Anyone care to make the necessary changes and give it to the Coach of the Indian Cricket Team? (The ‘official’ BCCI XI, of course!)

Wait, do we even have a coach?

Well, anyway, here goes:

सत्तर मिनट.
सत्तर मिनट हैं तुम्हारे पास.
शायद तुम्हारी ज़िन्दगी के सबसे ख़ास सत्तर मिनट.
आज तुम अच्छा खेलो या बुरा,
यह सत्तर मिनट तुम्हे ज़िन्दगी भर याद रहेंगे.
तो कैसे खेलना है, आज मैं तुम्हे नही बताऊंगा .
बस इतना कहूँगा की जाओ,
और यह सत्तर मिनट जी भर कर खेलो
क्योंकी इसके बाद आनेवाली ज़िन्दगी में
चाहे कुच्छ सही हो, या न हो,
चाहे कुच्छ रहे, या ना रहे,
तुम हारो या जीतो,
लेकिन यह सत्तर मिनट तुमसे कोई नही चीन सकता, कोई नहीं.
तो, मैंने सोचा की इस मैच में कैसा खेलना है,
मैं तुम्हे नहीं बताऊंगा, बल्कि तुम मुझे बताओगे. खेल कर.
क्योंकी मैं जानता हूँ की अगर यह सत्तर मिनट इस टीम का हर player
अपनी ज़िन्दगी की सबसे बढ़िया hockey खेल gaya
तो यह सत्तर मिनट खुदा भी तुमसे वापस नही मांग सकता.
तोह जाओ. जाओ और अपने आप से, इस ज़िन्दगी से, अपने खुदा से,
और हर उस इंसान से, जिसने तुम्हे – तुम पर – भरोसा नही किया,
अपने सत्तर मिनट छीन लो.

{Thanks a ton to Google Indic Transliteration. They always manage to surprise me… :)}

Just in case you couldn’t read that, here’s the entire thing in Roman characters.
Sattar minute.
Sattar minute hain tumhare paas.
Shayad tumhari zindagi ke sabse khaas sattar minute.
Aaj tum accha khelo ya bura,
Yeh sattar minute tumhe zindagi bhar yaad rahenge.
Toh kaise khelna hai, aaj main tumhe nahi bataunga.
Bas itna kahunga ki jaao,
Aur yeh sattar minute jee bhar kar khelo
Kyunki iske baad aane wali zindagi mein
Chahe kucch sahi ho, ya na ho,
Chahe kucch rahe, ya na rahe,
Tum haaro ya jeeto,
Lekin yeh sattar minute tumse koi nahi cheen sakta, Koi Nahin
To, maine socha ki iss match mein kaisa khelna hai,
Main tumhe nahin bataunga, balki tum mujhe bataoge. Khel kar.
Kyunki main jaanta hun ki agar yeh sattar minute iss team ka har player
Apni zindagi ki sabse badhiya hockey khel gaya
To yeh sattar minute khuda bhi tumse wapas nahi maang sakta.
Toh Jaao . Jaao aur aur apne aap se, iss zindagi se, apne khuda se, aur har uss insaan se, Jisne tumhe – tumpar – bharosa nahi kiya, apne sattar minute chheen lo.

Translation:
Or something like that….

Seventy Minutes.
You have Seventy Minutes.
Maybe the most special seventy minutes of your life.
Today, [it won’t matter] if you play good or bad,
These seventy minuteswill stay with you for the rest of your life.
So, I am not gonna tell you today, how to play [your game]
All I am gonna say is, Go!
And play these seventy minutes to your heart’s content.
Because in the life that is about to follow, [irrespective of]
Whether things are right, or wrong,
Whether things stay, or go,
Whether you lose, or win…
Nobody can take these seventy minutes away from you. No one.
So, I decided that I will NOT tell you how to play [your game] today.
Instead, you will show me. By [actually] playing it [out].
Because I know that if each player on this team
[manages to] Play[s] the best hockey of her life
Then no one, not even God can demand these seventy minutes back.
Go. Go and grab these seventy minutes from yourself, from God,
From all those whom – who – wouldn’t believe in you.

