only one batsman's innings for the rest of my life, it'd be Lara by a wide margin. But we're not talking elegance. We're talking 4th innings miracles. We're talking to people like a very good (and knowledgeable) friend of mine who wrote to me in an email - "Sachin's 4th innings record is decent, but does not match up against Lara's many 4th innings epics".

"Many" 4th innings epics? How many epics did Lara score? In fact, forget epicworthiness. How many 4th innings centuries did Lara score? Take a guess.

Two. 2. Do. Dos. Only two of his 34 centuries came in 4th innings. One of them, undoubtedly an epic, is probably the source of this urban myth. I remember my parents' indignation at my ignoring my first year engineering studies as I stayed up late nights watching every moment of that absorbing test series between West Indies and Australia. After Australia had garnered a healthy first innings lead in the Barbados test (the series in balance at 1-1), those two crafty men - Ambrose and Walsh, bowled with hostile intensity to dismiss the Aussies in under two sessions for something around 150. West Indies were set a shade over 300 for victory with ample time.

Lara walked in towards the end of the 4th day's play, at the fall of the 3rd wicket (nightwatchman). It was 85/3 at stumps, already a precarious position. Two more wickets fell within half an hour on the 5th day leaving West Indies at 100 or so for 5, still 200+ away from victory. And then that stubborn stonewaller Jimmy Adams stepped up. He crawled along, guarding his wicket against McGrath, Gillespie, Warne, and McGill for almost three hours, allowing Lara at the other end to unleash a dazzling but cautious array of strokes. There was a lot of drama. Lara and McGrath seemed close to coming to blows after a bouncer hit Lara on the back and McGrath seemed intent of following it up with some lip. Gillespie went off the ground after another one of his frequent niggles. And there was a lot being said all around; definitely one of the most sledging-heavy matches ever, with Lara frequently responding to the Aussies' taunts. But what spoke louder was Lara's bat as he played what is for me the best innings of his life (forget the 277, 375 and 400). During that partnership, he must have scored at a strike rate of at least 80, unleashing his full array of strokes. Vicious pulls and precise drives. Lara brought up his hundred with a lofted on drive off Warne. All seemed to be going well.

With Adams looking solid and Lara looking imperious, the target was now less than a 100 runs away. My mom woke up for a glass of water, approached me with the intent of chastising me for being up this late watching cricket and not studying, but was drawn into the drama. A few minutes later, we both groaned in disappointment as McGrath managed to break through Adams' stubborn defense, with a delivery that cut away, knocked back the off-stump and went to the slips. Just as Ridley Jacobs started showing promise, McGrath trapped him in front, with one that straightened almost miraculously. Nehemiah Perry fell on the very next ball with the ball cutting the other way. After Ambrose survived the hattrick, my mom told me to go to sleep. The match had all the makings of a typical West Indian chokefest, she said. Just watch the highlights tomorrow. I ignored her and kept watching. More out of recalcitrance than actual hope. 60 runs to get with only Ambrose and Walsh for company? Yep, the writing was on the wall.

I watched, waiting for the other shoe to drop. But it took a while. Ambrose hung around, even collecting a couple of boundaries. Lara kept going fluently. the Australians grew even more irksome and vocal. Lara was harsh on Warne, alternately stepping out to hit him down the ground and leaning back to drive him through the covers. Even Ambrose joined in the fun, changing his stroke mid-shot to cut a wide McGrath delivery to the point boundary, The Barbadians were going insane. Calypso music was blaring so loudly, at times it drowned out the commentators.

In just over an hour, the 300 was up. Less than ten runs needed. Oh wow, I thought to myself, they might actually do this. But a fear lingered, arising from a two-month old memory. The memory of India falling short of Pakistan's significantly easier target in Chennai so recently, after Tendulkar's dismissal against the run of play. Just as I was thinking about that heartbreak and Sachin's back, Gillespie who had returned after nursing his back, pitched one back of length on middle moving away. It seemed to happen in slow motion - Lara went for it, edged and it flew to Healy. I let out a sigh of relief as Healy, very uncharacteristically, flubbed it. Bullet dodged. But there was now a growing sinking feeling in my stomach that my mom might be proved right.

