Converting Pinterest Account into Pinterest Business Page

Pinterest may not need any introduction if you share pictures online, regularly and if you are a regular visitor to the online networks of image-sharing website.

Everyday, people visit Pinterest to pin pictures on the basis of themes that they are interested in. The “likes” on a picture increases the popularity of pictures.

Read More

Facebook Video Ads in News Feeds

Do you find the news feeds on your Facebook annoying? If yes, then it is too bad that because now they are going to be more annoying, if some online reports are to be believed Facebook is coming up with Facebook video ads in news feeds.

The “ad dollars” is temptation that has conquered Facebook. So far, Facebook was against such ads.

Read More

New Conversion Measurement Tool from Facebook

Almost month ago, Facebook started rolling out conversion measurement tool that would serve as a link and help online marketers in bridging the data gap between social ads and online sales.

According to David Baser, Facebook‘s ads product manager:

“Measuring ad effectiveness and outcomes is absolutely crucial to all types of businesses and marketers.”

Quoting an example of an online shoe retailer, Baser said, “You would see the number of people who bought shoes.”

Read More

Download Your Tweets Soon

The Twitter has got a new feature which enables Tweeters to download their tweets. This is a unique feature which many Tweeters would want to have in their accounts. “Download Tweets” feature is supposed to be downloaded in the account before the account owner can use it.

Navjot Singh, a blogger in India claimed to be the first Tweeter to download and use this feature in the South Asian country.

Read More

Mobile Facebook Revolution: Is the end near for Desktops?

Can you imagine a day without your cell phone and Facebook? I am sure most of them will have the answer no for it.

In a month, 1 billion users around the world (not counting nations where Facebook is banned), actively use Facebook either on their Desktops or any other media. Out of these, 600 million people actively use Facebook on mobile.

This has made the Facebook Company to come up with its mobile version which leads to the Mobile Facebook Revolution.

Read More

Facebook Privacy Issues: No More Voting

The concerns regarding privacy on Facebook have been a subject of discussions and arguments on many occasions.

There is a page on Facebook titled “List of Pedophiles” where people share the names and addresses of convicted pedophiles that would help people living in the area of such offenders to stay cautious.

However, some people argue whether this page violates the privacy of offenders as like other citizens, maybe lesser but they are also entitled to such privacy.

The counter-view here is that the privacy of a pedophile cannot be more important than the safety of children.

Read More

What If Facebook Shuts Down?

DISCLAIMER: The writer has taken every precaution to confirm the accuracy of facts presented in the article(s). But the writer does not hold responsibility if any fact turns out to be inaccurate.

When I was studying in university, I had many foreigners studying with me. An Iranian guy told me that he was happy to use Facebook in India and Facebook was the reason he loved India more than Iran. Puzzled, when I asked why, he replied that Facebook was banned in Iran and Iranians outside Iran could use Facebook to tell the world about the atrocities committed by Iranian Government on innocent Iranians.

Enough to say that Facebook has been creating awareness in the world. Recently there have been many cases where parents of missing children shared the pictures of children on Facebook and people seeing the pictures informed parents about the locations where children were seen and such incidents have seen the happy ending of children being united with parents.

Facebook has creeped into the lives and minds of people. Today we cannot imagine a day without signing into Facebook. Many small businessmen are using Facebook to promote their business. Sometimes, a client chooses to do business with a company on the basis of how many “LIKES” the official Facebook page of that company has. Less popular music artists can publicize their albums on Facebook.

I recently did a research on the list of nations where Facebook is banned. There were only two types of countries in the list. One, the countries that have either miltary rule or the rule of kings that control everything with an iron fist and kill anyone they like. Two, the countries that claim to be democratic but behind the curtains, politicians and people in opposition to the government are arrested and killed in jail.

Some people are unhappy with Facebook. They say that it disturbs the concentration of employees in office. However, some people forget that there are coffee loving people who instead of focussing on work, sit all day sipping coffee. This does not mean that coffee should be banned. Thus, distraction from work cannot be cited to ban or shut down Facebook.

