Desicritics Section: Media

The Facebook Breast Feeding Controversy

Aditi Nadkarni — Sat, 3 Jan 2009 22:56:34 EST

In present times, freedom of speech and expression have turned into somewhat of a joke. Unfortunately, while freedom is universal, intelligence, a sense of responsibility and propriety are not. Time and again, debates have been stirred up by this constant struggle to define and balance freedom of expression especially in America where one can find ample examples of abused freedom in both the real world and the virtual world. A recent debate involves protests against Facebook taking down pictures of mothers breastfeeding.

Facebook says it has clearly outlined on its website what the terms of acceptability are for profile and album pictures on the website and has duly taken down pictures after complaints from members. Orkut is comparatively lax I have noticed and so are Orkut (desi) users. Although Orkut explicitly states that pictures of celebrities and copyrighted images are not to be used, so many Orkut users have pictures of movie stars up as profile pictures. A third of the girls on Orkut are Aishwaryas, Kajols and Ranis.

That is just plain annoying and despite of how much we all want annoyances pronounced illegal, it cannot be done. However, I wonder what I would think if someone on my friend's list uploaded a picture of themselves breastfeeding. I wouldn't find it obscene but maybe it is a cultural thing that it would make me pause to wonder why a mom would put up a baby-feeding activity involving her bare breast up on such a public forum. I must admit, I would speculate on the intentions of the woman and I would worry about who may be looking at such pictures. I am not a mother but I am a woman. My personal opinion is that breastfeeding is a personal time between a mother and a baby. Having pictures of that taken and put up on such a public forum is confusing to me.

I watched on Yahoo's video section, an interview with the woman who started a community on Facebook protesting their taking down breastfeeding pictures. The community is called: "Hey Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene". I agree with the title of the community but I personally do not believe Facebook's actions suggest that that breastfeeding itself is obscene. Putting up pictures of breastfeeding on a public community, though, is another story. There are teens on Facebook who won't exactly look at the pictures and go "Aww, look how cute. Mom feeding baby! That is so beautiful."

No. A more likely scenario would involve teen boys, high-fiving, giggling and taking unhealthy pleasure in ogling at a partially exposed breast. During her interview, the creator of this community launched into a detailed explanation of how even with proper "latching on" by the baby, parts of the nipple and the aureole are visible and women whose aureole is visible should still be allowed to put up their breastfeeding pictures. I kid you not. She actually said all this much to my discomfort. Mind you, my embarrassment was not at the subject matter of discussion but at how far away from the point this woman was drifting in her far fetched rationalizations. She then explained how breastfeeding is normal and therefore pictures of the activity should not be deemed as vulgar content. I agree. The problem is I can almost imagine another girl in some other part of the world using this very logic to justify why pictures of masturbation too should be allowed on Facebook. After all, masturbation too is a normal activity.

What about breast exams? And childbirth? All these are normal activities that one should not look at as vulgar or shameful. Should pictures of all these be allowed on public forums? Where does the freedom end and the violation begin? Where is the line? I want to ask these mothers a question: My friend's thirteen year old son is on Facebook. As moms you must know that just a picture on Facebook is not an appropriate introduction to breast feeding for a 13 year old boy. So how does Facebook protect your right to put up pictures of yourself breastfeeding and his fragile psyche all at once?

Movie Review: Gh-aaa-jini - The Tale in 15 Minutes

thedeskjockey — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 04:01:05 EST

I've got a splitting headache...no no, it isn't the 2 glasses of wine or the Himesh Reshammiya album that I listened to. It probably is the jarring crescendo everytime Aamir Khan's socket popping eyes appear on screen...every 15 minutes. I mean thats a hard life isn't it? Here we are, trying to live down our past and forget that time when we left our zip open in front of that gal we were trying to impress...or the time when we got drunk in the office party and puked on the dance floor...sheesh, I'd like to sign up for that anterobabblefrothgulpgulpgrade amnesia please. The things I usually do in life are not worth remembering 15 minutes later anyway.