Quite good, is all I have to say.

Note:
The additions in square brackets are to aid better English and create a semblance of Proper translation.
Or so I believe, anyway.

I’ve had various conversations revolving around this concept across the years. A comment I wrote on the 9rules community was the best explanation I could generate for such an abstract concept.

To many people out there, Web 2.0 is just a buzz-word. For quite a few, it is about AJAX and flashy effects on website. And very few really understand what it means.

The other day, one of my friends directed me to a YouTube video titled “Web 2.0 … The Machine is Us/ing Us.” And suddenly, a few more pieces of the jigsaw fell into place.

The title was intriguing enough. Go watch it yourself…

Web 2.0 … The Machine is Us/ing Us.

I will not embed the video here, because I have already had spats with my hosting providers for ’streaming’ content from my site. But I do urge you people to check out the video. It is one of the simplest, best and most explanatory videos I have ever seen.

And what’s more, it’s Web 2.0!

Good old days, eh?I had decided not to post any Cricket-related items on this blog. But, this was just too hard to resist for me. Patriotism and all that, or maybe, a flicker of hope.

Does anybody have the email addresses of our heroes abroad? I am seriously thinking of forwarding this… At least it is better than the crappy forwards that people keep sending…

Pop Quiz: What, according to you is the most appropriate song for this clip?

Note:This does NOT mean I will be yelling “Hoo-haa, India” any time soon… Or any time later even.

Read it here: The Bond Walks Again.

But I am surprised, of the 45 comments (at the last count…) and through the entire post, there is not one true Bond fan.
Everyone keeps commenting on how Daniel Craig is un-suave and un-stylish, or at the very least less worthy than Pierce Brosnan and Sean Connery (Ye Gods!). I thought movies were meant for watching and *listening* as well.

For those who haven’t gotten the drift yet, check this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Fleming#James_Bond_books

And a complete Ian Fleming Bibliography can be found here:
http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/series/james-bond/

A ‘Casino’ Quickie
Casino Royale is Ian Fleming’s FIRST Bond book. The book is about a spy who has been recently promoted to a double agent status and given the license to kill. In casino royale, James Bond is a brash, short-tempered, somewhat uncouth (if I may say so) young man who believes in here and now. More often than not, he lets his heart rule over his head.

Casino Royale is not about the shaken-not-stirred martini Bond we know. Rather, it is about the man who became James Bond 007. It is about the process of finding and losing love that eventually hardens him into the ‘Bond, James Bond’ as we know today. Ever wonder why Craig never says the trademark Bond line (”The name’s Bond, James Bond”) except at the end? Now you know…

Everything about Daniel Craig in the movie, from his clothing to his Body language is raw, and exudes a different charm. The Bond babes are there and yet, not quite there, if you get my drift

But this post is not intended to be a review of the movie. It is meant to quash some of the misgivings about the ‘Bond series’.

The Bond Series

1. The Bond series is not a ‘Series’.
   Or rather, it is not in a chronological order. Check out Fleming’s bibliography and you’ll realize what I am talking about.
2. Daniel Craig looks gay/wussy/________ (Your adjective here)
   He’s meant to look raw. It’s his first ‘assignment’. Or sort of. He’s supposed to behave like an air-head. A promotion often does that to you.
3. Daniel Craig is not as stylish as ________ (Your choice of Bond here)
   See point 2.
4. Casino Royale is not as stylish/gadgety/______ (Your adjective here) as _______ (Insert name of a Bond movie)
   See point 2.

Oh by the way, did you know Casino Royale was written in 1953? You didn’t, did you? I figured…

Trivia:
In one of the scenes during the Poker tournament, Bond orders the bartender to make a drink for him. He proceeds to narrates the recipe from memory for about twenty seconds and ends with, …”shaken, not stirred.”

Yep, that is the famous ’shaken-not-stirred’ Bond martini. The more observant of you may even have noted down the recipe during the movie.

Pass it on, if you did.

I watched ‘Rang De Basanti.’

Having heard rave reviews from my friends and others, I decided to give it a go.

And that’s where it all began.

