Corridor of Atheism

atheism /'eɪθɪɪz(ə)m/ n. Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God or gods.

One of the biggest myths in the world is atheism. Disbelief in God also implies lack of religious belief. Logically one cannot be an atheist and religious at the same time. Anyone who doesn’t believe in God or doesn’t abide by organised religion or a religious cult claims to be an atheist. But is anyone really an atheist? The idea of atheism is restricted to the dogmas of religions and cults. But regardless of one’s religious beliefs, most people do believe in something. It could be God, an object, a profession, a political orientation, politician, “serious” or dark cinema, a sports team, an animal or a human being — practically anything connected to or independent of organised religion.

Most highbrow film buffs (the Hollywood types, the Yuppies, Anurag Kashyap’s aficionados) claim to be atheists, but they have a resolute devotion towards their type of cinema. How could such people be called atheists?

Religious people are accused of never questioning their religion, yet one would never see a highbrow move buff criticise movies like Gangs Of Wasseypur or Neerja. Blind faith isn’t restricted to organised religions. So-called atheists are equally obedient towards their objects of zeal. Most religious people are not fanatical about their beliefs but most highbrow movie buffs are fanatical towards their cinema or television show. Still, fanaticism is only correlated to religion. When sports fans turn riotous, it’s called mental disintegration of over-exuberant fans; but when religious fanatics turn riotous, religion gets a bad name.

Muslims respect other religions even though they consider Islam as the only true religion. They never mock other religions. They don’t stop non-Muslims from observing their respective religions. They don’t spread hate against other religions or atheists. That’s true democracy. That what being liberal means — watching a yuppie TV show doesn’t make you liberal. Now compare that to the so-called atheists, highbrow movie buffs. They ridicule mainstream cinema. They spread hate against people whose cinematic predilections don’t match theirs. They bully those who don’t subscribe to their cinematic diktats. They manipulate ratings on IMDB through fake mass-voting. Yet they are championed as the most broad-minded people in the world.

People misuse religion to control others. But it’s not just religion that gets distorted by control freaks — radicalisation of anything is dangerous. Hinduism is a tolerant, secular, polytheistic religion. Some of the greatest mathematicians and scientists in the world have been Hindus. The very foundation of human rights was set by Christianity. One of Islam’s main purpose was to eliminate racism and class divisions. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) taught Muslims to be kind to non-Muslims. The main purpose of Sikhism was to eliminate segregation of society on the basis of caste, colour, creed, social status etc. Sikh gurudwaras (temples) serve langar (free meals) to people irrespective of their faith and social status. (On the other hand, people like Karan Johar have only intensified class divisions in India.) What have the radicalised fans of Adolf Hitler, Karan Johar, Tanmay Bhat and Russell Peters done for the world other than spreading hate and xenophobia?

The religious concepts of salvation, heaven and hell are mocked by so-called atheists. Ironically, the atheist movie buffs indirectly promote the same ideology without using the same words. When they castigate people for not watching a certain Anurag Kashyap film, aren’t they implying that such people will rot in hell? (Otherwise what difference will not watching a movie make? It’s just a darn movie after all!) Religious people claim to be better connected to God than non-believers. Similarly, serious movie buffs claim to be better than people who watch cinema for entertainment. They just don’t use the idea of God but in essence they are saying the same thing. Some religious bigots claim that a strict adherence to their religion will get them numerous virgins in heaven. Similarly, serious movie buffs claim that watching so-called highbrow cinema will get them laid on the earth. The only difference is that the movie buffs keep things real, but the trap is the same — making people think that they they will get special benefits over others who aren’t like them.

Most dictators in the world have been atheists. It’s true that terrorists have no religion — some of them are atheists.  

Make Them Think They Are Thinking

“If you make people think they are thinking, they’ll love you; but if you really make them think, they’ll hate you.” — Don Marquis.

This is what separates a film like Gulaal from No Smoking. Both were made by India’s beloved, Anurag Kashyap, but both drew opposite reactions. Gulaal became the darling of the ruling elite because of its austere, dark narrative; whereas, No Smoking became the most notorious movie ever because of its abstruse story, unconventional narrative and overall weirdness. One made people think that they were thinking, while the other actually made an effort to make them think. After the disastrous response to No Smoking, Anurag Kashyap grasped the ruling elite’s fostered dogmas and moved his career in the direction of Gulaal. 