Not the case for Mr. Sanjay Singhania though. He runs a business empire, falls in love with sickly sweet common girl named Kalpana (can't resist the "agar tum Kalpana ki chaddi pehnoge..." PJs) who can do no sin which, apparently what her real name means, and gets socked on the head because no-sin girl pokes her nose in titular bad-guy's dirty business. And then he goes on a killing spree to get to bad guy, rebooting every 15 minutes like an old laptop with an irritating virus. And that essentially is the gist of the story...which looks and sounds like any old Sunny Deol movie we've seen minus all the cockroach stomping dancing and plus a new medical term for us to remember (apart from Tendulkar's tennis elbow and Rajesh Khanna's lymphosarcoma of the intestine) and a finely rippled Aamir who looks like he also took a dose of steroids every 15 minutes apart from the numerous polaroids and notes.

There is something to be said about the whole saga though. I mean we don't get a lot of movies titled after the bad guy. Kill Bill was one such movie where Mr. Bill lives upto the hype when he finally appears on screen. Ghajini, by the by, I thought initially meant elephant...you know like to remind us of the elephant in the room when no-sin and crazy-tycoon were doing their frolicking. But it apparently comes with an incredible back story (thankfully, not part of the movie) with an unexpected twist on a name...but I digress. Mr. Ghajini, though, ain't no Bill. He is the hackneyed Bihari/Haryanvi goonda with "terror-inducing" lines like "Aaee Saale, main tuhje khatam kar dunga", which actually is less scary than watching Aamir Khan scream. He is also rather inexplicably, the head of a pharmaceutical company. This may be the first time when we have seen the effects of recession been shown on screen with the head of a company supplementing his income by human trafficking.

The one effect of this, that lasts longer than 15 minutes is the feeling that this is not an Aamir Khan movie. The finesse and class associated with his previous movies is just not there. It feels more like a huge ego trip for the actor where he matches the other Khans in body and the Deols in brute force.

And caught in the middle is poor ol' me...looking for a Disprin, which ironically claims to cure this headache in...wait for it....15 minutes.

TV Review: Ridiculous Roadies

Hardik Ruparel — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:20:02 EST

Well, first off, I don't watch the show MTV Roadies, and I would advise any sane person not to. But, some months back, I did happen to stumble upon some audition-episodes of MTV Roadies on my college LAN. I will say without any doubts, it was the moment when I was most ashamed to be an Indian.

The Indian adaptation of the American show Road Rules portrays India's youth in such a bad light, that I actually had to reassure some foreign friends that all Indian youth are not so ridiculously dumb.

The show is now hosted by two alien looking bald men, who are twins and look freakishly alike, wear the same clothes and have the same facial hairstyle (God they're identical twins Duh ! Sorry my brain was kinda impeded after watching a Roadies video on YouTube). They take every opportunity to show how they have absolutely no respect for anyone. They say their interviews are deliberately acrimonious so they can test whether the interviewee is a True Roadie. Now that's the most ridiculous piece of crap I've ever heard in my life.

One of the baldies talks too much. And when it's a girl in the opposite chair, he takes every advantage to know everything about the intimate side of her. Of course, our Miss Roadie is raunchily dressed to "press" home the advantage, and has so forgotten what her parents and teachers taught her (or did they ?).
He jumps on every double meaning word uttered, and shows how big a pervert he really is, and all he wants is just adultery. He makes sure every girl admits she's kissed another girl. And when she so deliberately does admit, or lets it slip out, just watch the glint in his eye ( and his head ? ). You can see the satisfaction. All the hard work he put in to ask those shameless questions. Where else would he get his daily dough ?

That's what this show is about.If this show was anything about biking, at least he would've asked something about their experience of riding a bike. But nahh.. who cares about bikes.. There's a half clad female in front of him who'll do "anything" to be a roadie, why let this chance slip ? Eh ?