Some people who have the experience of being cheated on by their spouses who pursue adulterous relationships on Facebook accuse Facebook of wrecking families. However, I feel that if a man uses a Ford car to steal something, the victim of theft cannot blame automobiles makers for the theft. Adultery has existed in society much before Facebook originated.

A girl was a victim of sexual abuse and violence from her father posted her story on Facebook which was seen by her friends who called the police and got the monster dad arrested.

Thus, in short, I mean to say that the shutdown of Facebook would help only dictators, scamsters and corrupt people whose evil deeds would never be exposed. It was also deprive small businessmen and small artists from promoting their business and music, respectively. Therefore, a shutdown of Facebook is not a good idea.

Avi Remembers Harry Potter

Hello! After a long time, I am back. And I am back for Harry Potter.

September is here and thus, it is time to remember and relive the magic of Harry Potter again. Of course, there is no new Harry Potter movie and there can never be such movie until JK Rowling writes a new Harry Potter book.

This month, the complete box-set of Harry Potter DVDs and Blu-Rays featuring all eight Harry Potter movies.

As a child, I was too engrossed in studies that I could never afford time to read books outside my studies. When I could, I was reading super-hero comics as they were short did not take a long time to finish.

For all the years, when the movie series as well as the book series of Harry Potter was going on, I had limited time. Long novels of Harry Potter series could not be finished in few minutes. The culture of going out to watch movies was not promoted in our family ever since TV channels had picked up the trend of showing movies on TV, just two or three months after theatrical release.

I became the pioneer of this culture when I came to college as in college where studies were easier for me due to the absence of Mathematics and Geography from the list of subjects that I studied. However, with movies on characters like Spider-man, Batman, Superman and Zorro attracting me, I had forgotten about Harry Potter movies. Watching these movies, I was wishing that India had movies on Raj Comics super-heroes.

Harry Potter movies always were always different from the books that they were based on. Among Harry Potter books, my favorite book is Half-Blood Prince. However, I did not enjoy the movie made on this book because the movie had skipped all the interesting things about the book. For example, the most interesting sub-plot in this book was the childhood of Tom Riddle who would be known as Lord Voldemort in future. Among Harry Potter movies, my favorite movies are Order of Phoenix and both parts of Deathly Hallows.

Among books of Harry Potter, from Philosopher‘s Stone to Prisoner of Azakaban, the stories looked as if their target readers were children. However, from Goblet of Fire to Deathly Hallows, stories became dark, probably aiming at young teenagers as target readers.

Not only the characters evolved and grew up in eight books, even the actors playing them in movies grew up and more importantly, the fans as well. I have many friends that started reading Harry Potter books since the first book, religiously followed all books and movies and today, they are adults, recalling the times when they started reading books.

My favorite character in Harry Potter stories is Severus Snape because his life was quiet similar to my life as a school-going kid.

I have all Harry Potter movies in my movies collection when their DVDs were released individually and thus, I don‘t need to buy this box set. However, if you find it difficult to collect all movies or if some movies are difficult for your collection, now is your chance to own all Harry Potter movies in one single purchase. Just grab this box-set.

Harry Potter will always be remembered by his fans and as I have been a media student, someday, I may be able to produce a 7-season TV show on Harry Potter where one season would comprise of one book. I want to make this TV show because I am unhappy to see that all Potter movies skipped many important things from the books they were based on.

Relive the magic again and enjoy it.

Avi speaks on love and romance in Hindi movies

DISCLAIMER:All characters in this story are fictitious. Any resemblance to those who are living or dead is purely co-incidental.

Hi everyone! On the occasion of Valentine's Day, today I discuss the love and romance that is shown in Hindi movies. In order to ridicule the rules, there is need to follow the rules. That is why, the names of the characters are that what characters in most of the romantic Hindi movies have. Stupid notions and rules of love encouraged. I make my point in this simple story:

Raj was a simple boy in a college who loved a beautiful girl called Tanya. In all lectures he was looking at her. He wanted to tell her that but did not have the courage.

One day, he saw her, walked up to her and said, “Tanya!”

Tanya turned, making her beautiful hair flying and briefly brushing Raj‘s face, making his mind feel the fragrance. She asked, “What!”

