Past all the confusion with LARRA

Guys, I know you have been muddled with what's going on with the land acquisition bill... So here it is

Here's what has changed and what has been kept unchanged: 

Removal of consent clause and Social ImpactAssessment

The government has amended Section 10(A) of the Act to expand sectors where assessment and consent will not be required. For five sectors, the consent clause has been removed. So the government or private individuals/companies will no longer need mandatory 80% consent for land acquisition in those five sectors. According to Arun Jaitley, the mandatory "consent" clause and Social Impact Assessment (SIA) will not be applicable if the land is acquired for national security, defence, rural infrastructure including electrification, industrial corridors and housing for the poor including PPP where ownership of land continues to be vested with the government.

Jaitley said that rehabilitation and resettlement packages will be available as per the new Land Acquisition act. What Jaitley didn't mention was that by omitting the social assessment part, the government in essence has got away with a very important hurdle. In the earlier law, the assessment was meant to find out how many people will be impacted. So apart from the land owner, all those who are dependent on the land also needed to be compensated. But the new ordinance ensures that only land owners will be compensated.

Also whether the land is fertile or not will also not be taken into consideration while acquiring it for these five specific sectors. Thus even if the land is extremely fertile like it was the case in Singur, it can be acquired if it fits the criterion of these five sectors, no question asked. 

'Pro-farmer step'

The government has balanced out the ordinance by including 13 so far excluded Acts under the Land Acquisition Act. It is hailed as a pro-farmer move as with this decision, rehabilitation, resettlement and compensation provisions will be applicable for the 13 existing central pieces of legislation. Till now land could be acquired under these Acts and there was no uniform central policy of rehabilitation and resettlement. 

These Acts include the Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition and Development Act 1957, the National Highways Act 1956, Land Acquisition (Mines) Act 1885,  Atomic Energy Act 1962, the Indian Tramways Act 1886, the Railways Act 1989, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958, the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act 1962 and the Damodar Valley Corporation Act 1948. The Electricity Act 2003, Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act 1952, the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act 1948 and the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act 1978 are also brought under its purview to provide higher compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement benefits to farmers whose land is being acquired.

Compensation remains the same

The compensation package remains the same. It is four times the market price for rural and and two times for urban land. The government despite pressure from various groups has decided to keep the package intact.

Mint quotes former NAC member NC Saxena who welcomes the changes made to the land acquisition act as he felt Jairam Ramesh's bill was both anti-industry and anti-farmer. 

The erstwhile bill may have had its heart in the right place, but was too rigorous, making it difficult both for industrialists and farmers. In a way, the new ordinance tries to address this problem.  

Why did the government passed the ordinance now?

The official reason given by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley is that under Section 105 of the Land Acquisition Act, a clarity was needed on what provisions apply to the aforesaid 13 legislations and it had to be done before January 1, 2015.

The political reason is that the government is looking to give a message to investors that they're trying their best to free up procedural bottlenecks which are almost a hallmark of any infrastructure investment in India. The government is looking to boost up manufacturing to make Modi's ambitious Make in India project a reality and this is a big bold step towards it. 

Congress's opposition

Congress has strongly opposed the ordinance saying anybody who is pro-farmer should raise their voice against it. But according to an Indian Express report, Haryana and Kerala wanted to remove the consent clause for PPP or bring it upto 50%. States like Assam, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh felt that the definition of affected family is too broad. 

On social impact assessment, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra and Manipur all demanded that the process be restricted to only large projects. 

Other opposition parties like JD(U), Left and AAP have strongly expressed their reservation about the ordinance. So it will be an uphill task for government to pass it in Rajya Sabha where the government is in hopeless minority without Congress's help at least. 

Thus, in a way, the government went through a broad consensus by making the changes. Now it is to be seen if they can get it passed in the parliament eventually and if the revised ordinance will indeed serve the purpose of bringing fresh investment and boost the manufacturing sector without trampling on the rights of the poor. 

Net Neutrality demystified!

