Millennialism Is Pseudoscience

What year does a person have to be born in to qualify as a millennial? Some say it’s from 1985 to 1996; some insist it’s 1980 to 1999; others lobby for 1989 to 2000; while some others beg that it’s anybody born after the year 2000. There’s another creed that classifies births between 1996 to 2008 as generation Z. There are clueless adults who throw the term millennial at teens, toddlers and even infants. There are adolescents who allege being millennials.

Stop and think. Isn’t it obvious that whosoever propagated this hyper-simplistic distinction did that on purpose to create chaos, ambiguity, hate and to ultimately divide people?

There is no clear consensus on what constitutes as a millennial. There is no ordinance from any government or any agency in the world. There is no theological reference, ritual or symbolism. There’s no legal document that can pass a person’s status as millennial or non-millennial. There’s absolutely no scientific proof of this segregation. It’s just a pseudo-scientific concept like zodiac signs and numerology. It’s no different from creating social divisions on the basis of blood groups or as Vinaya Bansal wrote in his article “the concept of millennials is as useless a concept as creating organization structures based on zodiac signs”.

It’s not only divisive but robs people of their individuality. It destroys diversity, individual spirit and harmony. There will always be difference of opinion amongst communities, cultures, generations or for that matter people. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s the branding that adds fuel to fire. It’s the obsessive usage of the word, the endless incantations on social media that escalate the hatred.

How differently do we regard people born in AD 991 from those born in AD 983? Are 991-born called the original millennials? For that matter how differently are people born in 200 BC viewed from those born in AD 700? Nobody even cares when births are several decades or a few centuries apart. Years and years hence, nobody will judge a 1970-born any different from a 1999-born.

There are already many divisions in the world in the form of religion, ethnicity, caste, skin colour, nationality, political views etc. In any argument involving the term millennial, replace millennial with any religion; you’d get the same old propaganda used by politicians and religious cults to control people. We can do without another division.

Teenager Depressed After Finding Out He’s Not A Millennial

A teenager is in depression after finding out that he doesn’t qualify as a millennial. Four years ago a lady shouted the epithet at him when he inadvertently spilled her coffee whilst gazing on his phone. After that he started seeing and hearing “millennial” everywhere. The more he noticed it, the more it started resonating with him. He embraced it as his identity and started referring to it as his “breed”, “tribe”, “DNA” etc. He engraved a tattoo bearing the word on his arm and wanted one on his forehead but was talked out of it by his parents. He made email addresses, usernames and social media handles with the coveted name. He participated in millennial pride marches. He passionately believed that he had the right to get offended and outraged if any film or book misrepresented his breed. He took to vandalism, burnt effigies of film directors who misrepresented his community. He filed petitions and lawsuits whenever anything hurt his generational sentiments.

“I gave my blood and sweat to the community. I considered older and younger generations as the antagonists. I adhered to all the tropes of identity and cultism. I believed that my way of life was the only truth and would secure me a spot in heaven,” said the sombre youth Cowan Johar.

The first instance of disenchantment occurred when, at Kartik Aryan Film Festival, he shouted, “We killed party animals!” His remark was met with scoffs and sardonic glances from the congregation. He explained himself diffidently, “Did I pronounce any word incorrectly? Is there something wrong with my English? I went to a highbrow school where my entire family had to go through a series of tests, interviews and lifestyle checks before my selection. The kind they showed in the critically-acclaimed movie Hindi Medium. Oh, that was a rare Hindi film I saw. I am a Hollywood fanatic since birth.”

One of the members in the congregation clarified, “There’s nothing wrong with your English and we don't mind what movies anybody watches. It’s just that you didn’t kill party animals. We did. You aren’t a millennial. You are generation Z. You are too young to be a millennial.” A pregnant silence ensued.

“I bowed out, mortified, under the pretext of answering a phone call. I could hear stifled laughs behind me. I hoped the congregation was ill-informed and the entire episode was an aberration. Then a few days later, my five-year-old niece asserted, ‘Uncle Cowan, I am a millennial. You belong to no-name generation. You are too old to be a millennial.’ Coming from a child prodigy like her, that really got me worried,” said Cowan Johar.

“The rude awakening dawned upon me when,” recounted Cowan Johar, “I proposed to my sweetheart. She turned me down reluctantly: ‘My family and friends won’t let me marry a non-millennial. They are very strict. What will people say? The world won’t accept our love. If you were born 98 days later, you might have qualified as a semi-millennial; even so my family is very particular about the ideology of Pure Generation on which millennialism was founded.’ I realised I had been living a lie.”