Looking in her eyes, standing hypnotized, Raj said, “Nothing!”

Tanya, giving him a look as if saying, “that‘s strange”, walked away.

Raj was standing speechless. Whole day he was sadly looking at the picture of Tanya he took from his cell phone camera. He asked himself why he could not express his love for her.

One day, sitting on his computer, he was lost in his thoughts. His room-mate friend came there and said, “Hey Raj, do you have any idea what day is tomorrow?”

Raj: Tomorrow is Valentine‘s Day.

Friend: Idiot! Tomorrow is the day our presentation! All of your group-mates, including me gathered material! Making PowerPoint presentation and the oral presentation in front of the teacher was your responsibility! You better concentrate on that Mr. Loverboy or Mr. Romeo, whatever you are!

Next day, the projector was set up in the classroom and the computer was connected to it. Raj carried the PowerPoint presentation in his pen-drive and transferred it into the computer. Raj saw Tanya entering the classroom and felt if he must express his love today.

Teacher came to the class and took his seat. Raj came to make the oral presentation and the document was opened. Slide show was activated.

To everybody‘s surprise a big shape of heart appeared on the screen.

Raj said, “Today is Valentine‘s Day and everybody expresses his or her love for the person he or she loves! I am also doing the same as I want to say in front of everyone that I am in love! What you see on screen is my heart!”

Looking at Tanya, Raj said, “I love you Tanya. This heart belongs to you. Do you love me?"

Tanya shocked by this gesture, got up from her seat with all eyes on her. She had angry expression on her face. She smiled, ran to Raj and hugged him tightly.

(DISCLAIMER: In Bollywood, for a girl in the context of love, no means yes and yes also means yes. Thus, Tanya did not have any choice even if she did not love him. It is merely a co-incidence that she accepted his love.)

Teacher was puzzled and all students were cheering for Raj. Raj and Tanya started kissing and cheers got louder.

Raj and Tanya, standing together, looking at the students as if they were a Hollywood couple smiled.

This love story started in classroom and the love-birds got united in classroom.

So the moral of the story is,

It ends there from where it begins.

Avi Rises Against VIP Culture

DISCLAIMER: The writer has taken every precaution to confirm the accuracy of facts presented in the article(s). But the writer does not hold responsibility if any fact turns out to be inaccurate.

Hi everyone!

This is my second blog entry and it deals with the subject of Very Important Person (VIP) treatment to celebrities and the negative impact that VIP culture can have.

In India, debate on this issue started when former President Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam was frisked and made to go through security check. A large section of Indian media raised hue and cry of insulting former President and accuse Americans of being arrogant. They ignored the fact that American laws require security checks for everyone. Whether that person is a celebrity or an ordinary citizen, he/she has to go through such checks.

Here on Independence Day on 15 Aug, the celebrations rarely received coverage from media. Why? Because media had a bigger news. The news of Indian actor Shah Rukh Khan (SRK) being detained at Newark Airport for questioning. SRK was not representing India. He was there on the invitation of some Jingoists who wanted him to join the party. Still Indian Embassy intervened and only then he was let off the hook. He says that he was humiliated. When he humiliated many people in India to satisfy his ego and ridiculed many actors like Manoj “Bharat” Kumar who are considered as legendary, he was happy. Now just a security check which is a part US Laws, made him feel humiliated. Even Salman Khan (another Indian actor) said that things go this way in US. SRK is an arrogant man in real life and he has never denied that. Now finally he has seen that there is someone above him.

Shah Rukh Khan (SRK) later said that Americans did right thing by detaining him. Few days ago, he was saying that he does not want to go to US. Few years ago, when Pepsi and Coca Cola were being accused of having pesticide in their drinks, at that time, SRK, who was endorsing Pepsi, said that if Indian government banned them, then he would go to US, only to drink it.

