Gunjan Saxena – The Kargil Girl, Sharan Sharma’s directorial debut is about India’s first female Air Force pilot in a combat role and the obstacles she faces in a male-dominated world.

There are two wars being fought. One is the Kargil War of 1999 between India and Pakistan. The other is Gunjan Saxena (played by Jahnavi Kapoor)’s personal battle against a world that refuses to believe in women. Whether it is the absence of toilets for female officers, a condescending flight instructor or a discouraging older sibling, Gunjan Saxena’s real battles are not on the front lines.

The movie begins with a nine-year-old Gunjan (Riva Arora) wanting to peep out of an aeroplane window, but not being allowed to by her older brother (Aryan Arora). When a young Gunjan says “Mujhe Pilot Banna Hai”, her brother sarcastically remarks “Mujhe Kapil Dev banna hai”.  Clearly, there is no dearth of negativity in Gunjan Saxena’s life. However, she pursues her dream with hard work and determination.

The turning point in the movie is the belan (rolling pin) scene between Gunjan and her father Lt Colonel Anup Saxena (Pankaj Tripathi). The father reignites in daughter the will to carry on chasing her dream when Gunjan is on the verge of giving up.

Gunjan Saxena’s father Anup Saxena is her bedrock of support throughout in a quiet and unassuming way. He is the hero in her life without whom she could not have scaled such heights, literally and figuratively.

When the older Gunjan asks her father whether joining the IAF because she is passionate about flying and not because of a sense of duty towards her country amounts to treachery, Anup Saxena replies that the armed forces do not need people who shout ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’. What they require are passionate personnel who do their work with honesty. This bold differentiation between passion and patriotism in an era when the two are prone to getting mixed up is commendable.

If one were to subtract the war backdrop from the movie, “Gunjan Saxena – The Kargil Girl” would resemble any workplace with its patriarchal biases. The daily struggle of ambitious women to prove their worth and the umpteen hurdles in their way sound eerily familiar.

Pankaj Tripathi says a lot with just his expressions; his brilliant acting skills are on full display despite minimum dialogue.

Gunjan Saxena’s mother (Ayesha Raza Mishra) dissuades her from chasing her dream. Her brother Anshuman (Angad Bedi) means well but sides with his mother. By the end of the movie, the two are forced to change their opinion on women pilots when they see Gunjan excel in her chosen role.

Jahnavi Kapoor does a fairly good job of playing Gunjan Saxena. Her lack of experience shows but is not glaring. Being a newcomer in the film industry, her performance is bound to get better with every movie.

Wing Commander Dileep Singh (Vineet Kumar Singh), Gunjan Saxena’s flight instructor at Udhampur, is condescending towards her. He introduces her to his male cadets as “Miss Badlav” in a tone that is far from complimenting. By the end, he is forced to swallow his pride.

The biopic is compact and neatly packaged. The cinematography is uncluttered. The scripting is not lazy with a clear focus on Gunjan’s struggle in the Air Force. No time is wasted on chest-thumping war scenes either. The Kargil war scenes are short and businesslike thereby retaining the focus on the pilot’s life. Clearly, content takes precedence over sensationalism.

Gunjan Saxena – The Kargil Girl is bound to inspire women who dare to dream big.

Shakuntala Devi – The Unseen Side Of A Brilliant Mathematician (Review)

As the name suggests, Shakuntala Devi (played by Vidya Balan) is a movie about the math genius from Karnataka who enthralled the world with her numerical abilities. The film also explores Shakuntala Devi’s turbulent relationship with her daughter, father, mother and husband. 

Shakuntala Devi the movie traces the mathematician’s life and her transformation from a child in a poor Karnataka family to a superstar in the world of mathematics. Her abilities put her on par with the best and the brightest. 

Loud, bold and ambitious, Shakuntala Devi is like an untamed horse let loose on the racing track. She is a non-conformist who dares to enter and dominate the world of mathematics, traditionally a male bastion. She revels in the adulation she receives and is intoxicated by success. Her relationships with men enamoured by her brilliance defy social norms.  This is apparent when she advises her daughter Anupama Banerjee to find another partner as living with the same man can get boring.