The final nail in the coffin came when the state refused to recognise him as the citizen of his dream Millennial Rashtra (nation) and forewarned to banish him lest he supplied documents and proofs of his millennial identity.

Experts have called it a “loss of identity and purpose” in his life which can lead to a sense of alienation and worthlessness. He can lapse into online trolling, war-mongering, drugs and terrorism if his identity isn’t rebuilt. Even so, it would take centuries or even millenniums for him to recover from this trauma. Social activists have advised him to join Generation Z, the subsequent generation, but he has unequivocally rejected the offer: “They want me to convert to a just-another bland, alphabetically-named generation. Haven’t we had enough of Gens ABCXYZ? It just doesn’t have the ring of millennial.”

He has joined a support group where has met people in similar situation. “In particular there’s a 1985-born who has a similar story to mine. After years of championing the notion Millennial Khatre Mein Hai [Millennials are in danger], he was suddenly told that he was not a millennial. He presented a proof from a news report that mentioned Saudi Arabia’s Prince Salman, who’s also born in 1985, as a ‘millennial prince’. However, his plea was quickly rejected following opposing claims from sundry sources. Some custodians of society say that he can be accepted as a ‘borderline millennial’ but not pure millennial, while others argue that any form of acceptance is out of question. Who makes these rules? Is there a book of laws that decides who’s what?” he spoke in a contemplative mood.

“In my childhood we kids from different age groups used to play football in the neighbourhood. We invited one another to our birthday parties without asking who belonged to what brand of generation. Nobody cared who or what was millennial, gen X, gen XX or gen XXX. No one judged you for that,” related a pensive Cowan Johar.

“Politicians exploited me to secure millennial vote bank and now that I am of no use, they have shunned me like people shun their broke relatives. I vehemently endorsed this political party with the hope they would fulfil their promises, including my ultimate fantasy Millennial Rashtra. Now that the Millennial Rashtra is a strong possibility, they tell me that I am not a millennial. At the time of elections, my voter card and passport were enough for them. Now they want me to furnish a pile of documents to establish my generational identity,” he protested.

“Where will I obtain those documents and mathematical proofs from? Is that even possible? Do they even exist?” he collapsed into a fountain of tears, knowing very well the answers to his own rhetorical questions.

Dumbing Down of English Language and Education System

Even as English enjoys a high social-status in the world, the ever-so-defeatist English linguists are ironically fighting their own battles of chronic inferiority complex and paranoid delusions that anything in their purview “is in danger”.

“Like Test cricket, the education system and English literature are losing popularity. People find them complicated. We have to find new ways to solicit students to get them some level of education,” said a rather jumpy Methodius Head.

The proposed curriculum will entail drug references and cutting-edge abusive words to make education more real, palpable, pragmatic, dark, gripping and the usual adjectives in a popular movie’s review. Shakespeare’s literature will be scrapped  because, apparently it’s time-consuming and kids don’t care for it. “It’s easy to enforce customs in the name of youth. People think that they influence trends, but in truth they only like what we want them to like,” Methodius Head quipped with hysterical laughter.

In order to bridge the gap between academic world and real world, Emojis and GIF images will become a part of the new writing standard. A module in Unimaginative Writing and Mundane Elocution is also recommended to subdue any artistic impulse in students.

“At times students will get an urge to speak like David Attenborough or Nigella Lawson. Majority of people don’t speak in that manner; hence, nobody should be allowed to talk like that. Herd mentality must be preserved at all costs. Thence they will be subject to low-quality auditory dyspepsia from sundry sources. Once in a while, they may feel inspired to write like Charles Dickens or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. This is where we step in with our expertise in inferiority complex. There will be a systematic course of indoctrination to dampen their enthusiasm. Thereafter they will be exposed to mediocre writings of our certain friends on the internet. In time, every sentence they utter will have words like ‘awesome’, ‘crap’, ‘stuff’ and so forth to make the language more accessible to everyone,” declared Methodius Head in a forced Cockney accent.

In the spirit of the obsessive realist revolution, there are also talks of replacing formal-wear, suits, ties etc. with track-suits as “a logical step into the modern world”. Don’t be surprised if the next James Bond walks into MI6 headquarters in a track-suit.