Can you imagine a world with two Internets — the first a quick, smooth highway for those who pay more, and the other a slow, bumpy trail for everybody else? Would you be amenable to paying a fee to be able to stream YouTube videos at full speed or simply wait endlessly for the videos to buffer? 

In January, a US federal court struck down the “net neutrality rules” put in place by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) in 2010. The rules had been designed to prevent the nation’s largest broadband service providers from charging content companies for access to Internet “fast lanes”. The ruling allows Internet service providers (ISPs) to sell faster download speeds to the highest bidder — even if access to other websites slows to a crawl

What is it?

Net neutrality or “net neutrality” is the principle that data packets on the Internet should be moved impartially, without regard to content, destination or source. Everybody who accesses the Internet does so through an ISP.

Importance

Web activists around the world claim that now access to the Internet is a fundamental human right. Thus it is important to ensure that the Internet remains a free and open platform that promotes innovation, competition and user’s interest.

The argument

One of the most important features of the Internet and the way it grew over the years is its openness: Users can surf any site or download anything they want. ISPs did not differentiate between various kinds of content and choose who gets the best access. However, ISPs don’t want to stay neutral anymore and say this is essentially a free-enterprise issue. They argue that they provide a service and, therefore, should be able to decide how to deliver it and how they charge customers for it. As of now, content providers don’t pay different rates in accordance with the kind of content they provide. If the Internet will no longer be neutral, an ISP will give preference to those who pay more. Also, if ISPs start charging a premium to websites, you can be assured the cost will be passed on to customers.

At global level?

There are few countries that have laws regarding net neutrality. Chile was the first country to approve a law that proscribes an ISP from blocking, discriminating or restricting the right of any consumer from using, sending, receiving or offering content. Denmark passed a law recently which prohibits ISPs from charging higher fees, impeding or slowing down applications and websites. It also states that an ISP needs to get consent of the user before placing cookies on their computer, protecting the data of the user.

Trivia

The term ‘net neutrality’ was coined by Columbia law professor Tim Wu. The concept dates back to the 1800s when Almon Brown Strowger invented an automatic telephone exchange to bypass operators who redirected calls for profit.

Law in India?

India does not have a law regarding net neutrality nor has it moved towards creating one.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), in its guidelines for issuing licences for providing Unified Access Service, promotes the principle of non-discrimination but does not enforce it.

The Information Technology Act does not provide regulatory provisions relating to Internet access, and does not expressly prohibit an ISP from controlling the Internet to suit their business interests.

With the advent of 3G and the unprecedented growth of Internet users in India, the chances of networks getting clogged have become higher.

In such circumstances, it is possible that an ISP may impose certain types of premium rent on download or surfing.

66A UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Finally!

The Supreme Court, in Shreya Singhal versus Union of India, has stepped to the fore with a delightful affirmation of the value of free speech and expression, quashing, as unconstitutional, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). Section 66A had attained particular infamy after the arrests by the Mumbai police in November 2012 of two women who had expressed their displeasure at a bandh called in the wake of Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray’s death. Since then, several arrests have been made by different State police, of various individuals, for the most benign dissemination of online content.

The latest in the slew of pernicious cases reportedly booked under Section 66A was the arrest of a class 11 student in Uttar Pradesh for posting, on Facebook, “objectionable” comments apparently attributable to a State Minister. These arrests, aimed at checking even the most harmless cases of contrarianism and dissent, were made possible mostly by the sweeping content of the law. The provision, as is by now well documented, had criminalised the broadcasting of any information through a computer resource or a communication device, which was “grossly offensive” or “menacing” in character, or which, among other things, as much as caused “annoyance,” “inconvenience,” or “obstruction.” In a judgment authored by Justice R.F. Nariman, on behalf of a bench comprising himself and Justice J. Chelameswar, the Court has now declared that Section 66A is not only vague and arbitrary, but that it also “disproportionately invades the right of free speech.”

