Friday, April 12, 2019

Thursday, August 21, 2014

One world one fight and yeah one global sport - FOOTBALL

So the unthinkable for me has happened as far as sport is concerned. I never thought would come a day when I would extol the virtues of a FIFA football game more than that of a Cricketing contest. But it is not entirely my doing friends. With Dravid, Ponting, Lara, Sachin and Warnie gone and all the other greats of the 90s, what choice do I have to watch. And the performance that the team displayed in England this summer only reminds me as to why I have virtually stooped following cricket after Dravid retired back in 2012. But the point here is football.
                     I have never really followed club football but did view the world cups and the Euro matches regularly. But this WC it was different. I suddenly realized that it was a truly global sport. For starters, the name of the players rang a different bell every now and again. Ii mean if it is cricket, it is either a watSON or a jonSON, a PieterSeN or an anderSON. It is really the commonwealth so there is not enough variety in the names to begin with. OK there is every once in a while a DeVilliers or a Kallis who may be of continental european ancestory. But those are really few and far in between. Now compare it to this galaxy - Suarez, Van Persie, Diouf, Rodriguez, Neymar (that sounds way too cool man), Di Maria, Honda and a lot of more Asian and African names. It suddenly makes you realize the diversity of our globe. The fans are sometimes called a little bit on the Hhooligan side but they know the merits of a team game. No? You ever saw a placard that read "Mmessi"? It is always "go Azzuri" or "Tiki Taka". My cousin pointed that right. I am no expert on Football by a long shot. I liked the excitement of the Dutch-Columbia encounter much more than any Cricketing fixture I had witnessed. Ok I did overstate it there. But yea, you get the point. So I want to know more about football now. More than I ever did and I am happy about that. So Never say never. 

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Man of Steel - the movie

So I watched it today, just back in-fact. And about the review, well, it was.......pretty good! ..:)
There was the general Nolan mark over the film although he was not even the director of the movie - well he was the writer! now I did not read the DC comics episode so I can't tell how much justice he did to the storyline in the comic-book, but yes, that is for only academic purpose. 
First of all, Ill begin with saying that our mother earth is beautiful, much much beautiful. If I were born in the dark, macabre and gloomy desert of Krypton, gosh sod save me! Guess that is why kal-el/clarke kent/superman chose to save earth's environment and people over Kryton afterall......:) So the storyline began in Krypton with all the artificial life creating technologies and what not and could be lauded for Russel Crowe's performance. I guess he could be lauded for bringing life to such characters who are not from our times or in this case, world! I maybe prejudiced here coz the only two period movies I have truly liked are Gladiator and Robin Hood..ok digression it launch to our was mostly the dense high-rise of Manhattan-like business district or something and the verdant greens of the village which ought to be smallville (however it was never mentioned like that I guess, on purpose maybe, but why?), anyway. 
It was 3D and the goggles and all that. I am gonna make a revelation here. I am not a big fan of those as they dim the brightness way too much so it bothers me and I watch a lot of the screenplay without them generally eventually!. So it was more bright, the movie for me generally.
But Henry Cavil was awesome. For a old-timer honed in the clarke kent kool-aide from the Smallville show and Tom Welling's fan at that, this should mean a lot for Cavill's performance. He managed to feel like Clarke Kent, Tom Welling's aura in my mind notwithstanding! And of-course he looks good they say for whoever might care..And he brought the decent intensity to the character as well..Mike Shannon as Gen Zod was fine and so was Louis Lane..
The music and screenplay were pretty good, a touch below the Btman trilogy but yes, you cant take anything away from Zack Snyder and Zimmer on that one..I always believe that Superman is a difficult task for a director than Batman like Nagraj was than Dhruva as the element of human genius is hard to project. There I think Nolan being Nolan, he has managed to fir in that touch easily and masterfully. You dont feel like - oh god, not again that super-duper powergame..There is more to offer here..
I dont think I have missed any major pointers here. But if anyone manages to read thjis this point, I would be glad to take it further if thy may please in the comments section..till that time, its good-bye!!