The serious directors in India are called unconventional. But no one ever realises that they just mirror what so-called mainstream directors do. Mainstream directors make films that appeal to the masses, while the serious directors focus on critics. They are just two sides of the same coin. Both follow certain formulas. Both seek approval of their respective audience. Both can be very insecure. Yet the serious bores get all the accolade. If mainstream action films are formulaic, then so are gangster films. If mainstream directors cannot make supposedly award-worthy films, then the “serious” directors cannot make blockbusters. It’s easy to ridicule a blockbuster but hard to make one. Anurag Kashyap fell flat on his face when he attempted a mainstream film with Bombay Velvet.

Who decides that critics are superior to common people? What makes a film critic an authority on cinema? Critics don’t even need any qualification, unlike other professionals. In India anyone who cannot do anything in life can become a film critic. Kamaal Rashid Khan’s resounding success as a film connoisseur is a proof. So, who decides that Kamaal Rashid Khan or his cronies have the authority to influence the kind of movies that should be made? Critics cry for more freedom, yet they cannot take any criticism from public. The very idea of film critic’s influence is dictatorial.

No one ever wonders that a biopic or a film based on real events, has a ready-made story. (Of course cinema isn’t all about story. It’s the treatment of a story that matters.) But thinking up a piece of fiction requires more creative effort. An austere biopic on Gandhi is admirable but comedy like Lage Raho Munnabhai entails far more creativity. Films like Back To The Future, Memento, and Inception are works of pure genius.

In India any movie that’s has a serious subject and is “realistic” and easy to comprehend, gets pigeonholed as good cinema. Everyone follows this sentiment robotically. It has become a dogma. Like religious beliefs, nobody dares to question it. Anyone who dares to do so is insulted. Here are some of the dogmatic diktats: biopics are intelligent because they are real and anything unconventional or that makes you feel good is lowbrow rubbish. No Smoking makes you stupid, while Gangs of Wasseypur can make you smarter than Einstein. If you don’t like Airlift and Neerja you are not only anti-national but also stupid. You could be doing a PhD, yet it’s Gangs of Wasseypur that determines your intelligence quotient.

India has another ridiculous notion: any movie that’s realistic or serious is artistic. Alfred Hitchcock mostly made suspense thrillers; they were not only very entertaining but more artistic than the oeuvres of modern-day ascetic bores. Luis Buñuel and David Lynch — the legends of surreal cinema — made great films but none of them would get any respect in India because most of the self-proclaimed intellectuals don’t understand surrealism. Hence, it’s rubbish. The films of Luis Buñuel and David Lynch challenging and require more thinking than a straight-laced austere film.

The irony of Anurag Kashyap’s cinema (or any branch of serious cinema) is that it preaches shades-of-grey mindset (acceptance of human flaws, realism, lack of idealism etc.), yet its supporters expect idealism and obedience from film viewers by expecting them to only watch “serious” cinema. They want free thinking, but they are ones who curb free thinking by restricting cinema to their blinkered, austere vision. Diversity is beautiful. Films like Psycho, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Sixth Sense, Memento, The Prestige, The Godfather, Back To The Future, 8 and 1/2 are great films and all of them are different from one another. It’s the beauty of diversity that makes cinema so rich. But diversity is considered an enemy because of political and cinematic propagandas.

The Don Marquis’ quote at the start of this post best describes the strategy of politicians and film snobs to control people. Anyone who doesn’t like mainstream cinema is called a non-conformist, even though they don’t have the guts to criticise or even question any serious film (what an irony!). People who like feel-good cinema do it on their own volition; they have the freedom to like or dislike any feel-good film. So who’s more open-minded and obedient? Anyone who likes Anurag Kashyap is touted as a liberal, even though they abuse those who are not into such cinema. So, who’s more liberal? How can not liking Neerja make one unpatriotic or irresponsible or stupid? Neerja was a great lady whose story deserved to be shown. But not showing interest or not liking that movie doesn’t mean disrespect towards her. Anyone who wants to know about her can read about her. It’s a matter of personal choice. Having an opinion on a movie is a personal choice, not a criteria for determining one’s purpose in life. Politicians and “serious” filmmakers shame movies that are made for money (as if they would ever quit their high-paying jobs). An Indian politician literally beats up an Air India employee for giving him an economy class ticket, but he expects common people to watch “sensible” films and American TV shows. Karan Johar emotionally blackmails people who prefer feel-good cinema, while boasting about his riches. In 2010 he made a statement against Islamophobia in My Name Is Khan. In 2017 he used anti-Muslim sentiment to promote Bahubali. Anurag Kashyap’s rabid fans (are there any other kind?) chastise those who don’t watch serious cinema, whilst enjoying a game of cricket with beer.