The right’s scope, the state’s space

This verdict in Shreya Singhal is a hugely important landmark in the Supreme Court’s history for many reasons. It represents a rare instance of the court adopting the extreme step of declaring a censorship law passed by Parliament as altogether illegitimate. But what’s most uplifting about the judgment is that it has explicated to us, with remarkable felicity, the scope of the right available to us to express ourselves freely, and the limited space given to the state in restraining this freedom in only the most exceptional of circumstances. In clarifying the balance between the right and its narrow constraints, the court has struck a vicious blow against the duplicitous stand taken by the state, which consistently represents the right to freedom of speech and expression as a fragile guarantee at best. As Justice Nariman’s opinion has highlighted, the liberty of thought and expression is not merely an aspirational ideal. It is also “a cardinal value that is of paramount significance under our constitutional scheme.”

Not legitimate defences

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees to citizens a right to freedom of speech and expression. The immediately succeeding clause, Article 19(2), however limits this right in allowing the state the power to impose by law reasonable restrictions in the interests, among other things, of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, public order, decency or morality, defamation, or incitement to an offence. According to the petitioners in Shreya Singhal, none of these grounds contained in Article 19(2) were capable of being invoked as legitimate defences to the validity of Section 66A of the IT Act. They also argued that the provisions of Section 66A were contrary to basic tenets of a valid criminal law in that they were too vague and incapable of precise definition, amounting therefore to a most insidious form of censorship. Further, in the petitioners’ argument, Section 66A produced a chilling effect that forced people to expurgate their speech and expressions of any form of dissent, howsoever innocuous.

The Supreme Court agreed with the petitioners on each of these arguments. According to the court, none of the grounds, which the state sought to invoke in defending the law, in this case, public order, defamation, incitement to an offence and decency or morality, each of which is contained in Article 19(2), was capable of being justifiably applied. “Any law seeking to impose a restriction on the freedom of speech can only pass muster,” wrote Justice Nariman, “if it is proximately related to any of the eight subject matters set out in Article 19(2).”

Test of danger

Crucially, in rejecting the state’s defence, the court expounded the conditions under which these restrictions could be imposed. For instance, if speech were to be limited on grounds of public order, the law placing such a constraint, the court ruled, has to satisfy a test of clear and present danger. That is any information that is disseminated must contain a tendency to imminently incite or create public disorder, and the information disseminated must be proximately linked to such disorder, for the speech to be restricted. An analogous analysis has been consistently applied by courts in the United States, and, as Justice Nariman points out, American judgments on free speech laws ought to carry “great persuasive value,” in India, since, as a matter of interpretation, the American and Indian Constitution are not as dissimilar on the guarantee of free speech rights, as is popularly believed.

On the purported justification offered by the state on grounds of defamation, incitement to an offence, and decency or morality, under Article 19(2), the Supreme Court, in Shreya Singhal, is pithily dismissive. There is, the court points out, no nexus whatsoever between the criminalisation of “grossly offensive” or “annoying” speech and the restrictions that are permitted under the Constitution, as is rather self evident.

Apart from rejecting the state’s defences under Article 19(2), the court also holds Section 66A unconstitutional for its lack of exactness. It is “obvious that expressions such as “grossly offensive” or “menacing” are so vague,” writes Justice Nariman “that there is no manageable standard by which a person can be said to have committed an offence or not to have committed an offence.” What’s more, according to the court, Section 66A also has the destructive effect of producing a chilling effect on speech in that it tends to not merely impede speech, which is potentially undemocratic, but also innocent communication. Justice Nariman gives us a few examples: “A certain section of a particular community may be grossly offended or annoyed by communications over the internet by “liberal views” – such as the emancipation of women or the abolition of the caste system or whether certain members of a non proselytizing religion should be allowed to bring persons within their fold who are otherwise outside the fold. Each one of these things may be grossly offensive, annoying, inconvenient, insulting or injurious to large sections of particular communities and would fall within the net cast by Section 66A,” he writes. Therefore, the provision, in the court’s belief, was simply indefensible; it contained no immediate nexus with any of the constitutionally sanctioned exceptions to the right to free expression.