Vidya Balan is a seasoned actress who does a brilliant job of playing Shakuntala Devi. She portrays how the mathematician lived life on her own terms despite the pulls and pressures of society. Her experience in Dirty Picture and Mission Mangal seemed to have served her well. She is the embodiment of a feminist dream-turned- nightmare as she resolves to fight gender inequality both at home and outside. This burning desire comes not surprisingly from her own lived experiences where she was pulled out of school, denied a normal childhood and used as a golden goose by her father.

Ironically, in trying not to repeat the mistakes of her parents, she goes overboard enveloping her daughter Anupama in a suffocating embrace. This makes Anupama resentful and leaves her longing for the freedom to be herself. Sanya Malhotra’s portrayal of Anupama is a brilliant performance by a rising star. When she announces in scene one that she is contemplating legal action against her mother, the audience has no choice but to remain glued to the screen for the remainder of the movie. Malhotra succeeds in playing Anupama who, quite unlike Shakuntala Devi, hates maths and abhors any comparison with her mother.

Director Anu Menon has tried to portray the black, white and grey of every character in Shakuntala Devi. To her credit, she is careful not to glorify or demonise anyone. Each character is shown playing their part as actors on a stage would. In fact, Vidya Balan refers to this Shakesperean quote in the course of the movie.

Shakuntala Devi’s personal life is not as precise as her number-crunching abilities. She is shown excelling as a mathematician but ”failing” in every other sphere. This inability to reconcile the personal with the professional is true of most successful people. However, while men have models they can emulate, women do not. The women thus end up paying a bigger price for success than men. Quite understandably, women’s personal lives are often at odds with their professional one’s. The movie proves that successful women do not inspire awe; they only end up looking like poor caricatures of their male versions.

Jishu Sengupta, who plays Shakuntala Devi’s husband Paritosh Banerjee and Amit Sadh, who plays Anupama’s partner are portrayed as gentle, caring and supportive husbands. Possibly the Director Anu Menon, who was obviously in awe of Shakuntala Devi did not want to waste footage on the men.

The ending is a bit contrived because Anupama comes to terms with her turbulent relationship with her mother when Shakuntala Devi abruptly reverses her decision to deny Anupama her share of the property. Love is seen sinking the duo’s differences.

Shakuntala Devi is a movie that has done justice to the mathematician’s life. It is a revelation for anyone who is unaware of her darker side and her tough childhood.

I have been a smoker for the past fourteen years. I remember the day when I was offered a cigarette by a friend over a cup of tea in a Hyderabad restaurant. It was the end of a tiring day and my first puff seemed divine. It was relaxing, liberating and provided me with a release from a stressful and challenging work environment.

I was working as a journalist in TV9 in Hyderabad. It is an open secret that journalists are overworked, especially those in electronic media. And having attained seniority in the digital marketing team, I was expected to give more than one hundred per cent. This meant that I had to be sharp, quick and achieve targets on time. This added to my stress levels. I also realised why journalists are often seen guzzling alcohol at the press club. And why many of them die prematurely.

As smoking became a daily habit, many of my friends and colleagues ( who were shocked because I hardly seemed the kind who would go astray) tried to talk me into giving it up. They counselled me about the health risks associated with the deadly habit, but to no avail. I did my level best to kick the habit but would be back to square one each time. I badly wanted to quit too because, in addition to the health risks, I was beginning to face stigma from friends and family alike. I recall one of my colleagues saying ”Yeh Kanishka tho phaltu go gaya”, which in English means ”Kanishka has turned out to be a good for nothing oaf”. Such comments dented my self-esteem and confidence but did nothing to help me quit. Besides, I was not doing well professionally and was using cigarettes to vent my frustration. I was caught in a vicious cycle.

As the years rolled on, my name became synonymous with smoking, especially at work. If someone referred to me, they would say ”Oh yes, I know Kanishka. He’s the one who smokes like a chimney, right?” I was but a mere shadow of my former self, both physically and emotionally. I knew deep down that it was important to quit, but hadn’t the faintest idea of how to go about it.