Abusive Language In School Curriculums

Hindi Medium and Super 30 had proved that English was not just a language but high social status. The signs were ominous. In a bid to revive Hindi’s dwindling popularity, education ministry of India has decided to incorporate abusive language in school curriculums. State-of-the-art and old favourite cuss words will be taught. Students will also be encouraged to bring in swear words from their regional languages and dialects. In order to maintain hands-on approach and banality, the syllabus will be overseen by gangsters, pimps, Karan Johar, abusive trolls of social media and Chetan Bhagat’s avid readers. This will also ensure mixed representation in the education system. The goal is to make the education system more relatable, realistic, and practical (or throw in any buzz-word to describe a critically-acclaimed fad).

In addition to that, standard literature will be replaced by abridged screenplays of Gangs Of Wasseypur, Pyar Ka Punchnama and some patriotic biopics etc. to make the language plain, over-simplistic and appealing to the students. “We cannot close our eyes to reality. We are dealing with stiff competition from English. There’s no way to surpass its eminence. We can only try to save Hindi from obsolescence,” barked the spokesperson of education ministry.

“Parents rebuke their children if they use Hindi words in their colloquial language. They have done well in passing on their inferiority complex to the young ones. More and more people are undergoing an un-learning course at Karan Johar Foundation to purge Hindi and Urdu from their brains,” he took a drag off his beedi and continued, “Despite being at the helm of our competition, Karan Johar Foundation, it’s nice of Mr Johar to watch over our syllabus to disperse his first-world chops to our programme.”

The spokesperson insisted, “There’s a dire need to make the language hip and happening. Nobody has the attention span to read books in today’s fast-paced world, that too in Hindi. Imagine how enthusiastic kids will be while mugging up Kartik Aryan’s famous monologue from Pyar Ka Punchnama or while quoting invectives from Gangs of Wassseypur to harass fellow students.”

“Isn’t it inappropriate to teach abusive words to kids?” I protested.

“What’s wrong with abusive language? This is how most people, including teenagers, talk in real world. People shield their kids from harsh realities of life, then they protest that kids are getting too sensitive. Abusive language will toughen them up for future. People want education to reflect real-world issues; they must face reality now” he went on like a kid rote-learning a lesson, in the manner of Kartik Aryan’s dialogue delivery.

In order to uphold the sanctity of realism, Hindi literature will also include English words as well as letters: “Just like how people send text messages in real world, though it gets incomprehensible and quite annoying but such is life.”

While continuing the ground-breaking transformation, the new curriculum will substitute poetry with raps from eminent rappers including Badshah. “Nobody even cares about English poetry, let alone Hindi and Urdu shayari. Poetry is useless and unrealistic like song-and-dance routines in movies. Nobody talks like that in real world. Badshah’s rap typifies modern-day linguistic values. It’s realistic, relatable and practical — realistic, relatable and practical — realistic, relatable and practical,” he chanted the slogan with the fervour of a hired political campaigner.

When contended that nobody even talked in rap or hip-hop in real world, he whispered in an admonitory tone, “No anti-national or low IQ questions please.”

“We want language to be vapid and appealing to the students,” he rambled on.

“How could something be vapid and appealing at the same time? Isn’t that a contradiction?” I asked.

“Haven’t you heard of Facebook and Big Brother?” he quipped, followed by a guffaw.

Algebra facing the axe. Erectile Dysfunction likely to be roped in. 

In a shocking discovery, erectile dysfunction has been found out as the most common problem faced by school boys. Bhumi Pednekar had proved that in her sensible film Shubh Mangal Saavdhan that schools weren’t teaching kids enough on how to cope with life’s problems like erectile dysfunction, but instead wasting time in worthless pursuits like algebra. As a result, Algebra is likely to be dropped in favour of Erectile Dysfunction. Bhumi Pednekar—who’s considered one of the greatest philosophers ever along with Jayden Smith and Mithun’s son Mimoh Chakraborty—has hailed this move as a “victory of content”. Erectile Dysfunction admitted that it was hard to get selected after being down in the dumps but assured that the rise of highbrow content was inevitable. Algebra expressed no hard feelings at the inevitability of being dropped, although reasoned that “instead of going through a long-winded module at school, the students could simply see a doctor but the movie conveniently failed to stress that point”.

How Many More Formats Can Cricket Sustain?

T20 is hailed as the shortest format of cricket but is it short enough? It’s three-and-a-half hours long — longer than an average movie or sport. Any movie longer than two hours and a quarter is met with scornful and hostile reactions; however, the duration of a T20 match is met with a sense of liberation. It’s fiercely argued that T20 is the crowning glory of cricket: for one, it’s short and fast-paced; and apparently nobody is interested in Test cricket. Since the whole fuss of T20 is its short duration, it is still long by global standards. Why be content with just twenty overs: why not ten, seven, six or five overs to put the game on par with elite sports of tolerable lengths to match the rickety attention spans of public? There are more formats mushrooming, as if there weren’t enough already: T10, a ten-over format is sanctioned at club level; The Hundred is soon to be launched by England, a convoluted format of 100-ball innings that will only shorten the game by half hour. When confronted by this question, some fans do concede that the sport will eventually get shorter. So why not do it now? Why not accelerate the “evolution”? It’s not a scientific technology that’s not ready for the present times.

There’s already a barrage of world cups, with nearly one world cup each year. With the proliferation of formats, the world cups will also increase. How many more formats can cricket sustain? Where does this lust for multiple formats end? How many grains of sand can you remove from the heap of sand until it is no longer a heap?

It’s contended that 20-20 cricket is the know-all and end-all of cricket. Wait until the authorities thrust T10, The Hundred, S6, F5 or other skimpier formats. They tell us that we the audience are in control, when in actuality we have no control. They can get viewers hooked on to any format they want; people eventually acquiesce; just like nobody had asked for T20 cricket; international cricket was in great health even before that but they still got public hooked on to it. In truth, people have no choice. People like only what they want them to like. 

Love in Today’s Serious Times

Why This Sanctimony, Serious Cinema?

Serious cinema is important but only when, like everything in life, it co-exists with diverse for forms of cinema. However, when it starts bordering on Fascism then it becomes toxic. Let’s get real Mr Anurag Kashyap. According to Anurag Kashyap, cinema gives people false hopes with regards to relationships by portraying unreal and idealistic relationships. However, when anybody criticises his movies for the unruly behaviour of viewers who were raised on his cinema, he claims that movies make no impact on people’s lives. He cites examples of the failure of anti-smoking campaigns on preventing smoking. He has a valid point: most movies condemn rapes, honour killings, murders etc. but that doesn’t stop people from committing such atrocities. Why this contradiction, Mr Kashyap? Why be so conveniently selective in your criticism?

Older romantic movies were idealistic. People like him blame them for their failed relationships but think about it, back when movies were “impractical” people had much better relationships and marriages. It’s only with the rise of so-called pragmatic cinema that relationships have fallen apart. Now when movies are “realistic” and practical, relationships keep getting worse. People who blame movies for their personal problems are those who cannot accept personal responsibility. Most people like Anurag Kashyap who are anti-thesis to those idealistic movies, have a terrible history of relationships. They are needy, dependent, self-loathing ingrates who were unhappy with their lives even before their relationships. They preach dependence and neediness in relationships. The more obsessed they get with pleasing others the sadder their lives get. They are nothing more than a hipster version of Bajrang Dal, a hardliner group known for beating up couples on Valentine’s Day.

Serious film-makers bore us to death by preaching us to embrace life with its imperfections, accepting people despite their glaring flaws, yet they can’t embrace simple criticism of their films. Anurag Kashyap is at loggerheads with the right-wing but when a kid raised on his brand of cinema threatened him, he didn’t see him a shades-of-grey personality, but rather evil. Serious movie buffs throw temper tantrums whenever anyone disagrees to their cinematic beliefs. Shouldn’t people who criticise their “sensible” cinema be embraced as at least flawed creatures? Shouldn’t they accept our flaws, the way they expect us to celebrate their grey-shaded obnoxious characters? You cannot get everyone to agree to everything you believe in. This is how real world works. Serious film-makers fixate on realism in cinema, but ironically they are the ones detached from reality.

This entire obsession with grey-shaded imperfection is highly inconsistent. On one hand, they preach about putting up with flaws carefully guised as traits. On the other hand, they are busy rearing a perfect breed of children who are expected to get impeccable grades in schools, excel in sports, play musical instruments, learn multiple languages (except for Indian languages), have six-pack abs, sing, dance and do everything that an ideal lead actor does in mainstream cinema. Just look at their contradictions.

Another excuse given for serious cinema is that it toughens people to face harsh realities of life. A fan of Anurag Kashyap, studying at an eminent engineering college, committed suicide because he couldn’t deal with poor grades in college. Clearly, Anurag Kashyap’s cinema isn’t preparing people for real world. The harsh reality is that most of his ilk constitutes of sad and depressed people with some even dealing with alcoholism and drug addiction.

