Cafe Pyala: Some Thoughts on Imran Khan's Dharna

Cafe Pyala: Some Thoughts on Imran Khan's Dharna: "I have been greatly amused by some of the speculation around the reasons for our blog being untended for the past couple of weeks. Unfortuna..."

Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior

A lot of people wonder how Chinese parents raise such stereotypically successful kids. They wonder what these parents do to produce so many math whizzes and music prodigies, what it's like inside the family, and whether they could do it too. Well, I can tell them, because I've done it. Here are some things my daughters, Sophia and Louisa, were never allowed to do:

View Full Image

Erin Patrice O'Brien for The Wall Street Journal

Amy Chua with her daughters, Louisa and Sophia, at their home in New Haven, Conn.

• attend a sleepover

• have a playdate

• be in a school play

• complain about not being in a school play

• watch TV or play computer games

• choose their own extracurricular activities

• get any grade less than an A

• not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama

• play any instrument other than the piano or violin

• not play the piano or violin.

I'm using the term "Chinese mother" loosely. I know some Korean, Indian, Jamaican, Irish and Ghanaian parents who qualify too. Conversely, I know some mothers of Chinese heritage, almost always born in the West, who are not Chinese mothers, by choice or otherwise. I'm also using the term "Western parents" loosely. Western parents come in all varieties.

Ideas Market

The Tiger Mother Responds to Readers

Chua's Daughter Sophia Explains What Life isReally With her 'Tiger Mom'

An Asian Father's GIft: Permission to Fail

Ms. Chua answers questions from Journal readers who wrote in to the Ideas Market blog.

All the same, even when Western parents think they're being strict, they usually don't come close to being Chinese mothers. For example, my Western friends who consider themselves strict make their children practice their instruments 30 minutes every day. An hour at most. For a Chinese mother, the first hour is the easy part. It's hours two and three that get tough.

When it comes to parenting, the Chinese seem to produce children who display academic excellence, musical mastery and professional success - or so the stereotype goes. WSJ's Christina Tsuei speaks to two moms raised by Chinese immigrants who share what it was like growing up and how they hope to raise their children.

More Parenting Videos

Teaching Math to Spark Creative Thinking

Can Bilingualism Make Preschoolers Smarter?

Despite our squeamishness about cultural stereotypes, there are tons of studies out there showing marked and quantifiable differences between Chinese and Westerners when it comes to parenting. In one study of 50 Western American mothers and 48 Chinese immigrant mothers, almost 70% of the Western mothers said either that "stressing academic success is not good for children" or that "parents need to foster the idea that learning is fun." By contrast, roughly 0% of the Chinese mothers felt the same way. Instead, the vast majority of the Chinese mothers said that they believe their children can be "the best" students, that "academic achievement reflects successful parenting," and that if children did not excel at school then there was "a problem" and parents "were not doing their job." Other studies indicate that compared to Western parents, Chinese parents spend approximately 10 times as long every day drilling academic activities with their children. By contrast, Western kids are more likely to participate in sports teams.

Journal Community

What Chinese parents understand is that nothing is fun until you're good at it. To get good at anything you have to work, and children on their own never want to work, which is why it is crucial to override their preferences. This often requires fortitude on the part of the parents because the child will resist; things are always hardest at the beginning, which is where Western parents tend to give up. But if done properly, the Chinese strategy produces a virtuous circle. Tenacious practice, practice, practice is crucial for excellence; rote repetition is underrated in America. Once a child starts to excel at something—whether it's math, piano, pitching or ballet—he or she gets praise, admiration and satisfaction. This builds confidence and makes the once not-fun activity fun. This in turn makes it easier for the parent to get the child to work even more.

Chinese parents can get away with things that Western parents can't. Once when I was young—maybe more than once—when I was extremely disrespectful to my mother, my father angrily called me "garbage" in our native Hokkien dialect. It worked really well. I felt terrible and deeply ashamed of what I had done. But it didn't damage my self-esteem or anything like that. I knew exactly how highly he thought of me. I didn't actually think I was worthless or feel like a piece of garbage.

