So I made the cover of the Metroving page of the New Media website Digantik ;)
I have to thank Mangala (for taking the pic and more importantly) highlighting the difficulties that journalists undergo in transport.
But don't get me wrong. I am in no way complaining because this is what I love to do. Grab a requisition, write it and get it signed by the instructor, grab the video cameras and the tripod, check if everything is in order, cue the tape, record a blank, pack it all and get out on the road, haggle with the ever-persevering auto drivers, reach destination, shoot the story and all the while white-balance each shot (thanks Amanda :)), catch a rick, work on the script while your on the way, write out the link and the headline, get out at college, sign out the camera (or face the wrath of Solanki sir), get into an edit room (if there is one that's free), digitise the tape and start editing...
I love it all. Who am I kidding! It does get tiring. But that is all part of the 'package'
P.S - the editing procedure would probably take up another post ;)
28 Nov 2005
First Term Nostalgia
The first term in college is where we were all together - the print, the broadcast and the new media. We produced our own show, designed our own website, presented seminars. We did a bunch of things together. I would never forget the day before our Key Issues presentation. We stayed in college working on the power point presenation, loading the pictures and working out our points. I was pushedout at midnight because I was one of the speakers. I will never fail to thank Ridhi, Ruchi and Rashmi, who satyed in college till 5:00 the next morning and worked on the presentation. Andwe did a great job. Our broadcast show was a few laughs but at the end of it, we made sure we learned a lot and had fun too.
That is a picture of our group at the end of the show. All smiles.
That is a picture of our group at the end of the show. All smiles.
12 Nov 2005
main zorro banna chahta hoon!
Want to watch a Bollywood movie in English?? No no. Not dubbed at all! This one is for real and it won't take you much at all. Just head to Satyam and buy the tickets for the 'Legend of Paaro'..oops.. Zorro. Trust me. If you ever wished to see the heroes of the past return; if you ever wished to see a wounded Bachan clamouring the temple bell and hanging onto it for dear life crying out - "ma! mein aa gaya ma!";if you want to see Rajnikanth's (not only the heroes of the past) gravity-defying acts, then you have simply got to watch the 'Legend of Zorro'!
For those of you who did not watch the prequel, let me brief you on the story so far. The hero,(played by Amitabh Banderas)is a Lawaris and a petty thief in Spain, until he is completely transformed into Zorro. He also has a horse that always disobeys his commands. But the good thing about the horse is that it was trained by Rajnikanth himself, who helped it master the art of defying gravity.
So Amitabh / Zorro rides out to save his home town and in the process also manages to fall in love with the heroine (played by Parveen Zeta Jones). The only way in which the movie deviates lies in the fact that there is no running-around-the-trees dance. Instead they do a bit of salsa. The Zorro saves the people and hence becomes a Shehensha. He marries his love and the two live happily ever after.
Cut to the sequel. The Zorro now has a family. He, his wife and his son (played by Dharmender Junior), are living away from the town. Junior does not know that hs father is the great Zorro that he has always admired. The Zorro is meanwhile a house-hold name. everyone respects and loves him. But the wife (parveen zeta jones) feels that Zorro is neglecting his family. So she announces to her husband that they should separate. Furthermore, his son thinks he is a softy and that he cannot even throw a towel (let alone a punch)! he even goes out to show his father how to fight the goons.
The Zorro is hurt and depressed. So he becomes a Sharabi. What will happen to the home town and the people. Will Zorro return and save the day?? Will the family get back together and live happily ever after?? Find out what happens in... the 'Legend of Paaro'
For those of you who did not watch the prequel, let me brief you on the story so far. The hero,(played by Amitabh Banderas)is a Lawaris and a petty thief in Spain, until he is completely transformed into Zorro. He also has a horse that always disobeys his commands. But the good thing about the horse is that it was trained by Rajnikanth himself, who helped it master the art of defying gravity.
So Amitabh / Zorro rides out to save his home town and in the process also manages to fall in love with the heroine (played by Parveen Zeta Jones). The only way in which the movie deviates lies in the fact that there is no running-around-the-trees dance. Instead they do a bit of salsa. The Zorro saves the people and hence becomes a Shehensha. He marries his love and the two live happily ever after.
Cut to the sequel. The Zorro now has a family. He, his wife and his son (played by Dharmender Junior), are living away from the town. Junior does not know that hs father is the great Zorro that he has always admired. The Zorro is meanwhile a house-hold name. everyone respects and loves him. But the wife (parveen zeta jones) feels that Zorro is neglecting his family. So she announces to her husband that they should separate. Furthermore, his son thinks he is a softy and that he cannot even throw a towel (let alone a punch)! he even goes out to show his father how to fight the goons.