Questions that had been long hidden and stashed away resurfaced. Questions to which I had avoided giving answers long back, resurfaced. Questions to which the only answers were (and had been) ‘It will always be the same’ resurfaced. And now, I find myself rejecting these answers.

It will never be the same again.

No, it is not the movie that is speaking through me. The movie is simply an excuse. These are thoughts that I have been ignoring, neglecting for a long, long time.

The movie ends with the ‘kids’ beng shot to death.

I don’t want to argue whether it was done to gain public sympathy or to show reality. I don’t care. I don’t even care if the end could have been made any different. Nor do I care if it was technically sound or not.

It hurts me to watch such movies. It hurts me to think about them. It hurts me to think about the possible consequences it might have if such an event ever transpired into reality. It hurts me to think what I would have done if I were one of the characters in the movie.

Why? Because the answer is nothing. I would have done NOTHING. Period.

Because I do not have the guts or the glory to do something like that. Because I am a coward by nature. Because, I wouldn’t. Because I am afraid of death. Because, I can’t change anything. Because I am one of us. Because I know I will forget. Because I have forgotten.

Because, I have too many excuses and not one valid reason.

What is it that drives men willingly into the hands of despair? What is it that drive sane people to such ‘insanity’? What is it that makes martyrs out of common men and treachers out of loyalists?

Is it belief in Principles? Is it belief on ethics and morals? Is it the law? Is it the system as they wold have us believe? Is it the corruption? Is it the frustration? Or is it everything in equal, or even unequal, parts? Or is it none of these but something higher or unexplored? Or is it something we see everyday but fail to notice?

What is it?

If the system has been existing since time itself, why did it take the death of a person to bring about the winds of change?

If we know the system is responsible, what have we done to prevent it from happening?

If public memory is short, why make such movies?

What do we take from these movies?

I saw Swades and appreciated it. I saw RDB and appreciated it. Sometime in the future I might see another movie and appreciate that too.

So?

Where does it all begin and where does it all end?

What role do I have in this entire process?

Is my role that of a mute spectator watching it happen?

Is my role that of the protagonist who’s making it happen?

Is my role that of a director who’s directing it when it happens?

Is it that of a screenplay writer who charts the course to make it happen?

Is my role that of an extra who is simply there when it happens?

Where do I stand? What is my role? What is the purpose of my existence?

I believe that:

• There is an answer to every question. We just have to ask the right questions.
• That my job is to find the right questions.

Am I being too optimistic? Am I being too cynical? Am I delving into unnecessary details? Am I asking too many questions?

I know that I will forget about this entire thing withing a matter of hours. Seven hours to be precise. Seven hours later when I wake up from my nightmare-ridden sleep, I will start a brand new day with the same old routine.

No, I will not blame my routine, for it is the routine that gives me the strength, the will, the money, the time to live. I am, in fact, thankful for having a routine.

We keep telling ourselves the world need to change and shy away when the time come to orchestrate it. We will, ourselves, have nothing to do with it. We always want someone else to do it. We always want to stand at the sidelines and watch it happen.

I may not be speaking for the world here, but I speak for myself atleast.

Honesty is one thing I will not give up on until the day I die. At the same time, I do, occasionally, tell a few white lies to save my skin. Or, rather to save my time. Without those white lies, things would become unnecessarily complicated.

I do not wish to compare myself with anyone else regarding this matter. There are people better than me, there are people worse than me. Everyody is entitled to his opinion.

A discussion has no end. An argument has no end. The very fact that people are entitled to their own opinions brings about a stalemate to an argument even before it begins.

Enforcing views is dictatorship. Having opinions is democracy. Has anybody ever noticed that the most radical of all changes have happened through enforcement of views? Only in anauthoritarian state, where you are forced to follow a particular viewpoint, do people seem to progress. Is that a myth or an illusion? Or the bitter truth?

If democracy works, why do we need political parties and leaders?

If everybody is entitled to his own opinion, how do we acheive harmony in thoughts?

Opinions may and will always vary from one end of the spectrum to another. Acheiving harmony with them is simply having a common consensus. Some non-conformist elements will always stand out of the consensus. Remind me again, isn’t that what dictatorship and authoritarianism all about?