View Full Image

Chua family

From Ms. Chua's album: 'Mean me with Lulu in hotel room... with score taped to TV!'

As an adult, I once did the same thing to Sophia, calling her garbage in English when she acted extremely disrespectfully toward me. When I mentioned that I had done this at a dinner party, I was immediately ostracized. One guest named Marcy got so upset she broke down in tears and had to leave early. My friend Susan, the host, tried to rehabilitate me with the remaining guests.

The fact is that Chinese parents can do things that would seem unimaginable—even legally actionable—to Westerners. Chinese mothers can say to their daughters, "Hey fatty—lose some weight." By contrast, Western parents have to tiptoe around the issue, talking in terms of "health" and never ever mentioning the f-word, and their kids still end up in therapy for eating disorders and negative self-image. (I also once heard a Western father toast his adult daughter by calling her "beautiful and incredibly competent." She later told me that made her feel like garbage.)

Chinese parents can order their kids to get straight As. Western parents can only ask their kids to try their best. Chinese parents can say, "You're lazy. All your classmates are getting ahead of you." By contrast, Western parents have to struggle with their own conflicted feelings about achievement, and try to persuade themselves that they're not disappointed about how their kids turned out.

I've thought long and hard about how Chinese parents can get away with what they do. I think there are three big differences between the Chinese and Western parental mind-sets.

Chua family

Newborn Amy Chua in her mother's arms, a year after her parents arrived in the U.S.

First, I've noticed that Western parents are extremely anxious about their children's self-esteem. They worry about how their children will feel if they fail at something, and they constantly try to reassure their children about how good they are notwithstanding a mediocre performance on a test or at a recital. In other words, Western parents are concerned about their children's psyches. Chinese parents aren't. They assume strength, not fragility, and as a result they behave very differently.

For example, if a child comes home with an A-minus on a test, a Western parent will most likely praise the child. The Chinese mother will gasp in horror and ask what went wrong. If the child comes home with a B on the test, some Western parents will still praise the child. Other Western parents will sit their child down and express disapproval, but they will be careful not to make their child feel inadequate or insecure, and they will not call their child "stupid," "worthless" or "a disgrace." Privately, the Western parents may worry that their child does not test well or have aptitude in the subject or that there is something wrong with the curriculum and possibly the whole school. If the child's grades do not improve, they may eventually schedule a meeting with the school principal to challenge the way the subject is being taught or to call into question the teacher's credentials.

If a Chinese child gets a B—which would never happen—there would first be a screaming, hair-tearing explosion. The devastated Chinese mother would then get dozens, maybe hundreds of practice tests and work through them with her child for as long as it takes to get the grade up to an A.

Chinese parents demand perfect grades because they believe that their child can get them. If their child doesn't get them, the Chinese parent assumes it's because the child didn't work hard enough. That's why the solution to substandard performance is always to excoriate, punish and shame the child. The Chinese parent believes that their child will be strong enough to take the shaming and to improve from it. (And when Chinese kids do excel, there is plenty of ego-inflating parental praise lavished in the privacy of the home.)

View Full Image

Chua family

Sophia playing at Carnegie Hall in 2007.

Second, Chinese parents believe that their kids owe them everything. The reason for this is a little unclear, but it's probably a combination of Confucian filial piety and the fact that the parents have sacrificed and done so much for their children. (And it's true that Chinese mothers get in the trenches, putting in long grueling hours personally tutoring, training, interrogating and spying on their kids.) Anyway, the understanding is that Chinese children must spend their lives repaying their parents by obeying them and making them proud.

By contrast, I don't think most Westerners have the same view of children being permanently indebted to their parents. My husband, Jed, actually has the opposite view. "Children don't choose their parents," he once said to me. "They don't even choose to be born. It's parents who foist life on their kids, so it's the parents' responsibility to provide for them. Kids don't owe their parents anything. Their duty will be to their own kids." This strikes me as a terrible deal for the Western parent.