The Zorro is hurt and depressed. So he becomes a Sharabi. What will happen to the home town and the people. Will Zorro return and save the day?? Will the family get back together and live happily ever after?? Find out what happens in... the 'Legend of Paaro'
3 Nov 2005
ALONG THE LINES
Where to draw the line? Is there a line at all? Do you at times feel that the line is so blurred that you do not know which side you are on?
Maybe I should begin by telling you what sparked this off. I am a broadcast student at the Asian College of Journalism. But I really cannot call myself a student because I am standing somewhere in between a trainee and a journalist. Every day passes with my having gone one step closer (in a seemingly endless flight of stairs) to becoming a journalist. And it was one of the many seminars held at college that made me think along these ‘lines’.
A journalist has so much power. But it would be all too well not to get heady with such power because as the old adage goes, 'with power comes responsibility'. More than anything, journalists need to be sensitive and reactive to the things around them. The litmus paper immediately tells you whether you are dealing with acid or alkaline. Journalists, according to me, are like the litmus paper.
Media over the years has begun to enter areas and spaces it never had before. We are in a sense invading a lot of areas, opening up a whole new dimension to journalism.
On one hand there is this compelling urge to relay the truth. And on the other hand, the journalist may most definitely cross the line and encroach upon someone’s private space. How far can you go before there is this feeling that you have stepped into another’s territory, rather forced your way into the subject’s space, in order to get your story?
I have treaded into this field knowing all the challenges that are going to come my way. And it is (in a sense) this thought that fuels me. It is not just about being a journalist, because I am almost sure that quite a few can. It is about being a journalist and following the principles that you have set for yourself. And let’s face it – in journalism (or any other profession for that matter) ethics are extremely important. It is not about doing the job. It’s about doing a thorough job but being sensitive all the while.
I admit it is not at all easy to know where the line is and sometimes it might get blurred. But journalists need to consciously make an effort because it is ultimately your call - where is your line drawn? The acid has to be identified as the acid and not alkaline and vice versa.
Maybe I should begin by telling you what sparked this off. I am a broadcast student at the Asian College of Journalism. But I really cannot call myself a student because I am standing somewhere in between a trainee and a journalist. Every day passes with my having gone one step closer (in a seemingly endless flight of stairs) to becoming a journalist. And it was one of the many seminars held at college that made me think along these ‘lines’.
A journalist has so much power. But it would be all too well not to get heady with such power because as the old adage goes, 'with power comes responsibility'. More than anything, journalists need to be sensitive and reactive to the things around them. The litmus paper immediately tells you whether you are dealing with acid or alkaline. Journalists, according to me, are like the litmus paper.
Media over the years has begun to enter areas and spaces it never had before. We are in a sense invading a lot of areas, opening up a whole new dimension to journalism.
On one hand there is this compelling urge to relay the truth. And on the other hand, the journalist may most definitely cross the line and encroach upon someone’s private space. How far can you go before there is this feeling that you have stepped into another’s territory, rather forced your way into the subject’s space, in order to get your story?
I have treaded into this field knowing all the challenges that are going to come my way. And it is (in a sense) this thought that fuels me. It is not just about being a journalist, because I am almost sure that quite a few can. It is about being a journalist and following the principles that you have set for yourself. And let’s face it – in journalism (or any other profession for that matter) ethics are extremely important. It is not about doing the job. It’s about doing a thorough job but being sensitive all the while.
I admit it is not at all easy to know where the line is and sometimes it might get blurred. But journalists need to consciously make an effort because it is ultimately your call - where is your line drawn? The acid has to be identified as the acid and not alkaline and vice versa.
20 Oct 2005
NO MATCH!
The greatest players in the world have come together to battle with the unrivaled team in the world. Imagine seeing the best bowlers spinning or seaming the ball and the most outstanding batsmen dotting the ground with their classic photo-framing shots! Nothing can ‘match’ this sight, right?..... Wrong!
If anything at all, the Super Series so far, stands proof to the fact that there is so much more to the game than players. It is not about the best pacer and the best pinch-hitter and the best wicket-keeper coming together. Frankly and quite obviously, it’s about a team. Now, I am not saying that Australia would have won the matches anyway. No. What I am saying is that even the most average players up against the paramount Australians could defeat them!(unbelievable as it may sound).
It happened in the 1999 World Cup, where Bangladesh, a team little known (till then at least) beat the mighty (at that time) Pakistanis. Kenya did it when they reached the semi-finals of the World Cup in 2003.