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Of Ghazals and Sufism

Chamakte Chaand ko toota hua taara banaa daala...meri awaragi ne mujhko aawaara banaa dalaa....Sounds like a rhyming prose or poetry at the best. But you need to hear the rendition from the Ghazal maestro Ghulam Ali to be mesmerised by the lyrics. I mean the import of the words is there definitely, but they pound you with an intensity altogether different when sung in the Ghazal. Outside Cricket and Bollywood, he may be one of the handful personalities who enjoy such high patronage and liking on either side of the border. And why should he not. For that matter, the Ghazal tradition in Pakistan has flourished always. Mehdi Hassan and Abida Parveen are two more names that ring a bell of familiarity across India, both Pakistani scions. Meaningful poetry often laced with deep rooted philosophy and melody are two almost essential elements of a good Ghazal. Ofcourse sublime rendition like that by Ghulam Ali (Bade Ghulam Ali Sahab or even Chote G A) makes a Ghazal what it is. It may be of concern to the vetean patrons of the art that there seems to be little interest among the youngsters towards this sublime craft. The Ghazal evenings are far and few between in the day and age while the rockstars hog all the lime light and then more. The sensibility towards poetry seems to be declining and the romanticism ensconsed in it has few takers among the young. It is just not pacey enough. But they might well be keeping themselves bereft of a flavour of living.
    Another art form or rather more so a way of life indeed is Sufism or the rendition of Quawwalis.  Ustad Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan can be credited to internationalize this music form. Sufi music has been cultured and practised in praise of the almighty for no less than six or seven centuries. The saints of yonder and old expressed their love and devotion to god through the mystical Sufi music. And the tradition flourished. This music form enlivens and charged the ambience like no other. Often incorporating high pitch truisms, the best proponents of the art form have been widely classed as among the most capable singers. Nusrat is a very good example to boot. Quawwalis have specially taken centerstage in Bollywood over the decades. And Pakistan continues to be the land of genesis for the best talent there is in both these music forms. Here is hoping that the practitioners would always find enough patronage for these music styles to sustain and flourish in times to come.

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

What an Idea Sar Jee, or no-brain jee?

The famous TV commercial of our beloved Jr. Bachchan explaining the reason for more than a billion human souls in our homeland first felt like a banal comic act to just continue the "Bhat an Idea" campaign. Not until a supposedly very intelligent/or just intelligent friend of mine seriously quoted the reason in one conversation. And also his flatmate there. And then they quoted it a second time. I had to shed my lethargy and blurted "U really believe in what they are saying"? And their expression was like huh, have u even got a brain there? Dont you know India has always been a backward (always?) nation. Ok wouldnt even argue on that one. So? What about the Europeans? Did they have the trendy phones with a xG connectivity ever since the land was carved out? After a few minutes of senseless arguments, atleast the question came "Ok so what do you think would be the reason of our mammoth population? Wars, I reckon. The Europeans lost entire generations of men in the wars they have fought among each other as tribes for ages. Their tribal footing in any case started pretty late - the Frank (modern day French) and Germanic (Germany etc) tribes et al were forest dwellers as late as the 4th century into the first millenia after the christ trudged. India on the contrary has been there since much before (even if we discount the mythology, the Buddha and Mauryas wrote indelible history 500 years before the christ. What is however more important is that Indians have never really fought wars or witnesses large scale demolotion of the populace. The foreign rulers established their holds among the people since at least the last thousand years without any significant bloodshed in retaliation really. Even the movement for Independence was wrought with nonviolence. So all things equal India would anyway grow much fast. But even the other things have not been equal historically. The black death - the dreaded plague - of the 14th century wiped half of the European continent. The world wars have been the most recent among the annihilation sagas. I might have made - terribly tired that I am - an error here and then there at this time of the night, but I do not find it not to be a better explanation of India's high population. What about China you might ask. I would put forth my reasons later. Size and strength are two pointers I would just throw for now.

The family oriented species there are

This one is really interesting. Looks like we humans have made our lives much more complicated than it ought to be. Cliched? Well, take this. The national emblem for the North Americas is something of a "Bald Eagle". Big deal?
The not so big deal actually is that the members of this species form a very tight family unit. So tight that the mum and pop do not divorce at all ! Yep. They are a couple for life. How easy for the kids of the family. The irony is that the divorce rate is much higher for human Americans. So the kid Americans do not have as much a priviledged life of having the parents together as the kid-Eagles then. When curiosity got the better of me, I searched for the other species that endured the hardships of a commited life together or for long periods and there were many. The much loathed Wolves and the Jackals are family folks as well. The elder siblings in the Jackal family even help the mother in nursing the younger ones. The Albatross and the insignificant termite are two more pro-family people. The grown ups may have  their own preferences, but the kids of these species are definitely going to lead a less confused existence than in the multi-tier structured human families of the day with three set of siblings one each from mum and pop and one set from them both together!  