Third, Chinese parents believe that they know what is best for their children and therefore override all of their children's own desires and preferences. That's why Chinese daughters can't have boyfriends in high school and why Chinese kids can't go to sleepaway camp. It's also why no Chinese kid would ever dare say to their mother, "I got a part in the school play! I'm Villager Number Six. I'll have to stay after school for rehearsal every day from 3:00 to 7:00, and I'll also need a ride on weekends." God help any Chinese kid who tried that one.

Don't get me wrong: It's not that Chinese parents don't care about their children. Just the opposite. They would give up anything for their children. It's just an entirely different parenting model.

Read More

• A Cartoonist on Tiger Parenthood
• In China, Not All Practice Tough Love
• The Juggle: Are U.S. Parents Too Soft?

Here's a story in favor of coercion, Chinese-style. Lulu was about 7, still playing two instruments, and working on a piano piece called "The Little White Donkey" by the French composer Jacques Ibert. The piece is really cute—you can just imagine a little donkey ambling along a country road with its master—but it's also incredibly difficult for young players because the two hands have to keep schizophrenically different rhythms.

Lulu couldn't do it. We worked on it nonstop for a week, drilling each of her hands separately, over and over. But whenever we tried putting the hands together, one always morphed into the other, and everything fell apart. Finally, the day before her lesson, Lulu announced in exasperation that she was giving up and stomped off.

"Get back to the piano now," I ordered.

"You can't make me."

"Oh yes, I can."

Back at the piano, Lulu made me pay. She punched, thrashed and kicked. She grabbed the music score and tore it to shreds. I taped the score back together and encased it in a plastic shield so that it could never be destroyed again. Then I hauled Lulu's dollhouse to the car and told her I'd donate it to the Salvation Army piece by piece if she didn't have "The Little White Donkey" perfect by the next day. When Lulu said, "I thought you were going to the Salvation Army, why are you still here?" I threatened her with no lunch, no dinner, no Christmas or Hanukkah presents, no birthday parties for two, three, four years. When she still kept playing it wrong, I told her she was purposely working herself into a frenzy because she was secretly afraid she couldn't do it. I told her to stop being lazy, cowardly, self-indulgent and pathetic.

Jed took me aside. He told me to stop insulting Lulu—which I wasn't even doing, I was just motivating her—and that he didn't think threatening Lulu was helpful. Also, he said, maybe Lulu really just couldn't do the technique—perhaps she didn't have the coordination yet—had I considered that possibility?

"You just don't believe in her," I accused.

"That's ridiculous," Jed said scornfully. "Of course I do."

"Sophia could play the piece when she was this age."

"But Lulu and Sophia are different people," Jed pointed out.

"Oh no, not this," I said, rolling my eyes. "Everyone is special in their special own way," I mimicked sarcastically. "Even losers are special in their own special way. Well don't worry, you don't have to lift a finger. I'm willing to put in as long as it takes, and I'm happy to be the one hated. And you can be the one they adore because you make them pancakes and take them to Yankees games."

I rolled up my sleeves and went back to Lulu. I used every weapon and tactic I could think of. We worked right through dinner into the night, and I wouldn't let Lulu get up, not for water, not even to go to the bathroom. The house became a war zone, and I lost my voice yelling, but still there seemed to be only negative progress, and even I began to have doubts.

Then, out of the blue, Lulu did it. Her hands suddenly came together—her right and left hands each doing their own imperturbable thing—just like that.

Lulu realized it the same time I did. I held my breath. She tried it tentatively again. Then she played it more confidently and faster, and still the rhythm held. A moment later, she was beaming.

"Mommy, look—it's easy!" After that, she wanted to play the piece over and over and wouldn't leave the piano. That night, she came to sleep in my bed, and we snuggled and hugged, cracking each other up. When she performed "The Little White Donkey" at a recital a few weeks later, parents came up to me and said, "What a perfect piece for Lulu—it's so spunky and soher."