That sinking feeling in my stomach turned into a crater as just moments later, Gillespie bowled a similar delivery, and Ambrose, perhaps looking to repeat his point boundary, went for it, handing an easy catch to 3rd or 4th slip.. In came Courtney Walsh who back then either held or was close to capturing the record for most ducks in test cricket. Next ball - a no ball. It brought the target down to 5, but also meant that Walsh would have to survive an extra Gillespie delivery. He kept a straight bat and played out 3 deliveries. McGrath to Lara. 5 to get. Surely it would end happily in the next over. Kensington Oval seemed set to celebrate. Even Gary Sobers, watching from the stands, had a smile on his face.

The next delivery, the smile all but disappeared from West Indian faces. McGrath bowling round the wicket and wide off the crease sent down an incoming delivery. Lara brought his bat down, and the ball flew off the outside edge. Luckily it flew just wide of a diving Warne at first slip and was headed to the thirdman boundary before it was intercepted. Another narrow escape, and 2 more runs shaved off. Then, a sure sign that the pressure was getting to the normally unflappable McGrath as he delivered a bouncer outside off that went for a massive massive wide. 2 to win. Then another bouncer, this time well directed. Lara swung his bat hoping for a boundary, but didn't connect very well. Just a single. Scores tied, with Walsh on strike. Walsh now had to either score the winning run or defend against McGrath. If he fell, the two teams would have yet another tied test.

Luckily, McGrath was off target and Walsh survived. Lara back on strike, facing Gillespie with one run to win. The ball was decent, almost identical in length to the one that almost gave Gillespie Lara's wicket 2 overs ago. But this time, Lara moved perfectly, and unleashed that beautiful cover drive he's known for. The ball raced away. I roared in unison with the Barbados crowd, making my parents wake up. Lara, having completed a famous win, hugged his teammates.

See how awesome that epic was? I set out to describe it in a few sentences and ended up rambling on and on. Well, it was THAT special. It also came with some luck, as we saw. But in the end, Lara scripted a saga that was memorable and magical. And magical enough to build an entire urban legend - of his 4th innings winning expertise.

Barbados 1999 is where the 4th innings expertise begins and ends. Two years later, he seemed set to repeat his triumph against South Africa, but fell to Kallis short of a century, and West Indies ended up losing comfortably. Two more years later, chasing 400 or so against Aussies, he made a fluent century but fell with West Indies miles and miles away. A couple of seasons later in South Africa, set 450 to win in 100 overs, he scored an entertaining 80-odd but fell with almost 2 sessions to go, leaving Sarwan, Hinds, and Smith to grind out a face-saving draw.

All these other near-misses and failures do not show him as a 4th innings failure per se, but don't make him a 4th innings god either. Certainly does not make him "way better" than Sachin in the 4th innings. Sachin has some near-misses himself, the aforementioned Chennai century being the most famous one. But he also has two famous successes. The first such being of course, famously, his maiden test century. An unbeaten century coming in at No. 6 to salvage a draw at Old Trafford. The other being his last ball hundred at Chennai against England two seasons ago.

Even in terms of pure numbers, there's little separating the two greats when it comes to 4th innings performances. In fact Sachin's 4th innings average at 38.77 (49 innings) is higher than Lara's at 35.12 (46 innings). Sachin has 3 centuries, Lara has 2. Sachin has 5 half centuries, Lara has 7. And, interestingly, Sachin has 3 4th innings duck, and Lara has 7. These numbers don't speak strongly for either of the two gentlemen.

All things considered, both Lara and Tendulkar are neck-to-neck in this regard - 4th innings records, as they are in most other regards when it comes to debating which one is greater. I am writing this post not to claim that Sachin was better, but to say that it's too close to call.

So the Lara myth comes from that magical nail-biting century in the Barbados win. You saw how I waxed lyrical about it. It was unforgettable. But so was Sachin's Chennai century against Pakistan just two months before. Sadly for him, the chance he offered with victory in sight was taken. And that century is associated with a painful failing, not a famous win. In a parallel universe, Sachin's catch was dropped, Lara's was held, and people are touting Sachin as the 4th innings master, and Lara as the choker.

Thus ends this rather self-indulgent exercise in mythbusting. The next time someone says, "Sachin is great, but Lara's 4th innings record was much better" throw this post in their face. And if you were one of those who used this to bait Sachin fans, worry not. Let me give you another name. Let's see.... let me think of some random name - Smith sounds as random as any. It's very common and is often chosen as a fake name. So go with Smith. Tell them, "Sachin is great, but a dude named Smith has a much better 4th innings record".

P.S. Seriously, Graeme Smith has an awesome 4th innings record. So does Ricky Ponting for that matter.

