The book was better

I saw Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire last week. At best, it can be called an illustrated work of abridged version of the book. I somehow was quite disappointed with every screen version of Harry Potter though the third fared best, simply because it is by a Latin American director and I would rave and lap up even a wedding video from them. The reason is perhaps I have read the books.

The book was better is all I hear from the Potter fans and it's almost becoming a cliche now. Often times I feel that this statement is hurled at the not-so-intelligent people Who-Only-Watch-Movies-and-Don't-Read-Books by the people Who-Read-Books. I loved Silence of Lambs but the snobs told me that the book is better. I read the book and I still liked the movie. I read Jurrassic Park before watching the movie and though many philosophical and sociological musings from the book are absent in the movie, one could say that Speilberg has still done an extremely commendable job. The goosebumps you got watching T-Rex were missing in Crichton's version.

After Potter, I feel that certain books should be left untouched. The snobbery of book readers aside, it is very difficult to bring in the book experience back to the visual table. Books are always personal experiences. That is perhaps why every time someone makes a remake of the classics, be it Pride and Prejudice or Oliver Twist, they always look different. And they never match with how your experience was. For instance, even the best director from Hollywood can't bring back my own imagination of the Meursault of Albert Camus. I would risk sahing that Harry Potter also perhaps comes under this Movie-resistant books category. Unfortunately, the commercial compulsions of the globalised millenium doesn't heed any aesthetic purists. As they put it, it was so 'back in the innocent days'.

The Class

I'm currently reading 'The Class' by Eric Segal. I found the following passage about an American student dating a Dutch girl in Switzerland particularly interesting:

That evening, they drove in Jason's rented VW Beetle to a three-hundred-year old inn in Chloesterli.

"My God," said Jason, as they sat down, "this place is older than America."

"Jason," Fanny smiled, "almost everything in the world is older than America. Haven't you noticed that?"

Eric Segal is an interesting writer.

Volcker and us

Perhaps it takes a heavy rain and a surprisingly effective Things To Do list to make one update his blog. In the past, I have had severe problems with keeping my tasks queued up and completing them. Invariably, I used to forget a thing or two before leaving office or often end up taking them up after my boss's reminder. My fiancee suggested a very simple yet effective way to keep a task list. I began following and after a few hiccups, now my Things To Do is extremely effective and made me complete all my tasks at 5.30 sharp.

Alas, the rain wouldn't let me go home early. So, an idle, twiddling the thumb guy, sat up to update his blog.

The biggest news shaking up the political circles in India today is the Volcker Report. Those who came in late, continue, others, please skip the next para.

During the back-breaking, pre-war UN-sactions era, Iraq could not sell its oil and hence having its only source of income crippled, struggled to even provide basic necessities to its people. Sensing a human disaster in the anvil and yet unable to lift the sanctions, UN came out with what's called an interesting and innovative idea, Oil for Food scheme. It's this: Iraq can sell its oil to the world at the price determined by UN. The money paid by the buyers will go to UN repository. From its repository, UN will provide food, clothing, and medicines to Iraqi people. So far so good. Here's when Saddam found a loophole. He'll determine the beneficiaries of the oil. The beneficiaries, apart from paying UN, will pay additional money to Saddam. This will go through the National Bank in Jordan. The millions of such 'pay backs' and 'kick backs' went to back and forth. Post-war, US began investigating the kick-backs and its beneficiaries. Paul Volcker who headed the commitee has named several Indian companies, Congress party and Natwar Singh as beneficiaries of this Oil For Food scam.

Hardly a few days passed since the report came out, every politician and media house is busy interpreting it as per their political leanings. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has already pronounced Natwar Singh innocent. BJP has already declared him guilty. Communist Party, as deceiving and confused as ever, said the report doesn't have a legitimacy, and hence Mr. Singh is obviously a victim!

I have a different observation. When the war broke out, Natwar Singh and Congress party were one of the most vocal supporters of Saddam, apart from Arundhati Roy! They portrayed Saddam as a greatest ruler and a pitiful victim of a monstrous, gruesome empire. For no reason, the parliament was stalled. BJP was at the helm and it was not allowed to function, even though BJP had absolutely no role in the war. They did not stop until BJP agreed to pass a resolution in the parliament condemning the US invasion of Iraq. This is at the time when siding with US or at least remaining neutral would have been the best and most strategic foreign affairs move. Because every country bases its foreign policy based on its selfish motives and justifiably so. Considering that, passing a resolution in the parliament was a near suicidal, yet the BJP government was forced to do.

It would be interesting to note that India was the only country in the world to have passed a resolution in its parliament condemning the war. France and Russia then were the most vocal opponents of the war. Not on moral grounds though. Iraq owed a lot of money to France and Russia had certain oil pipeline deals and both countries feared of their money and oil if Saddam were to lose. Even these countries didn't pass a resolution in their parliament.

India had nothing to lose but a lot to gain by keeping quiet. Yet India didn't. My question: Why was Natwar Singh, then vociferous supported of Saddam and Congress party arm-twisted the government? Is India's foreign policies were compromised because a few individuals and hence a political party was getting millions of dollars From a dictator of another country? Was Saddam using Oil for Food as a means to create opinion leaders across the world? Was he awarding oil deals to people who will support him in his adversity?

The communist party, the torch-bearers of integrity and clean public life has nothing to say about the report except that it has no legitimacy. But they had a lot to say about a meagre one lach taken by the then BJP president in a fake deal. They had a lot to say about the fictitious defense deals by George Fernandez. They had a lot to question about the Godhra incident.

I can understand such behaviours from the politicians for I have always considered communists to be cheap, hypocritic fools and congress to be smart, vicious and smoothly venomous party, for they succeeded in altering the foreign policies to their favour even though they were not in power.

What I can't fathom is the behaviour of the media. They seems to be surprisingly quiet about the reports and even promote the views that defend Natwar and the Congress.

I guess that's what you call secularism. A crime committed by a 'secular' party is perfectly okay. But a perceived or 'about to be committed' crime by a 'communal' party is huge.

I've never been comfortable with my current government. The discomfort is increasing.