Journal Community

• DISCUSS

“

I am in disbelief after reading this article.

”

—James Post

Even Jed gave me credit for that one. Western parents worry a lot about their children's self-esteem. But as a parent, one of the worst things you can do for your child's self-esteem is to let them give up. On the flip side, there's nothing better for building confidence than learning you can do something you thought you couldn't.

There are all these new books out there portraying Asian mothers as scheming, callous, overdriven people indifferent to their kids' true interests. For their part, many Chinese secretly believe that they care more about their children and are willing to sacrifice much more for them than Westerners, who seem perfectly content to let their children turn out badly. I think it's a misunderstanding on both sides. All decent parents want to do what's best for their children. The Chinese just have a totally different idea of how to do that.

Western parents try to respect their children's individuality, encouraging them to pursue their true passions, supporting their choices, and providing positive reinforcement and a nurturing environment. By contrast, the Chinese believe that the best way to protect their children is by preparing them for the future, letting them see what they're capable of, and arming them with skills, work habits and inner confidence that no one can ever take away.

By Amy Chua

U.S. Schools Are Still Ahead—Way Ahead

America has an inferiority complex about its education system. You hear the sirens every year, when the OECD Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)releases its annual test results. Finland, South Korea, and Singapore usually come out on top; we start blaming our K-12 teachers for not teaching enough mathematics and science; we begin worrying about the millions of engineers and scientists China and India graduate.

This year the big surprise was that Shanghai garnered first place in the PISA rankings. Then The Wall Street Journalran a story on the home page of its website titled "Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior." The Journal article claimed that Chinese (and Korean, Indian, etc.) parents raise "stereotypically successful kids"—math whizzes and music prodigies. They do this by not allowing their children to attend sleepovers; have a playdate; be in a school play; complain about not being in a school play; watch TV or play computer games; choose their own extracurricular activities; get any grade less than an A; not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama. The article went on to recount as typical a series of acts that would be considered child abuse in the U.S. (and aren't the norm in India and China).

The Journal article was simply bizarre, yet it is true that education in China and India is very challenging and fiercely competitive. Children are brought up to believe that education is everything, that it will make the difference between success and starvation. So from their early years they work long and hard. Most of their childhood is spent memorizing books on advanced subjects.

AMERICAN STEREOTYPES

Meanwhile, the perception is that American children live a relatively easy life and coast their way through school. They don't do any more homework than they have to; they spend an extraordinary amount of time playing games, socializing on the Internet, text-messaging each other; they work part time to pay for their schooling and social habits. And they party. A lot. These stereotypes worry many Americans. They believe the American education system puts the country at a great disadvantage. But this is far from true.

The independence and social skills American children develop give them a huge advantage when they join the workforce. They learn to experiment, challenge norms, and take risks. They can think for themselves, and they can innovate. This is why America remains the world leader in innovation; why Chinese and Indians invest their life savings to send their children to expensive U.S. schools when they can. India and China are changing, and as the next generations of students become like American ones, they too are beginning to innovate. So far, their education systems have held them back.

My research team at Duke looked in depth at the engineering education of China and India. Wedocumented that these countries now graduate four to seven times as many engineers as does the U.S.The quality of these engineers, however, is so poor that most are not fit to work as engineers; their system of rote learning handicaps those who do get jobs, so it takes two to three years for them to achieve the same productivity as fresh American graduates.As a result, significant proportions of China's engineering graduates end up working on factory floors and Indian industry has to spend large sums of money retraining its employees. After four or five years in the workforce, Indians do become innovative and produce, overall, at the same quality as Americans, but they lose a valuable two to three years in their retraining.

