Grappling with a Pakistan on the brink is far more dangerous

Raju Korti
Among the countless devious and dubious records to its credit, the one that I find perpetually congruous is Pakistan's penchant to exist in a state of constant flux. A country born out of tumult and chaos struggles to eke out a survival with never ending labour pains. That rough and tumble now threatens to explode in its own face. If you think this is sadistic pun given the country's fatal and neo-natal fascination for nuclear bombs, you got it right.

In one of my many blogs on Pakistan, in 2009, I had prophesized -- as if it needed great profundity -- that "incommoded under the superincumbent weight of its own political, religious, global and economic contradictions, the country was accelerating a death wish and it was only a matter of time before the brink would be on the wall. That "this matter of time" took 14 years is a surprise tribute to Pakistan's resilience in withstanding trials and tribulations of every conceivable hue, but its present economic crisis threatens its very survival.

It might be easy as an Indian to watch this drama unfold with a certain glee as Pakistan hurtles towards what appears to be an imminent economic collapse but the neighbouring country has always been a theatre of the absurd with problems of its own making. The fact is a destabilised Pakistan is far more dangerous because whatever stability one associated with it in the past, one could dismiss threats emanating from it as mere sabre rattling.

The trouble with Pakistan -- and its record is a testimony -- is it is a country run by fringe elements and that includes its army which has bled it white while religious extremism have had a free run with political establishments exploiting them for their own survival. As one of their own ministers said recently, Pakistan sowed the seeds of terrorism and is paying the price for it in its own backyard. Before that, prime minster Shahbaz Sharif admitted that having lost three wars to India, Pakistan had learnt its lessons and now wants peace. This is no belated wisdom. If you thought it has learnt its lesson, in the same breath, he put the resolution of Kashmir issue as paramount for any reconciliation. For Pakistani political establishment, Kashmir is a raison d'etre. but it is a remedy worse than the disease. The resolution of Kashmir, if at all, will make them redundant.

Do not be taken in by the reparative tone in Sharif's statement. As the impending economic doom threatens to envelope the country, India has to be alert to its attendant risks. In the midst of a disintegrated  economic algorithm - falling rupee, mounting inflation and debts, skyrocketing prices of basic commodities, rapidly dwindling forex reserves, erratic power outages, shortage of fuel and what have you -- the fringe elements, in their fanaticism and anarchic wont -- are seeing a chance. For India, the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) will be a massive challenge as its neither-here-nor-there population seeks a merger with India more for their own survival and economic well being and not because it has any affinity for India. In the present matrix, it is better off as a shock absorber between India and Pakistan's clutch plates. 

I might be wrong but I am inclined to believe that the present Indian government may not be so charitably disposed as the one during 1971 when refugees from East Pakistan trickled into India in the wake of a war that fractured Pakistan and brought Bangladesh on the world map. This refugee crisis, although happening under different circumstances, will not just be an economic burden but also a law and order issue. From the Pakistani point of view, this inadvertent merger with PoK -- notwithstanding the section in India which subscribes to forcible takeover of PoK -- will be a body blow to its esteem. Whichever way you look at it, it is a perplexing scenario.

At the moment, there are far more important things that Pakistan needs to come to grips with. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) seems to have taken a ruthless Shylockian approach in bailing it out, expecting a pound of flesh that just isn't there. Worse still, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, China and other countries that it believes are allies, have not been exactly compassionate. Beyond political expediencies and geostrategic compulsions, the world knows Pakistan cannot be anybody's baby. Hanging precariously from a cliff edge, Pakistan has no chance but to toe lines and allow itself to be exploited. From India's perspectives it could be a bad augury as China, which has been brutal with Uighurs, will use Pakistan's economic meltdown to its own advantage. The Line of Actual Control (LAC) will have reason to simmer again.

