Ek Main Aur Ek Tu: Seriously!

Recently I saw Ek Main Aur Ek Tu (EMAET) featuring Imran (Rahul) and Kareena (Riana). It was tad slow but a good time pass. The movie was meandering towards an expected finale when the director decided to surprise us. Under the pretext of mature ending, Rahul and Riana decided to be Just Friends.

I couldn’t help but LOL literally. How do people let themselves be manipulated like this? Rahul was happy with his life at the end. He was fine with continuing his friendship in the hope of she agreeing to marriage someday. I have serious issues with people who use this Just Friends after egging the other person on. I have further issues with guys/girls who let themselves into this honey trap.

What I hate is Friendship being insulted, which for me is one of the most sacred relationships. If it’s Friendship, it should not be affected by gender. Right? A friend can be a guy or a girl; one should have similar dedication and feeling towards him/her if they are just friends. Agreed? However most of the people never stick to it. The least they can do is be honest about it.

“He took me out for dinner to Taj last night. He is just a friend of mine”. Huh! First of all there are no free lunches dear. Would he have taken a male friend of his to an equally lavish dinner at Taj? Everyone knows the answer. Stop justifying and just admit that you too were leading on.

In EMAET, Rahul is highly ignorant, or we can say he is too blind in love. He is happy at that very moment coz the girl he loves is there to give him company and he hopes that she will marry him someday. What he doesn’t understand is that Riana has specifically explained her position of being Just Friends. Hence she has no commitment and she needs to give no reason for the break-up. What would happen if one day Riana comes and says, “Hi Rahul meet my boyfriend James”. She would have committed no sin, after all she had already told him that they are nothing more than friends and that’s that.

What would happen to Rahul then? He will be devastated. During a breakup, at least you get to know a reason, you argue, fight and split. Here it’s simple plain stupidity. He won’t even be able to ask Why? This is what happens when a guy who has never been in a relationship gets smitten by a girl who has been in string of relationships and vice-versa. To top of it, throw in Just Friends and you being blind in love try to live in the moment and accept it.

It was one of the silliest ending I could have imagined. In real life, guys like Rahul deserve all the pain and agony they face, coz they are that stupid. He should have moved on when he had a fight. If he decided to be just friend, he should have quashed all hopes of the marriage, started afresh.

Anyways for me the ending turned out to be fun and I had a good days’ laugh. Also it gave me a topic to write about.

Lies Within

Lie is defined by the Oxford dictionary as “to say something that you know is not true”. Going by this simple definition, it should not be very difficult to adhere to the childhood sermons of “not to lie”, should it? Your first guess might be a No, of course. But that’s not how the material world works. In fact let me be crude enough to say that we lie all our lives.

I was taught during the childhood that if you lie, you will go to hell. This in itself seems to be a lie. Have you ever been to a retail shop? “Are bhaisaab khareed kee rate de raha hoon. Do paise ka profit nahin hai isme. Isse kam doonga toh ghaate mein jaayega” (I am giving you at the purchase cost. Anything less and I will have to bear the loss). Do you really believe that the shopkeeper is telling the truth? “Khareed ki rate” (at purchase cost) Huh! He is lying all right. Given this assumption and the process of induction, hell should be one hell of a crowded place.

“A lie which does not hurt anyone, is not considered a lie” Now who the hell said that. Why did he say it? Why do we believe it? Mere rumors.

My problem is that I feel uneasy when lying. It doesn’t matter how innocent the lie is. There is this inner feeling that no one would believe me. It crept up from childhood when my parents used to take my elder sister’s word over me, always. That I used to lie most of the times, is a different matter altogether. But still they never believed my lie. Once my sister and I were playing and I broke the table lamp. When parents got home, we blamed one another. I was the one who was grounded. Tell me one thing; how the hell they knew who did really break the lamp. It was as if they disowned me. That was the feeling then. Now I know that they being parents know how to look beyond the words and through the eyes of their child. They know when the child is lying. Then again, it might be a pure guess work. Who knows?

Once you decide that you will never lie, it is bound to create social problems. Coz believe me, we live in The Matrix. People are so seasoned to hear lies all the time that the sound of truth is poison to their ears. Try telling your wife how fat she is. Just try. When parents ask their teenage child, Do you drink? Deep down they know that like all teenagers you would be trying stuff too. But it feels nice to hear. “No Pa”. They are not asking you to admit the truth. They just want you to lie. I try to avoid such questions with potential social disaster. I try and change the topic.

