Book Review : The Lady Killer

"It was a land of seven kingdoms. Seven kingdoms, and seven thoroughly unpredictable kings."   

Middluns, Murgon, Estill, Sunder, Monsea, Lienid and Nander; the seven Kingdoms. 

An imaginative world with primitive lifestyle and Kings as supreme rulers reside in between the pages of this novel. We all love a place different yet similar to ours with the same yet entirely different faculties. Here, the adventure that the female lead traverses is a reminder of physical and mental fortitude.

   'The Lady Killer'. 'The Royal Thug'.  These were the whispered names that accompanied Katsa since her barely eight year old self killed a cousin from touching her. The Gracelings, identified by their two distinct eye colour from the others, have a gift or a curse in a particular activity. Graced as she is with killing, Katsa being the king's niece is forced to carry out her Uncle's whims of killing or maiming petty and foolish men who had dared to oppose him. The only rebellion that she raised against her Uncle is the Council, more like a Robin hood and his band of Merry men, whose main objective is to help those who face injustice from tyrannical and power hungry Kings. The first time she met Prince Po, she had no idea that her life is going to change dramatically. Po, with his silver and gold eyes, cheerful laughter and graced combat skills melted away the walls around her heart. Po and Katsa undertake a journey to reveal a dangerous truth about themselves and a powerful foe, with their strength and cunning, they must fight. Katsa is a growing and powerful character, she begins with baby steps to find herself and those around her. Po is the nice contrast to her in more ways than one. A charming and thoughtful companion with no issues in being defeated by a woman.

This novel by Kristin Cashore, in itself is simply written; the landscape, seasons and the food is so properly described that it leaves no question or confusion. The character of Bitterblue is admirable and I personally cannot wait to read her book which is, unfortunately, the third in the series, Graceling Realm  followed by the second book, Fire. If you have read or are aware of something like Poison Study, Uprooted, Throne of Glass or even Vampire Academy  then this is a book to try. I really like reading a good Fantasy novel once in a while. Besides the trend (I highly approve of this trend) of a strong female character, who needs no man's protection but accepts his company and just that, had risen and claimed the spot of the "damsel in distress" characters in many novels. So celebrate an independent woman in her decision to lead her life however she wants with a powerful Grace.

Read it. You won't regret.

Reviewed by :- Saisaa Ray.

5 times the Western Media has failed to identify the 'Terrorists'

In the wake of the assassination of the British Member of Parliament, Jo Cox, at the hands of Thomas Mair, both the conservative and liberal press have once again followed the same old trend of using different labels and language to describe attackers based on their race, religion and ethnicity.

To quote an example, The Guardian— often  a favorite daily among the so-called "progressives" — published a story a day after the attack on June 17 with the headline: ”Suspect in Jo Cox's killing described as quiet, polite and reserved.”

The article goes on to list how Mair’s family and friends spoke of a gentle and quiet man whom they least expected to commit such a hideous crime.
“The picture that emerged of the man known as Tom or Tommy from those who knew him best was of a quiet and caring loner,” The Guardian wrote. “His half brother, who is mixed race, claimed he had been volunteering at a school for children with disabilities for several years and had never expressed any racist views.”

This sort of language is rarely, if ever, used by mainstream media in the West to describe non-White attackers, who are quickly labelled as terrorists. And if the words of families and friends are used, they're usually taken out of context and twisted to serve a particular narrative and agenda. It has been a common occurrence for years fanned by mass media in the United States and Europe.

We look at five examples of when the same biased coverage was resorted to by the western media :-

1. 2015 Charleston Shooting by Dylann Roof

On June 17, 2015, during a prayer service at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, Dylann Roof entered the church, locked its doors and started shooting at the people in it, mostly Black folk.
Roof killed nine African Americans, including Senior Pastor and State Senator, Clementa C. Pinckney, and injured one other person. He was later arrested after reports emerged that he was motivated by a longstanding hatred of Black people and had told friends that he favoured segregation. Later confessing he committed the shooting in the hope of igniting a race war, the media failed to focus on Roof’s history of bigotry and hate. Instead mental illness and inadequate mental health resources were the primary go-to explanations behind his horrifying actions.


Activist Deray McKesson noted in a tweet days after the incident that while discussing Roof’s motivations, an MSNBC anchor said: "'We don’t know his mental condition."
"That is the power of whiteness in America," McKesson commented.

Dylann Roof

The Guardian also published a story describing how Roof had a history of drug abuse, further individualizing the narrative as one of subjective misfortune and poor decisions.

2. 2011 Norway Attacks by Anders Behring Breivik

On July 22, 2011, Norwegian national Anders Behring Breivik carried out two lone-wolf attacks, a bomb attack against the Regjeringskvartalet Government Complex in Oslo and later a shooting of 69 people at the Workers' Youth League-run summer camp. The attacks claimed a total of 77 lives.
Several articles emerged following the incident demanding that he not be called a terrorist and that he was insane and mentally ill. “Anders Behring Breivik's not a terrorist, he's a mass-murderer,” one headline on The Guardian newspaper read in 2011.

The British Telegraph published an article with the headline: “Don't call Anders Breivik a terrorist – he is a sad fantacist leading an army of one." Despite a Norwegian court charging Breivik with carrying out a “terrorist act”, the author argued that to "call Breivik ‘a terrorist’ is to give him exactly what he wants. The most appropriate response to this psychopathic narcissist is ridicule, as the author claimed.

Forensic psychiatrists examined Breivik before his trial and and he was eventually diagnosed as a having narcissistic personality disorder.

But denying the political — and therefore terroristic — nature of the crime was really quite extraordinary, especially considering Breivik himself wrote a 1,518 page political manifesto titled "2083: A European Declaration of Independence" which called for a civilizational war against Muslims and migrants.

3. 2012 Aurora Shooting by James Eagan Holmes


On July 20, 2012 James Eagan Holmes carried out an attack on moviegoers at Century movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, killing 12 people and injuring 70 others.