As I have mentioned before, my professional life was not going well either. Fortunately, problems on the work front sorted themselves out in a little while. But I remained a smoker. I think the main reason I was not able to quit smoking, even though I was doing well at work, was the stress. Long working hours coupled with the pressure to perform made me turn to smoking for release.

I made a major career move in 2018. I bid goodbye to my TV9 job and shifted to Bangalore to work at the Rangoli Metro Art Center. I then managed to cut down my smoking to five cigarettes a day. On a visit to Hyderabad once, (in Nov 2019 I think ), I met my former colleague, the one who had made the ”Phaltu” comment. He asked me if I still smoked, to which I replied yes and added that kicking the habit seemed like a daunting task. He advised me to keep trying and not give up.

A few days into the lockdown, cigarettes were in short supply. On the advice of my mother, I began breaking whatever cigarettes I had left into two and smoking just one half, instead of the usual full cigarette, every time. I then realised that if I could bring down my smoking to three cigarettes a day, then quitting for good should not be difficult. And lo and behold, as I write this, it has been eight days since I smoked! And I am also able to resist the temptation whenever I see a shop that is open and selling cigarettes.

I am now able to smell and taste things better. I am able to meet people confidently without worrying about smelling bad. My appetite is back to normal and I am sleeping well. I haven’t felt so good in a long while. Yes, there is always a risk of a relapse once the lockdown ends, but I am confident that with a bit of will power I will stay on course.

I think more than the actual work-related stress, it is the maladaptive ways of dealing with the stress that is a cause for concern. Habits like smoking and drinking are easy, albeit dangerous, ways of coping. And once you get used to unwinding over a drink or a smoke, it becomes difficult to break out of the cycle.

I am glad that I have finally managed to quit smoking and am back on the track to good health. If anyone of you have similar issues, please remember that quitting smoking, alcohol or drugs is possible. It is certainly not easy, but with professional and family support, the battle can be won.

Thappad is a movie about Amrita (played by Tapsee Pannu) who fights her husband Vikram (played by Pavail Gulati) for treating her like a doormat. It revolves around the humiliating slap that Amrita receives from Vikram and through the story, the film addresses the normalisation of domestic violence in Indian society.

Vikram and Amrita are a happily married couple in Delhi. He is the breadwinner of the family while she chooses to be a homemaker. Amrita supports Vikram to the hilt, doing all the housework and taking care of her ageing mother in law (played by Tanvi Azmi). Amrita is easily Vikram’s bedrock of support without whom he could not have realised his dreams. But things turn sour when Vikram slaps Amrita at a party that the couple hosts to celebrate his promotion to London, a celebration that loses its sheen when Vikram is told he is the number two, not the number one, in the London office.

Thappad takes on the issue of domestic violence head-on and exposes the double standards of Indian society over the issue. When a shocked Amrita seeks justice, her mother-in-law is shown worrying about Vikram’s health instead. In another scene, a frustrated Vikram tells Amrita that he has taken enough from his boss and it is time he puts his foot down. The irony of the situation dawns on us because she has been treated like a doormat and hence should enjoy the luxury of complaining, just like Vikram.

Pavail Gulati plays the smug and mechanical Vikram with elan. He selfishly believes that he is the only one suffering while others have it easy. He has not a shade of concern for Amrita, constantly wallowing in self-pity and expecting the women around him to sympathise. He succeeds in making you want to hate the spoilt brat that is Vikram.

As mentioned earlier, Thappad is a commentary on the normalisation of domestic violence in Indian society. For instance, when a shocked Amrita seeks comfort in her parents’ company, her mother (played by Ratna Pathak Shah) advises her to not make a mountain out of a molehill and sort things out instead. Men, after all, have their share of frustrations and need to be understood in this light. But what about Amrita’s feelings? Doesn’t she have a right to be treated with dignity? The film also rightly blames Indian mothers for cloistering their daughters. Again, Thappad highlights how mothers teach their daughters to treat their parents as parayas, or strangers. They are told that they really belong to their in-laws. The lack of choice for girls in conservative India comes through forcefully.