The situation today is far removed from what it was in 1962 or 1971. In the event of an armed conflict, the present Indian government will not soft-pedal and most likely retaliate with similar force. Let me reproduce what I wrote in another blog more than 14 years ago. It is still relevant with some noises in Pakistan wanting to use the N-bomb as an arm-twisting tactic to extract economic aid from the world: This what I wrote:

"Pakistan is clueless and/or impassive about tackling its own burgeoning domestic problems but never loses an opportunity to throw on India's face its readiness to press the nuclear button at the slightest provocation.
So what is it that makes this rather failed State, where non-State actors have been calling the shots for decades now, rely so furiously on the nuclear threat? Why does even something as routine as cancellation of talks for normalisation of bilateral relationship, makes it step on the gas and indulge in fulminations of a nuclear war?
Each nation has a doctrine to deal with possible nuclear threats. For Pakistan, it is majorly India. For India it is Pakistan and China. For the US it is Russia, China, North Korea and many more where it often pitches in as world policeman. On the brink given the problems that surround its neighbourhood and helpless because of an intransigent and crazy military establishment, this doctrine stares India in the face with alarming regularity. The threat of a full-scale military offensive was never as pronounced as it is now after the attacks in Pathankot and Uri but the Indian response continues to remain calibrated and somewhat frustrated. The dynamics of what accrues between the two countries in the wake of their tumultuous division and subsequent deep-rooted hatred has gone far beyond the realms of conventional diplomacy.
There is still a faint glimmer of hope to believe that the Pakistani military establishment realises it would be a blunder to provoke an attack that would spell end to its country's existence on the world map. But it will not need much for the country's army -- which has thrown all civilian and democratic norms to the wind -- to acerbate a war, learning little from the three lost wars in 1965, 1971 and 1994. What began as a bluster from then President Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto about staging a "thousand-year war with India" has now assumed a grotesque obsession to acquire nuclear weapons on the perceived threat from India.
I am sold out on the theory that Pakistan should be allowed to die under its own weight. A debilitated economy and the ferment in Baluchistan, Karachi, Punjab are proof enough of its dysfunctional politics. Pakistanis are themselves not very optimistic about the country's future as a secure, developing and modern country. There is a talk that Pakistan relies on the US but they know that this economic and military aid is not without its pound of flesh. For the Americans, Pakistan is no more than a conduit for their geo-political interests. Delhi and Rawalpindi know this very well. As far as China is concerned, it is obvious that there has been some buttressing of Pakistan at state level but on other fronts there is scope for lot of justified scepticism. There is little social, cultural or emotional attachment between the peoples of the two countries. The Chinese don't have to be intelligent to know that Pakistan is a convenient shoulder to fire at India. They do not contribute funding for health, education and other forms of development in Pakistan. In the continued stalemate with India, China is not known to have done much to serve Pakistani interests. My gut feeling is China will not do anything to underwrite or protect Pakistan if it comes to a full fledged war. They know that the best weapon against any enemy is another enemy.
Crippled with inherent problems of militancy, unemployment and low growth rate, Pakistan is forced to raise the nuclear war bogey in an attempt to show that its power emerges from its weaknesses within. Pakistan can administer to itself a lethal injection and does not need any external threat to use it."      

Suman Kalyanpur: An honour too late

Raju Korti
People who in private conversations call Suman Kalyanpur a Lata Mangeshkar clone are rank ignoramuses. I used the words 'private conversations' because they -- at least the ones I know -- know the asininity of saying that in public domain because it becomes obvious what drives them to say that. A clone is a copycat. Suman didn't have to copy Lata. Her voice was similar to hers and the dyed-in-the-wool music lovers of the 50s and 60s didn't really have to strain their ears in differentiating between the two sopranos. The difference was 'unnees bees', or as some cynics sometimes put it, Suman was the 0.5th xerox of Lata. So infinitesimal was this deviation that I can bet they will not discern it in perhaps the only duet they sang together: 'Kabhi aaj kabhi kal kabhi parson..' from the 1959 film Chand composed by Hemant Kumar. The striking similarity precisely turned out to be her disqualification.

I recall any number of stories describing Lata Mangeshkar's machinations in keeping Suman out of the recording rooms and although there never was any proof of that, those who vouched about it often cited the singing prima donna's monopoly in marginalizing even her equally illustrious sister Asha. It would be a separate chapter altogether to put the two sisters in a weighing scale and that is not germane to this piece but the fact that neither Lata nor Suman spoke about it openly only lends credence to the no-smoke-without-fire theories.

Having spoken to both on different occasions, I can claim to have some perception in the mental make-ups of both. I have a reason to believe both came from different social and economic strata. Lata, in terms of her career and dealings seemed rather insecure (understandably because of the dire economic condition she grew in) but that beats me because anyone with that talent didn't have to take recourse to the 'manipulative' methods she was alleged to have. Not anyway at least after the late 50s when her position in the industry was described as 'non pareil' and the unassailable supremacy she had established even in the wake of the formidable competition from her own sisters. In contrast, Suman who came from a well-to-do economic background did not have -- rather did not need -- the cut-throatism and chicanery to survive in an industry where networking and sycophancy are key qualifications.