RANKINGS RECONSIDERED

And then there is the matter of the PISA rankings that supposedly show the U.S. trailing the rest of the world. Hal Salzman, a professor at Rutgers' John J. Heidrich Center for Workforce Development, debunked myths about these in a May 2008 article in Nature magazine. Salzman noted that international tests use different sampling criteria from country to country, so we're not always comparing apples to apples. As well, the tests compare select populations of small countries such as Singapore and Finland, which each have about 5 million people, with the U.S., which has 310 million. These countries achieve the top rankings on the PISA list. Compare these countries to similar-sized U.S. states, however, and you find that some of those states, including Massachusetts (population 6.5 million), produce the top students. Additionally, we're comparing America's diverse population—which includes disadvantaged minorities and unskilled immigrants with little education—with the homogeneous populations of countries like Finland, Japan, and New Zealand.

Much is made of the PISA test scores and rankings, but the international differences are actually quite small. Most of the U.S. ranking lags are not even statistically significant. The U.S. falls in the second rank on some measures and into the first on others. It produces more highest-performing students in science and reading than any other country does; in mathematics, it is second only to Japan. Moreover, one has to ask what the test results actually mean in the real world. Do high PISA rankings make students more likely to invent the next iPad? Google (GOOG)? I don't think so.

Let's keep improving our education system and focus, in particular, on disadvantaged groups. Education is the future of our nation. But let's get over our inferiority complex. America is second to none. Rather than in mastery of facts learned by rote and great numbers of accomplished martinets, its strength lies in the diversity and innovation that arise in an open, creative society.

By Vivek Wadhwa

Catharsis For Lost Souls

If one takes a moment of "life pertinent matters" ( sarcasm intended ), such as one's career, job appraisal, love life, possible marriage, plans for the weekend etc. the study of the anonymous faces in city are enough to build the whole gamut of human emotions. There are times you can't help but build story of each soul and realize either the enormity of trivial nature of your existence or priorities, most often it is the latter. It is city of paradoxes. While it is financial capital of the nation, it also has some of the largest slum dwellers in the world. All classes interact with each other seamlessly. City is truly in your face and its naked in its absolutely abysmal living conditions for a large majority or the show of wealth from the elitists or "rising middle class". While one can hope for creating this romantic illusion with the city i.e being city of dreams or ambitions etc. ( which I don't buy ) which attracts millions to its shores every years , but there is certainly something that distinguishes it from others.

For a majority of Indian cinema audiences, films as a medium are essentially their only resort for entertainment which inherently implies escapism. With both Husband and Wife usually working for 5 days a week carrying almost inhuman burden of work pressures, there is little scope for the tired souls except a visit to local mall and catch any film that can distract them of their "boring" lives for 2-3 hours. Their expectations are not any different from a child being taken to local circus. Expect the child to get distracted and bored during the show if instead of the pyrotechnics from the trapeze players or any other stunt driven moves, he is getting an anecdote from the Clown. With cinema in India, it is no different. The audiences want to be transported into a different space preferably a more comfortable one. They want to be told how to feel and they invariably want to feel good at the end of the film. In this climate of very limited expectations from the medium, comes a movie like "Dhobi Ghaat" which tells you a story without a plot ( 3 part structure ), without a necessarily "happy ending" in traditional sense, without the usual pomp and reverence that only the elite in this country enjoy, but just snippets from intersecting lives of 4 people

Without giving anything away from the film, we meet Arun ( Aamir Khan ) an ambiguous, reticent, awkward, cynical and probably bored painter who has lost motivation for his work. This struggle with his work also impacts his relationships especially with certain Shai ( Monica Dogra ), an NRI, who returns to India on a "sabbatical" to discover the city. After one intense encounter, both seem to be reconciling and gauging their emotions from different view points. Then there is Munna ( Pratik Babbar ) who works at Dhobi Ghaat during day, works out ( exercises ) at night (among other things ) and nurtures ambitions in the film industry. He is also connected to the above two characters. Yasmin ( Kriti Malhotra ) through whom Arun and we as audience rediscover the city in all its beauty, brutality and innocence.