Just because Americans treated him like any human being, he got offended because on Indian Airport, he is treated as an incarnation of God. Why? Because he is a movie star and Indians like to see their celebrities receiving VIP treatment. He said that when Angelina Jolie and Megan Fox come to India, he would perform security checks on them. In India, the rulebook says that only women should search women. I don't know what SRK is. Now Americans should be more careful when he comes to US next time and interrogate him to make sure whether is it safe to allow him or is a possible sexual predator. In US, statements or past acts of celebrities (and sometimes ordinary citizens) have often been used to nail them in an attempt to prove certain allegations against them. Once a pop superstar was dubbed as racist as one of her private conversations with a personal friend got leaked online. The conversation was recorded secretly, possibly by some paparazzo, in which the pop star could be heard cracking a joke on an Asian race. The pop star was well known for her friends-circle and list of former boyfriends who belonged to different races and there was no way she could be racist. But she had to apologize for saying something that was limited to her room and was meant only for humor. Even in India, people often get into legal problems for hurting the sentiments of certain community if they poke fun on them in public. But it is common to see people poking fun at other communities while sharing jokes in households. If that pop star could be dubbed racist by an Asian community for something she said in private and meant only humor, then SRK‘s statement should not be seen as humor as he had said that on a public platform which makes him bigger culprit than that American pop star.

Even Bob Dylan was frisked the same day at New Jersey. He did not raise hue and cry because American celebrities do not believe in VIP culture. Celebrities like Mariah Carey, Eminem and George Clooney are subject to security checks at airports like any Tom Dick or Harry in USA.

Now somebody may say that Indian laws call for VIPs to be exempted from security checks. However, according to international laws, the airlines are a part of the territories of those countries in which they are based in. Dr. Kalam was boarding the flight of a US based airline service which was subject to US laws. After Indian laws clear a passenger, he/she becomes subject to the laws of country he/she is visiting. Many times, such security checks are performed on aero-bridges, just before the flight so that the rules of any country would not be violated. It would have been better if Indian media had covered it the right way by saying that Kalam had set an example for our arrogant politicians to follow. Our government would not have been fuming like this had some Chinese, Pakistani or some airline service in Middle East would have frisked Kalam.

In USA, someone is exempted from security checks only if he/she is traveling on a charted flight.

When Brad Pitt was in India, some police complaints were filed against his security guards and they got arrested. When Pitt came to bail them out, Police Commissioner used this opportunity to meet him as a fan. After discussing his movies that he liked, he let his security guards off the hook. Media was there when so called racist incident (for which Pitt‘s guards were held responsible) took place in the school but not a single camera from any TV channel had recorded Pitt‘s guards yelling racist remarks on local people. According to media reports, Pitt even urged and requested Indian media to show the footage to police if this was true. According to a news report published on an online edition of a Mumbai based tabloid, Pitt and Angelina Jolie even declared that they would fire their security guards if the allegations against them were found to be true. Still no TV channel came forward as their purpose of sensationalizing a trivial issue and grab some eyeballs was served.

SRK wanted to use his frisking incident to promote his movie called My Name Is Khan which is based on the racial profiling of Asians, esp. Muslims in US. He knows that people would like the movie if Anti-American feeling in India is strong. It was sad to see many Indians in US criticized his frisking. Some of them said Anti-American things which sound suitable from the mouth of Communists and Taliban type people. I wonder why they live in US if they hate Americans so much. In India, evading security checks is a status symbol. An Indian movie called New York was hit. The message that movie carries is that a man becomes terrorist when FBI harasses him. What about those terrorists who don't even know about FBI? Terrorists like Osama bin Laden and Aamir Ajmal Kasab were never arrested or tortured by FBI. I know that Indians (except me) would be hurt and accuse an American film-maker of racism if he demonizes Indians the way FBI was demonized in New York. We all know how uncomfortable Indians get when they see movies portraying India as a land of cannibals, snake charmers, elephants and flying carpets.

SRK and his team wanted to shoot a scene of My Name Is Khan in White House but they were denied permission. Of course, SRK felt offended as when somebody says no to him, he feels insulted.