Before you jump to conclusions, let me clarify. This is not a comparison of the singing prowess of two. Their respective career graphs and for all the tonal gold in their voices, are testimony that Lata always had an edge over Suman. Lata was vocal in every sense of the word while Suman was extremely self effacing and shy to the extent that she hardly spoke with even her co-singers. There is some substance in the observation that her purple patch came by default in the wake of the royalty dispute between the country's two greatest singers Rafi an Lata. However, it is to the credit of Suman that she was equal to the task and sang her crystalline pure best although the argument is that Rafi was the Highest Common Factor here and that Suman was just filling the blanks.

I personally do not subscribe to this patently unilateral view. You just have to listen to four Suman songs that I never get tired of listening to. Three are by Khayyam "Bujha diye hain khud apne hathon, Zindagi zulm sahi zabr sahi gham hi sahi" (both Shagoon-1964) and "Jo hum pe gujarti hai tanhaa kise samjhaayein" (Mohabbat Isko Kehte Hain-1965), and "Haal-e dil unko sunaya tha (Fariyad-1964) . Without going into the merits of the royalty dispute, please focus on the fact that these Suman specimens came when the discord between Rafi and Lata (or is the other way round?) had composers scratching their heads at wit's ends. Suman solved that problem and how! It would therefore be patently unfair on her to have been branded as second serve of Lata. Like any goo competitor, she put her best foot forward and stamped her presence.

For all the talk about the manipulative tactics she is supposed to have encountered, it speaks volumes of her dignity and grace that never once did she speak/spoke about it and was, in fact, highly respectful of her adversary. In programmes, she would keep her statuesque visage with a smile as resonating as her music. Class and refined sensitivity emanated from her demeanour and disposition, something one doesn't see in an industry where mediocrity thrives with juke box office. At a programme, I recall how one of our friends, a Geet Kosh compiler pointed out to her about the Hindi version of the Billy Vaughn's 'Come September' tune she had sung. She just smiled and nodded but responded by singing a few lines in the programme. If I remember correctly, the compere Mangala Khadilkar spoke more than what Suman sang in the programme.

A couple of times I tried to get through to her< I was told she had been living in Talegaon which is half way from Mumbai to Pune. That brings me to another parallel between her and Lata. I had spoken to the latter in 2004 when I was asked to write a full page newspaper article to celebrate her 75 years. I could sense the cynicism in her polite refusal as she felt that another Raju (read the late Raju Bharatan) had written "all kinds of canards about her and that she didn't risk another Raju (me) doing it to her again."  My regret was short-lived and evaporated in the wake of confidence that she would have approved the article as the best written on her ever. At the cost of sounding a little pompous and a braggart, I feel it was her loss.

It is not my case here to reel out her career, filmography and other aspects of her life which are far too well known. In Journalism, I was brought up on this (misplaced) philosophy that a copy has to be spicy to be readable. Suman with her simple, plain vanilla ways does not fit in that model but that belief is strictly for the birds. Writing impresses with depth, words, expression, lucidity and facts not just cosmetics or condiments. I personally believe that biographies of the unsung make for a more compelling reading than those who have already made a place under the Sun. I have read far too many to come to that conclusion.

The veteran singer has been receiving a flood of accolades as she eminently deserves after being honoured with Padma Bhushan but perhaps the most condescending one is, "better late than never." Awards and honours can be cruel at times. Like if a Rafi got a Padma Shri, there were also those who cabaret-ed on the celluloid to receive the same honour. Having said that, I have nothing against cabaret dancers. My misanthropy is about the lopsided and imbalanced views that obtain in the society. It is not as if my opinion about Suman Kalyanpur takes a higher trajectory with her Padma Bhushan. With people like her, awards just become labels and no more.           

Unpleasant though it may sound and feel, is it a mere coincidence that she gets her investiture almost exactly after  Lata's death? And what credit does it do to her? An honour delayed is honour denied. Lesser people got bigger honours long back. But Suman, despite the raw deal, retains her poise and seemliness. That silence is more golden never rang more true. I can vouch for that having seen her from close quarters. If only the showbiz and glamour industry, today run over by the crass and cacophony had the same mien!  