Challenging other provisions

The judgment in Shreya Singhal however did not concern itself only with Section 66A. There were other provisions of the IT Act, Section 69A — and its concomitant rules — and Section 79, which were also challenged by the petitioners. The first accords the government the authority to block the transmission of information, including the blocking of websites, when it is necessary or expedient to do so, for among other reasons, the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence. And the second grants protection, under certain limited circumstances, to intermediaries (websites such as Facebook and YouTube, for example) for content published by individuals who use their platforms. The court struck neither of these provisions down. It found the law in both instances to contain sufficient safeguards against governmental abuse. Even if one were to consider these aspects of the decision as detrimental, in some way, to our civil liberties, any such concerns, at this juncture, ought to only represent minor quibbles.

Far too often we are deeply critical of our Supreme Court and its decisions. Indeed, the transformation that Professor Upendra Baxi referred to in the backdrop of the movement in the 1980s towards public interest litigation, when he famously remarked that the Supreme Court of India had at long last become the Supreme Court for Indians, was tragically transient. But, in quashing Section 66A, in Shreya Singhal, the Supreme Court has not only given a fresh lease of life to free speech in India, but has also performed its role as a constitutional court for Indians with considerable élan.

Justice Nariman’s judgment shows us that with the right kind of conviction, it is possible to uncover the importance of free speech as a value unto itself within our larger constitutional scheme. That the court has defended the Constitution’s ideals of tolerance with a sense of vivacity and integrity, and that it has provided the jurisprudence of free speech with an enhanced and rare clarity, must give us hope. It must allow us to believe that we can now challenge the noxious culture of censorship that pervades the Indian state. It also shows us that we do not need an American style First Amendment to achieve liberal ideals; what we require, as the court has demonstrated here, is a government that confirms to our own Constitution, which, when viewed in its finest light, affords us the right to freely express ourselves, to dissent and to oppose, to offend and to annoy, free of substantial interference from the state.

MY CHOICE. REALLY?

So, I am a snowflake and a tree and my soul roams around naked. (And unlike you ordinary mortals, I came up with that without any help from superior weed).

I am also 'infinite in every direction' (because clearly, I have not bothered to look up 'infinite' in a dictionary).

If I were married, I would live out every Charlie Sheen aspiration I secretly had and have sex with whoever I want to. I would be the one deciding if I want to have a baby or not, because who the world calls a 'husband' or a 'partner' is basically a sperm dispensing machine.

Ah, now don't come running to me with your 'Feminist of the Century' trophy. The rightful recipients of the same are Vogue magazine and the team who have now come out with a video under their 'Vogue Empower' series called "My Choice". It has been directed by filmmaker Homi Adajania and written by Kersi Khambatta, who wrote Finding Fanny.

A screengrab from the video.

Apart from a painfully gorgeous Deepika Padukone smiling beatifically at you - not even slightly discomfited by the fact that her hair is billowing mid-air like clothes hung out to dry in monsoon winds - there are apparently 99 women in the video. You could have mistaken it for a Dove commercial in black, if not for Padukone's voice-over telling us what makes an empowered woman as opposed to simply a glowing-complexioned one.

So then, what does make a truly empowered woman? Having the right to have sex whenever and with whoever? And wear whatever and return home whenever?

Where's the woman who demands equal leadership opportunities at the work place? Where's the woman who has had the guts to give up a well paying job to bring up a child? Where are the women who have chosen to work, perhaps all day as domestic helps, because they want their sons and daughters to finish their education and have different lives? The most significant choices in life have had to do with education, financial independence and the power to support our families instead of sex, clothes and staying out.

In fact, the Vogue video only speaks for a small group of women for whom education, healthcare, money are privileges they can take for granted as birthrights. But if social media is anything to go by, the video is the new Bible of feminism. "I am the universe. That is my choice," Padukone pronounces in the conclusion of the video.