Reasons to watch the film : - 1) The cinematography, especially some of hand held shots, the still shots of the Mumbaikars at work. Director Kiran Rao shows great clarity, conviction and control with every frame. One is reminded of the great works of Wong Kar Wai. 2) The movie is shot on actual locations. Now, for most this might seem like a trivial comment, but it is an incredibly arduous task to shoot in the crowded locations especially with star like Aamir Khan whose presence could cause a stampeded at most places in India. It is very important to capture the places in all its chaos to capture the vibrancy of the city cutting through different classes of people that reside in the city. 3) Absolutely haunting score by Gustavo Santaolalla ( of Brokeback Mountain fame ). Like any great Soundtrack, it never overwhelms the scene but underlines the essence and lingers in our mind long after you left the theater. 4) Performances by the entire cast especially a Kriti Malhotra. She is not an actor by profession which works for the film with "raw" and "innocent" nature of her performance.

I can't think of many better debuts in recent times than this one by Kiran Rao. There were so many times I was pinching myself "Am I really watching an Indian film!!". She shows great courage and maturity with her first film. There is lot to admire in her especially the subtlety and mis- en-scenes which makes the characters even more endearing. Not much is said "literally", but much of it is implied. This is her love letter to City of Mumbai. It is also not an overtly "flattering" one, but honest embracing the city in all its fallacies. She also seems to have a stamp on every frame in the film, which reminds me a bit of one of my other favourites Sofia Coppola. Both dealt with themes of loneliness and longing in such honest and tender way. The movie isn't without flaws. The love angle between Prateik and Monica is somewhat dragged. Aamir Khan is competent, but his star power almost works against the absolute polar opposite nature of character.

I am not sure what it will do for Indian cinema. I am not even sure if another movie like this will ever get made. I do not share the romantic notions of the city as the director, atleast as of now. But one can't help but admire the courage the debutant director in trusting the audience's intelligence and patience. Considering the response of the audience in the theater, can't say her trust was justified with such uber insightful comments such as "Itna Slow kyon hai", "Kuch story nahin hai", "Aamir Khan ke naam pe chewtiya banaya" and "Yamla Pagla Deewana jaate the yaar". Knowing how the medium has been whored in this country all these comments are perfectly understandable.

Sublime Filmmaking

The title of the film "Assassination of Jesse James by Coward Robert Ford" says almost everything about the film, almost. But what it doesn't say is that Jesse James gets assassinated or murdered more than once. Jesse James embodied this larger than life Robinhood figure who was a criminal by the very definition of it and a cold blooded killer when he had to be one, but also by some accounts a committed family man who generously distributed the usurped wealth to the needy. Now, this perception may or may not be tenable, but it certainly appeals to a primal aspect of most human beings who strive for that contradiction of winning, ruthlessness, courage and fame, yet want this image of kindness, generosity and some inherent sense of righteousness. All this becomes even more aspirational when the state has failed for the people. James's folklore image could be a product of some of these factors.

Robert Ford ( Casey Affleck ) was a product of the times, a young 20 year old smitten by the image of James, collects every possible piece of literature mystifying the glamorous outlaw as he and his brother join the gang. His "fascination" with Jesse is akin to comic book fanatic idolizing his super hero, except maybe Ford had a certain innate infatuation which maybe not all would share. You want to believe that the ideal you idolize is real. There is something pure about it, not obscured by the ambiguous ideas of morality or decency. But the image is castigated when it confronts reality. This is where Jesse James gets murdered many times over in Ford's mind. As he watches, James sit alone and awkward as his brother leaves, as he sees James despondent with the failed train robbery, as James becomes increasingly paranoid, insecure and moody during his final days. But more importantly, Ford feels neglected by Jesse or not appreciated enough. Maybe all those conversation he had in his mind with Jesse as he explains to him the 12 things he had in common with him did not go according to plan when it actually materializes.