And by the way, if you want to bike.. Just go to the damn shop. Buy a bike and ride the bike.. Why do you have to go to any audition of any kind to ride a bike ? Just rename the show MTV Come-and-talk-about-your-sex-life. That's what the interviews are about.

If the candidate is a guy, of course he's got to have a girl friend, otherwise why bother interviewing ? Righto ?

I'm just glad so many people find this show ridiculous. I remember the JAM Magazine article carrying a spoof on Roadies, where the Chinappa guy is referred to as mango-head. I swear his head looks like a mango ! Is that why they changed the co-host ?

Anyway, enough of digressions, If you've never seen this show.. Keep up the good work. And if you want to, why bother ? If you really want skin show then just put on FTV or just pop in the latest adult movie you borrowed! Why bother watching a group of young people destroying their lives and wasting their time over something so ridiculous that even my dead pet dog would've crapped over.

It's really shameful of MTV to even start this show. The concept is not bad, but the execution is in a totally different direction. The average Indian viewer gets his skin-show dose from other channels. So why bother starting this show ?

Also, the judges' capacity to analyze people is completely zero. They say that he is boring. Wait. What's so exciting about two bald perverts ? Guess what guys ? You're never going to tap the potential of the Indian youth like this. Roadies is one of the worst things to happen to India, leave alone Indian media. They go on to say "You're coming up against the best in the world !" .. What ? A bunch of idiotic looking boys and girls who bitch about each other is the best in the world. Maybe ! If he is talking about the world of donkeys !

I just pray God blesses the Indian youth with some common sense.
There's another one called "Splitsvilla" or something. I don't know what's it about and I'm glad.

Ignorance is Bliss.

Arnab Goswami on Times Now

Manoj Khatri — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 05:38:33 EST

Ever since the Mumbai terror attacks, I have been watching the prime time 9pm show almost every night on Times Now. Arnab Goswami ropes in eminent individuals from India and Pakistan and an interesting battle of words ensues between diplomats and politicians from both nations. So far I have liked how Arnab has conducted the interviews and managed the show. Except one thing: I find difficult to understand is why Arnab goes overboard when it comes to Pakistan’s reaction. Each time Pakistan denies involvement, Arnab emphatically asks the Pakistani guests on his show to explain why their country is doing so. How can the Pakistan government completely disown the terror attacks in spite of pressure from US, UK, EU and UN?

Is it so difficult to understand? I think it’s predictable and we shouldn’t be surprised at all. I reckon that no democratically elected government can ever admit that its country harbours terrorists, whatever the evidence. Moreover, Pakistan’s current government is not really calling the shots. Trying the get them to react the way India wants is a folly. Pakistan’s political compulsions are much more severe, what with ISI, the army, the Taliban, the Al Qaeda, the Lashkar, and the separatists—all pulling its already weak strings.

The Trap Terrorists Have Laid For India and Pakistan

Manoj Khatri — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 14:59:45 EST

After the Mumbai terror attacks, both Indian and Pakistani media have been busy. The TV news channels anchors, radio jockeys, newspapers and magazine columnists and even the common folk are expressing their views, mostly biased. Everyone has an opinion on how the crisis should be handled. Have a look at the views expressed through mobile text messages and flashed TV on news channel tickers. Opinions and advice such as "India should strike Pakistan", or "Let's show them our might" are not uncommon.

I wonder if individuals who talk about attacking Pakistan understand what it really means to go to war. Besides, if India strikes Pakistan, it would've played straight into the hands of the terrorists.

The terror organizations want India to strike against Pakistan so that even the moderate Pakistanis turn against India. When a country goes go war, the people of that country just come together to back the country. The mere talk of an Indian strike has triggered a huge reaction from the Pakistani media. I dread to think that the master terrorists must be rejoicing at their victory. By carrying out the Mumbai carnage, they have ensured enough free advertising for their cause. They have also managed to get Pakistan to divert all its attention to the Indian border so that there is free flow at the Afghanistan border, which serves them very well.