Recently, US Embassy in India denied visa to a Member of Parliament called Shahnawaz Hussain. MP, his party (BJP) and his boss (Advani) were furious and accused US of visa-denial because Hussain was a Muslim. There have been instances when many Hindus have also been denied visa but I never saw any Hindu saying that he was denied visa because he was a Hindu. They filed a complaint with PM Manmohan Singh, ignoring the fact that every sovereign nation as the right to decide visa rules and no country can force another country to grant visa to any one. This does amount to interfering in the internal affairs of US. After PM's intervention, visa was issued to Hussain without Hussain being asked to fulfill formalities. Indian politicians never mess with countries like China and Saudi Arabia like this. They know that Americans are polite and can be taken for granted. Their kindness is seen as weakness by Indian politicians. US Ambassador Timothy Romer was almost bullied and visa was issued. Romer knew that BJP activists would riot and vandalize the Embassy to protest against visa denial and Indian government would not take action against them. That is why, he had to issue the visa.

Indian Ambassador to US, Mr. Ronen Sen does not need to take orders from US President. Because American President would never find it necessary to go gaga over such trivial issue. In 2005 or 2006, American rap star Curtis Jackson, better known as 50 Cent wanted to come to India for a concert. Indian government denied him visa because many years ago, he was involved in some criminal offences. Then US President George W Bush did not pressurize Indian Ambassador to grant 50 Cent a visa because Americans are tolerant and believe that every country has the right to grant or deny visa to anyone. And most importantly, American government also does not pamper American celebs. They are not like Member of Parliament (MP) friend of SRK who scolded Indian embassy in USA and ordered them to intervene and save SRK from being treated as common man.

A similar outrage was seen years ago when USA denied visa to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi who was going to US on a personal trip, that also on government expanse. Modi is not a Muslim. The laws on the basis of which Modi and Hussain were in USA long before Modi and Hussain would have born. It is unfair on our part to express outrage and indirectly ask US to change their laws so that our VIPs.

In USA, politicians (even sitting President) would have to pay for their personal trips from their own pockets. US government would pay for their expanses only if they are on an official tour. But in India, ministers, MPs and Member of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) are entitled to have their personal expanses paid by government. Nobody finds it wrong because we Indians have accepted VIP culture as a way of life. Had Modi got the visa, he would have gone to US to meet his personal friend with his expanses paid by Gujarat government. So Gujarat government and Indians should thank Americans for saving Indian money.

VIP culture also claimed the life of an innocent man called Sumit Verma who had kidney problem. Prime Minister (PM) Manmohan Singh was the Chief Guest at the convocation ceremony of that medical institute in which Verma was brought. But security staff of Prime Minister refused to let him and his family members in as the security of PM seemed to be more important to them than the life of a human being. Later PM apologized to the family of that victim of system but apology from PM could not bring Verma back to life.

This incident shows that due to our acceptance and tolerance of VIP culture, this culture has also started claiming human lives. In future, we may see the loss of more innocent lives if this culture continues.

Manu Sharma, the son of a powerful politician was convicted in Jessica Lal Murder Case. In jail, he receives a VIP treatment and he was granted parole on flimsy grounds. The silence of important politicians like New Delhi Chief Minister Shiela Dikshit and Union Home Minister P Chidambaram shows that even they do not find anything wrong with VIP culture even if it is used to meddle with judiciary.

When Shibhu Soren was convicted of the murder of Shashinath Jha, the VIP treatment to him in jail (according to reports in media) and the luxury facilities given to him jail made a mockery of justice and proved once again that our politicians are above the law.

That is why the sooner we open our eyes and shun this VIP culture, the better for the future of our country and for the growth of our society as a democratic and civilized one.

Slumdog Millionaire - Avinomic Analysis

DISCLAIMER: The writer has taken every precaution to confirm the accuracy of facts presented in the article(s). But the writer does not hold responsibility if any fact turns out to be inaccurate.

Hi to every reader.Here comes another blog from a budding media professional======= This is going to be my first blog entry. I have been a media student and I love to read and write about many things including media.

In my first entry I am going to express myself on Slumdog Millionaire (SM). I do not intend to change or convince anyone. I only want to express myself and talk about things which are being seen by few people. Many of these thoughts have been expressed by other people earlier

but I am expressing them here as I feel that those people did not receive too much media attention, compared to the critics of movie.