Most people cannot see this hypocrisy, because of the indoctrination and emotional blackmail that they are put through. They are lied to by the establishment. They throw flattering adjectives at them like “hipsters”, “yuppies”, “non-conformists”, “rebels”, “street smart liberals”, “cool motherfuckers” etc. They are told that they know everything but in truth they don’t. And they don’t even know that they don’t.

Rise of The Movie Mafia

“Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” — Lord Acton.

The rise of Youtube yuppies like TVF Pitchers and All India Bakchod is gradually becoming a menace in India. If the escalation in class divisions, bigotry and hate — because of them — wasn’t enough now there are multiple charges of sexual harassment against Arunabh Kumar, the head of TVF Pitchers. It is alarming that numerous women have come out and spoken against him. [1]

TVF and AIB are a movie mafia supported by the ruling yuppies and their mindless disciples. Bash mainstream Hindi cinema (so-called Bollywood) and you are set for life in India. These bastards think that they can get away with anything because of that. Unfortunately, they are right. They understand the psyche of gullible Indian yuppies. But it’s not just the yuppie crowd that cowers to them. Indian media and politicians are desperately defending them, slandering the women who dared to speak against him. The victims of rapes and sexual harassment already face so much discrimination in India. It’s such a shame that these yuppies who claim to champion female empowerment (by watching Karan Johar’s movies) are so dismissive of the numerous charges against the TVF’s pervert — just because he likes so-called highbrow movies. It’s so easy to manipulate the sheep-minded yuppies. Arnuabh Kumar and cronies make a video on the Indian Army, click selfies with them, denigrate Aamir Khan, suck up to Shobhaa De and Anurag Kashyap, give thumps up to a patriotic movie — and they are declared as modern icons of India. It is that easy to appease them.

Liberalism is a myth in India. Most of the people in India think that being liberal means watching Anurag Kashyap’s movies, American TV shows and bashing the Right-wing Hindus and Muslims. Arunabh Kumar is to them what Donald Trump is to Klu Klux Klan. Strangely, even the Right-wing Hindus are fearful of TVF and cronies. His sheep-minded fans lack reasoning skills or the ability to think for themselves. If they cannot come up with a justification, they resort to abuse. They make fun of Godmena and bhakts but ironically they are worse than them. TVF and AIB have an information technology cell that harasses people who criticise them. In India it’s to criticise Narendra Modi but not many people have the guts to criticise the likes of TVF and AIB. The dangers of film fanaticism are real.

Two men chant “allah-u-akbar” before shooting down a crowd, they are quickly labelled as terrorists and Islam comes under scrutiny. But when a fan of Dark Knight goes on a killing spree at a cinema, the “terrorist” word isn’t used, nor does Hollywood come under any scrutiny. Why do movie buffs get away with things that theists don’t? The men who chanted “allah-u-akbar” probably had nothing to do with Islam. Islam condemns killing of any human. Whereas, it was well-known that the Dark Knight fan was fanatical about Hollywood movies. It doesn’t even matter what religion that Dark Knight was fan was of — he could be Christian, Muslim or an atheist. His fanaticism for highbrow cinema saved him from criticism.

There will be less intolerance in the world for at least a few days, as IMDB has shut down its message boards. It’s great move because IMBD was becoming a hub of radicalised movie buffs. The amount of brainwashing going on there would have put Nazis to shame. Some people have called it a death of “meaningful discourses on cinema” but obviously those Fascists have no clue about what meaningful discourses on cinema are. Obviously those Philistines have never read a book in their lives and they think that watching some idiot’s Youtube channel makes them an intellectual. If anything, the shutting down of message boards has hopefully saved a few lives.