As is the case for most other White attackers, the media was quick to brand Holmes as a mentally ill individual who snapped and decided to kill people due to his condition. The Associated Press ran a news story with the headline: ”Doctor who found James Holmes sane says mental illness caused him to attack Colorado theater.”

Major media organizations ran stories on the attack and Holmes with comments from the FBI saying he had no significant criminal record, while local police said he had a speeding ticket from 2011, and no links to terrorism. Medical professionals in fact testified in court that Holmes was sane.

While we now know that the attack had no political motive, the media's collective response in immediately designating the White Holmes psychologically ill is a trope we have all become accustomed to.

4. 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting by Adam Peter Lanza

The victims of the attack

On December 14, 2012, 20-year old Adam Peter Lanza stormed into the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, where he shot 20 children aged between 6 and 7 years old, as well as six adult staff members. As police and emergency services arrived at the scene, Lanza committed suicide by shooting himself in the head.

Shortly after the incident, news outlets in the U.S. went on to portray Lanza as a “troubled and disturbed kid from a rich family” who was a “ticking bomb." There was no mention of terrorism or him carrying out one of the most disturbing terror attacks in U.S. history.

A day after the attack, The New York Daily News published a story with the headline: “Sandy Hook mass murderer Adam Lanza, 20, 'deeply disturbed kid,'” in which the newspaper went on to push for a mentally ill and unstable man who was pushed over the edge and committed a troubled yet almost understandable crime against innocent children.

Fox News also digged into Lanza’s past, pushing the mentally ill narrative as it revealed that the attacker had been diagnosed with psychiatric conditions which could explain his actions. Again no mention of terror or terrorism! While many have argued the shooter did not commit terrorism because he lacked a political motive, the argument has long since been debunked. In fact Lanza, like other shooters, posted a political screed to a website shortly before the incident.

“It goes without saying that an AK-47 and enough ammunition could do more good than a thousand ‘teachers,’ if one is truly interested in reforming the system. In short time the children will be brainwashed, pumped full of Xanax and told to conform, until they have been turned into the oppressors,” Lanza had written ahead of his attack according to MSNBC.


5. The 2010 Austin Suicide Attack


When Andrew Joseph Stack III desliberately crashed his plane into Building I of the Echelon Complex in Austin, Texas, killing both himself and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Manager,Vernon Hunter, and injuring 13 others, the United States Department of Homeland Security issued a statement saying the incident did not appear to be linked to international terrorist groups.

But the targeting of the IRS and the political nature of the incident soon emerged as Stack's suicide note condemned the "greed" and "insanity" of the central government, the bailing out of banks and financial institutions, corporations, unions and the Catholic Church.

"I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let's try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well," he wrote in the letter.

The terrorist attack — widely reported as a suicide by local and nationalmedia — eventually resulted in the media and government closely scrutinizing the Tea Party, as it was  believed Stack was linked to the group. But following the attack, the New York Times published an article saying that "Mr. Stack" was not driven by "terrorist ideology" but was rather "described as generally easygoing" and a "talented amateur musician with marital troubles."


What essentially comes out of the picture is a deliberate toning down of terrorist attacks and dressing them up as cases of psychiatric disruptions or subjective misfortune for that matter. This not only tosses out the possibility of a political probe into the happenings with sheer convenience, but also manages to secure public sympathy through victimization of the terrorist and puts a permanent seal on such cases as it were. We wish the Western media was a bit empathetic in yellowing up the massacres of non-White terrorists too, instead of belching out a thoroughly racist stance in this regard.Or better, it realizes that it's high time to see terrorism for what it is and not to doll it up for what it is not.


Article by :- Igor Gorbachev

Black Hermoine: Stupefying Racistic Barriers

Harry Potter arguably overwhelms the largest fandom in Hollywood and it's latest upcoming west-end play 'Harry Potter and the Cursed Child' has cast it's wizardry upon the fans around the globe already. Interestingly, in December 2015 it was announced that Noma Dumezweni had been cast to play Hermione Granger in the play. She is a Laurence Olivier Award winner, presented for excellence in professional theater in London. Although, Rowling has previously said herself multiple times that the books never indicated what skin complexion many of the characters are having, and so this incarnation of Hermione is just as accurate as Emma Watson or any other imagining of her, the casting of Noma Dumezweni as Hermione in the theatre adaptation, Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, has delighted many fans and infuriated others.

                                                'So why a black Hermoine?'

Well, why not? In the Harry Potter books, the brilliant Hermione Granger is described as having frizzy, untamable dark hair, brown eyes, and protruding teeth, but more often is defined by her intellect and devotion to her friends. So even though she was played by the wonderful Emma Watson in eight massively popular Harry Potter movies, why shouldn’t Hermione be depicted as black?
Rowling’s books were always clearly aware of the magic world’s version of racism, and even eugenics, where wizards of “pure” blood were seen by some to be superior, and “mud bloods” like Hermione had to fight against prejudice. So making Hermione a woman of color isn’t just O.K. based on the book’s description; it makes even more sense given what her character goes through. Let’s face it, on Broadway eventually—it will be a chance to see a whole new side of a character they thought they already knew. How often does something that magical happen?

Ronald Weasley, Hermoine Granger, and Rose Granger from
the sets of "Harry Potter and the Cursed Child"

The writer of this series. J.K.Rowling was apparently overjoyed with the new casting of Hermoine Granger. She tweeted :- "Canon: Brown eyes, frizzy hair, and very clever. White skin was never specified. Rowling loves black Hermoine. :* "

The very fact that, actors like, Sir Sidney Poitier, Bill Cosby, Danny Glover, Morgan Freeman, Eddie Murphy, Whoopie Goldberg, Halle Berry, Angela Bassett and so on have given added colour in their own way to this affluent industry we all crave for, (and they are all black!) shows that it's not a situation out of place but it's your minds which are. Such racistic approach and prejudice have impaired the people in general from the fascination that's hidden in the world. In simple terms, people who are obstinate about the change are missing out to discern the diversity in the play. So, you either realize the meaning that the character brings out or sulk in your bigotry!

All the best Noma! Cast your like no wizard ever could! 