Amrita’s father Jayant (played by Kumud Mishra) is her source of support in a quiet and unassuming way.

Thappad is a commentary on the lives of the other women too, such as Amrita’s lawyer Nethra Jaisingh (played by Maya Sarao) who initially urges her client to patch up with her husband but ultimately realises that her own partner has been patronising and denying her the credit she deserves. She eventually walks out of her marriage.
Amrita’s maidservant Sunita is also shown caught between tolerating her abusive husband (according to society’s norms) and desiring freedom and dignity.

With Thappad, Tapsee has proved her mettle as an actor. The scope for etching out Amrita’s character was immense and actress has risen to the occasion. Her subtle expressions, when she bids adieu to Vikram’s mother toward the end, are praiseworthy. She blends her happiness over her newfound freedom with the pain that invariably comes from separation. One notices her grow from the innocent housewife Amrita, who has tolerated ambivalence from her husband’s family for far too long, to a more assertive individual aware of her rights.

Dia Mirza deserves applause for playing the widow and single mother Shivani James Fonseca. She is Amrita’s pillar of strength throughout and displays both grace and maturity.

Thappad, while attacking the family system also does not spare the legal system. It shows how battered women are encouraged to patch up with their abusive husbands because a legal battle can be draining, both financially and emotionally. But it also shows that if a woman has the stomach for a fight, she is unstoppable. Amrita ends up winning both her divorce case and the custody of her unborn child, without compromising on her principles. She is not tempted by Vikram’s offer of a share in his property in return for the child’s custody. Though shocked by Vikram’s nonchalance, she stays simple and straightforward.

Thappad sends out a loud and clear message – wife-beating is unacceptable, even if it is not habitual.

“Einstein and Newton misled the world with their theories”. “Ancient India had perfected stem cell technology and had developed guided missiles”. “The Kauravas were test tube babies”.

These sentences haven’t been lifted out of a novel or a fantasy movie. They were stated by the Vice Chancellor of Andhra University, G Nageshwara Rao and Dr.Kannan Krishnan, a research scientist at the Indian Science Congress in Jalandhar.

The scientific community in India and abroad naturally reacted with shock, for the basic reason that stem cell technology, invitro fertilization and plastic surgery are recent advances and have emerged after years of research and experimentation. It’s very simple. For any technology to be called scientific, it must possess the capacity to be reproduced by anyone anywhere. Did that happen? The answer is no. It is very worrying that Indian academics are making claims by misreading religious texts, and not on the basis of hard facts and evidence.

In fact it was Prime Minister Modi who set the trend of outlandish claims back at the Indian Science Congress in 2014. He said that since Lord Ganesha had the head of an elephant and the body of a human, ancient India was well-versed in plastic surgery. Another minister claimed that since the Ramayana spoke of Ravana’s Pushpak Viman, India of those times had planes, complete with functional airports. This is a familiar strategy by Hindu nationalists of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party to invent the greatness of India’s past. They smack of religious nationalism and an attempt to whip up a sense of Hindu religious pride, to undermine the truth for their narrow political ends, not quite unlike the Nazis did in Germany in the early 1920s.

But why are scientists and academics at the Indian Science Congress giving into this false rhetoric? It is clearly to please their political masters and land plum postings. I see similarities with what the Telugu poet C.Narayana Reddy did by introducing astrology in AP textbooks to get into the good books of the then AP Chief Minister NT Rama Rao, himself an astrology enthusiast. What resulted was an entire generation of students fed on pseudoscience.

There is no reason for Indians to resort to fake, unsubstantiated claims to have pride in their history. India has a very strong place in global scientific history, as the birthplace for key mathematical ideas, metallurgical technologies and home to the sophisticated Indus Valley Civilisation, which had weights and measures. Indeed, our country has produced geniuses like Ramanajun and Bose. What the ISC is doing is to make our country a laughing stock in the eyes of the world.

India’s is the only constitution in the world that urges its people to develop a scientific temper. Sadly, the ISC is doing little to achieve this. At the Jalandhar meet, the students should have been allowed to mingle freely with scientists and exchange ideas. Many students could very well have been inspired to take up science as a profession.