A joke and a conundrum called Pakistan Cricket Board

Raju Korti
If as an avid cricket administration follower you tend to believe that governing boards across cricket playing nations, including our own BCCI back home, are self-styled and run by whimsical people, look at what is happening in Pakistan. The Pakistan Cricket Control Board (PCCB) leaves no stone unturned to jealously guards its reputation as a  long-standing joke, its chairmen replaced with every change of government. The embers of the unseemly controversy refuse to die down even after a regime change and barbs keep flying thick and fast. The unceremonious chucking out of former player and commentator-turned Chairman Ramiz Raja is a case in point.

In Pakistan, nothing seems to go right in any sphere of life as murky politics creeps in at all junctures. Cricket is no exception. It is a virtual free-for-all with players, organisers, governing bodies and self-proclaimed experts constantly engaged in leg pull and rabid criticism of each other. It is as confusing as it is amusing to know who is with whom and who opposes who. The abysmal state of affairs has now taken on the hue of a civil war.

Ramiz Raja is pissed with the way he has been shown the gate and to an extent, one sympathises with him. That is no way to ask the board chairman to eff off especially when he has had a fairly decent stint in different capacities of the game. But Ramiz, normally a subdued man, has lost his cool and his intemperate outbursts have expectedly not gone down well with the board's new management committee which is now headed by journalist Najam Sethi. One wonders whether Sethi, who has had three brief stints in the past as the president/chairman, knows what he has walked into given the mercurial atmosphere that obtains in Pakistan cricket.

The 3-0 whitewash at home from the Englishmen in the recently concluded series signed the death knell for Ramiz although in all fairness, it is befuddling how a mere change in administration can turn teams into winning outfits. Sethi has been brought in by changing the Constitution which happens in Pakistan at the drop of a hat. As Ramiz let loose a verbal fusillade at Sethi on social media platforms and TV, the PCCB swung into action and decided to sue the sacked chief . "The PCCB believes former chairman Mr Raja's comments are aimed at tarnishing and damaging the impeccable reputation of present chairman Mr Sethi, adding it reserves its rights to pursue legal proceedings to protect and defend the image and credibility of its chairman and the institution", the board said in a statement.

That begs the question, what image and what credibility are they talking about when the history of the board is replete with bizarre and arbitrary functioning, its administrators chosen and thrown out for reasons anything but plausible. Right since the mid-50s the PCCB has been in a state of flux, turmoil and wrangling with a series of ad hoc committees named to run the administration.

Since its revamp in the 70s, PCCB has seen the domination of businessmen from Lahore and Karachi with a couple of army officers thrown in to tinker with its Constitution. Earlier, its military head Ayub Khan had made a record of sorts imposing three vice presidents, he himself being one of them, setting the trend to run the board by proxy much like the way the entire country is run by the army in the guise of elected representatives. The match-fixing allegations in 1999 turned the entire establishment topsy turvy. The wheel keeps turning a full circle and Sethi who was hand-picked by then prime minister Nawaz Sharif after dissolving the existing board, also exited. 

Random and irrational changes often made at the instances of vested interests in the powers that be have had debilitating consequences on the players at all levels of the game. The structure of domestic cricket in Pakistan has seen a non-stop roller coaster ride since the country found an independent identity on the world map in 1947. Historically, school and club cricket has also suffered as the top tiers bleed with inadequacies. The games hardly got the marketing boost, unlike in India (the other extreme end) and matches were/are rarely televised due to lack of quality cricket and lack of interest in departmental cricket. Like the proverbial question "egg first or the hen", it is debatable whether these shortcomings were because of lack of interest or it was the lack of interest that saw no efforts at promotion. The tiered structure of administration has never had the time to settle down and bring about any reforms which is a pity for a country that has produced some of the greatest talent in world cricket.

Ramiz's exit is the latest in the string of controversy-dogged Pakistan cricket. He was thrown out at 2 in the early morning by Sethi through a tweet and according to him, he was not even allowed time to take his belongings from the board office. "It was as if I had committed some crime and I would take some incriminating evidence from the office. What tamasha is this? They have come just to enjoy themselves. The new committee is not going to do do Pakistan cricket any good. This is nothing but political vendetta," he fumed, drawing parallels between his and Sethi's administration . While the words 'political vendetta' sum up the general state of affairs in Pakistan, at the roots of the bickering is also issues arising out of financial expenditures.

Since his ouster, Ramiz has been spitting fire at all and sundry including his own former team-mates Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis, saying if he had his way, he would have bundled them out in the wake of the Justice Qayyum Committee report on match-fixing allegations in Pakistan. It is not difficult to put two and two together that Ramiz's provocative retaliation also comes from the uncharitable remarks Wasim Akram made against him in his book released recently.   

For good or bad, Ramiz no longer holds the reins. All his grandiose plans to rejuvenate Pakistan cricket have been effectively laid to rest. All he can do now, without any fear of reprisals, is to vent his frustration at India. While there will not be many tears shed for him, one can only wait and watch -- and perhaps guess -- where does Sethi go from here. In Pakistan, tables turn disconcertingly often to turn the sympathiser to sympathised and vice versa. Bring on Ramiz Raja or Wasim Raja, it doesn't matter, Apathy, caprice and high-handedness are the king in a country on whose chessboard the King gets reduced to Pawn and the Pawn catapulted to the King every now and then. The story continues.

Breathing uneasy in Mumbai's choke studio

Raju Korti
It probably might be the most understated exaggeration to say that in an underdeveloped country don't drink the water and in a developed country don't breathe the air. But when you live in a country whose recognition keeps swinging between developed and underdeveloped and more so in a grotesque urban behemoth like Mumbai, you are screwed anywhichways.

For the past few days, the quality of air in Mumbai, expressed in terms of Air Quality Index at over 300, has gone from "poor" to "very poor." Between 280-300 it is just a shade better than worst emergency. Put simply, the greater the level of air pollution the greater the health hazard. In the case of Mumbai, the natural advantages of a healthy environment are put paid to by sheer human apathy. 

As a city blessed with a coastal landscape one would perhaps argue that it is the recipient of a healthy Ozone layer. Insensitivity towards coastal regulations, growing particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide have left this financial nerve centre gasping for breath. The deterioration in air quality during this time of the year is not a new phenomenon. In the thick of what Mumbai believes is a winter, a thick blanket of smog and haze play havoc with the citizenry, giving rise to ailments that are eventual death warrants. To attribute the downslide in the Air Quality Index to seasonal changes alone is a travesty of truth, to put it mildly. All other apprehensions in the wake of this hazardous climatic anomaly are conveniently brushed under the carpet with an assurance that the city will breathe easy once the situation eases in a few days.

The fact is Mumbai will reel from poor air quality till end February. The two months are enough to create more chronic patients of asthma, bronchitis, lung infections and many such attendant health risks. Covid was just a red alert that wearing masks was not just a passing phase but a grim reminder that they are now a compulsion.

An estimated 275-300 vehicles are added on to the congested streets of Mumbai every day. While some of these are emission compliant, most spew toxic fumes. Navigating through the city's expressways and arterial roads gives one a first-hand experience of the terrible quality of air they are forced to welcome into their lungs. At this rate Mumbai will tip Delhi with reasons to spare.

For someone like me, living in downmarket suburb of Borivali is a blessing in disguise since the Sanjay Gandhi National Park is close by and the advantages of fresh air far outweigh the dangers of leopards streaking in human habitation. Elsewhere in other pockets, the AQI keeps oscillating between 228 and 280 what with a spate of construction activity queering the pitch. Those who point out to the industries opting out to outskirts forget that vehicular emission and bio-fuel emissions from an uncontrolled and politically patronized slums are a much bigger threat. Climate jargons on weather disturbances are Latin and Greek to people who couldn't care less about the disservice and impairment of the environs they wantonly cause.

Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, the agency implementing environmental legislations believes that the onus of bringing down the AQI in Mumbai rests majorly with the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for whom the health of its coffers is far more important. The civic body seems to have paid little attention to the Mumbai Climate Action Plan which has both short-term and long-term initiatives to mitigate environmental degradation. There has been next to nothing efforts to reduce landfill waste, shifting to zero emission vehicles, boosting biodiversity and, little monitoring. They find solace in their complacency that Mumbai is much better than Delhi.

Someone in the civic body seems to know that unlike Delhi, which is landlocked, Mumbai has a seashore. The sea and land breeze are known to clear the city's pollutants. It also has the added advantage that sea water is CO2 absorbent and has a large tract of forest cover although it is neutralized by the concrete jungle that the city obtains through construction and infrastructure development activity round the year. 

The Maharashtra government tries a crooked trick to control vehicular pollution by allowing potholes to remain unattended but hardened Mumbaikars wouldn't be deterred. As long as Delhi and Kolkata hog centre-stage, everything is hunky dory. As more virgin lands and their greenery get outraged with an endless flurry of new developmental activity, the noose gets tighter. For most people protecting the environment is a luxury and a glorified fad but that is an outdated 20th-century worldview from a time when industrialization was thought of as an end goal, waste as growth and wealth a thick haze of air pollution.

You can choke on that!

(PS: Death by suicide has gained currency. How about Slow Death by Pollution?)

For IFFI jury head Nadav Lapid it was 'kahin pe nigaahen kahin pe nishaana'

Raju Korti
For the past few days I have been watching with a fair bit of amusement the controversy triggered by Israeli film-maker Nadav Lapid after he unequivocally described "The Kashmir Files" as a propaganda-driven and vulgar film. Lapid said this while being the head jury at the 53rd edition of the International Film Festival of India (IFFI) in Goa.

Lapid pic courtesy Cannes fest 

"The Kashmir Files" written and directed by Vivek Agnihotri centres on the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits in the wake of militancy in Kashmir in the early 1990s. The movie was screened at the IFFI on November 22 under the Indian Panorama section. The issue loaded with political overtones, expectedly snowballed into a controversy. As India's ally, the Israeli government was embarrassed that Lapid described the film a "series of cinematic manipulations". The backlash, coming as it did on the Indian soil, was understandably swift and strong. Among the first to condemn his remarks were Israeli ambassador to India Naor Gilon and its Consul General to Midwest India Kobbi Shoshani. The damage was however done.

The prologue to the unsavoury episode had its own twists with IFFI International jury member Sudipto Sen terming Lapid's comments as the latter's "personal opinion" and the former vehemently denying it. Stung to the quick, Agnihotri said he would quit film-making if intellectuals including Lapid were able to prove that events depicted in the film were false.

Lapid has since offered "total apology" if his remarks had been misinterpreted, claiming he had no intentions to insult the Kashmiri Pandits or those who had suffered. There may be some substance in his conclusion that the film was pushed into the IFFI with a political agenda but assessing a film from cinematic point of view and as a political activist are two different things. The 47-year-old film-maker has a fair reputation that precedes him. Without being prejudicial to his remarks and the rationale that he has given, it is surprising that Lapid, who lives in France, chose to say what he did when by his own admission he had little clue about the situation in the militancy-ridden state.

For the record, Lapid is entitled to his views both as a film-maker and an independent person. Apparently, which part of his psyche prompted him to say that is not clear but that is not the issue of my discourse here. What surprises me is how anyone with such a strong sense of conviction can apologise after making a categorical statement he knew would raise political hackles. It is not as if Lapid could not have judged the sensitivity of the issue that he was addressing from a prestigious global platform like the IFFI. To make matters worse, he also tempered his regrets by asserting that he stood by his view nevertheless.

The film-maker's assessment has to be understood from his own political affiliations. He was among the group of influential film-makers that protested against the launch of the Shomron (Samaria/West Bank) Film Fund. According to them Lapid's competition entry "Ahed's Knee" at the Cannes Film Festival had a singular goal of actively participating in whitewashing the Occupation in exchange for financial support and prizes. The Fund's official mandate is to distribute grants to Jewish settlers residing in the West Bank and to productions by Israeli citizens filmed in the West Bank. In one of his interviews, Lapid had said the Israeli collective soul is a sick soul.

I reproduce a paragraph from that interview. "Something in the deepest essence of the Israeli existence is false, is rotten, It's not just Benjamin Netanyahu (currently angling for the prime minister's chair). I think this Israeli sickness or nature is characterized by young Israeli men muscular, smiling, who don't raise any questions and don't have any doubts. They are extremely proud of being Israeli. They have a totally dichotomist vision of existence -- Us versus all the others."

Given this backdrop and his perception one wonders if Lapid wanted to embarrass his own government by speaking about an issue more than he wanted to rub the Indian political sentiment the wrong way. If that is the case, then clearly, the plot was lost and it backfired badly. I wonder feathers would have been ruffled if he were to express his views on some other platform purely in his capacity as a film-maker. The Kashmir Files was not the target. It was actually the shoulder to fire at the Israeli government.

It is difficult to believe that a person of his conviction would take a somersault and apologise and also when he had some charitable things to say about the other films screened during the festival. Few in India are aware of Lapid's anti-establishment stance (in his native country) and not pulling his punches when it comes to criticism. What has happened in his case is the recoil has been worse than the shot. 