Karan Johar and Anurag Kashyap — the darlings of India — shamelessly support these channels. TVF and AIB aren’t just Youtube channels or film fanatics, they are death cults. They revel in depression, bigotry and destruction. To them life begins after death. If these people take over, India can become the next Iran or North Korea. A few years ago, when a the Godman Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insaan (The MSG wonder) was accused of rapes, his disciples turned riotous. Anurabh Kumar’s yuppie breed is likely to take the same route in future. He and his cronies are the Godmen of Yuppies.

Source: [1] TheQuint

Politics of Guilt

Social activism is easy these days. All you have to do is watch serious cinema or dark cinema. That’s all you have to do — just be a couch potato who watches “good” films and you will become an intellectual. Movie buffs have become like that character in the 1980s’ Twilight Zone series (“The Curious Case of Edgar Witherspoon”) who has to keep running an extremely complex contraption to keep the earth spinning smoothly in its orbit. Movie fanatics do the same by watching “serious” movies to save the world from moral degradation and endemics.

Cinema was a medium of art and entertainment but now it is a medium of propaganda and guilt politics. Misplaced austerity has replaced art and propaganda (guilt politics) has replaced entertainment. Filmmakers like Anurag Kashyap and his crony Youtube channels use guilt politics to sell their movies. They guilt-trip or even intimidate people who prefer feel-good cinema. They have turned optimism and happiness into pure guilt. Now the darker a film is, the better it is considered than a feel-good movie; the sadder the ending, the more stars it gets from critics. Every time people prefer larger-than-life entertainment, they are reminded of the dark realities of “real” world and held responsible for everything wrong with the society. Those who watch dark movies are considered intellectually superior to those who prefer entertainment. This is pure politics of guilt to manipulate people. Why is only entertainment in cinema singled out? If entertainment is evil, then should’t all forms of entertainment be banned? Shouldn’t people be guilt-tripped for watching cricket or football? If escapist cinema is a sin, then they should also stop partying and drinking alcohol. It is another thing that these arbitrary bastards will die if they cannot go to a disco every Saturday night. For education there are books. Reading expands one’s horizons and broadens one’s vocabulary. But of course, these Philistine bastards have probably never read a book in their lives and their rickety attention spans cannot handle anything more than a few tweets.

Whenever they run out of excuses, they use the soldier analogy to attack whoever isn’t on the same page: “Our soldiers make sacrifices for us. Can’t you watch dark movies?” The entire argument ends whenever they use the solider analogy. So, enduring dark or austere cinema is similar to serving in the army.

Anurag Kashyap is a like the government school teachers of India — sour, dour, austere and grumpy. They inculcate them with their dour values: thou shall not laugh, thou shall not be happy, thou shall study for eighteen hours a day, though shall not wear a perfume, thou shall not party etc. They deflate others so they can feel better about their own frustrations. These scrooges make happiness look like a sin.

I have nothing against austere cinema or tragic endings. I admire the Shakespearean tragedies of Vishal Bharadwaj. I likes movies of Dibakar Banarjee, Govind Nihlani and older movies of Anurag Kashyap. But why should cinema only be restricted to certain sensibilities? There is nothing wrong with sad endings. But the trouble brews when such people are considered smarter than others, simply on their preference of depression over happiness. The question is, what do viewers of dark cinema or serious cinema contribute to society by watching such movies? Watching movies, whether comedies or tragedies, doesn’t make any difference. It is as constructive an activity as watching a game of cricket. No one becomes a great thinker or a great patriot by watching Gangs of Wasseypur or by bullying those don’t like it.

Alfred Hitchcock made entertaining films. His weren’t feel-good films: they were dark but very thrilling, suspenseful and entertaining at the same time. His cinema was a work of art with great usage of expressionism, symbolisms and so forth. Each scene in his each film had more art than the entire oeuvres of these ascetic bores. In India, however, art cinema is considered a movie with realism and austerity. The parameters are blinkered like the outlook of the ascetic manipulators. Where are enterprising filmmakers like Hitchcock, Fellini, Bunuel etc.?

Cinema is creating more divisions in society than caste or colour. What does watching dark movies do? Does it book you a spot in heaven? Will Salman Khan’s fans go to hell? Does it guarantee lifelong riches? Does it get one a seat in the best universities in the world? Does the cure of cancer lie in those movies? Does it resolve the Kashmir issue?