The most charismatic of all is the concept of witness stand in the court. They ask the witness to be sworn byGeeta to speak the truth and only the truth. All of us including Geeta herself know very well that this concept no longer holds a sacred place in our lives. Still we consider whatever a person is saying under oath, to be truth. This, when we don’t permit polygraph as evidence. Say the tests are correct 70% of the times. It would still be better than 0%. Try to understand the complexity here. By admitting whatever a person says under oath to be true and knowing that whatever he is saying is a lie, we are doing nothing but lying to ourselves.

The biggest form of a lie I believe is the one which we tell ourselves. “I will pay off the debt next month” You assure yourself by lying within. When you know there wouldn’t be any next month. It’s either today or no-day. “I can have one more drink. What’s the harm”? Deep down you know what the harm would be, but decide to convince yourself of a different truth.

Lying to others may affect your social standing and outlook of other towards you. But lying within distorts your own psyche. Sort of creates conflicting personalities. You can easily change your friends and the place you live in and do away with external sigma. However it’s not the same within. Lie to others as much as you want but try and sort out the inner truths.

Media: right or WRONG

Last week a leading news channel was seen patting its back. It carried out an operation in Delhi. A female reporter walked on the road alone during the night to catch the person/persons who tried to take advantage of her.

One must say that this was a clear master stoke. However there seems to be a flaw. It served no positive purpose other than to add to the TRP of the news channel. On the hindsight it did some harm.

Firstly, let me go into as to why nothing positive came out of it. “Are the women safe at night?” is one such question as, “Is cigarette smoking not injurious to health”. Come’ on all of us know that answer to both the questions is a stern NO. What the channel tried to do by proving a well known fact, is far from my understanding. In fact a few days ago, even the Delhi CM agreed that roads are not safe for the females at night. Had the issue been “how this should be resolved”, channel should have been patted. It would have helped creating a better environment. But I guess, it’s easier to be a part of the problem than to be of the solution.

Secondly, why it did some harm? Consider the scenario that the car of a lady broke down at night. Now would anyone stop to help her? I think not. He would be more worried that if the lady turns out to be a reporter in disguise, he would be shown on television as a beast trying to take advantage of a stranded girl. This number would be much higher than the number of real criminals who would turn away due to the fear of being exposed. So in effect it would do more harm than good.

Sai speaks: The pillar is shaking

“What you are going to witness today is an out and out miracle. It has happened for the first time in the history of the universe. It is earth shattering and totally phenomenal. You can catch this live and exclusive only on your most trusted news channel!”

Last few weeks, I have had the opportunity to spend a considerable time in front of the idiot box, as they call it. At college I usually follow news online, but at home its 24×7 news channels for me. Truly speaking, more often than not they turn out to be a great time pass. Last few weeks we saw the Noida murder case and the Gujjar agitation occupying the prime-time. Barring a few incidences, most of it, I felt was an example of some good journalism, if not brilliant.

Amidst all this I felt the emergence of a parallel journalism, owing to the cut-throat competition among the ever increasing number of news channels. This journalism is not shying away from running close to being yellow. One such news item caught my attention lately.

It was the most celebrated and most debated news report of “Speaking Sai Baba”. I was all the more interested in the news item as my family worships Sai Baba and I personally too, am a great fan of his preaching. A video was on air which depicted the speaking Sai. A prime time news report followed. The reporter of a leading news channel took calls, asked for reactions and discussed this miracle.

I felt a bit confused. I could easily make out, what was being aired was nothing but an animation clip, that too an amateurish effort. Well, one may argue that I am a computer engineer from IIT and it would have been a bit easy for me to distinguish between an animation and a video recording. True, but believe me, it would have taken no Bill Gates, to check the validity of the said video.

My point is, was the channel not wrong, in not getting it tested by an expert before catering it to the viewers. Leave aside the sanctity of God that they put on hold, what sort of journalism says that any unverified news report can be telecasted? Has the thirst to go on air first and bring exclusive news grown so much that the ethics of journalism are being put to ransom.

But maybe, I am missing the point here. The said news was not for all and sundry. It was a very clever drama enacted for a large chunk of people like us who believe in Sai. We people are nothing but a viewer ship base. Our feelings and sentiments are nothing but a TRP.

Should someone not ask the channel in question, what was the revenue earned during the period the news was on air, by how much were the ad rates hiked during that particular news program and what was the jump in overall viewer ship ratings of the channel. But I know, the channel couldn’t care less and as I have said already media sell what sells.

One might argue that media is not solely to be blamed. Viewers should be responsible enough and not just blindly follow everything and anything that’s put on air. True, but then what’s the difference between an entertainment channel and news channel. Today our nation believes what’s on the news. And why not, news channels are seen today as a forum for the common man, a potent weapon against the system. This makes the need for news channels being responsible, all the more important.

Perhaps what’s there to realize is that such acts add little to the strength of the fourth pillar.