Every encounter with Jesse probably killed some part of him in Ford's mind, which by his own confession "he lost some curiosity over the years" and as he conveys to his brother of his motive to kill James "He is just a human being". I bet part of Ford also died during this time since all he wanted to do or be was Jesse James "You want to be like me or you want to be me". All the players in this dance of death were doomed from the beginning. Jesse James was in his final few days reviewing his life, trying to protect his family or cut off the possible trails but losing his peace of mind. By the end, he just wanted to be put out of his misery. Better to die as a mystical hero betrayed by one of his own which will only enhance the legacy than be caught and reduced to a trial of an average Joe. Ford had committed the act even before he pulled the trigger, Jesse was no longer the same for him. However, what he probably did not foresee, was that people still held James as the Robinhood figure and he would antagonizing them all, leading to his own end. Probably, he too wanted to end his misery, since he would only be the guy who killed Jesse James, nothing more. I feel for for him.

Andrew Dominik is one of the great talents of modern cinema who exploded on the scene with "Chopper", another story of a glamorous criminal although told in completely different tone. By his own admission he wanted to make the film, in a Terrence Mallick narrative with greater focus on tone, on images, on time and space. The film is contemplative and meditative. You can see the characters journey to the point they have to they were meant to. I shudder to think that there has been over evocative and sublime cinematography in recent years as one by Roger Deakins here. The Train Robbery sequence, as the light strikes through the dark frame reflecting from the surrounding trees will be the legacy of this great film. And lastly the score is haunting and evocative like the images almost transporting you in time amidst the snow clad mountains.



One of my all time favorites.

Groundhog Day :- Review

Often you hear the adage, "It is just a film". Well, for most times it is true. But on rarest of rare occasions, it isn't. This is one of them. Like a great piece literature, painting, poetry, speech it has the capacity to change the way you feel and think. It is the biggest compliment I can pay to a film.

It is anything but a preachy film as the "intro" to the review might suggest. In fact it an extremely entertaining and funny film with one of the best performances ever by Bill Murray. The plot revolves around a weather man (Bill Murray) is reluctantly sent to cover a story about a weather forecasting "rat" (as he calls it). This is his fourth year on the story, and he makes no effort to hide his frustration. On awaking the 'following' day he discovers that it's Groundhog Day again, and again, and again. First he uses this to his advantage, then comes the realization that he is doomed to spend the rest of eternity in the same place, seeing the same people do the same thing every day.

The challenge here for the makers was in terms of screenplay, editing and performances. Bear in mind that, the "loops" Bill Murray's character goes through, might become redundant for the audience after a while. This is where the genius of Harold Ramis and Bill Murray comes into play, who seem to introduce some "novelty" factor with every shot of the same sequence. I couldn't think of any actor other than Murray who could have pulled this one off.

It is a movie likely to deceive you in its effortless narrative and casual comic tone. Yes, it is funny, but make no mistake about it, it is a film with a strong philosophical undertone. This is a quality that separates Groundhog from rest of the movies with similar intent. It tells you what it intends to on your terms. It deals with the questions that bother us for a better part of our lives i.e. meaning of life, purpose of life, existentialism, death, god but never preaches, nor propels any propaganda. But by the end of it, you know that something has changed, something you didn't see coming has happened. And then you watch it again only to realize the moment of Epiphany that eluded you the first time.

Every time I am down or losing perspective this is the movie that eases everything and makes me ask a simple question, "What is important?", "Am I living the same day over and over again?". If answer is affirmative for too long, then something needs to change. It really is the most basic philosophical question which most of us fail to confront. Knowing that you are dying everyday, what can be the possible meaning to life ? What can we do to make it bigger than what it is ? Lot of the times the answers are a lot simpler to these questions, maybe not convinient.

One of the absolute great films of the 90s, but more than just a film for me.

Here is the trailer

Deconstructing Miss Roy.

There are few matters on which I have been unable to arrive at instant judgement. There have been matters that I have taken positions on only to revert later. However, with Miss Roy there is this peculiar element that she brings to the table which has in the past put some doubt as to where she stands or where I stand in relation to it. Is she is the Indian version of Noam chomsky trying to restore the rights of poor and the weak from the elitists who have continued to scour this country at the cost of majority who continue to survive in sub human conditions while the part of the country where India is shining is celebrating CWG medals ? or is she attention whore who would stoop to any level in her public discourse to maintain here anti India narrative which keeps her as an interesting prospect both for national and international media for different reasons.

Lately, regrettably, the opinion has swayed comprehensively towards the latter. Now, before anyone jumps on me for being a hardline nationalist, let me make it perfectly clear that I am no fan of Indian govt. and consider myself to be the one of the biggest critics of democracy as it is practised in India. So, it is not Miss Roy's anti-India rant per se that is troubling. It is the fact that she has not shown any more flexibility than Osama Bin Laden with her opinions. So, there might be times I might agree with her like I agree with Bin Laden when he talks about concerns of Global Warming. But the crux of the issue is whether a "fundamentalist" or a hardliner can ever be or should ever be taken seriously. Do they have any role in meaningful discussions ? Here is where you have to detach the opinions from the person who is giving it to understand where exactly is this person's modus operandi.

Miss Arundhati doesn't necessarily like to be on the left or the right of any discussions. She prefers the top from where she can have a "bird's eye" view and slur oall players involved. Take for instance: Mumbai attacks . Even the most hardline cynics would not have even remotely thought of Kashmir when the 26/11 attack took place, but Roy with her uncanny consistency saw a connection between Military action in Kashmir to justify 26/11. She will very conviniently not comment on the role of Pakistan, the insurgency and the terrorism, the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits. She will shae stage with a certain Pro Pakistani seperatist who has unequivocally stated that he wants to impose Sharia law in Kashmir. Why? This is where we come to the Osama analogy, it doesn't fit here anti-India narrative.

Again here response after the massacre at Dantewada. One can site case after case of the blatant that the delusional chomskians are doing yet missing out on the most important principle that Chomsky believed in "Truth". She will not talk of the be-headings or the children kidnapped from the tribal areas or the villagers threatened by the Maoists. Why ? Because their missions alligns with hers, i.e. undermining and overthrow of the Indian state. She will come out and make a statement a knee jerk reactionary statement like this which immidiately rules out any reasonable intellectual discussion and reduces it to a shouting contest "I write this from Srinagar, Kashmir. This morning's papers say that I may be arrested on charges of sedition for what I have said at recent public meetings on Kashmir. I said what millions of people here say every day. I said what I, as well as other commentators have written and said for years. Anybody who cares to read the transcripts of my speeches will see that they were fundamentally a call for justice. I spoke about justice for the people of Kashmir who live under one of the most brutal military occupations in the world; for Kashmiri Pandits who live out the tragedy of having been driven out of their homeland; for Dalit soldiers killed in Kashmir whose graves I visited on garbage heaps in their villages in Cuddalore; for the Indian poor who pay the price of this occupation in material ways and who are now learning to live in the terror of what is becoming a police state."

So how do we deal with her ? The problem is that she does not fit within the usual image of a hardliner or extremist that we associate with. She is relatively rich, she is outspoken, she is eloquent, she is "booker" award winner which adds more weight to her portfolio and she has some important friends abroad who will magify her voice and reach. I think the best way is to ignore her. It is a test of democracy to handle elements which ar undermining its unity and integrity without stooping to the same levels. I also believe the recent news of action or FIR goes against the idea of free speech. Also, any kind of jail time would be exactly what the attention whore will look forward. If anything we have learnt from our neighbours, there is no substitute to playing a victim. It is ironic though that the democracy Miss Roy shuns is same one which is protecting her to right to free speech, considering that she would have been jailed under US sedition act, 1918.

Finally, to the media, grow up already. I know 24 hours are hard to kill but given a chance Congress will provide enough scams to keep everyone engaged. I know talking about a lunatic can make for some provocative discussions and better ratings. But please, ask yourself, would you give the same leverage to Osama if he makes some anti-US statements. Am I calling Miss Roy a terrorist ? No. But she is a fundamentalist and I reiterate they have no role is any meaningful dicussion or solution.