The self-proclaimed sensible film-makers judge, emotionally blackmail and guilt-trip people for finding happiness and success in their lives. They shame people for watching cinema for entertainment but there’s no limit to their own indulgences. They live in extreme luxury, exorbitant house and spend millions of dollars every year on their children’s schooling. And they have the audacity to judge common people for finding pleasure in simple things like movies and love. They tell people to scale down their dreams or not dream at all because in real world dreams don’t come true, which is why people find solace in their depressing and dreary movies. While all these times their fans numb their ambitions, the serious film-makers are fulfilling their own dreams. People who don’t watch their serious movies get called selfish by them and media. Think about it: they expect people to watch their movies and like them. So who’s really selfish here?

Serious cinema is not a guideline for living one’s life. Binge-watching “sensible” movies or TV series won’t help anyone make important decisions in life, it won’t bring prosperity, nor will it get anyone meaningful relationships and most importantly it won’t get anyone a spot in heaven. 

Anurag Kashyap Still In Demand

“Indian actors want to work with Rohit Shetty but Indian public wants Anurag Kashyap’s cinema. Anurag Kashyap is the most popular film director in India. People want to see his movies but cinema owners don’t give them enough shows,” proclaimed Jane Plane at a Flat Earth Society convention.

The entire contingent applauded the speech, followed by howls of approval.

“Anurag Kashyap is more popular than any of those Khans, yet he doesn’t get many opportunities. If somehow he is not that popular, then it’s a conspiracy by Amitabh Bachchan and those three Khan fellows,” orated the ghost of Rajiv Dikshit, also a posthumous winner of Zaid Hamid Conspiracy Theorist medal.

“He is a youth icon. His movies and shows on Netflix India are getting record-breaking views. The budget of the next season of his series will be a whopping $1.5 billion,” reported Propaganda News Channel.

“Even though his films continue to lose more money than ever and his temper tantrums have increased, he is still getting accolades in online comments sections. Though his fans mysteriously disappear from cinemas whenever his film releases, they are quite belligerent on social media,” stated People for Ethical Treatment of Anurag Kashyap.

“His cinematic orientation secured me a place in heaven. His cinema helped me in my day-to-day choices. I am morally superior to all who partake in cinema for entertainment,” asserted a late suicide bomber.

“Watching movies of Anurag Kashyap and cronies has improved my personal and professional life. It has developed my character. I have become smarter than most people. I feel spiritually and socially awakened. I feel like an expert in everything. His cinematic values have also saved my marriage,” said a nondescript man held at a gun-point by a masked person.

“We love Anurag. He’s so adorable,” said no one, not even his parents, not even when he was a kid.

Best Speakers Ever

I received an Urdu song a few days ago: Khabar-e-Tahayyur-e-Ishq sun... jo rahi so bekhabri rahi. I have been passionate about two languages: Urdu and (British) English. They are two of the most sophisticated languages in the world. They have been instrumental in my writing and demeanour. For now here’s a list of my favourite, the most eloquent and charismatic speakers ever pertaining to English (in no specific order):

12. Nigella Lawson.

11. Art Malik: A studious actor and a sublime speaker with baritone.

10. Charu Sharma: He’s a vastly underrated commentator and TV presenter in cricket. He has a wonderfully generic accent with British intonation.

9. Jonathan Agnew: A classical English commentator from the radio and television era and the voice of Brian Lara ’99 Cricket video-game. He is a great story-teller.

8. Stuart Bennett: Also known as Wade Barrett in professional wrestling; apart from that, he is a bare-knuckle boxer and an actor. His pro-wrestling promos are captivating. His voice has the stentorian ring reminiscent of the great Amrish Puri.

7. Phil Brooks “CM Punk”: Although this post is mainly about British English, he’s an American speaker. Apart from his in-ring talent and charisma, his rhetorical skills made him popular quickly. He can deliver promos as long as thirty minutes and still hold audience’s attention.

6. Laila Rouass: She is a quintessential British speaker. She is eloquent and has a charming inflection. Her voice is a delight to auditory senses. She comes from the generation of Video Jockeys who spoke like educated people.

5. Manvi Sinha: She is a news anchor from the era of well-spoken news. There is magnificent cadence to her voice.

4. Lawrence Olivier. 

3. Rowan Atkinson: Perhaps a large section of people outside the west haven’t heard his voice, for he barely spoke in Mr Bean apart from his incoherent mumbling. He has an unmistakable Oxford accent.

2. David Gower: RP has always been spoken by a minuscule section of population in the UK but it remains one of the most loved English accents. It’s hard to find a mediocre communicator with RP. Gower’s speech is no different from his batting: elegant and effortless.