Apart from making women sound a bit like that Shaktimaan villain howling 'Andhera Kayam Rahein', the video which claims to 'empower' women, sadly, does so in the language of the same patriarchy it is trying to eviscerate.

While we suspect that the video wanted to urge women to be themselves, it insinuates that all men will gang up and come in their way. Like some upholders of patriarchy would like to believe about men, this video tells you women are the real sh**. While the truth is, feminism, in its simplest definition says women and men are equal in a society, not more, not less. Just because patriarchy can treat women as possessions and accessories, feminism definitely doesn't ask you to treat the men in your life with as much respect as a television remote.

"Remember the bindi on my forehead, the ring on my finger, adding your surname to my name, they are all ornaments. They can be replaced, my love for you cannot. So treasure that," Padukone says, right after saying that it is her choice to 'love temporarily, or lust forever'.

Through the course of the video it becomes clear that it is meant to be a monologue aimed at men. An 'us' and 'them' exercise. Also, one in which it has been already determined that we are better than them. It suggests that men are inevitably at odds with choices women make in their lives.

I was 20 when I landed by first job at a newspaper desk in Kolkata. "I have to go to work at 5 in the evening and will return not before 3 am," I declared to my gobsmacked parents who were then unaware of how a newspaper office worked. "How will you stay awake?" my father muttered, before quickly scribbling down the office phone number as I rolled my eyes and waved my newly-acquired safety device - the mobile phone - at him.

At three in the morning, our bustling, talkative middle class south Kolkata neighbourhood slept in squeaky silence and the familiar walls of my house looked decidedly Hogwarts-ish with long shadows. For two long years, the father stayed up to fetch me from the office car which would not enter narrow bylanes. My mother was a teacher at a morning school and could not stay up that late. In my father's world women who held jobs worked "normal" safe hours until I came along. But he adjusted. It was a choice I didn't make alone, it's a choice we made together. And I know that's not just my father, that's many many other Indian men. And it's completely unfortunate that the Vogue video, with its black and white stereotyping, cannot understand that simple fact.

Modi's visit to Indian Ocean backyard

Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be on a three-nation trip this week which will take him to the Seychelles, Mauritius and Sri Lanka – three key Indian Ocean island nations. There were suggestions that the prime minister will be visiting Maldives as well but it was dropped from the itinerary after the arrest and incarceration of the country’s first democratically elected president and current opposition leader Mohamed Nasheed in an expression of India’s disapproval of these moves. Indian Prime Minister is likely to step up his nation’s military and civilian assistance to the Seychelles, Mauritius and Sri Lanka during his visit in an effort to balance China’s growing imprint in the region, which has built highways, power plants, and seaports in these small island nations. India envisages its role as a net security provider in the Indian Ocean region and towards that end it is providing patrol ships, surveillance radars and ocean mapping for the island states.

The visit of the Indian Prime Minister to the nation’s maritime neighbors is reflective of India’s desire to shore up its profile in the Indian Ocean region, a region long considered India’s backyard but where New Delhi’s influence has been eroding slowly but steadily. China has extended a quiet challenge to India’s preeminence in South Asia through diplomatic and aid efforts directed at the small island nations dotting the Indian Ocean. While China, Japan, South Korea and Southeast Asian nations fight over specks of islands and reefs in East and South China Sea, mainly because of undersea resources, islands in the Indian Ocean are emerging as a new focus for struggle between China and India.

China has also been busy forging special ties with island nations on India’s periphery including Sri Lanka, Seychelles and Mauritius. China’s attempt to gain a foothold in the Indian Ocean came into view in 2012 when reports emerged of an offer from Seychelles – a strategically located island nation in the Indian Ocean – to China for a base to provide relief and resupply facilities to the People’s Liberation Army Navy. Though promptly denied by Beijing, the offer underscored the changing balance of power in the region. India has traditionally been the main defense provider for Seychelles – providing armaments and training to its Peoples’ Defense Forces, or SPDF. India extended a $50 million line of credit and $25 million grant to Seychelles in 2012 in an attempt to cement strategic ties. The Indian Navy has also been making regular forays into the island nation’s surrounding waters.