Cross posted at Clear Cricket where I plan to be an occasional contributor

JAM Magazine's article about IIPM's tall claims from 2005

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:48:00 +0000

Five years ago, JAM magazine published a piece investigating the claims IIPM made in its advertisements. I blogged about it, and regular readers will know what ensued. Here's the original JAM article, for posterity. Click on the images for full view.

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Vinod Mehta's Bigotry

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 05:33:00 +0000

Vinod Mehta is someone I don't always agree with. At worst, I have found his arguments flawed. Never did I expect him to descend into unvarnished bigotry! From the latest issue of Outlook

Criticism from other countries is acceptable. But not from Australia, a land largely made up of descendants of convicts.

Huh? Either Vinod Mehta has a bigoted ghost writer or he has done well to keep his bigotry hidden all these years. I am no fan of the Australian media. I find a lot of the reporting as well as editorializing in it condescending towards India. And there are several valid criticisms to be made of the Aussie media's slanted coverage of the Commonwealth Games.

So why stoop down to quasi-racist levels by bringing up this "descendants of convicts" BS? Does Vinod Mehta have classified access to the existence of some criminality gene that gets passed down from parents to their kids; something that geneticists haven't shared with the world? Does Vinod Mehta proudly stand by anything and everything his great-great-great-great-great grandparents might have done? Is Vinod Mehta suggesting that future generations of all convicts must forever be treated as different from the rest of us?

And did Vinod Mehta cheer in glee while watching Amitabh Bachchan's Deewar when the words "mera baap chor hai" were tattooed on little Vijay's hand? He might as well have, if he believes in this descendants of convicts claptrap. And if he doesn't believe it, and wrote it as a joke, it still isn't okay, especially after the Indian media coverage played a role in paul Henry losing his job for his jokes.

Arjuna Ranatunga had made a similar comment during his playing days. I think (although I am not sure) Harbhajan Singh might also have said something similar in the aftermath of the Sydney test. It is a xenophobic, bigoted and quasi-racist thing to say for anyone.

But especially coming from Vinod Mehta, supposedly a liberal progressive leading light of the Indian media, it is plain disgusting. Ad hominem, the fallacy of attacking the person not the argument, is bad enough. Attacking the ancestors of the person making the argument is a bigoted fallacy that we should perhaps name VinodMehtaism.

Revisiting Randiv's No-Ball

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 03:34:00 +0000

As a fan of Pakistan cricket, I am heartbroken about the match-fixing revelations. But when I see Amir and Asif's pre-decided no-balls, as an Indian cricket fan, I can't help but revisit Suraj Randiv's no-ball. The no-ball he bowled to deny Virender Sehwag a century.

At that time, Sri Lanka Cricket (board) suspended Randiv, and apologized to Sehwag. It was suggested that the whole thing was a stupid, petty, almost sadistic thing that Randiv had done to deny Sehwag, Sri lanka's prime tormenter for several years, a century.

But these revelations got me thinking. If I were a bookie. The situation was - Sehwag is 99 not out. On strike. Against a spinner. Team needs 5 runs to win. Sehwag needs 1 for a century. As a bookie, what would I offer for Sehwag NOT getting to a century? Certainly steep ones. 50:1? 100:1? Now if I as a bookie offered you those odds, and you had some way to talking to the bowler Randiv or to some senior teammate of his like Dilshan, to make sure the 5 runs were given by means of....oh I don't know.... 4 byes and 1 no-ball. Wouldn't you bet everything you had on it?

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Review of Inception

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:34:00 +0000

SPOILER COMMUNIQUE - In this review I will not give away what I think are the "spoilers". I put the word in quotes, because I don't think the movie can really be spoiled anyway. Nolan has moved beyond the "Ah ha! The doctor is his mother!" type of spoilers that Scorsese still seemed to clutch on to in Shutter Island. As Roger Ebert said in his review of Inception - "Here is a movie immune to spoilers: If you knew how it ended, that would tell you nothing unless you knew how it got there. And telling you how it got there would produce bafflement."

Inception is a movie set mostly in dreams, and as Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) says, a dream you think lasts for hours might have come to you in just minutes of sleep. So throughout the movie, there are different recursive timelines that co-exist. Appropriately, time-wise, the movie itself operates like a dream, because despite being quite lengthy, 2.5 hours, time seems to fly.

The set-up of the movie itself is not very complicated. The idea is that if you want to extract information from someone, get into their dreams. That's what Cobb does. He is into corporate espionage, getting into the dreams of CEO types to extract information. His associate is Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who for me will always be Tommy from 3rd Rock from the Sun). They are attempting to extract information from Saito (Ken Watanabe), almost succeed after great difficulty, but fail due to a small error by the architect. Then the guys who hired them are after them, when Saito comes to rescue them.

Saito offers them a deal - you guys do extraction. I want you to do the exact opposite, an "inception". Which means, planting an idea in someone's brain, making them think it's their idea in the first place. That someone is Saito's competitor Robert Fischer, played by Cillian Murphy, who finally gets to display his acting prowess beyond just playing Scarecrow in Batman movies.

It seems that inception is much harder to do than extraction. But Cobb has done it before. So he embarks on a quest to do that, enlisting the help of the brilliantly named (look it up) Ariadne (Ellen Page) an architecture student of his father-in-law.

As a noob, Ariadne serves as a proxy for us, the ignorant audience, as Cobb goes about explaining the concepts integral to invading dreams and manipulation. Halfway into the movie, we know all the basic principles. We also know that Cobb has a troubled past. A past that compromises his ability to do all that he wants to in the dreamworld. A past that plays a role at critical junctures throughout the movie. And a past which gets unraveled in parallel, and is equally important to, if not more than, the main storyline.

The way the protagonist's past runs in parallel to the main story is a narrative device that Nolan particularly loves. He used it in Memento, and in Prestige. And now he's used it in Inception. But in a very different way than before. And even though you will have theories and guesses about what will happen in the end, the complexity of the narrative is such that, even if you were kinda-sorta on the right track, you get blown away by the final revelations. Just like in those other movies. That is the magic of Nolan's non-Batman movies. And this one, he's been working on for a decade, and it shows, in a good way.

On to performances. DiCaprio does a splendid job with a difficult role. I hope he wins an Oscar for it. But as a DiCaprio fan, I got a strong sense of deja vu, because he has played this tough-hero-with-a-troubled-past role too often. He has aced it, but I'd like to see something else. How about a movie with Ben Stiller? See what it did for Tom Cruise and Robert Downey Jr!

Ellen Page does her part, but Nolan didn't really give her character too much complexity. So if you're looking for a Juno-level home run, you won't get it. Watanabe's character has shades, going from adversary-victim to friend-victim, and he manages all the shades with his usual ease. The rest of Cobb's team does a good job too (although why get a dude named Dilip Rao and make him play Yousuf?).

But for me, the biggest surprise triumph was Cillian Murphy. He plays a tycoon heir with daddy issues. issues that get teased and prodded in his dreams, demanding that he walk a tightrope in his portrayal. He strides it with grace, and comes out with a performance that should at the very least get a Best Supporting Actor nod. And lead to many more richer roles for him in the future.

To conclude, the final scene of the movie. Obviously, I will not tell you what it is, or tip my hand in any way. I'll just say it was beautifully conceived and executed. can't think of a better way to end the movie. And it ended at the perfect point in time, down to the right millisecond. Even though the groans in the cinema hall will suggest that everyone else would have wanted it to last 2 seconds more. But that's Nolan.

Outrage over Joel Stein

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:09:00 +0000

Joel Stein's article has united ABCDs and FOBs, possibly with Rajan Zed thrown in, into a vortex of outrage. The left-liberal counterpart of Rajan Zed, also known as Sepia Mutiny, has this long unreadable "fisking". Imagine that. Fisking Stein to show he is unfunny. What next - fisking Sarah Palin to show she is stupid? Fisking Glenn Beck's anti-India rant from a few months back to show he is loony?

What has amused me the most is the Sepia Mutiny type crowd's reaction to it. You know, desis, predominantly American-born, who are avowedly left-liberal and pro-democrat. Marching in lockstep with the "grand march". They get their undies in a twist every time there is a perceived anti-Indian slight, but of the non-religious variety (religious, it's all Zed) - like this Stein article, the HuffPo article on dating Indians, D-Punjab-gate, Biden's Dunkin-Donuts-gate etc. It's like they are saying to Stein or the other perpetrators, "But we Indians are part of the grand march! How could you betray us so?"

The article itself, IMHO, tries too hard and is indeed unfunny. But what is there to get outraged about, unless you have never read Joel Stein? He has always been like this, unfunny and unreadable, and has been built up by left-liberals as "edgy" because his targets are almost always conservatives. He trains his guns on us for a change, and suddenly TIME should apologize and/or fire him? How is this different from Zed-ism, but of a secular variety?