Intended or not, even if one makes an allowance for his views, Lapid has not done justice to his reputation as a dedicated film-maker. More so when one of his own films has propagated and preached similar thought. Politics and propaganda are inseparable whether it is Agnihotri or Lapid. He would have had my thumbs up if he had stuck to his views -- whatever their political flavour -- without apologising. By expressing remorse in a couched manner, he has put his foot in the mouth. Badly enough for even the IFFI to take his name and pic off their website.

A breezy memory of the time spent with Vikram Gokhale

Raju Korti
People in the showbiz are by and large conceited, publicity-oriented and diplomatic. Whatever the undercurrents between them, they are never vocal about them and jealously guard their professional affiliations. 77-year-old Vikram Gokhale who left a stamp of his own on the Marathi theatre and cinema, was an exception. He was brutally honest and did not mince words even if it meant losing out on work that comes from maintaining good PR in the industry.

My meeting with the handsome and resolute actor happened perchance in 1991 in Nagpur. Rather it was Gokhale who bumped into me perchance. He was there along with his co-actor Swati Chitnis to perform as lead actors for a show of the three-act play 'Sanket Milanacha'. The show was slated for the next day but apparently the troupe ran into some issues with the theater that put a question mark on whether it would go ahead as scheduled. The tickets had already been sold out on the singular charisma of Gokhale.

A desperate and restive Gokhale was at his wit's ends and didn't know anyone who could thrash out the issue with the management of Dhanwate Rang Mandir, where the show was to be held. He decided to approach the Press, and as luck would have it, he saw me among a few others of my ilk. Dressed in a Salwar-Kurta, his hands folded in a theatrical Namaste, he said he wanted help. The first to catch onto his presence, I asked him to take a seat and also offered him the tapri chai which at that time of the night would smell of kerosene, mud and everything else except tea. 

He drank the tea without any fuss, thanked us and came to the point straight away. "My show is being staged tomorrow evening, the tickets have been sold out but there is some misunderstanding with the theater management. Can you please use your good offices and bail me out?" I stood up immediately and said I would give it a try. There were no cell phones then and I asked one of my colleagues to connect with the management of the theater on land line. With some discussion and cajoling, the issue was sorted out. "There!, I told him. You can go ahead with the show."

In the 15 minutes or so that he was there, I briefly spoke about 'Barrister' among his acknowledged plays and a teleserial 'Shwetambara' which I had watched in bits and pieces on Doordarshan in the late 70s and early 80s. His worried face creased into a smile and he thanked all of us for helping him in what then appeared to be a hopeless situation . As he started walking out, he abruptly turned and held my hand in a tight grip. "Be my guest tomorrow. Meet me backstage. I will ensure a front row seat for you". 

Although I took interest in Marathi theater, I wasn't a hardened buff. I went to the show casually with zero interest in watching the play just to see if he would keep his word. Keep he did and what's more, he had alerted the organisers to let me in and meet him backstage. "Thanks, you were a godsend. I have very little time to talk to you right now but let's catch up tomorrow," he said hurriedly and introduced me to Swati Chitnis. The two were put up at a family acquaintance. I assured him, I would, watched the play bored and walked out half way through.

The next afternoon, I was surprised to receive a message from the organisers that Gokhale wanted to meet me. I decided to go because my better half was/is his admirer and wanted to tag along. In any case that was not a professional assignment, so I conceded. Most of the talk centered around the current status of the Marathi theater. When he realized he was doing all the talking and I was just a listener, he sported an apologetic smile and asked me if I had any question. My knowledge of the Marathi theater wasn't in-depth. Not wanting to end up looking an ass with a silly question, I asked something that came to my mind in the spur of the moment.

"You are a consummate actor yourself. A live show in the theater leaves you with no margin of error unlike the cinema which enables cuts and retakes. How do you react when in the midst of a play some actor changes his/her dialogue and gesticulations in the name of improvisation?" He was so thrilled he stood up and said loudly for all of them around to hear: "That's a wonderful question." He then rattled off how this was becoming a new trend in the theater and unless an actor showed rare presence of mind, he/she was certain to falter as everything happens on cue. It is reasons like these that a good actor always finds theater much more challenging than cinema." He bluntly trashed the cinema in general and lamented that Marathi writers were running out of good ideas. "But why blame others? I did similar, acting in a lot of rotten movies for the sake of money."

"Since you have helped me thus far, I will shamelessly ask for some more. Swati wants to meet Mahesh Elkunchwar (renowned Marathi playwright), If you know him, will you escort her to his house? I agreed since I knew Elkunchwar from way back and later in the evening, dropped her off to Elkunchwar's place on a motor-cycle. Once again he thanked me profusely and insisted I must meet him in Mumbai.