Ever since SM gained popularity in the international cinema, people have been debating whether India should proud of it or ashamed of it.

Pride or shame is a matter of personal opinion. Some say that SM portrays India in bad light. Maybe true, but is there anything false about India in that film? No!

There were objections to the title. Some accused the film of abusing slum dwellers by calling them dog. Some Anti-white said that the term was coined by a white man and thus was abusive. People (including slum-dwellers) were on streets with placards reading, “I am not a dog.”We should get our records straight. It is true that there is no word like “Slumdog”. Slum habitant is known as Slum-dweller. In English, a man
who struggles to get on top is known as Underdog. As the movie is about rags to riches, “slum” was taken from “slum-dweller” and “dog” was taken from “underdog” to coin the term “slumdog”. Critics should wonder how odd and meaningless the words like “slum-under” or “dweller-dog” would have looked. So the title should not be considered as offensive. Unfortunately, most of our semi-literate or illiterate politicians did not understand that and in order to get the votes of slum-dwellers and to secure their 15 seconds of fame. As par news reports, one political party demanded the change in title and another political party sent goons (in Bihar) to vandalise the cinema hall screening SM.

Now we talk about the “exploitation” of kids. The parents of kids were happy with the payments kids received. Even Danny Boyle also signed a bond which declares that child actors of SM would receive a part of their payment when they turn 18. They have already received one part. This is a good thing. After turning 18, at least they would be able to take control over their money. Right now, the money children have already received is being controlled and possibly being used by their parents. The father of one actor slapped him only because he was tired after his return from US and not in a position to give interviews in media. Father wanted to be famous by cashing on the popularity of his son. Two women also wish to be famous and are trying to claim the girl as their daughter. Now who are the real exploiters of children? Danny Boyle or their parents?

Now we talk about poverty in depicted in the film. Mr. Amitabh Bachchan, one of the greatest Bollywood superstars and a man whose status in India is as big as a cricketer's status, probably far bigger than any God said that poverty exists even in developed countries. Very true. But Westerners do not care if anybody makes a film on that. They believe in free thinking and the theory of “let the hundred flowers bloom”. When 8 Mile, starring Eminem was released in 2002, nobody accused the producers of the movie for portraying Detroit as place of poverty and the land of Gangstas. Detroit is the motor-city of US and many people call it the heart of America. SM had a story set in Mumbai, the commercial capital of India. A survey of 2002 (which was the cover story of a 2002 or 2003 issue of Outlook magazine) showed that more than 54% of Mumbai's population lived in slums. Dharavi, the biggest slum in Mumbai is the biggest slum in Asia. When you talk about English Literature, you
can not ignore William Shakespeare. Similarly, when you talk about Mumbai, you can not ignore slums. Mr. Bachchan criticised the film for showing the truth.

Mr. Bachchan received criticism for criticising the film without watching it. He clarified in his next blog entry that he did not intend attack or malign the film. However, he did not want to be dubbed as someone doing a U-Turn. He said that audiences are the real judges and a movie that is liked by the masses should be seen as good film. He said that Bollywood has been entertaining masses for decades and is thus, greater film industry. However, media while reporting this did not talk about what Mr. Bachchan meant by the term “masses”. Usually this term has a negative connotation. Cheap film-makers who make films to titillate the audience, rubbish the criticism by saying, “Our films are for the masses. Not for high class critics who criticise us.” When their movie is flop, they say, “We tried to do something different but the masses did not like it.” If Mr. Bachchan also considers masses as people belonging to lower class, does he mean to advocate awards for cheap films like those made in 1990s? Examples are Coolie No.1, Anari No.1, Raja Babu etc. These films were liked by the masses and perhaps Mr. Bachchan feels that these films deserve awards. If that is so, he should recommend this suggestion to Filmfare jury to give awards only to such type of films as C-Grade films on titillating themes and racy titles like “Hawas” (meaning lust) as they are a huge hit with the “masses”. Movies similar to these also have songs like “Sarakai lo khatiya” (meaning pull the bed) or “Kurta faar ke” (meaning tearing the Kurta) which are also huge hit with
the “masses”.