All you need to know about the "BREXIT"

What is Brexit?Have you heard about the term 'Bremain' or 'Lexit'?

No? Not to worry.The following article will help you get the basic understanding,even if you are a dummy.

WHY IS BRITAIN EVEN HAVING A EU REFERENDUM?

Back in the last general elections that was apparently projecting a Conservative defeat,the then Prime Minister David Cameron assured his countrymen that he would hold a referendum whether his country will stay within the EU or not,in case he became the Prime Minister for a second term.

Why did he do so? Apparently,the British counterpart of Donald Trump, minus a billion dollar empire and the lunacy, Nigel Farage (leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party,dubbed as UKIP) was leading a campaign of xenophobia and hate politics. In order to tackle Farage and his co.,Cameron promised holding a EU referendum. More than three years after Cameron unveiled his strategy to reform Europe and put it to a referendum, Britain has voted to leave and the Prime Minister has resigned.

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY THE TERMS 'BREXIT' AND 'LEXIT'?

Decoding the terms used during the referendum doesn't utilize more than a couple of brain cells.

    'BREXIT' stands for Britain's EXIT from the European Union and talks about a broader mass. It puts forward the argument of closing the borders, not allowing the illegal migration of thousands. It also opposes the terms and conditions put forward by the EU. Britain sends the EU 350 million pounds a week. They believe that money can be utilized for reforming the services in their own country.

    'BREMAIN' stands for Britain's REMAIN in the European Union. It puts forward the argument that for every one pound sent to the EU,Britain gets back 10 in the form of investments and jobs.They believe that a better,reformed Europe is possible and the change needs to be brought from within.

    'LEXIT' stands for the Left Wing's idea of an EXIT from the European Union. It puts forward the argument that the policies of the EU are extremely right wing and neo-liberal. Almost zero job security and myopic workers' rights are the main reasons cited by this camp. Basically,the camp wants to build a socialist nation from within, outside the jurisdiction of a right wing force.

Now that we have a basic idea of the referendum, let us see who led the three campaigns.

    BREXIT: Although many Conservative and right wing politicans have led a case for Britain's Exit from the European Union, the main credits go to MP Boris Johnson of the Conservative Party and Nigel Farage, leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party.

    BREMAIN: This campaign was led by various fronts, but not as an united front. The Prime Minister  David Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne, of the Conservative party were leading the campaign on one hand. On the other hand,Jeremy Corbyn (Leader of the Labour Party), John McDonell (Shadow Chancellor), Gordon Brown (ex Labour Prime Minister) and the infamous Tony Blair (responsible for starting the Iraq War) were leading it on the other hand. Interesting to note is, Jeremy Corbyn never shared a stage with any Conservative politican or his Blairite colleagues, thus reaffirming his character.

Jeremy Corbynn

    LEXIT: Many socialists and communists, along with hard left Labour MPs, were leading the Lexit campaign. This campaign was mostly managed by MP Alex Gordon and MP George Galloway. It also had the backbone support of MP Dennis Skinner (The classiest 85 year old man to live on Planet Earth).


BRITAIN HAS CHOSEN 'BREXIT'/'LEXIT',WHATEVER YOU WOULD LIKE TO CALL IT.BUT WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN NOW?


It is the greatest disaster to befall the block in its 59-year history. The road ahead is unclear. No state has left the European Union before, and the rules for exit  – contained in Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon – are brief. Mr Cameron resigned as Prime Minister shortly after 8am, announcing that he thinks Britain should have a new Prime Minister in his place by the start of the Conservative conference in October.  He will leave the task of triggering Article 50 to his successor. The EU's leadership has demanded Britain activate Article 50 exit talks "as soon as possible" as they attempt to end the uncertainty over the bloc, "however painful that process may be".

President Tusk, President Schulz and Prime Minister Rutte met this morning in Brussels upon the invitation of European Commission President Juncker.

"Any delay would unnecessarily prolong uncertainty. We have rules to deal with this in an orderly way. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union sets out the procedure to be followed if a Member State decides to leave the European Union," the official statement said."We stand ready to launch negotiations swiftly with the United Kingdom regarding the terms and conditions of its withdrawal from the European Union."

Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank, has said it is ready to intervene to steady the markets. Central bankers from Japan to Switzerland have also offered to step in to provide additional liquidity - a measure not seen since the financial crisis.

On Saturday, the foreign ministers of the founding six member states – France, Germany, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy and Belgium – will meet to discuss the implications of the British vote.

• David Cameron will next see his counterparts at a European Council summit on Tuesday and Wednesday next week.

• The deal, struck after months of negotiation last summer, has evaporated under a ‘self-destruct’ clause.

• He will be under intense pressure to activate Article 50 and commence exit negotiations. Leaders do not want to be drawn into months and years of haggling over Britain’s status: “Out is out,” Jean-Claude Juncker said on Wednesday.

• Article 50 – and a new deal

• Triggering Article 50, formally notifying the intention to withdraw, starts a two-year clock running. After that, the Treaties that govern membership no longer apply to Britain.  The terms of exit will be negotiated between Britain’s 27 counterparts, and each will have a veto over the conditions.

• It will also be subject to ratification in national parliaments, meaning, for example, that Belgian MPs could stymie the entire process.

• Two vast negotiating teams will be created, far larger than those seen in the British renegotiation. The EU side is likely to be headed by one of the current Commissioners.

• Untying Britain from the old membership is the easy bit. Harder would be agreeing to a new trading relationship, establishing what tariffs and other barriers to entry are permitted, and agreeing on obligations such as free movement. Such a process, EU leaders claim, could take another five years.

British Prime Minister David Cameron resigned after
Brexit results.

HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE TO LEAVE THE EU?

It would take a minimum of two years for the UK to leave the EU. During that time Britain would continue to abide by EU treaties and laws - however it would not take part in any decision making.


WHAT WILL HAPPEN DURING THAT TIME?

The UK would have to thrash out the terms of its departure. Issues would include what financial regulations would still apply to the City of London, trade tariffs and movement rights of EU citizens and UK nationals. The agreement would have to be ratified both by the European council and the parliament in Strasbourg.


HOW WOULD BREXIT IMPACT THE EU?

Some people in the EU community believe that Britain quitting its membership could encourage other nations to follow suit with referendums of their own - or demand tailor-made deals of their own.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED ALREADY?

Britain has already lost 172 billion pounds over a single night,the pound has reached a new low since 1984,magnanimous job cuts are expected and trade investments are likely to fall sharply.

The real effects of Brexit will be visible after a couple of years.Whether it will be for a better Britain or a worse one,will be the question of the hour .For all we know,2016 is going to be a marked date in our sons' and daughters' history books.


Article by :- Saptarshi Majumder.

Is India truly ours?

                     

                                 

Isn’t it notable that, when we are small, our surroundings seem so big to us? Perhaps due to our short stature, our eyes imagine that our world- and the people making up our world- are big. But, with age and the series of experiences that enrich our minds, that once huge, magnificent world becomes ridiculously small, almost trivial. And the people we encounter- save those who unconditionally love us- appear to be meaner and narrow-minded in aspect.

The same can be said about the attitude towards the State. As children, we are given the Impression that we live in a country that is “ours”, that is ruled by “us” by the “free will” of the people, and “we” bear the ultimate sovereign power. Little by little, by (un)conscious indoctrination and propaganda both in the society and in our educational syllabuses, we are led to believe that India is a great country for which people shed the very last drop of their blood; but ultimately, all credit goes to Gandhi and Nehru. No mention is made of the Revolutionaries (who were active in the 1920s and early 30s); nor of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukh Dev- and, by extension, the entire Hindustan Socialist Republican Association; little mention is made of the Swarajists and their brief but significant contributions; and the Royal Indian Naval Mutiny of 1946 hardly makes an appearance. Even Bose, whose heroic struggle demands attention, is left out. And we have to deal with the (almost) pro-Congress line that Gandhi, and Gandhi alone, was able to lead the Congress to win India’s independence!

Some, and that is to say, most of us don’t really care about the discrepancies in the histo-graphical narrative regarding India’s independence. As it is, education in India is for the sake of getting your hands on a high-salaried job either in a multi-national corporation or in the government. As long as we have our easy-going lives, no one would care about what we are taught or what happens to the people around you hereafter. Rarely and very rarely, comes a person or a group who delve deep and ponder on issues that others may deem it as unnecessary. Time would tell that whether I belong to those fortunate few. But in the twenty years of my life that I have lived, I think I have earned the right to ask just a single question:

Is India truly ours?

The answer is simply a string of complications, like some titanic ball of yarn. Like frogs in a well, most of us would only look on to the entangled lines that make up our world, our very lives and most of us would be happy with that, even contented. And then, who would even take the trouble to realize that what one knows holds dear, is nothing more than a big lie, in Orwellian proportions? Orwell spoke of an orthodoxy, and such an orthodoxy can be best described in the terms of the Matrix Trilogy. Our lives, our ideals, our rights are nothing more than a simulation, a make-believe ingrained into your head since childhood, almost hammered into place. And most of us would be happy with a wooden placard hammered into our minds, making us believe that India is “ours”, “we” rule India.

So I ask again:


Is India truly ours?

When the simulation ends, when the veil lifts, you will be in denial at first. Most would reject this realization as another lie, probably made for selfish political ends. Some would come to terms with the truth, some won’t. And those who reconcile to the truth, will echo my question:

Is India truly ours?

We find ourselves alienated, almost pushed out of the psychological state of blindly believing that India is ours. We are strangers, so to speak. Now a new question takes root in our minds:
If we do not rule India, then who does?

India belongs, first, to those who actually believe “India” and “Hindu” are synonymously interchangeable. They equate national life with the spiritual life within Hinduism. They believe that only Hindus are permitted to the land because their holy-sites are in the Subcontinent. India primarily belongs to those folks who think Hindus are some kind of Nazi Herrenvolk and others are the Untermensch (inferior).

Next, India belongs to the rich, upper classes, the tycoons of finance capital and industry. Their real and sole motive is profit and monetary gain, and they ruthlessly exploit the large masses of workers- especially in the private sector. Whether you sit in front of a computer or an ordinary cement-mixer, they (the corporate) won’t care about you. Like tissue paper, they will use you and then throw you away. Any kind of philanthropy or social obligatory work that they do is a mere public-relations stunt. And these rich blokes often offer support to the people, described above.

And these two, whether inside or outside the government, are successful in creating the third type of people to whom India belongs to- the people who think that India “belongs” to them.

 Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you India, their India.


Article by :- Anush Ghosh.





Disclaimer : The views presented in the article is that of the author's. The organisation's viewpoint shouldn't be confused with the same.

Lights. Camera. Cannes

                 
               "There are two kinds of people, one who drink Espresso, and the rest!"

His movie is a homage to the long gone era of Parisian Utopia. A symphonic ode to the state of existence, romantics, cinephiles, and lovers want to be in. For the cinephiles specifically, the French New Wave Era of directors has been romanticised by many, while many have drawn inspiration from it. Abhiroop Basu falls into that list. A movie abundant in Truffaut's, Godard's and other French directors' references is the product of it. As a topic, it's neither preachy, nor a very introspective one. But a simple regular conversation between two lovers, Anthony played by Samadarshi Dutta, and Julia, played by Neha Panda, where they share their respective illusions about life, and their deepest fantasies. Ample references from Jules et Jim, Band of Outsiders and the Red Baloon have ornamented this movie, and one cannot skip the reference to  Woody Allen's classic "Midnight in Paris" when Julia talks about that crazy night where she stood in front of Trinca's waiting for her Uttam Kumar to take her out for a romantic ride, but was mistaken for a whore by two hippies, and asked to accompany them. Much like the movie where the French innovation, the fourth wall, has been conveniently broken, at the end of the movie its quite hard to distinguish yourself from reality of the characters portrayed in the movie, and the neat jump cuts, have been more than just successful in this case.

The essence of a short film is felt much after the film has actually ended. That's the harmony the camera wishes to strike, and Abhiroop Basu's film "Afternoon with Julia" will leave you at your wit's end gasping for an emotion to react with. The director's love for cinema, has intertwined with his love for Paris quite subtly because you know,


      "What's Paris without cinema, and cinema without Paris?"

Neha Panda and Samadarshi Dutta from the sets of
"Afternoon with Julia"

Q: Who is your favourite director among the New Wave lot?

I love Truffaut, and Resnais. But then it has to be Godard. If you look at the person, his stylistic changes, and the daring attempts he made, was path breaking. Every film of his has something different to offer us cinematically. Has to be Godard, any day.



Q: Some critics say that Godard's influence is going down by the day, he is losing his appeal. What would be your take on that?

Although, I do not personally feel any levity in such arguments, I do happen to know certain critics and cinephiles who feel Godard's implementations are a tad bit unnecessary to a certain level. I believe someone has to do that constant experimentation. Someone has to innovate, and change things continuously so that we get something new every time we go for a movie. Godard is that director. In a world full of filmmakers who're contented with their safe zones, we always need a Godard.


Q: Why does French New Wave appeal to you so much?

One word. The audacity.
Francois Truffaut made "Jules Et Jim" in 1962. That says it all.



Q: Where did you draw this concept about "Afternoon with Julia"?

Samadarshi Dutta, and Abhiroop Basu (right) from the sets of
"Afternoon with Julia"

Everyone is so fast these days, even when it comes to love. You go out with a person for a few days, it doesn't appeal to you and you start dating someone else. People are so judgemental these days. If one listens to Honey Singh, he/she is crass, and if one wears a kurta and flaunts a cigarette while talking about Camus and Sartre, he/she becomes a pseudo-intellectual. My point was to go back to that age where the characters were free. In a world, where people weren't so judgemental about every action you take. A film about two people, lovers or acquaintances, we don't know, just two people who are fond of each other, two cinephiles who'd just talk..talk about Paris, Godard, life and illusions! And that's how the film should begin and end, just a conversation.

              .  "We are a part of this dream, as a part of this grand illusion that is life."



Q: Tell us about your trip to Cannes?

Cannes was... oh! (GASPS), An experience of a lifetime, yes! I never thought I would be able to reach this point, even while I was making this film. I was in awe of Cannes,! It's an Utopian dream. Cannes is THE place for fashion. Everyone looks like a Hollywood star, dressed in their best. And as a matter of fact, everyone is dressed in their best, always! Day and Night! The best thing about Cannes is probably their hospitality. Everywhere you go, anywhere you go.. be it a cafe or just random streets, people will always greet you and help you if you need anything! They are very approachable people, who love the fact that you are there. That's the vibe I got in Cannes.

Q: The most breathtaking moment?

There was this movie "Cinema Travellers", which was selected for the "Cine Classic" section, a documentary, by Shirley Abraham and Amit Madheshiya which went on to win the Special Jury Cannes Award. You do realise how big a thing this is, I hope? So after the screening they were invited to speak, and in front of the audience Shirley broke down into tears. I still have goosebumps whenever I think about it, and you know, I could relate to every emotion she went through while making this film. I started crying myself. I could feel the efforts that she had put into this movie, and this is why we make films, to be there in that platform. I have barely seen such good movies, and this is the only movie after "Cinema Paradiso" which moved me so much. Although it's pretty disappointing to see such paltry media coverage about it.


Q: So how was being in Paris finally like?

Well I think my illusion about Paris was a better one than what it is in reality. The very first day I landed there, someone robbed me off 200 Euros. But yes, I loved the place. The city has an essence of its own.

Q: You met Nawazuddin Siddiqui, Anurag Kashyap and Q over there? How did the interaction go?

Nawaz Sir is a very calm and composed character. I didn't talk to him much. Anurag Sir,on the other hand,is one of the coolest and sweetest person I have ever come across. He's really funny and witty.
The very first thing he told me was, "Now that Cannes has happened. Forget it and start afresh."
 His insights into the film business was a revelation for me. Q is again one of the sweetest guys I have ever met. Honestly, you can't locate this person with the eminent filmmaker that he is.

Anurag Kashyap and Abhiroop Basu, as a part of the panel meet

Abhiroop Basu with Nawazuddin Siddiqui at Cannes.

Q: How did you approach Neha Panda and Samadarshi Dutta for the movie?


Neha was quite impressed with my movie "The Day after Tomorrow" (click on the text to watch the movie), and when I approached her with the script, she became interested in the project. When I read it out, the interest was only confirmed. I happen to be friends with someone who knows Samadarshi da. Ironically, he had never been in a short movie prior to this, and I doubt he'll ever be so in the future.  Both of them were very cooperative as soon as they heard the script.

Neha Panda and Samadarshi Dutta from the sets of
"Afternoon with Julia".

34 years of Communist Violence in Bengal

 Schrödinger's cat - heard of it? Not all of us are aware of the quantum mechanics but we all know the paradox. The cat in the box is alive and dead simultaneously. 19th of May, 2016, left Bengal in such a paradox. People were expecting the verdict and were simultaneously surprised by it. The defeat of the Congress-CPI(M) alliance was under scrutiny. In some ways, the defeat was greater than the victory. And there was more to it than the combustible mix of ideologies. After a remarkable turnaround in 2011 at the Writer’s (the then WB Govt. Headquarters), the state had a lot of expectations from the Mamata Banerjee – led TMC government. The people of West Bengal wanted to see better days for themselves. Better than what had been served to them in the previous 34 years.

There's a saying which claims that at a certain point, every person is a leftist. But while Communist preachers have been very vocal about the ill effects of capitalism and the totalitarian regime it follows, communist regimes all over the world have meant a mass destruction of human and civil rights. The proletariat dictatorship, has set a benchmark for being a one-man dictatorship, rather than an utopian world of equality.  Digging into why communism kills, one would refer to the Manifesto where Marx states:

“You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible. (Published by Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1973 edition, page 66).”

What is seemingly a metaphor was taken far too literally by communist leaders all around the world, including Stalin and Mao Zedong. Marx’s reference to an economic transition ended up being an excuse for centuries of inexcusable genocides.

The infamous Mao Zedong

Though, ironically, the above reference has almost no connection to the following discussion of communist violence in Bengal. I think it has everything to do with the greed and intoxication of power, more than anything else.The lethal communist violence had been surging in West Bengal since the early 1970s, way before the Communist Party of India came to power.

The March 1970 incident of Sainbari runs a chill down the spine every time one thinks about it. Two brothers who were Congress leaders in the district of Burdwan were murdered. But that is not where the brutality ended. The CPI-M cadres responsible, then forced the mother of the Sain brothers to eat rice that was drenched in the blood of her own sons. A teacher who had come to their place on that unfortunate day was also killed and later the cadres had taken procession of the whole house. The mother of the slain brothers had degraded to a state of mental imbalance till her death a decade later. So the look of astonishment on the faces of elders were justified as they saw Buddhadeb Bhattacharya and Rahul Gandhi sharing the same garland (ironically) before the polls this year. It seemed that they either don’t remember their history too well or aren't bother much about it.

In 1982, 17 Ananda Margi monks were charred to death  and many others were severely injured, on their way to an educational conference at the Tiljala centre. They were pulled out of their taxis on Bijon Setu and set on fire alive by CPI-M cadres. It was a follow-up act on a string of attacks on the Marga starting from 1967 where 5 monks were murdered in the institution headquarters in Purulia. What do the CPI-M party owe their angst against the Ananda Marga? Because ideologically they oppose communism and follow what is known as neo-humanism. Though ideally, they are also against capitalism, the violence against the Ananda Margis was something that the then ruling party felt strongly about. After the incident, a mandatory inquiry commission was set up but nothing further happened to deliver proper justice. No report of action, not even a single hearing. Instead in their defence, party candidates said that the whole attack was framed by the Margis themselves to vandalise the government. Then Chief Minister Jyoti Basu was quoted infamously saying, “What can be done? Such things do happen”.

The independence war of Bangladesh induced a steady inflow of refugees until 1978. The refugee policy changed drastically just at the whim of a government after the communist party came to power in 1977. Even though no government assistance was sought but only the permission to settle on the lands of the Union of India, the still-struggling refugees and the inflowing ones in the area of Marichjhapi in the Sunderban terrains faced an economic blockade. Little children died of green diarrhoea due to lack of drinking water. There were also cases of  abduction and molestation with the ruling party cadres and officials. Then one morning of January 1979 saw tear gas and bullets fired by the government forces claiming a number of lives – a number still unknown since many bodies disappeared after the attack. The wounds are still afresh in the hearts of many because seeing your daughter or husband being shot and watch them die helplessly in front of your eyes is not something that someone forgets. One does not forget the torture in the hands of their protector, the state.

In July, 2000, 11 Muslim labourers were mercilessly killed in Nanoor by the goons of the CPI-M party, the “harmad bahini”, because they were supporters of the opposition party. Practically without soil, they opposed the illegal encroaching of their lands. All the accused cadres in this case never faced the turmoil of a trial which was anything but accidental. Instead the ‘harmad bahini’ did only get stronger to spread terror in Bengal and use the killings as an example of the fate of anyone opposing the party.

A victim during the Nandigram violence.

A more recent history which is still fresh in our minds was the 2007 Nandigram massacre. An eleven month long struggle for survival. Tireless fighting against a government on the mission to industrialize at the cost of anything. A time that saw the death of farmers as well as the dream of progress. Villagers of 100 villages fought over 27,000 acres of land that was their sole source of living. A violent struggle for the land that Buddhadeb Bhattacharya had promised the TATA Industries for the production of Nano, without the proper consent of its inhibitors. It was a state of constant conflict and tension, an almost civil-war like situation where the Trinamool Congress found their grounds as they stood up with the people of Nandigram that protested. After an attack from about 250 CPI-M cadres, six farmers died. With ongoing protests and the farmers blocking the SEZ marked area, the government sent police forces onto the field on March 14. Unofficially the forces were accompanied by 400 CPI-M cadres and in the clash with the protesting farmers, 14 of them died according to official records though more than 100 went missing. But there was no remorse on the part of the government. Bhattacharya, the then Chief-Minister, quite surprisingly said that the protestors (farmers and TMC) had been paid back with their own coin, trying to make it all sound very justifiable. Soon enough the issue was forgotten and Nandigram became a battleground of political games which marked the beginning of the change that West Bengal would bring upon itself four years later in 2011.

Some of us thought that the Narada-Sharada scams would restore a way for the leftists into the state this time but having lived through the “sottor saal” or the “dreaded seventies”, and further on under the terrorising communist reign in Bengal, it's difficult to put your faith in a party which has been plundering basic human rights back when the social media wasn't this "cool". It's a pity that ideologies like socialism and the abolition of class demarcation have been percolated down to a one-man reign of terror. That's not what communism is, and will never be! Don't let a single party fool you. CPI(M) or the CPR are mere parties, Communism is a belief.




Article by :- Sucharita Ganguly.

The Surrealists : An Absorbing Misnomer

The Surrealists

 From the house of: The Nautanki Company

 Written and Directed by: Tejodipto Panda

 I would like to start with how the director has been smart to name the play “The Surrealists” but not mention its genre anywhere. It wasn’t mentioned during the pre production promotions or by the emcee before the play began. A smart move indeed, because that controversy can be avoided this time, unlike Mind Duck where it was clearly mentioned by the Director that it was a “theatre of the absurd”, and it was evidently not so. The audience gave mixed reviews after the show. Some said Bravo to the amount of controversial terms and matters discussed courageously while others said “it did not work for me”. And as a reviewer, that confused me even more. I am not a seasoned reviewer yet, maybe that is the reason behind the confusion. Also, if you’re looking for the plot of the play, let me remind you that I am not summarizing It for you, I am going to review it.

Personally, the play worked for me in some places and in some places it didn’t. Suramya Pushan Dasgupta and Tejodipto Panda’s chemistry was delightful on stage (already waiting for Carcinogen to be staged in July for the very same reason). The whole cast of the Tughlaq boomed on stage. Reference to a real incident of Einstein visiting a city in Bengal and not getting an audience needs to be applauded. Be it Pradipta De, Nirvan Chaudhury or Rahamat Ali or the rest – the chemistry of the court was mind blowing. But someone who unexpectedly shocked everyone in the audience was Sayantani Mukhopadhyay. And I am not talking about the correct grammar, I am talking about her powerful stage presence. From mellow to stormy – she portrayed it all. Jeshika Kedia’s portrayal of Sarah Fatima and her imitation of Little Comrade Sarah’s diction on stage was, as we put it these days, ‘on point’.

However, it felt terrible when her fellow comrade lost her voice onstage leading to loss of coordination during the slogans. The magic of the moment was stolen by that one unplanned mishap. However, it can be forgiven. Also, I must harp on the fact that the entire plotline appeared to be very disorganized at times, and certain sub-plots seemed absolutely out of place. Certain humorous plot-twists and punchlines seemed farcical and slapstick, but on the whole, the entire play did evoke a certain amount of laughter. The wonderful usage of spot lighting must be mentioned and the burst of light while exposing the real story behind Rohith Vemula’s institutional murder and the satirical rap poetry in voiceover worked wonders. Accidentally, the play moved along the lines of Third Theatre more than any other genre, which was more or less, a bit scruffy.

The reviewer only hopes that if and when The Surrealists is restaged, The Nautanki Company would sort the scenes out and play around a little more with the storyline to connect the plots – owing to the genre not being mentioned specifically as Surrealism. And if at all it is meant to be a Surreal play, one must delete the magic realism involved in the plot.

Event reported by :- Priyadarshini Mukherjee.

Pictures by :-   Syzygy Productions
                     
                        Calcutta Cacophony

                        Sourya Chakraborty.

The Batla House controversy

On the 23rd of May, Arnab Goswami on his Times Now show "The Newshour" brought sensationalised journalism to a new low by his insensitive labelling of Asad Ashraf, a journalist and a guest on his show as a 'Indian Mujahedeen sympathiser'. Asad Asharf, who worked at DNA, was called a "cover for terror outfit Indian Mujahideen" during a debate over controversial Batla House encounter by anchor Arnab Goswami.

Why?

Simply, because Ashraf is a Muslim.
The risk of being a muslim in a society divided into binary opposites based on religion proved unfavourable as Ashraf, along with a handful of other people, were branded as "attack sympathisers" and "Batla stand defenders" in a show that superficially debated the recent release of an (Islamic State) ISIS propaganda video!

The video was later removed by Times Now from their website.

The Batla House encounter officially known as "Operation Batla House", took place on 19 September 2008, against Indian Mujahideen (IM) terrorists in Batla House locality in Jamia Nagar, Delhi, in which two suspected terrorists, Atif Amin and Mohamed Sajid were killed while two other suspects Mohd Saif and Zeeshan were arrested, while one accused Ariz Khan managed to escape. Encounter specialist and Delhi Police inspector Mohan Chand Sharma, who led the police action was also killed during the incident. The encounter led to arrest of a number of local people, leading to widespread allegations and protests by political parties, civil society groups, activists, especially teachers and students of the Jamia Millia University. Several political organizations like the Samajwadi Party and Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) demanded a judicial enquiry into the encounter, in the Parliament, as "new versions" of the encounter, started appearing in the newspapers. Subsequently, on the Delhi High Court 's directive on 21 May 2009, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in its 22 July report cleared the police of any violations of rights.Public speculations and debate however continued.

A debate was held at Times Now channel after a ISIS video surfaced featuring an alleged Batla House encounter terrorist who managed to escape. “Where are the sympathisers of Batla House encounter?” asked Arnab Goswami. Journalist Asad Ashraf, who has been reluctant to accept Batla House encounter as a genuine encounter in the light of several discrepancies and loopholes in the police version of it, was invited to discuss on the issue.

The following is Asad's personal take on that particular situation and the present state of journalism as a whole:
“As I sit to write this piece, images from the day Arnab Goswami called me a 'cover for the Indian Mujahideen' in his studio, return to my mind. If it's merely the thought of being called a terrorist that scares me, I wonder what it would be like for those who are implicated in cases of terrorism on false charges.”

The question that arises: Is Arnab Goswami, arguably the most well-known face of Indian TV journalism today, setting a precedent that is very dangerous for the future of this country? Even as Asad vehemently writes:

“He is teaching a whole bunch of young journalists, who follow him, not to question the narratives propounded by the state machinery, to believe every word of it and call every detractor an 'anti-national'. While in a democracy where journalism is considered the Fourth Estate, it is the duty of journalists to continue to be watchdogs.

He is bifurcating opinion into the plain binary of national and anti-national!

Someone who agrees with him is a nationalist, while others are anti-national. In the name of debate, he is actually running media trials.”

Amidst the frenzy around the release of the video and the question of its authenticity, which was also raised on the show by various participants, it is important to remember that the video itself has been taken down and is unavailable.

All Ashraf was attempting to do on the show was highlight the loopholes in the police's version of the Batla House encounter. As a journalist, I felt, he had every right to do so. He was by no means attempting to say the accused were innocent.

“The take away from the events of that day not only jolt me, but also present a very grim picture of the time in which we are living. Journalism, once a respected profession has become a tool of hoop-la into the hands of certain promoters who use it as a mechanism to build public opinion and manufacture consent.” He further stated.

The absurdity of a situation, wherein Goswami calls Asad “a sympathiser of the Islamic State” and “a cover for the Indian Mujahideen”  just because he pondered over certain loopholes in the police version of the Batla House encounter strikes a poignant chord at the face of secular journalism.



Furthermore, Asad argues that “what must have really annoyed Arnab is the fact that I not only questioned the authenticity of the encounter, but also the video - that was supposedly released by the Islamic State - featuring one of the 'absconders' of the Batla House encounter. And that this came mere months after Arnab allegedly played doctored videos of JNU students on his show must have hit him where it hurts the most.” Playing at the role of a media man for seeking the truth Asad exemplifies that  “…as a journalist, with an acumen for investigation, Arnab should not only have agreed with me but should have also tried to investigate whether that video was at all genuine.But on the contrary, I was asked by him that if it was a 'fancy-dress competition'?Why not? It could have been a fancy-dress competition - a bit like hoax calls. Don't we have hoax calls about bombs being planted?

Did the video undergo forensic examination before being aired on Arnab's Newshour and becoming a matter of debate?”

On the other end, Tasleem Rahmani of the All-India Muslim Council pointed out how even the employees of Times Now were not sure about the authenticity of that video as they ran the ticker, '#BatlamaninISIS' below the screen followed by a question mark.
“But logic ceases to exist when it confronts Arnab Goswami on his Newshour show.
And what replaces it seems to be pure rhetoric woven into allegations and accusations.”, vents an infuriated Asad.

What is more shocking and ultimately threatening is the fate of the media and journalism in this nation, as exposed by the show.
The debate exposed two kind of journalism at play.
Goswami’s brand of journalism, which is both fed by and feeds on viewer ratings, is of screaming at others and tautology. He invites people less for conducting a debate and more for pillorying them with condemnations and accusations, and not allowing them the courtesy of defending themselves.
The moot question remains that will Goswami's brand of journalism be able to subdue the voice of reason and silence Ashraf's journalism, which merely wanted to open the debate up and question rather than claim?


- Ahona Das

Happy Birthday or HBD : How cryptic is too cryptic?

"Wake up sleepy heads", said Snow White as she shoved the morning curtains away. There were seven of them: Doc, Grumpy, Happy, Sleepy, Bashful, Sneezy, Dopey. Deep in the velveteen woods, they dug mines, came home for tea and muffins and danced all night to country music, round the fireplace.
Life was simple!
Somewhere along the same woods among the forest vines, the floral belt got 'curioser-and-curioser' as they spotted something strange for the first time:
"Do you suppose she's a wild flower?", they whispered to each other, as Alice made her way through the bowers and hedges.

In a parallel universe, swapping time and space, we snore off on our boring ebooks and wake up not to 'sunshine and birdsong' but tablet screen glare and alarm beeps.
First thing in the morning, before I brush my teeth, check the five text messages from BAE:
{Before any one(thing) else right?!}

'But why not say that out aloud? Yes, the whole thing?'
-''Jeez man, you gotta be kiddin' cz who's got so much time anyway?!''

Yeah, right. No we don't have time.

By my front porch there's a little garden and I see the white rabbit darting past with his stopclock.
No time at all! So somewhere between toasts and omelettes I text my BAE a bright 'Gd mrng/G8 mrn/Gdmg" with just a dash of HAND (that's ''Have A Nice Day''for you) sure to cheer him up. In a world of cryptic word game, we bump into each other between 'SUP' and 'BRB', 'LOL'-ing our way through '2DAY' and '2MORROW' in waves of virtual small talk and banter despite the pangs of LTNS. (Long Time No See)

With the growing use of CMC or Computer-mediated-communication and texting,the use of word play, contractions and acronyms seems to be changing the course of the English language forever. The use of mobile phones and telecommunication has been one of the runaway successes of the twenty first century. But the question arises if the increased use of shorthand acronyms have affected the way we use the language? And if it has, for better or for worse? Ironically, although high school teachers have been raising alarms for the "death of grammar" for quite a while now, the speed at which instant messaging takes place makes 'typos' and cryptic 'shorthands' common, even as we let each other get away with them because we know what they mean. In doing so, texts messages often range from heightened levels of ambiguity as one can observe from the example that follows:

A: I MU M8. LTNS. HRU?
B: OH, I'M FINE. I MU 2.
HOWZ UR SIS?
A: MY SIS IS OK. SHE IS ON A D8 2DAY.
B: I C. DAT'S GR8. IT'S GETTING L8. I SHUD GO. I'LL C U LTR. MYB 2MORROW?
A: OK. HAND. CUL.

The picture that evolves is essentially that of a lazy custom of language use, that is at the same time rapid, ambiguous and hard to decipher. The duality between 'between' and 'by the way' is another example of this apparent ambiguity as they use the same contractions of btw. Some texting terms have even made it into common parlance: 'lol' (laugh out loud), 'omg' (oh my god), pls (please). The craze for shortening words, absorbed from texting, is also changing how we speak- 'amaze' for amazing, 'totes' for totally, 'blates' for blatantly: these are all largely teenage usages that are becoming mainstream. But does this mean it's turning us all into inarticulate blobs? We hope not!

A classic example of language laziness we face in our everyday lives or at least once every year, presents itself in the garb of Happy Birthday (HBD!) messages or posts on one's Facebook wall. What escapes me is the ultimate languidness and denial to budge a few more keys in your keypad to write the whole sentence.
Why wish somebody if you don't want to anyway?

"Sees it's your birthday on Facebook"
-'HBD'
"CAUSE AIN'T NOBODY GOT TIME FOR THAT!!"

Even as Memes like these take the online world by storm, do we change? Not really. The average individual gets 6 out of 10 HBDs as their birthday wishes; Bless the dear friends and cousins for the remaining four!

In a world that is fast becoming more and more brief and terse, where :) is easier than pulling a real smile and CTN (Can't Talk Now) an excuse for social detachment where do we see ourselves heading? How do you see a world where such cryptic forms take absolute shapes?
Is it just another one of those underlying dilemmas of a language evolution? Or is it a contagious language-laziness that characterizes the modern youth? Or more poignantly, is it a sign of drying up of earnestness, closure and emotional levels, even as we communicate amongst our closest ones? In a world where 'Tender Love and Care' only comes in fast-typed 'TLC's, 'GJ' (Good Job) doesn't seem so good, and 'IKR' doesn't mean anything (why of course I know that you know, that's why I tagged you in the first place!) aren't we burning our own hammocks in pushing people away with codified acronyms and dry small talk?


Article by :- Ahona Das.