The human race cannot afford a war between two nuclear states. Nothing good can come out of it. The master terrorists, who planned the Mumbai attacks, laid a master trap. Both India and Pakistan seem to have fallen into the trap so easily. Seems like the terrorists have succeeded in their agenda...

Movie Review: Ghajini

Aaman Lamba — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 23:21:41 EST

Directors remaking their own films is not a new phenomenon. Michael Haneke remade Funny Games, Robert Rodriguez converted El Mariachi to Desperado, the Ju-on franchise seems to have entered cookie-cutter mode, Alfred Hitchcock recreated The Man Who Knew Too Much, and long ago, Cecil B deMille took another take at the Ten Commandments. This is often to reach a different audience, as with Haneke's remake that was directed to American viewers. It could also be because the director feels the original material was flawed in some way, and is looking for a do-over. Often, the director has matured in his career, and the later version can be compared with the earlier, but only as if were by another person.

The motivations for the Hindi remake of Ghajini by A.R. Murgadoss are perhaps to extend the dramatic success of his Tamil version to the Hindi audience. He neglects, however, to translate Tamil film sensibilities to those one might expect from a Hindi Bollywood thriller. This is acceptable when a film is dubbed, as with Roja. It creates a dissonance for viewers in the present case, however, as we have over-the-top villains, extreme close-up photography, and an unrelenting assault of violence which does not significantly extend the plot.

There is added slickness in the lead character's role, as Aamir reprises the role portrayed by Surya in the Tamil version, yet, he pushes the film too far in his own direction, making the roles of the complementary characters more props than in the original. Despite Asin playing the same role as before, she is somehow less able to portray the model, first uplifted into a high profile romance with a suave telecom entrepreneur, and then wannabe whistleblower. The larger-than-life villain, Ghajini, played by Pradeep Singh Rawat, with his band of henchmen, corrupt corporate practices, and cliched one-liners, is more able to fill his white shoes (and the screen). The inexplicable transformation of the entrepreneur to Max Payne must be put down to the magic of the camera, which makes simple employees of Punjab Power win Bollywood dance competitions.

The other thing about the film that's over-the-top is the publicity. Aamir Khan seems to have taken earlier criticism of downbeat promotions to heart. This time he spares no channel in his assault on the viewer's senses, from posters to hairdressers. This should help juice initial returns, but viewers are not likely to return, and once they give away the only ending the film has, the rush might slow to a trickle.

Perhaps, the director might be then inspired to remake another of his potboiler thrillers.

Movie Review: Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi

Nishit — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:44:54 EST

There is a sense of irony with Shahrukh Khan. You, as a director, can't let Shahrukh Khan be "Shahrukh Khan" if you want to extract performance from him. "Shahrukh Khan" can be all mushy. He can sulk for the whole movie if you want him to. He can flow through the role easily. and that's the Shahrukh people flood the theatres to watch, but that's the "Shahrukh" we are tired of watching, because practically there is no difference between Raj of DDLJ, Rahul of Dil to Pagal hai or Aman of Kal Ho Naa Ho. On the other hand, if you are adept at it, you can get Mohan Bhargava (Swades) or Amjad Ali Khan(Hey Ram) out of him, but with the exception of Chak De India that doesn't go too well with boxoffice. So Aditya Chopra, after 8 long years of deliberation, probably decided to have his cake and eat it too.

Surinder (Shahrukh Khan) is your typical first-bench-sitting, specs-wearing, dull topper, who is now working with Punjab Power. You can't help but smirk when he picks up the phone to greet "Punjab Power. Lighting up your lives" where as a matter of fact, he himself could do with some lighting up himself or how suitable the headline of the newspaper "Living in the fear" applies to him. He knows affection for sure, but does not know what love is as he has not even talked to any "ladies" in his life. He works hard to make life easy for his reluctant wife Taani, who has been through series of accidents in no time. You feel for Surinder or Suri's sincerity and honesty, even his little gestures of affection. He is the underdog you want to win, but that's clearly not what his wife desires.