1. Timothy Dalton: He is erudite and articulate. His James Bond movies were neither self-deprecating nor too dark. As for his verbal communication, he is a charismatic orator and a perfect speaker in all regards. He also recited three audio books.

Random Hearts

I haven’t written in a long time. I will post a few random musings:

Language helps us communicate with others, yet despite having myriad of languages and modes of communications, there’s no shortage of miscommunication among humans. One sentence can have different meanings or interpretations. There are different ways to express one idea. People can say something but not mean it. People can say something and mean something else. Ideas can get misinterpreted or distorted. Therefore, words don’t matter. What matters is, eventually, how one feels. There’s no other form of communication clearer than that.

Look for love — and you will find it everywhere. 

Ball Tampering Gate: Why So Serious?

My first reaction to the hysteria about the recent ball tampering news was, “Why so serious?” Of course, I don’t condone any form of cheating. But the outpour of morality and sanctity in today’s cynical times is rather pretentious.

For those unaware, three Australian cricketers, the captain Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft admitted to ball tampering after being caught on camera. Smith and Warner have been banned by the Australian cricket board for one year, while Bancroft has received a nine-month ban. The rabid reactions coming from politicians, media and social media warriors are utterly opportunistic and hypocritical. 

Everyone is taking a dump on Steve Smith and company. This is not just Steve Smith’s failure but also the society’s failure on the whole. We live in an era of moral decadence where we are brainwashed to do whatever it takes to succeed in life. Hollywood, television, media and the ubiquitous cynics convey the same notion repeatedly. Gone are the days when Hollywood was just an entertainment industry. Now it has grown into a cult and a sort of a cultural guild. Hollywood needed a change, it turned overly cynical and darker, and so did the society. (Whether Hollywood is inspired by society or society is inspired by Hollywood, is like asking if an egg came before a chicken. Nonetheless, it’s a scientific fact that television plays a major part in brainwashing people.) It’s not just Hollywood but this sensibility comes from everywhere: you have to be brutal, ruthlessly competitive and do whatever it takes to succeed in life. Morals are laughed at. Happy endings in movies are looked down upon as unreal and lowbrow. People have become like how they are shown in highbrow Hollywood: dour, sociopathic and utterly unremarkable. When you make sociopathy a norm and a “cool” trait, how can you expect morality in return?

In the 1972 film The Godfather, Vito Corleone was a gangster but had strong morals. He refused to deal in sex and drugs, which made him numerous enemies and led to an attempted assassination on him. However, now popular culture cheers the professor who manufactures and distributes crystal meth; it also insults those who don’t like the show. The icons have changed. The parameters of morality have changed. This change in sensibilities is bound to reflect in every aspect of life. 

The Australian cricket culture in particular brags about its tough brand of cricket. When a former Australian cricketer like Steve Waugh is deeply hurt by ball tampering, it is ironic. For it was Steve Waugh who created this hyper-competitive culture of bullying. In his successful career, he claimed two catches that he had clearly dropped but went undetected by the umpires. In other words, he deliberately cheated. It was under him that Australia became one of the most notorious, loud-mouthed team. They abused and sledged opponents to get under their skin, for they believed it was part of the sport. It became a norm. When they sledged, the opponents obviously retorted and at times “crossed the line”, much to the displeasure of Australian cricketers. But who’s to decide what’s the line? Wasn’t it inevitable? When you continue to intimidate someone, things are likely to turn ugly. The repercussions were obvious: like the disgraceful incident between Sarwan and McGrath in 2003, or when David Warner punched an English cricketer in a pub, or just this month when a South African fast bowler shoved an Australian cricketer in the dressing room. For someone like Steve Waugh to get in a moral outrage over this is unfortunately hypocritical. To make it clear, I am not a hater of Australian cricket. They were my favourite team in the era of Shane Warne. 

This is not even about Australian cricket but the society itself. Instead of falling into the traps of political opportunism and hyper-moralism, it is time for the society to get into a deep introspection.

Love, Unconditionally

I love you unconditionally to let do what you want,
and be who you really are.

I don’t need you to change your opinions,
just so I can love you more. Remember, I love you unconditionally.

I would never change you, just so I can feel better.
My well-being is my responsibility, not yours. 

I love you unconditionally, enough so I don’t have to
change my behaviour just to make you happy,
for I know you are capable of doing it on your own.

I love you unconditionally, even if it means letting you go.

You are my desire, not my need. It is unconditional love. 

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.