The fact is that players have become bigger than a team. In the early days, Don Bradman was a genius with an average of 99.94. HE was a true genius. Today, superlative terms are used so loosely, that even a Dhoni (of one-match brilliance) becomes a ‘master blaster’. Truth is, even 11 of the finest players cannot beat Australia (or any other team), if they cannot work together as a team.
But I really cannot cast aspersions on a team that has just assembled and are (most) probably groping about even now because team work does not seem to be on the top of the list in any team for that matter.
A few days ago, I had an argument with my friends regarding this very lack of spirit. From what I have seen and read so far, I have come to believe that the colonial impact of individualism and individual glory has not entirely been effaced. Not surprisingly, traces of the Raj linger even today, on the cricket fields.
Picture this – the Indian team has lost 3 or 4 wickets and Tendulkar comes out to bat (he is batting at number 5 for some weird reason). There is a set batsman in Dravid, at the score of 70, at the other end. Tendulkar does not seem to be getting his shots as he has already faced two overs with his score still at 0. A run-out situation occurs and Tendulkar is faced with a choice. If he runs back to his end, he is saved. But a set batsman goes back to the pavilion. If he runs to the other end he will very obviously get out.
Hmm… so what do you think he should do? The answer will arguably determine what is bigger….. The player or the game itself.
If anything at all, the Super Series so far, stands proof to the fact that there is so much more to the game than players. It is not about the best pacer and the best pinch-hitter and the best wicket-keeper coming together. Frankly and quite obviously, it’s about a team. Now, I am not saying that Australia would have won the matches anyway. No. What I am saying is that even the most average players up against the paramount Australians could defeat them!(unbelievable as it may sound).
It happened in the 1999 World Cup, where Bangladesh, a team little known (till then at least) beat the mighty (at that time) Pakistanis. Kenya did it when they reached the semi-finals of the World Cup in 2003.
The fact is that players have become bigger than a team. In the early days, Don Bradman was a genius with an average of 99.94. HE was a true genius. Today, superlative terms are used so loosely, that even a Dhoni (of one-match brilliance) becomes a ‘master blaster’. Truth is, even 11 of the finest players cannot beat Australia (or any other team), if they cannot work together as a team.
But I really cannot cast aspersions on a team that has just assembled and are (most) probably groping about even now because team work does not seem to be on the top of the list in any team for that matter.
A few days ago, I had an argument with my friends regarding this very lack of spirit. From what I have seen and read so far, I have come to believe that the colonial impact of individualism and individual glory has not entirely been effaced. Not surprisingly, traces of the Raj linger even today, on the cricket fields.
Picture this – the Indian team has lost 3 or 4 wickets and Tendulkar comes out to bat (he is batting at number 5 for some weird reason). There is a set batsman in Dravid, at the score of 70, at the other end. Tendulkar does not seem to be getting his shots as he has already faced two overs with his score still at 0. A run-out situation occurs and Tendulkar is faced with a choice. If he runs back to his end, he is saved. But a set batsman goes back to the pavilion. If he runs to the other end he will very obviously get out.
Hmm… so what do you think he should do? The answer will arguably determine what is bigger….. The player or the game itself.
18 Oct 2005
Mangal Pandey... An Accidental Hero?
Was Mangal Pandey an accidental hero? This question has been much debated after the release of the Ketan Mehta movie. With the release, what ‘Mangal Pandey: The Rising’ did was open various arguments delineating the role of this martyr. Was he the hero that ‘The Rising’ showed him to be? Did his lone act of brashness actually result in the mutiny that followed?
On 29 March 1857, Pandey came out and challenged the British, even as he called out to his comrades and fellow sepoys. He attacked and injured his superior and wounded an adjutant with a sword. As the British, reacting to this sudden outburst closed in on him, Pandey tried to shoot himself but failed and was hanged for his act of ‘rebellion’.
After Aamir Khan’s portrayal of Pandey, a lot of discussion has risen as to whether Pandey was the hero that the Khan portrayed? Wasn't he intoxicated and in a frenzy when he decided to attack the British?
Rudrangshu Mukherjee has debated Mangal Pandey’s role as the instigator of the revolt in his book ‘Mangal Pandey: Brave Martyr or Accidental Hero’. He puts forth a series of arguments supporting his statement of Pandey being an accidental hero. He vehemently says, “Nationalism creates its own myths – Mangal Pandey is part of that imagination of histories.”
The point that supports this claim is that not much has been written on Pandey. He probably figured in a few lines in the pages of Indian history and the struggle for independence. But then again, it must be noted that this argument relies heavily on the British records of the 1857 rebellion. The British underplayed the event as just a sepoy mutiny and did not attach any importance to Mangal Pandey.