Enter Raj. He is combination of all the previous Shahrukh Khans you have seen in your life what with "Raj... naam to suna hoga" and all those hand-swooshing gestures. He is someone who is meant to sweep-the-girl-off-her-feet, but you fail to understand whether he is himself or parody of himself. As the movie unfolds, I found myself asking the same question which the little annoying girl next to me kept asking to her parents through out the movie, "kya ho gaya?" and by the end of the movie, you, as audience, have lost the sense of the purpose, you no longer know what you actually want to happen with mess that has been created or rather you no longer care. As most of the characters in the movie do, you leave rest of the things to the Rab(God) to solve.

You fail to go along with the character of Shahrukh Khan. He begins with good intension of just making her happy, but it's incomprehensible as to how he expects Taani to love her husband when in fact Raj is doing all the work. Also the ease with which Suri fits into the character of Raj leaves you wondering what would be the befitting word? Schizophrenic or alter-ego or masochistic? Parodying themselves seems to be the flavour of the season for YRF and SRK. First Om Shanti Om, then Dostana, now this. Sure it's funny when Raj hums the tune of Dhoom or Taani does a John Abraham, but they are on the verge of overdoing it. Although to the credit of Aditya Chopra no hariyale khet, sarson da saag, makke di roti for this one. Thanks for that!!

Shahrukh Khan proves he is, for good or for bad, as the cliche goes, "director's actor". Otherwise how do you explain a perfectly restrained and lovable portrayal of Surinder and at the same time straight-from-previous-movies, annoying, repetitive portrayal of Raj in the same movie? Anushka Sharma almost fits the mould of a YRF heroine. Vinay Pathak as Bobby Khosla is decent as over-the-top-fashion sidekick of Suri.

If this is what Aditya Chopra came out of exile for after eight years, he better go back to it again.

Slumdog Millionaire Nominated for Best Picture at Golden Globes

smallsquirrel — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:35:11 EST

I realize that the film Slumdog Millionaire has not been released world-wide yet, so I will try not to divulge too much in this piece. But I warn you now, there are bound to be spoilers, so if you're going to get angry about learning about plot twists and such, stop reading now.

Directed by Danny Boyle (of Trainspotting and 28 Days Later fame) and based on a book by Vikas Swaroop, this film is set in present day Mumbai and follows one Jamal Malik through a series of life events that truly could only happen in India.

To call this film brilliant would be both an understatement and taking the easy road. This is a complicated film. And although a lot of people are watching it and praising it, I am not sure they GET it.

Jamal is your average slum-dwelling Mumbaiker. His childhood is fraught with things children should not have to think about or endure. He eventually becomes a street kid, along with his brother and a girl named Latika, and the three of them struggle to make life work. The movie focuses on what happens to all three of them as life goes on.

I will be honest with you. I watched this movie on Thanksgiving weekend, smack in the middle of the Mumbai "situation". I thought it would do both my husband and I to go and see a movie about Mumbai in better times. Whoa. Bad call. Honestly, 30 minutes into the movie, both of us were in tears and struggling to stay in our seats. Brilliant does not always translate into easy to stomach, and we had already maxed out on human suffering and the depravity that some people can sink to.

The issue for us was that the film pinpoints (and then focuses on) many of the negative aspects one can find in India, including: extreme poverty, religious violence, police brutality, exploitation of children, organized crime, violence against women, violence against children, torture, rape, coercion, caste issues, and the list goes on.

What the film doesn't do is highlight the positive aspect of India. Which is fine. This is meant to be one story, and is not responsible for representing the full picture of India. However, when seeing only the negative, it all becomes overwhelming. A bit raw. And this seems to be the bit that is sticking with many non-desis that I have talked to.

"Is India really like that?"
"Did you see any of that?"
"Oh my GOD how did you cope?"