I never met him thereafter. The last I saw him was three months back on Doordarshan when it aired an old show of an interview with fellow Marathi actor Pradeep Patwardhan on his chat show 'Dusri Bajoo' (the other side). Patwardhan was already a memory then. Gokhale is united with him in history.                  

Romancing the uncertainties of Quantum Physics

Raju Korti
As a student perpetually befuddled by the complexities of Quantum Mechanics in my college days, I marvel at how the Nobel Prize this year -- incidentally shared by three phycisists -- acknowledges efforts to take quantum weirdness out of philosophy discussions to place it on experimental display for all to see. The three; Alain Aspect of France, John Clauser of California and Anton Zeilinger of Vienna have shown what is now understood as mastery of entanglement -- a quantum corelation between particles that seemingly share information across large distances. But of course, that is not the object of my discourse here.

In my blog on the spookiness of Quantum Physics exactly around this time two years back, I had written: "A recent article at pains to establish how Quantum Physics and Consciousness can come together to help us understand the true nature of reality, has set me back by at least 47 years. That was the time when the likes of Max Planck and Albert Einstein had just begun to stir and torment my abstract imagination. Quantum Physics, true to its spirit, took me -- and I suspect many others of my ilk -- on a long journey of love-hate relationship with the subject. The apparent simplicity of the theories I had been grappling until then was getting shaken at its roots with th advent of these two gentlemen along with co-conspirators like Satyendra Nath Bose, Englert Brout and Peter Higgs. From the plain vanilla Newton's Law of Gravitational Forces to the multiple conundrums brought forth by Niels Bohr, Warner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrodinger and others who took a sadistic delight in queering the pitch, my lowest common denominator was the inherent paradox with Quantum Mechanics. You love and hate it for the same reason. That is its USP."

Multiple quantum theories made it more interesting and esoteric at the same time. It took years to realize that these theories in their ramshackle condition were given a semblance of order through a "standard model" of particle Physics held together with a make-shift tape but giving a comparatively much accurate picture. The God particle emerged from this tumult to give all other particles their mass.

I am still tempted to linger in those days when the turn of the century saw Physics undergoing two major upheavels around the same time in Einstein's Theory of Relativity which dealt with the universal realm of Physics and the other, the Quantum Theory which proposed that energy exists as discrete packets (each called a quantum). In my limited understanding, the new branch of Physics described the interaction between energy and matter down through the subatomic realm.

Einstein saw Quantum Theory as a means to describe Nature on an atomic level but he had doubts if it held any uselful basis for the whole of Physics. His argument was describing reality called for firm predictions followed by direct observations. Apparently, Einstein drew a blank here as individual quantum interactions could not be observed directly. In other words, quantum physicists had to depend on predictions on the probability that events would occur. It was Bohr who made out case that quantum predictions based on probability accurately describe reality. What followed was a raging debate between the two physicists but from public accounts, Bohr had an edge. Much to my chagrin as my loyalties lay with Einstein.

Einstein and two others suggested that the theory of quantum mechanics was incomplete as their were "hidden variables" yet to be discovered that could resolve what they asserted was a paradox. Einstein ironically stated that quantum mechanics was implicitly hypothesising a "spooky action" at a distance, suggesting there was some supernatural force at play. The world of Physics was in some kind of turbulence as multiple debates and thories were put forward without any empirical evidence.

Richard Feynman once said, "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong". In this case, however, theory was not the only problem. Physicists did not know which experiments could solve the issue. If you are laying addled eggs as I am and find the Quantum Theory hard to swallow, you are not alone. Schrodinger himself did not like it. He was in fact sorry he had anything to do with it. In a book gifted to me by a relative who worked with Dr C V Raman in his research on what is known as Raman Spectra and later went on to become a key figure at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), Einstein has been quoted as saying "if the Quantum Theory is correct, it signifies the end of Physics as Science."

I would hate that. I would rather let Quantum Physics remain in the realms of relentless ferment. That is where its appeal lies. The book also quotes Max Planck, considered as the father of Quantum Physics: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I look at matter as a derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness, Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as xisting, postulates consciousness. 

Little wonder, Plank remains a "constant". Everyting else can shake and tumble. The beauty of Science is sometimes more in the problems than solutions. I rest my case.