Now we talk about awards. Criticism of SM by Big B (Mr. Bachchan) came when A R Rehman won the Golden Globe for his music in SM. Of course people like Big B would hate SM as their movie has never won Oscars or Golden Globe and can never win (considering the current standard and scenario). Grapes are sour for Big B. That is why he hates Oscars. A R Rehman became the first Indian to win Golden Globe and till date, there are three Indians who have won Oscars. Obviously this upsets Big B and people in his stable because now Big B can not become the first Indian to win Golden Globe and he is not in the list of Indians who have won Oscars. Many people say that SM was given so many awards because Westerners liked to see India in negative light. They are probably Indians living in 1960s and 70s. Decades ago, Mother India won award at a Film Festival and many people criticised the movie by saying that. Had Mother India failed to win the award, Indians would have said that it did not win because it was an Indian film. SM is not an Indian film but after its Oscar victory, many Indians (including my friends) are claiming it as an Indian film as it was shot in India and has Indian cast.

Some people say that a White man made SM and thus, it got award. But we should think rationally. Some Indians have the ability to be a part of global world and they made their impact at Oscars. Even people like Halle Berry have won Oscars despite being black. And there is a long list of Non-Americans who have won Oscars. Nicole Kidman, Kate Winslet, James Cameron and Heath Ledger are some of the names in that list. Even A R Rehman is not white. But he got not one but two Oscars. Some may say that Oscars gave them awards in order to prove that they were not racist. But those who called Oscars as biased still continued to do so and will still continue to do so. Thus, Oscars did not need to prove themselves to anyone.

SM depicted a reality which the rich class and middle class of India wish to ignore. Thus, protests were bound to take place and the makers were criticised. Many years ago, Steven Spielberg made Indiana Jones and Temple of Doom and Indians had cried foul about India being depicted as a land of cannibals. Everybody wanted to make Spielberg his punching bag but nobody criticised late Amrish Puri who had played
the character of an evil cannibal sorcerer in the film. Nobody said that Amrish Puri played a character that depicted Indians in negative light.

Even Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) were up in arms against it, ignoring the fact that they had left India for the reasons that were shown in the film. While coming to India on vacation and meeting their Indian relatives, they might be describing India on the basis of that film in order to show their superiority complex. But in West, they decided to show their “loyalty” to India by criticising the film. Thus, we can say that Spielberg had faced and Boyle is facing the bias for being white.

A R Rehman won Oscars for SM but our Bollywood was smart enough to understand that it could not claim SM as their own. That is why; he got Filmfare for his music in Jaane Tu Ya Jaane Na (meaning either you know it or you don‘t know). The film did not have any story but it was a hit with the “masses”. This year, most awards went to movies which aim only at entertaining and are popularly known as “masala films”. Movies that are sensible and convey a social message did not win. For example, A Wedesday had a brilliant direction and its success had proved that Indians are now ready to accept “little bit different films”. It also conveyed a relevant social message. But it was not entertaining enough in the opinion of Filmfare jury. It did not get any award. Only entertainment oriented filsm like Rock On won the awards. This is a difference between Oscars and Filmfare that Oscar jury gets impressed with the films which either have a brilliant construction (in terms of sound, lights, editing, background score and sometimes the factor that makes the movie, content-wise interesting) or a film that depicts some sort of reality which conservative people might want to sweep under the carpets. Brokeback Mountain is an example of that. On the other hand, Filmfare give award to that film which has performed well at Box Office. Indian movies like Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, Kuch Kuch Hota, Dil To Pagal Hai are examples. Taare Zameen Par (TZP) was India's entry for Oscars and it won many Filmfare awards, even if due to Aamir Khan's star power. However it was more sensible movie than the movies that usually win Filmfare Awards. Everybody would agree with that. Danny Boyle watched TZP and he was impressed to see a “unique film” made on dyslexia.

Content factor and Entertainment factor are poles apart. Thus, it is not possible right now for Filmfare to adopt standards like Oscars. Otherwise, most films would not make it into their final five of any category. Amitabh Bachchan asked media whether they saw any foreigner winning Filmfare, ignoring the fact that a foreigner had won it for Krrish. He meant that Filmfare were only for Indian films. Had some
Hollywood actor said something like that about Indian movies not winning Oscars or they did not deserve Oscars, Indian sensibilities would have got offended. Then Indian media, Indian people and Indians living in West would have branded him/her as racist.