Well, yes and no. Yes. And the answer is not that easy. I saw it but I did not experience it. And as most of us know, while India can be raw and horrifying and all the negative things I mentioned above do happen in India. But it certainly is not the complete picture. India has so much beauty, history, love, warmth, compassion. But this is not a story about those things. And that is alright.

This film has to be among the best-made films I have ever seen. Boyle did not attempt to get any licenses to film in Mumbai, and so many scenes in the film are shot "guerrilla" style. There is even a shot of a real cop telling them to stop filming which has been left in.

It is also an interesting marriage of styles. Boyle is a Brit, but much of the dialog is in Hindi. The soundtrack is by film music giant A.R. Rahman, and much of the cast and crew for production are local Mumbaikers.

None of the leads are very well known. The guy who plays Jamal is Dev Patel who is on a British serial. His brother Salim is played by Madhur Mittal, who has been in some other Bollywood movies, but is not really well known either. And the woman who plays Latika used to be a model. Of course, there are some big names in the supporting cast such as Irrfan Khan and Anil Kapoor.

I would highly recommend this film to everyone. Just do not go to it thinking you're going to get some happy, joyful, feel-good movie. It is a slice of one life, somewhat disturbing, but ending with a message that I think we can all get behind. Oh, and one very tongue-in-cheek nod to a typical Bollywood dance number.

Mumbai - Does the Media Decide our Response?

Abhinandan Mishra — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:24:51 EST

After the 26-11 siege of Mumbai ended, the post mortem going into the conduct of the electronic media during the whole sixty hours of operation began to surface.

There are two thought processes which have gained wind as we move more into analyzing the media coverage of the whole incident. The first one says that the media did its duty in a commendable way and the second one which also has equal followers, says that they were inherently biased. Even in that time of 'War on India' as they described it, they were not able to move away from the magnetic force of TRPs.

The first notion is out there in the open for anyone to judge. We all were glued to the TV, we watched every second of the operation. And we can all make out what was happening.

The second one though needs to be elaborated. The terrorists before being surrounded in the Taj and the Trident caused mayhem at the CST railway station. But none of the media personnel were present at the CST to bring out the details of those who died. Some people will attribute this to the great socio-economic difference that separates someone walking in the Taj and someone at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus

The other reason which comes into mind is that perhaps at CST the action was already over, those who had to die, were dead. The marauders had moved to the Taj. I can well imagine that an editor instructing his reporters, for obvious reasons, would have told his crew to focus on Taj where the action was still unfolding.

As we watched in disbelief, reporters and camera persons waited for hours, ducked for cover whenever a blast occurred as they brought out the real picture to us. Even if nothing was happening, the news-anchor, would move to the reporter on-site and ask him to update on the current situation. While people were searching for their dead ones at the CST, the media continued its focus on Taj.

According to those who were entrusted with the job of bringing out the news, Taj was a more visible face of Mumbai, known to the world, visited by the 'elites'. Is not CST a part of Mumbai? I am sure that the ordinary Mumbaikars have spent more hours in and around CST then they have in Taj.

In the midst of all this, the idea of unbiased reporting was forgotten. Also lost was the sense of empathy and compassion. Perhaps overtaken by other materialistic considerations.

Questions about how long will the Taj be shut, who will renovate it, will MF Hussain's painting don the walls again, will the guests be able to forget 26-11 once they enter Taj - many such questions were asked. But not even a single question about who died in CST was ever heard.

The who's who of the electronic media, seasoned journalists, and veteran editors found themselves moving with the more vibrant side of the whole incident.

It was not an operation that got over in matter of minutes or a couple of hours, but as we all know, it lasted sixty hours. Taking every practical consideration, the networking with the authorities, the sound bytes, the updates, Sixty hours was more than enough for one to focus on CST and VT Hospital. Only if they wanted to.

In one of the articles that appeared in the Washington Post after the Mumbai attacks, the writer has emphasized this very disparity, which even in such testing times, failed to corrode. The article talks about the serial blasts in the Mumbai trains that took place more than 2 years ago and says that since it affected the common people, the media sensitiveness was subdued. Even we as common citizens were subdued, no candle light protest, no 'awaken India'.