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Business and passion

It has been some time since Paul Buchcheit, the developer of Gmail and Google adsense and also the co-conceiver of their mantra "Don't be evil" left Google. But that is not the only reason Google seem to have shunned the motto. Perhaps its not just Google. The whole corporate/capitalist world seems to have embraced a hypocritical approach to the way they do business. Its not just Google or Apple, it is also the story of Goldman Sachs or Bank Of America as that of UBS. And a lot more. But it is not the point of this writeup to harp on the scandals and profess the impending doom. I feel that these very so called leaders are at a loss. A loss of sensibility, a loss of inspiration to keep the pace up with the elevated expectations of the world around them. A loss when they find themselves in the midst of the bad bad world of business. Let us talk about Google. I saw/read some time back (a few yrs maybe) an interview with Page or Brin I dont remember who of the cofounders about the culture at Google - work and general. They spoke among other things, a culture around work and simplicity. They said how they did not encourage a show-pony culture and discouraged employees flaunting their top of the draw cars and things like that. I mean he did not need to say that and the fact that he did say it, I thought they actually were pretty keen on instilling a clean work ethic like focussing on the work and coming out with great ideas and stuff and thus dint want any distractions. Also the motto professing "Dont be evil" was afterall seeped into the psyche of the emploee then. Brin and Page look like sensible guys and afterall their empire was built from a hard written algorithm and not any kind of plagiarism. But still today we read stories about how Google has usurped Microsoft from the throne of the "" as they call it. The only contention from some circles is that its actually Apple which is the true - another larger than life success story. And I have much less confidence in Apple personally, I like Google better. But the point is that there is always professed an.
They said so about Microsoft in the ninties and early noughties what with all those antitrust laws and big lawsuits. And perhaps they were true. Perhaps MS was doing everything in its capacity to monopolise the market. They made sure Netscape went out and since 1997 IE has held the crown of the most preferred browser in the world, a position which has only recently been threatened seriously by Chrome. The antitrust lawsuits were filed and MS did loose those disputes. Movies were made and MS was rubbished the world over. But there looked nobody would be able to dethrone them from the position of undisputed kings of the technology world, whatever that means. Keeping up with the natural law of change however, Internet arrived on the scene like nothing earlier had. And suddenly MS was beaten not by any competition but seemingly by the vicissitudes of nature and natural law. Around time companies like Google blossomed. They were perfectly positioned to reap the benefits of the internet revolution. There were other internet success stories like Yahoo, Amazon, ebay, craigslist (now little out of favor, but the credit is due to Mr Craig for being his own man) and a few more internet behemoths. The scene sprawled with tech startups as there was little investment needed to build a success story. A brilliant and viral idea would suffice. It felt like the advent of a truly efficient marketplace had begun and there was hope for the masses. So over the span of the last decade and more we have a more balanced market cap. scenario as far as the tech. giants (not hardware) are concerned - MS, Google, FB, Amazon, also Yahoo and ofcourse Apple.
So the numero uno position was snatched from MS. And a lot of water has flown since then even under the Old Delhi rickety British-raj railway bridge despite the drying volumes of the Yamuna river. And meanwhile Mr Gates has completely changed his ways of living. He now travels the worldover and tries to solve the more human problems in the world he inhabits. Well, atleast it looks like that. But scandal still looms large on the tech. space or to be fair for that matter any industry vertical. The spate of Patent suits unleashed at Motorola by Apple and now even by MS (Funny in a way if you think how Apple themselves have enriched the "i" experience by taking cues from few Android features), the privacy issues circling the internet space which have now really gained momentum, the Apple Foxconn saga, the spying stories between these big corporations, not to forget the delusional marketing and branding of Apple (a personal subjective take agreed), the closed ecosystem and locking tactics of Apple and many more such stories doing the rounds everyday do not feel like the act of these sensible brainiacs, although I always felt S Jobs was a bit too arrogant and egomaniacal for my taste and MZ'berg felt like he was guilty of his success. It looks more of a a case that to be at the top you got to bend a few rules and find your ways through the maze to deliver the best results to your shareholders. So the shareholders and the bankers come into the fray. The starry eyed tech geek actually metamorphosises(m sure its a spello) into the shrewd businessman. And to survive in the dog eat dog world of frontline business, changes his ways. More so if he happens to represent the top notch firm with the highest market cap or active users. There is pressure from the investor community, shareholders and there is a reputation at stake and the egos have blown up a little bit as well. And worse still, if you dont do it, the competition would implement it and then wipe you off the slate, such volatilily pervades this sector. For every FB, there were a couple Myspaces and Friendsters and there is no guarantee the same fate would not befall that particular company with such a fickle and volatile userbase. So how do you survive. Where do you bring the dollar to spend on the research and development, essential spendings in this technology intensive space.
And how do you create the hype if you plan to go public (IPO) in near future. Else how do you stop the paper wealth of your stock from plummeting if you are already listed. And what if there is widespread lobbying - political and business - to grab the next big opportunity. I have a feeling the average tech geek turned businessman does not understand why he landed in such a place. I mean Page and Brin would have certainly known that their idea was big and useful and would earn them the big moolah and they would lead comfortable lives when the Google algorithm would have started to find widespread acceptance and usage initially. But would they have thought it would turn into the juggernaught it is today or of the zillion ramifications of their every strategy or move they make today. I doubt even they make those strategic calls today. They would like to think that they have the opportunity to change the world for the better and they certainly have, but still they are not born businessmen. I cant bring myself to believe that they enjoy making the shrewd business calls or playing the mean businessman.