During Modi’s visit, the two states will be signing a pact on mapping of the waters around the archipelago and further cementing their defense ties. In Mauritius, the Indian Prime Minister will be the chief guest at Mauritius’s National Day celebrations and will commission a 1300-tonne Indian-built patrol vessel, the Barracuda — India’s first ever export warship. New Delhi plans to supply 13 more warships to Mauritius.

Modi’s trip to Sri Lanka will be the first in 28 years by an Indian Prime Minister and it comes at a time when China’s growing presence in Sri Lanka has suffered a setback with the defeat of Mahinda Rajapaksa and the victory of Maithripala Sirisena in the presidential elections earlier this year in January. The Sirisena government has made its desire public to correct Rajapaksa’s tilt towards China and has already made some significant overtures towards India. The new President has visited India as his first trip abroad which resulted in a civil nuclear energy cooperation pact. The Sirisena government has also underlined that it would have a “different approach” than the previous Rajapaksa government which allowed a Chinese submarine to dock in Colombo in September 2014, raising heckles in New Delhi. In a move that risks diplomatic row with is largest trading partner, Sri Lanka has suspended a $1.5 billion Chinese luxury real estate project in Colombo, the biggest of several Chinese investments in Sri Lankan ports and infrastructure. Though the Sri Lankan government has suggested that the deal lacked transparency and did not meet environmental standards, India too had expressed its concerns about the project. During his visit, Modi will be addressing the Sri Lankan parliament and will be visiting several Sri Lankan cities, including Jaffna which was the de-facto capital of the LTTE till their defeat in 2009.

With the rise in the military capabilities of China and India, the two are increasingly rubbing against each other as China expands its presence in the Indian Ocean region and India makes its presence felt in East and Southeast Asia. Though Indian policymakers are now ready to acknowledge that both the South Asian and Indian Ocean regions are rapidly being shaped by the Chinese presence, the Modi government wants to push back by enhancing its diplomatic and defense presence in the regional states.

The great game of the 21st century is likely to be played out on the waters of the Indian Ocean. China has upped the ante with its ambitious $40 billion Maritime Silk Road project aimed at connecting China with communication lines in the Indian Ocean and the larger Asia-Pacific region. India is only now beginning to take this challenge seriously. The Modi government is gearing up to tackle the China challenge in India’s backyard. It remains to be seen if it will be successful in this endeavor. Modi’s trip this week will provide some important pointers.

Movie review- ROY

Today I went to watch Roy even after all the sad reviews and warnings from my friends. But I happened to be inspired from the movie at a lot of places. Roy (UA) is the story of a thief and a filmmaker who makes a film on the life of the thief.

Kabir Grewal (Arjun Rampal) is a filmmaker who has been signed by producer Irani (Kaizaad Kotwal) but he just can’t think up a good script. Then, one day, he sees detective D.S. Wadia (Rajit Kapur) talking on television about a thief who stole expensive paintings. Kabir heads to Malaysia to make his film, without much of a story. In Malaysia, he meets filmmaker Ayesha Amir (Jacqueline Fernandez) who tells him about her encounter with the thief, Roy (Ranbir Kapoor).

Roy had met Ayesha, wooed her, had had an affair with her and one day disappeared after stealing a painting from her house. That painting was one-half of a painting which was already in the possession of the man (Barun Chanda) Roy worked for and he (Roy) had taken it upon himself to complete the painting by stealing the other half.

Ayesha, who has a brief affair with Casanova Kabir, tells him her entire story about her encounter with Roy, little knowing that Kabir was shooting her story on celluloid as his new film. Then, one day, Ayesha reads the script of Kabir’s under-production film and realises that Kabir has stolen her story. She wraps up her own shooting and returns home and completely disconnects from Kabir. Here, Kabir realises that he is deeply in love with her. He doesn’t even know the reason for Ayesha walking out of his life. He abandons his film project mid-way because Ayesha, who is the de facto writer of the film, has gone away without telling him the ending. Kabir can’t think of how to take his movie forward.