Have we started perceiving things as projected by the media? Does the media's response decide our response?

Was 26-11 more deadly than 11-07 just because the electronic media thought it that way?

India as we all know has more number of the poor and the voiceless. And it is always unfortunate that it is the rich and the vociferous, however less in number, get the attention. 26-11 was no different.

In an open letter, one of the journalists who has been in the line of fire, says that "Surely, India has bigger lessons to learn and larger points to mull over, than to expend energy over which television journalist tops the charts or falls to the bottom."

I sincerely hope that the media too has learnt its part of the chapter and hopefully they will practice what they preach and see the bigger picture.

But then it has never been about the common Indian. Or is it?

There Is No Sun Shining Through

Varun P — Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:35:51 EST

Listening to Metallica's Unforgiven, I am struck by these lines:

There is no sun shining through..

There is no sun shining.....

Looking at the current state of affairs in India, to an outsider it would certainly seem so. 2008, which began with a lot of promises, has failed to live up to any. he Sensex, which was promising much at the beginning of the year, instead crashed all hopes, declining by almost 60% since attaining the peak of 21k in January 2008. If this weren't enough, the US economy collapsed (the technical term is "entered into a recession"), dragging the entire world down with it. Growth slowed, banks failed and then disaster struck Uncle Sam -- banks filing for bankruptcy and growing unemployment were but a few problems faced by the US.

This for the world scenario. On the home front, India was battling inflation while witnessing the meltdown of realty stocks and financial firms (darlings of the stock markets in the years gone by). When the realization finally dawned that this crisis was far from over - in fact, it was worse than the Great Depression of the 1930s - the US Government stepped in with bailout packages, rate cuts and special plans to try and revive a sagging economy. The net result: still more collapses, more banks and firms going to their respective governments, hats in hand seeking more aids, investor's confidence continued to erode! Oil prices, which had scaled a historic high of $147 a barrel in July 2008, slipped and then went into a tailspin and finally a free fall -- oil prices were $43 a barrel in today's trading! And oh did I mention the governments of Iceland, Ukraine, Pakistan and Hungary that approached the World Bank / international Monetary Fund for a cash infusion to rescue their stalling economies?

In between this mayhem, a black man (who was not even born in America) was chosen as the President of the United States of America. The world cheered -- amidst this darkness, the success of Barack Obama was seen as the spark, the miracle the world was waiting for. Suddenly, people had hope - countries woke up from their stupor, took a realistic look around and declared that the world would be back on the growth path -- and out of this financial crisis-induced mess -- within 18 months! This was followed by coordinated rate cuts across the globe and stimulus packages (on the lines of the U.S. Government's) in a bid to revive the economy and prevent it from slipping into a period of stagflation or even worse, a recession.

Just when all seemed to be going well, terror struck. From Delhi to Malegaon to the heart of India's financial capital, terrorists of all kinds -- from the jihadis to the Hindu Zionists -- played havoc! And of course, the crown of all attacks go to the planners of the attack on Mumbai -- well planned, even better executed! They stuck to their tasks and their mandates unlike our politicians. It certainly seemed like there was no sun shining through...

However, the attack on Mumbai touched too many raw nerves and for once, the governments decided to act unitedly. Diplomatic pressure was the mantra of the day and within 2 weeks of India's version of 7/11, the Pakistan government agreed to crack down on the non-state players that were using its territories to launch acts of terrors on foreign lands. I will not bore you with the details, but here is the concerned press release.

And only yesterday, on December 7, 2008, the Indian Government announced several measures, including duty and rate cuts and a stimulus package exceeding Rs. 32,000 crore to achieve our GDP growth target of 7% for 2008. Suddenly, you can sense some hope in the air. But whether it will stay or how long will this hope last are the questions doing the round in my head. Do you have the answer? I invite you to share your opinion here.