Mukherjee goes on to say that history had recorded nothing about him that could be used to reconstruct an individual and locate his springs of action. It is true that there have been no documents to show Pandey’s thought process or his reactions to the introduction of the cartridge greased with animal fat. To reiterate - Mukherjee’s argument cannot be acknowledged precisely for the same reason – that there has been nothing written about him.
The main argument that Mukherjee makes is that Pandey was intoxicated with bhang when he decided to revolt. There was no record of his life except his one act of doubtful valour under the influence of bhang. But drinking was not something that was uncommon in the army. Every sepoy drank and not everyone ran out to nearly get killed after drinking.
Rudrangshu Mukherjee also says that “a rebellion is a collective will to overthrow a rebellious order. Pandey acted alone. He was a rebel without a rebellion.” He went on to say that Mangal Pandey meant nothing to the sepoys who raised the revolt in 1857. To hold his argument, Mukherjee cites the practically-unheard-of mutiny in Barrackpore itself 33 years before Mangal Pandey's action. Over 200 soldiers were killed, yet the first full-scale study of the 1824 mutiny in Barrackpore (which managed to spread only as far as Rungpore in Assam the year after) appeared only in 2003.
So, in effect there is a view that Mangal Pandey was an ordinary sepoy who, in a state of intoxication, committed a foolhardy act for which he was hanged and his infantry dismissed. He was just that – an accidental hero, a man who got lucky. But if that is the argument then one cannot say that Mahatma Gandhi, for instance, was an accidental hero just because he was kicked out of the train! Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between...
On 29 March 1857, Pandey came out and challenged the British, even as he called out to his comrades and fellow sepoys. He attacked and injured his superior and wounded an adjutant with a sword. As the British, reacting to this sudden outburst closed in on him, Pandey tried to shoot himself but failed and was hanged for his act of ‘rebellion’.
After Aamir Khan’s portrayal of Pandey, a lot of discussion has risen as to whether Pandey was the hero that the Khan portrayed? Wasn't he intoxicated and in a frenzy when he decided to attack the British?
Rudrangshu Mukherjee has debated Mangal Pandey’s role as the instigator of the revolt in his book ‘Mangal Pandey: Brave Martyr or Accidental Hero’. He puts forth a series of arguments supporting his statement of Pandey being an accidental hero. He vehemently says, “Nationalism creates its own myths – Mangal Pandey is part of that imagination of histories.”
The point that supports this claim is that not much has been written on Pandey. He probably figured in a few lines in the pages of Indian history and the struggle for independence. But then again, it must be noted that this argument relies heavily on the British records of the 1857 rebellion. The British underplayed the event as just a sepoy mutiny and did not attach any importance to Mangal Pandey.
Mukherjee goes on to say that history had recorded nothing about him that could be used to reconstruct an individual and locate his springs of action. It is true that there have been no documents to show Pandey’s thought process or his reactions to the introduction of the cartridge greased with animal fat. To reiterate - Mukherjee’s argument cannot be acknowledged precisely for the same reason – that there has been nothing written about him.
The main argument that Mukherjee makes is that Pandey was intoxicated with bhang when he decided to revolt. There was no record of his life except his one act of doubtful valour under the influence of bhang. But drinking was not something that was uncommon in the army. Every sepoy drank and not everyone ran out to nearly get killed after drinking.
Rudrangshu Mukherjee also says that “a rebellion is a collective will to overthrow a rebellious order. Pandey acted alone. He was a rebel without a rebellion.” He went on to say that Mangal Pandey meant nothing to the sepoys who raised the revolt in 1857. To hold his argument, Mukherjee cites the practically-unheard-of mutiny in Barrackpore itself 33 years before Mangal Pandey's action. Over 200 soldiers were killed, yet the first full-scale study of the 1824 mutiny in Barrackpore (which managed to spread only as far as Rungpore in Assam the year after) appeared only in 2003.
So, in effect there is a view that Mangal Pandey was an ordinary sepoy who, in a state of intoxication, committed a foolhardy act for which he was hanged and his infantry dismissed. He was just that – an accidental hero, a man who got lucky. But if that is the argument then one cannot say that Mahatma Gandhi, for instance, was an accidental hero just because he was kicked out of the train! Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between...
HERE... ALMOST
So I finally did it... Created my own blog. My space. Do not completely know why. But there were just some things that inspired me to.
I have always wanted to voice my opinions, always wanted to be heard. I can just sit over a cup of hot chocolate or even munch through wafers (don't know the connection) and go on contemplating various issues.
So blogdom... you finally got me and I'm going to be here for long...
I have always wanted to voice my opinions, always wanted to be heard. I can just sit over a cup of hot chocolate or even munch through wafers (don't know the connection) and go on contemplating various issues.
So blogdom... you finally got me and I'm going to be here for long...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)