Kabir tries to establish contact with Ayesha but to no avail. He gets lucky when he finally meets her at a film festival and awards function for which he is a jury member and where her film, Malacca Diaries, wins her a prize. That is where Ayesha tells Kabir to stop trying to get her back into his life because she did not approve of him stealing her story.

Here, Roy also realises, he is madly in love with Ayesha. Meanwhile, Kabir and Roy meet and become friends.

Roy soon has a change of heart and he now wants both the paintings – the one he had stolen from Ayesha’s house and its other half. But his boss has already sold the two paintings to an art dealer (Asif Basra). Does Roy lay his hands on the two paintings? If so, how? And if he does get the paintings, what does he do to them? Is Kabir able to forget Ayesha or does he meet her again? Does Ayesha forgive Kabir? Does Kabir tell Ayesha that he loves her? Does Ayesha also love Kabir? Does Roy meet Ayesha again? Does Ayesha forgive Roy? Does Roy tell Ayesha that he loves her? Does Ayesha also love Roy? Does Ayesha go with Kabir or Roy or none of them?

Vikramjeet Singh has penned a story which is far from engaging or interesting. That it moves at a painfully slow pace and thereby tests the audience’s patience is just one of the many problems. The stories of Aye­sha with Roy and of Ayesha with Kabir appear to be happening simultaneously, confusing the audience. Many among the viewers will not be able to comprehend that the time zones of the two stories are different and so are the places where they are unfolding.

Vikramjeet Singh’s screenplay is quite weird. Ayesha is shown to be an idiot who has affairs with two thieves – a thief of paintings and a thief of intellectual property. Kabir Grewal seems to be another idiot who can’t even complete a script, simply because the person whose story he has been stealing walks out on him without completing it. This means, Kabir completely lacks imagination which is why he abandons the project after shooting a good portion of it. Roy’s character is equally weird – there is no explanation given to the viewers about why he does what he does. Probably worse than all of the above is the point that neither the story of Ayesha and Roy nor the story of Ayesha and Kabir appears believable or even appealing enough. All the three characters are so sketchy that the viewers are unable to identify with any of them. Frankly, the feeling the viewer gets while watching the film is that each of the three principal characters is doing nothing and merely indulging in silly and stupid things as far as their romantic stories go. The audience’s sympathy goes to neither of the three characters – it doesn’t go to Kabir because he comes across as a loser; it doesn’t go to Roy because he is a thief without much else revealed about him; and it doesn’t go to Ayesha because she seems to be good at everything including filmmaking, yoga, painting, dancing but stupid enough to not realise that she is being used. Also, Ayesha oscillating between Kabir and Roy will prove to be a sore point with the audience because this hardly makes her appear as a morally right girl. Effectively, the film has two heroes – one is a loser, the other is a thief – and one heroine – who appears morally wrong.

The screenplay also looks one of complete convenience. Ayesha chancing upon Kabir’s script is just one case in point to indicate how very convenient the screenplay is. For, why would a director leave his script so callously for someone to pick up?

If the romance is far from heart-warming, the light moments are very few and even they are feeble. Emotions fail to touch the heart because the audience doesn’t connect with any of the three main characters. The ending is very confusing. Dialogues, penned by Vikramjeet Singh and Hussain Dalal, are extremely routine and commonplace.

Arjun Rampal tries to look sincere and dedicated but his lack of conviction in the script and in his characterisation is all too evident. Ranbir Kapoor is ordinary and he, too, seems to have simply acted for the sake of acting. He lends star value, of course, but the unsubstantive role he portrays is bound to greatly disappoint his fans. That he is not the hero of the drama will only agitate the audience. Jacqueline Fernandez is earnest but to no avail. She looks gorgeous. Shernaz Patel gives her cent per cent to the character she plays – a production head with Kabir Grewal. Anupam Kher has his moments as Kabir’s father. Barun Chanda is effective as Roy’s boss. Asif Basra makes his presence felt in a brief role as an art dealer. Rajit Kapur leaves a mark. Cyrus Broacha is good but his Hindi pronunciations and sense of gender are pathetic. Kaizaad Kotwal and Mandana (as Pia) provide fair support. Others do as required.