Radicalised movie buffs keep lying to their disciples. Watching serious cinema doesn’t make one a social activist. Those who want to make a difference, actually go out and do something meaningful like my cousin H’Ji.

O’ movie buff, cut your ego, not movies.
Learn to think for yourself, instead of blindly following reviewers.
Stop policing people’s taste in cinema.
Don’t make cinema your religion.
Let your daughters fall in love. 

François Truffaut said, “Film lovers are sick people.” Who would have thought the hyperbole would become a reality one day? Earlier people reviewed movies, now movies review people.

Dawood Ibrahim’s Progeny

Dawood Ibrahim is gone from India but he left his progeny behind in the form of All India Bakchod and TVF Pitchers. If he were born a few decades later, he could have easily been a part of India’s over-felicitated start-up breed. It would have been easy for him to legitimise his mafia business under the subterfuge of the start-up culture of Youtube yuppies. He would be invited to give leadership lectures to students in IITs, IIMs and other universities; he would appear on Indian version of Ted Talks to disperse his nuggets of gyan; on Quora.com he would be a lifestyle guru advising fellow yuppies on almost everything from parenting to quantum physics; he would be invited on Karan Johar’ Koffee With Karan and talk about his best kills and if Al Capone was hotter than Ted Bundy. All he would have to do is to start a Youtube channel like AIB and TVF, purport to be an admirer of highbrow cinema and American TV shows — thence he would become a darling of India’s yuppies. There isn’t much difference between Dawood Ibrahim and the likes of All India Bakchod, except that the latter are backed by politicians and intellectuals. Both use fear and intimidation to control others. Both are self-righteous and autocratic custodians of society. Both are loved by Fascists.

TVF Pitchers are a hipster version of Khap Panchayat. They decide what’s original and what’s not. When Aurag Kashyap gets inspired by Cat’s Eye, it’s called an inspiration but if others get inspired or even pay a homage, they are slandered as plagiarists. In one of their propaganda videos, they have asserted that Shankar-Jaikishen’s song from Janwar, “Deko ab to kisko nahi hai khabar” is copied from The Beatles song (“I want to hold your hand”). Obviously those malicious, boorish, autocratic bastards don’t a know a thing about history. The Beatles visited India in 1960 and were deeply inspired by the spirituality; they became friends with Shankar-Jaikishen and Shami Kapoor. In return Shankar-Jaikishen decided to pay a homage to them through that song. It was an obvious tribute. They four men playing guitars were clearly dressed as The Beatles, making no effort to hide the similarities. There is a demarcation between plagiarism and homage. (There have been several songs that were plagiarised by other Indian composers in the ‘80s and the ‘90s, but this was clearly not. Shankar-Jaikishen and other composers of that era were of a different league altogether. Heck, even The Beatles loved it but India’s cinema police won’t accept it.) They tell people what movies to watch and now they also police people’s taste in music. What’s next: will they tell people how many children they should have? (“Every Anurag Kashyap fan should have at least five children so we can take over” would be indoctrinated to their gullible disciples.) 

An obvious tribute to The Beatles. But Dawood Ibrahim’s successors, TVF Pitchers, refuse to accept that. 

But obviously the likes of TVF Pitchers are averse to any reasoning or logic (unless it’s meant to flatter them). Why would they make such egregious assertions? They want control like mafia. They are the modern-day versions of rogues like Dawood Ibrahim. They consider themselves as the trend influencers, just like Shobhaa De, Karan Johar, AIB etc. This is the reason why AIB’s dictator Tanmay Bhat slandered Lata Mangeshkar in his propaganda video. They use fear and coercion to control everyone.

All Dawood Ibrahim has to do is to announce that he loves Breaking Bad. His image would change and he might even get a pardon from the brain-dead yuppies of Indian government. 

Ae Dil Hai Nationalist

Atul Mehndi, the teddy-bear lookalike, took a pledge, with his hand over his chest, to never watch any Indian movie featuring Pakistani artistes after the attack on the Indian army in Uri. Karan Johar’s Ae Dil Hai Mushkil became highly contentious before its release since it featured Pakistani actor Fawad Khan. Atul Mehndi and his nationalist ilk criticised Johar and urged everyone to boycott the movie, lest they would be anti-national.

Karan Johar appeared in a video, double-chinned, gaunt and sombre, dark circles under his eyes — a perfect image for his morbid audience. He cried like a sissy, pleading his love for India. He implored the detractors, like a prayerful beggar on a train, to allow the release of his movie and promised to never work with any Pakistani in future.

Once the movie released, fawning reviews started flowing. As soon as it became apparent that Karan Johar had relinquished happy endings forever and that he had traded entertainment for darker issues surrounding the “first world”, he become a national hero. Atul Mehndi and his ilk not only watched the movie but extolled it with sheer sycophancy. All it takes is a sad ending to become a nationalist these days.

I won’t be surprised if it was another publicity gimmick to promote his movie. If people wanted to boycott movies with Pakistani connection, then why Raees came out two months later without any objection despite having Mahira Khan? (Interestingly, Mahira Khan had a significant role in Raees compared to Fawad Khan’s cameo in Ae Dil Hai Mushkil.)

Karan Johar has become a darling of the liberals just because he expressed his loathe for happy endings. He often talks about his depression that inspired him to make Ae Dil Hai Mushkil. He is cunning opportunist. He looks down on happy endings (because his own life is glum), yet he says that he cannot travel in economy class. Just see his contradiction. In an interview to a sycophant film critic, he said that he once travelled in economy class when he was a nobody (in the days of Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge) and it was “very uncomfortable” for him even then. These “serious” filmmakers pontificate on the virtues of “sensible” cinema, depression and sad endings, yet they can never leave the comforts of business class. His idiotic fans justify him by saying that even though he cannot give up comfort, he compensates for it by making movies on the “first-world problems”; so that gives him the privilege to lead a lavish lifestyle as long as he leads a sad life. What a sick explanation by his equally sick, rabid fans!

By no means do I mean that he or anyone should give up affluence. It’s just the hypocrisy of these stupid movie buffs that’s laughable. If a lowbrow filmmaker had talked about his or her love for riches, people would have castigated that person for being thankless, as if the cure of cancer lies in the movies of Karan Johar and Anurag Kashyap.

He bribed the self-proclaimed film critic Kamaal R. Khan to trash the rival film, Ajay Devgan’s Shivaay, which was releasing on the same day. Ajay Devgan even wrote about it on twitter.

Hear what self proclaimed no. 1 critic and trade analyst Kamaal R Khan has to say. https://t.co/wRc7moSlsZ

— Ajay Devgn (@ajaydevgn) 1 September 2016

People are judged by the company they keep. How can anyone who considers Kamaal R. Khan a film critic be called an intellectual? Johar has nexus with Fascists like AIB and TVF and harangues people about free speech, when in truth they are the most intolerant people in India. They police people’s taste in cinema, music etc. and get hostile when anyone criticises them. When Mohammed Rafi’s fans peacefully protested on the derogatory remarks about Rafi in the movie, yuppies chastised them. If a mainstream movie criticised an American TV show like Breaking Bad or any Hollywood legend, would these yuppies stay quiet? At least Rafi’s fans are peaceful. Aamir Khan once mildly criticised AIB Roast and the liberals nearly destroyed his career.

The brain-dead yuppies say that directors like Anurag Kashyap and the born-again auteur Karan Johar should stop making movies in India because Indian audience aren’t worthy of them. Since the neo-Nazis love Hollywood and Iraninan cinema, the duo should make movies in US and Iran. Karan Johar says that he can get arrested in India if he reveals his sexual orientation. So, one of the most powerful men of India claims that he can get arrested if he tells anyone that he’s gay. The man who hangs out with powerful people like Shobhaa De, Anurag Kashyap, Tanmay Bhat etc. fears prosecution because of his sexuality. It’s as preposterous as the politics of guilt he plays to get critical acclaim. Perhaps Karan Johar and Anurag Kashyap should make movies in Iran for a more deserving audience and enjoy the “tolerance” of Iran’s autocratic theocracy. Homosexuality is punishable by death there. I am not suggesting that they should relocate to Iran but merely replying to their hostile supporters who claim that India isn’t worthy of them.

A movie buff can go any length to get critical acclaim. The pledge taken by Atul Mehndi and others was just empty twaddle — much like the “sensible” values of Karan Johar. When depression becomes a virtue and bliss becomes a sin, Kamaal Rashid Khan’s idiocy is here to stay.