Even Ghazal singer Jagjit Singh challanged A R Rehman to sing Ghazals in order to prove his talent after the latter won Oscars. Mr. Singh did not issue such challenge to commercial and pop singers like Kumar Sanu, Udit Narayan, Sonu Nigam etc. Probably because they have not won Oscars yet. If Mr. Singh believes that only a Ghazal singer is talented, does he intend to downsize the talent of Indian classics like Mukesh,Sehgal etc?

Now we talk about the debate started by some people who said that SM would not have got so many awards if it was made by an Indian. Some said that as it was based on a book written by an Indian, some Indian film-maker should have thought about making it. But many tend to ignore the fact that Indian film-maker would not have made it the way Danny Boyle made it. A well known Indian director said that Indian
film-makers prefer to copy from already tried formula rather than trying something new. They prefer to copy from already tried ideas of Hollywood. Had an Indian film-maker have received the script of SM, he would have just thrown it in the dustbin. He said that among Indian directors, only Anurag Kashyap could make SM the way Danny Boyle did. I don't know why did he say that but it may possibly be due to the fact that Kashyap's movies are different from typical Bollywood movies. That is why, not to mention the problems created for him by Indian censors.

While writing a column in Daily News & Analysis (DNA), Sameer Jain had said that if SM was to be made by some Indian, then YRF camp would have shot Jai Ho as a dream sequence in Switzerland. Sorry to borrow this Mr. Jain, but I feel that what you said is very right and should be discussed. Mr. Jain continued by saying that Bhatt camp would have ensured that Latika cheated on Slumdog. Abbas Mustan would have created a lot of twists and turns to make it a suspense film. Mr. Jain also suggested the title of Slumdog Puzzleaire. To this, I want to add that Karan Johar would have made it a romantic film, by adding a love triangle or square or rectangle that would have reminded us of Kuch Kuch Hota Hai or Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna. Ignoring the needs of character, Bhatt camp would have cast their homegrown hero with useless
kissing scenes and the movie would have been such that the most appropriate title would be “Slumdog Serial Kisser”. Sunny Deol's camp would have shown some more corruption and would have made it an action film, showing Sunny shouting his lungs out or Bobby (Deol) bashing up hooligans. Not to mention some pointless, meaningless and useless item number by some actress like Shilpa Shetty where the camera would
focusing again and again on her thighs and navel. Coming back to YRF, after Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi (meaning God made the pair), Yash Chopra is no mood (currently) to make film with newcomers and this decision had created a argument between him and his son Aditya (according to news reports). Thus, in their version of SM, the lead characters would have been played by people like Shah Rukh Khan, Rani Mukherjee, Aishwarya Rai etc. None of them can look like a slum dweller despite any make-up as their popularity has made them so glamorous that people might ignore the character they are playing and just see their favorite star. The movie would have had just stars, not actors. Also, Bhatt camp would have signed their home-grown hero and the title of the movie would have been “Slumdog Serial Kisser”.

So how could Indians expect Oscars and Golden Globes for SM if it was just another Indian film? Now that it has won Oscars, many people are saying that Anil Kapoor's best acting performance is in this film. Mr. Kapoor’s appearance in that film is very brief. Again, trying to claim SM as an Indian film. However, the truth can not be changed that it is a British film.

I need to stop now but I want to point out that these views should be considered by those criticised the film. Indians do not like realistic films.

Even Satyjit Ray made films on the poverty of India. Should Indians abuse him the way they are abusing Danny Boyle? I don't think so. We often criticise Indian fim-makers who make unreal movies where hero bashes up 20 goons. When reality is made in the form of SM, we criticise it. We ourselves' don't know what to like and what to hate. Anybody listening? I do not intend to attack anyone for his views. Everybody is entitled to his/her opinion. But being public figures, people like Mr. Bachchan should have been considered following facts before criticising SM.