Vikramjeet Singh’s direction may be alright as far as the technicalities are concerned but his narrative skills are below the mark. He confuses the audience at several places and is not able to engage them or entertain them. Music (Ankit Tiwari, Meet Bros. Anjjan and Amaal Malik) is the best thing in the film. ‘Sooraj dooba hai’ (by Amaal Malik) is a surefire hit. ‘Tu hai ki nahi’ (by Ankit Tiwari) is also very appealing. All the other songs are also melodious. Lyrics (by Abhendra Kumar Upadhyay, Sandeep Nath and Kumaar) are weighty. Song picturisations (choreography by Ahmed Khan) are good but could’ve been better. Sanjoy Chowdhury’s background music seems heavily inspired by Hollywood films. It appeals at places. Himman Dhamija’s cinematography is nice. Locations are breathtaking. Sanjay Shekhar Shetty’s action and stunts are functional. Vintee Bansal’s production designing is alright. Dipika Kalra’s editing leaves something to be desired.

On the whole, Roy is a confused film which will confuse the audience more than it would entertain. Despite a hit music score, it will prove to be a flop fare at the box-office.

A HERITAGE WALK TO HAUZ KHAS

Last sunday I organised a heritage walk to the coolest hangout in Delhi- hauz khas village. It was a step towards making people sensitive to the heritage around them and make them more aware of their lineage. I was apprehensive as to how many people might turn up but eventually I was leading 13 people. And I started with the gyaan giving.

Way back in the 13th century, Sultan Alauddin Khalji ruled from the capital city of Siri (Delhi). He decided to dig up a tank, Hauz i Alai, about 28 hectares large to provide water for the fields & the capital. After him, the Khalji dynasty declined & the tank fell into disrepair. It silted up & people carved out private plots of land on it. They dug wells & were selling of its water. The Khaljis were followed by Tughluqs among who Firuz Shah Tughluq took interest in this site. Firuz Shah was the last important Tughluq ruler, who had his capital at Firuzabad (now called Kotla Firuz Shah) on the river Yamuna. He repaired the tank, removed encroachments & built a madrasa complex around. This complex is the focus of our heritage walk. Firuz Shah renamed it Hauz Khas, a special tank. The madrasa building is an L-shaped structure & double storeyed. It has a mosque, colonnaded halls (which were probably classrooms), cells (probably for living in) & independent standing pavilion many of which have graves. Firuz Shah Tughluq’s tomb stands at the junction of the 2 wings of the madrasa. There are stairs leading down to the tank from the building, at regular intervals. Now these are mostly closed up, some by iron grills, others by dumping rubble on them. Hauz Khas village has come around this very complex. The Tughlaq kings were also the patrons of art and learning, they invited scholars, artists, architects and craftsmen from Western and Central Asia to the court of Delhi, a centre of learning in the 14th century. Contemporary historian, Zia-ud-Din Barani wrote “The capital of Delhi, by the present of these unrivalled men of great talents had become the envy of Bagdad, the rival of Cairo and the equal of Constantinople”. The Hauz Khas madrasa was one such institution which would have attracted scholars & learners from far & wide.

The next part of the walking tour was in to Deer Park. The Deer Park has 3 monuments dating from the Tughluq & Lodi period. Bagh I Alam ka Gumbad is a massive tomb typical of Lodi architecture. Next to it stands a small mosque. Kali Gumti, a one roomed structure is located just across the walking path from the mosque. Walk a few steps ahead & you will find the Tuhfewala Gumbad hidden in foliage.

The weather was perfect and Delhiites had all the reasons to be out this fine sunday morning. I hope to see more people in the following walks.