No, wait a second, dictatorship is when one man decides the consensus, democracy is when many men decide it.
But then, if each person is entitled to his own opinion, which he obviously bases on his own good, how do you decide the greater good?

On what basis? By which standards?

How do a select few get to decide what the greater good of the masses is?

If we give them the right to do so, how and why do we give them the right? Based on a few promises thay make?
We ‘exercise’ our ‘precious’ franchise, fully knowing that they will never fulfil their promises. We call them hypocrites and we blame hope for driving us. Yet, we still carry on doing the same thing. Guess who’s the hypocrite?

All of us feel that we would do a better job if we were given the authority to do so. But none of us feel the need to work towards it. The armchair critics of all generations have always made it a point to criticise and blame. None of them have ever shown any kind of resolve to sit up and take notice and change what they feel is not right.

‘But what can we do?’ is a too common refrain I often get to hear. Or sometimes, I hear the polar opposite: “We gotta do something…”

Something? Like what?

Spreading the word? Starting a revolt? Mutiny? What?

Sitting back and discussing what is to be done is not an answer. Nor is giving up the answer. Extremism solves nothing, only brings in new questions. Liberalism only hides the existing questions behind a veil of freedom. How do you determine what is right? Or what is wrong for that matter?

Where do the concepts of right and wrong fit in a democratic society where everybody is entitled to his own opinion? If you are entitled to have your own opinion and I am allowed to have mine, how do you determine what is right and what is wrong? How do you determine what is good and what is bad? How do you determine the greater good of the masses in a state, which basically denies the existence of anything polar by simply defining a concept called freedom?

What is freedom?

Is it the right to do what we want?

Is it the right to behave as we wish?

Is it the right to say whatever comes to mind?

Is it the right to roam when we choose?

Is it the right to go wherever we want?

To determine what is right, we choose to have a consensus. We choose our rights and wrongs, our goods and our bads through a common consesnsus. For example, it is wrong to bribe and it is bad to kill. Agree.

But then, who chooses these options? A select few?

What happens to those who choose their own options? Do they die off with the long tail?

If a consensus is allowed to choose right and wrong, what’s wrong with letting one man choose it? If you allow your leaders to make decisions for you, what’s wrong with letting a dictator do it?

People are scared of dictators because, dictators have been known to kill people for no rhyme or reason simply because of inherent prejudices. Yes, I am talking about the Hitlers and the Idi Amins and the Saddams. But who says there cannot be a sane dictator?

Haven’t we had rulers in the past? Forget the British Raj, don’t we accept Shivaji as a role model? Don’t we accept Akbar as just king? Haven’t we all heard tales of Solomon and Ranajit Singh? Or do we accept them simply because they are mythological figures and too unreal for us?

When does truth cross boundaries into mythology? A hundred years? Two hundred? Two thousand?

Are we being too myopic about the entire thing? Or am I hyperventilating?

If we hold opposite opinions, only one of us can be right. There can be no two ways about it.

We as a nation have long held on to irrational beliefs simply because we could. It is time to shake off all those irrational beliefs. It is time to decide what is right and what is wrong. If you as a person cannot decide, let someone else decide for you. If you do not agree to it, then reason it out and finish the argument. We need to decide and we need to choose. We have sat and discussed for too long. It is time to choose. Until we make sane, rational choices we will stay where we are.

We have, until today, chosen to stay silent. We have chosen to accept everything mutely. We have chosen to stand back and watch it happen. We have remained mute spectators all along.

Not anymore.

I choose to be a part of the action. I choose to orchestrate. I choose to make myself heard. I choose rationality. I choose sanity. I believe that we as a people can be much better that what we make of oursleves. I choose to accept freedom as a right to life above enything else. I choose to believe in right or wrong.I choose to accept the rights, wrongs, good, and bad based on rational explantion and rational explanation only. I choose to find answers and ask the right questions. I choose to make respect a mutual affair.

I choose to believe.

PS: I gotta get myself one of those digital sound recording contraptions. Sitting down to type is something I find tedious now…

Tags: conversations, musings, RangDeBasanti, movie, life, opinion, review