Silly stories per se are not of concern. What is worrying is when important people say dumb things, especially those manning major universities. Instead of instilling a spirit of enquiry in students, our academics are doing just the opposite. And it is sad that urban, educated, working professionals fall for such cock and bull stories. A major catalyst for this is Whats App. Even those who cannot separate chalk from cheese believe they are experts on the basis of Whats App forwards.

Amid the uproar, the Indian Science Congress has clarified that it does not subscribe to the worldview of a few scientists who made the mundane claims. This hopefully means that the prestigious science event is on its way to regaining its lost glory. The time has come to throw pseudoscience out of the window. I am tempted to quote from the motto of the Royal Society which reads “Nullius in verba” , latin for “Take Nobody’s word for it”. The ISC is in urgent need to imbibe this slogan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Gillete short film supporting the Mee Too Movement with the tagline “The Best Men Can Be” has generated a lot of interest. It condemns toxic masquilinity, urges men to step in when they see their friends/colleagues cross the line of decent behaviour and puts the onus on them to stop sexual harassment. The film also blames mascuilinity for sexual assault and urges society to show compassion towards sensitive boys and men. Many welcomed the ad, praising the razor company for taking up an important issue like sexual harassment in the backdrop of the MeeToo movement.

Critics have accused Gillete of playing to the gallery and make hard working, innocent men look like monsters. They feel the short film makes scapegoats out of men and that there is nothing wrong with mascuilinity. They stress that the majority of men, like women, are good people. Piers Morgan, on the show Good Morning Britain, said that the Gillete ad is eager to fuel the current pathetic global assault on mascuilinity and that “Let Boys Be Damn Boys, Let men Be Damn Men”.

However, many were on Gillete’s side. Queer Eye’s Karamo Brown tweeted : ‘I love everything about this Glllete ad. Great message’. Some suggested that the men who were left offended by the ad were in fact part of the problem and that far from eroding mascuilinity, the ad paints men as strong and responsible people. Gillete brand director Pankag Bhalla told the Wall Street Journal : ‘This is an important conversation happening, and as a company that encourages men to be their best, we feel compelled to both address it and take action of our own’. Some were of the opinion that the ad would boost sales and by attracting a new generation of mellenials, similar to what Nike achieved with its controversial ‘Just Do It’ ad starring Colin Kaepernick, the former NFL quarterback.

The depiction of men in the short film nudges society to rethink its value system towards women and treat them as equals. We have come a long way from the heady days of the Anti-Vietnam War protests when slogans like ‘Make Love, Not War’ were common parlance. It was only in the 80’s and 90’s that sex became taboo, owing largely to Feminism.

As far as blaming mascuilinity for sexual assault, Gillete has hit the nail on the head. Since boys are taught from a very young age to be tough, not to cry when in despair and never be girlish, they end up suppressing their feelings. And when they find other boys bullying them, they turn into bullies themselves in self-defence. As they grow up, this mascuilinity turns toxic. Men find no means to vent their suppressed feelings. With age comes loneliness, and what follows is self-destruction. The fact that boys are silent sufferers of sexual abuse could also explain the anger against the ad.

Any change, however small, is welcome, whether in the domain of the family, school or workplace. If boys are told that it is ok to cry today, they may not turn into monsters tomorrow. Schools and families must jointly tackle the menace of bullying and strive to mould students into more compassionate human beings. And society must be sensitive to the emotional needs of men. Let us not dismiss the crying boy, the confused teenager or the lonely man as a loser. Instead, let us try and and understand his source of despair.

Some people are of the opinion that Gillete has used this ad to gain more customers. It may be appealing to the Mee Too sentiment that women feel strongly about. And since women happen to be the ones shopping for groceries (that includes razors), Gillete might just have cemented its place in the market. But if business and market forces are urging people to rethink on unjust value systems, then so be it.

 

Also Read Gillette’s defence : https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/gillette-defends-controversial-short-film-the-best-men-can-be-20190116-p50rrl.html

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton