Punjabi-isation of India? Not really.

Vir Sanghvi writes about "Punjabi-isation of India". He's partly right, but generally wrong. His premisses that Hindi cinema is influencing pop culture in a significant way, and that Hindi cinema by and large depicts Punjabi stereotypes, are valid. But his conclusion that India has become "Punjabi-ised" (as a result), does not hold. Naturally, there's nothing right or wrong about the said Punjabi (or any other) melting pot, (though I do have my personal views about such a thing). Except that it does not exist.

Interim Thoughts has a good post on this which makes some of the points I had in mind. For example, the pervasiveness of Idli and Uddina Vade. Further, although it's true that Punjabi food has made a major impact in big cities in the South, more in dinner than in lunch, Andhra meals is also quite formidable. Even if we give it to Punjabi food, it is not clear to me how much it has got to do with movies or TV. I would imagine drinking espresso based coffees or eating pizza to be more direct effects of movies or TV.

The prevalence of Punjabi food in tourist locations in Kerala or anywhere else can be explained without the so called Punjabi-isation. It is not significantly different from the non-usage of coconut oil for cooking in those places.

Hindi movies are terribly popular, but that's not all. It's amazing how popular Telugu movies are in a place like Dharwad. Telugu movies run for 100s of days regularly. Even in Belgaum, the bigger Telugu hits run for a long time!

Karva chauth or whatever it is called might be the most brilliant motif in Hindi cinema since "duniya ki koyi bhi taaqat use nahi bacha sakta", but unlike Sanghvi, I am not sure if women everywhere have started observing it suddenly. Moreover, I know of at least one ritual -- Bheemana amavaasye -- which is quite similar to Karva chauth, observed in Karnataka. Similar rituals might exist elsewhere. With respect to other festivals also, I don't think there's any significant change due either to Punjabi culture and/or movies. Probably indoor rituals and customs have reduced a bit, and outdoor activities have increased, due to the changing times.

Salwar kameez is probably the most popular dress, but saris do return during ceremonies. On the other hand, trousers stay.

All that aside, one of the more direct influences of Hindi movies that I have seen in (some parts of) the South is the taking in of Hindi words for relationships. The increasing usage of funny words such as "bhabhi", "devar", "jeeju" etc. in lieu of age old local equivalents is definitely a direct effect of Hindi movies. However, this is more likely a 'Barajatya effect' than a 'Johar-Chopra' Punjabi effect. This is significant because this has extended beyond big cities, and it has invaded households. This is unlike most other effects which can be seen mostly in big cities and outside of the family. You can find young men and women in a place like Gokak inserting these terms quite naturally in their otherwise unadulterated Kannada.

The point is that memes are running along in all directions. Even the trivial, and pretty annoying ones like the Kannada verb maaDi, (ex: enjoy maaDi, relax maaDi), being used by Hindi speaking folks all over Bangalore.

While it is quite annoying to see the Raj Malhotras and the Rahul Singhanias of the world singing, dancing, oye-hoying and generally making merry all the time, I am sure there is much more to Punjabi pop culture than that, let alone Indian pop culture.

Hazaron Khwahishen Aisi

Hazaron Khwahishen Aisi is exceptional cinema. It truly is. There are not many movies that offer a glimpse of the historical context of this huge and complex beast called India. You don't often come across a movie in India that tries to capture the ethos of a time, a place or a people. Not in the modern times anyway, when cinema is by and large unambitious.

The 60's and 70's were important periods of time world over. It is that period that the movie sets out to talk about eventually reaching the mega event called Indian Emergency. In a sense, the movie is a tribute to the ideologies, lifestyle, dreams, successes and failures, of that period. And, of course, the inevitabilities of India.

I had heard about it a few times, but saw it only a few days ago. More power to Sudhir Mishra and his ilk. More power to the artists, especially Shiney Ahuja and Chitrangada Singh. If you haven't seen the movie, I highly recommend it.

12 Angry Men

For people who like arguments, 12 Angry Men is a must watch. It has everything that real arguments have: calm rationality; intense stupidity; ad hominem; dubious logic; prejudices; personal biases; indecision; shifting burden of proof; the powerful notion of "beyond reasonable doubt"; sympathetic considerations; and a lot of confusion. Eventually, sanity does prevail, but not before the unfolding of not only the arguments, but also the true natures of the arguers.

A black and white movie made in 1951, by debutant Sidney Lumet, based on a 1947 play of the same name by Reginald Rose. What stands out is the way the director has created a powerful movie that has a very simple storyline, with the minimal use of techniques. In fact, of the 96 minutes that the movie spans, only a couple of minutes of the action happens outside a small room. The rest of the movie occurs in a small jury room where 12 jurors sit around a table and debate over a case. With hardly any background score, the movie makes a very effective use of the natural sounds that the people in the room are making -- fragmented chin-wag, coughing, sighs of perspiring people. A very careful use of the camera also adds to the intensity.

They have to decide whether an 18 year latino boy from a lower class neighbourhood, who has allegedly murdered his father, is guilty or not guilty. The judge requires them to come to an unanimous decision either way. The evidences against the boy are so strong that, the jury thinks it is an open and shut case. So, this is a futile exercise which should get over in a minute. However, to everyone else's dismay, one of the jury members does not vote "guilty". One against eleven. He is childed as to how come he sees something that the 11 of them don't. He only says may be he is wrong, but "I just want to talk." He cannot put someone on an electric chair without even talking about the matter.

Around the table you have a variety of people: an architect, who does not know whether he believes the boy's version or not, but wants to be considerate; an old bigot who thinks everyone in such neighbourhoods is evil; another loud mouth who seems to have a personal vengeance because his own son had stranded him; a salesman who is always indecisive; another man who is apathetic to the whole proceedings, who just wants to reach one conclusion or the other quickly lest he misses a baseball match; a dispassionate, rational accountant, though not very considerate, has a mind open enough to see "reasonable doubt"; and so on. The movie then is much about the unfolding of the case as the unfolding of the different backgrounds, natures, beliefs and failings of the 12 people, who form a cross section of the society, in that sweltering room. They need to fight over not only the details of the case, but also fight their own inner "demons" before everything starts making sense again.

A very powerful movie. Please watch it, if you haven't already.