Latest news with #BritishRaj
Time of India
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Time of India
What made Salman Khan and Aishwarya Rai's chemistry so real in Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam? Bhansali reveals the 'love' secret after 26 years
More than two decades after its theatrical release, ' Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam ' continues to be an epoch-making film. The movie gained critical acclaim and proved to be a runaway box-office success. It also heralded the arrival of a new auteur on Bollywood's horizon—Sanjay Leela Bhansali. The Aishwarya Rai-Salman Khan-Ajay Devgn-starrer showcased many elements that would go on to become Bhansali trademarks—lavish sets, flamboyant aesthetics, emotional intensity, and tragic endings. In a candid interview with Subhash K. Jha, Bhansali opened up about the movie and the equation between former flames Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Salman Khan on the set. When asked if the lead pair's real-life romance had an impact on their sizzling on-screen chemistry, the filmmaker admitted that there was 'love in the air.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Join new Free to Play WWII MMO War Thunder War Thunder Play Now However, he quickly clarified that all the actors shared a great camaraderie on the sets, which undoubtedly amplified their performances. 'There was love in the air. But not just between them; there was a lot of affection among all of us. Zohra Sehgalji, Helen Aunty, Salman, Aishwarya, Vikram Gokhale, Smita Jayekar—we were like one big family. I don't think I've had such a fulfilling experience shooting any other film,' he told Jha. Bhansali made his directorial comeback after two years with the web series 'Heeramandi.' The magnum opus, which explored the lives and times of courtesans who once ruled Heeramandi, the red-light district of Lahore during the British Raj, also marked his reunion with his first leading lady, Manisha Koirala. Bhansali will next helm another period drama, 'Love & War'. The movie will feature Alia Bhatt, Ranbir Kapoor, and Vicky Kaushal. A Deep Dive into Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam, directed by Sanjay Leela Bhansali , draws inspiration from multiple literary sources and explores complex emotional themes. The film's primary storyline is adapted from the Gujarati play Shetal Ne Kathe, written by renowned author Jhaverchand Meghani. It follows the poignant journey of a recently married man who stumbles upon the heartbreaking truth that his wife harbors deep feelings for someone else. Rather than responding with bitterness or anger, he makes the selfless decision to help her reunite with her former lover. This touching and emotional narrative is centered on themes of sacrifice, unconditional love, and emotional maturity. In addition to its primary source, the movie has also been informally associated with Maitreyi Devi's Bengali novel Na Hanyate. While the storylines share emotional and thematic resemblances, the film does not officially acknowledge the novel as a source. The layered storytelling and Bhansali's signature visual grandeur make the film a powerful and unforgettable cinematic experience. Upon its release, Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam was not only well-received by critics but also triumphed at the box office. It was among the highest-earning Indian films of that year, accumulating a total revenue of ₹510 million (approximately US$6 million), marking it as a major commercial hit. Critics largely praised the film for its strong performances, emotionally charged screenplay, and rich musical compositions. Aishwarya Rai's portrayal of the female lead was lauded for its depth and grace, while Salman Khan and Ajay Devgn received acclaim for their nuanced performances. The film's soundtrack, composed by Ismail Darbar and featuring soul-stirring vocals, played a crucial role in its emotional resonance and wide appeal. The film's excellence was recognized during the 45th Filmfare Awards, where it garnered 17 nominations across various categories. These included Best Actor nominations for both Salman Khan and Ajay Devgn. It went on to win 7 major awards, including Best Film, Best Director for Sanjay Leela Bhansali, Best Actress for Aishwarya Rai, and Best Male Playback Singer for Udit Narayan, cementing its place as a landmark in Indian cinema . Overall, Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam remains a celebrated film for its heartfelt storytelling, artistic direction, and emotional richness that continues to resonate with audiences even years after its release.
Indian Express
6 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Inside Track: Emergency Tactics
This June marks the 50th anniversary of the Emergency, a black mark in India's history when Indira Gandhi used sledge hammer tactics to silence the media. Even before the Emergency proclamation was signed, electricity supply to Delhi newspapers was shut off. Censorship was imposed and guidelines were so rigid that not a line on the mass arrests of Opposition politicians, censorship and shutting down of publications could be carried. When The Indian Express displayed a blank space in its editorial column to convey subtly to the readers the ugly reality behind the scenes, the censor decreed that in future, no blank spaces or quotes of famous personalities would be permitted in editorials. Nothing could be published on Parliament, except statements on behalf of the government, and the name and affiliation of the MPs who spoke. I & B Minister V C Shukla had police inducted into the Central Information Service to keep a close watch on journalists. Foreign correspondents were told to either sign a document to adhere to the government's media guidelines or leave. National Herald editor Chalapathi Rao, after a meeting with Shukla and his fellow editors, remarked to Sharda Prasad, Indira's media adviser, 'I have not seen such a performance of toadies even at the height of the British Raj.'' A question often posed is, can India have an Emergency-style repression of the media again? A total blackout of news, as happened between 1975 and 1977, is no longer possible since sources of information dissemination have multiplied. During the Emergency, there was only one government controlled TV channel, Doordarshan, and a few hundred newspapers. Fifty years on, the print media is just one segment in the huge spectrum of news operations. There are over 400 privately owned TV news channels. The Internet is crowded with messages from bloggers and vloggers on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook et al. The WhatsApp universe is available to anyone with a cell phone. Today, no matter how powerful a government and the number of media advisers, spokespersons and trolls — the equivalent of yesteryear censors — the narrative cannot be controlled if the facts do not match up. Even during the Emergency, news spread by word of mouth. But that has not deterred governments from attempting to control news dissemination, although the methods employed are more subtle and sophisticated, not in-your-face as with the Emergency. In my long years as a journalist, I have discovered one rule of thumb, that the more powerful the leader, the more ruthless he or she is likely to be in suppressing uncomfortable facts. For instance, towards the end of Rajiv Gandhi's tenure, I worked for a newspaper started by a major business house which was wound up practically overnight, ostensibly sold to a vernacular newspaper chain, because the coterie around the PM decreed that the daily had crossed the line in its investigative reporting. When governments are weak, particularly when they survive through shaky coalitions, which was largely the case between the regimes of PM Narasimha Rao, from 1991, to PM Manmohan Singh, ending in 2014, the media was particularly spunky. Incidentally, while the mild-mannered Singh as PM was often targeted by journalists, most of them refrained from offending the Congress's first family. There have been godi media in all regimes. Today we have the most powerful PM since Indira. If the yearly listing of Reporters without Borders is to be taken seriously, India has been pegged a lowly 151 on the World Press Freedom Index, down from the 80th spot in 2014. The opaque methodology of rating is highly suspect. It is based on subjective opinions of anonymous individuals, many with a deep suspicion of the BJP's Hindutva nationalistic agenda. Can India, with its plurality of opinions, news outlets and cacophony of critical voices even in the midst of a war, really rank lower than countries like Qatar, Rwanda and Congo? My own methodology to assess the index of media independence is based on three factors. The media should be financially stable and not dependent on government largesse. It should not be a stakeholder in business interests which could conflict with its role as a purveyor of truth. (It is therefore troubling that India's two richest men, Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani, have expanding media empires.) The chill factor is another impediment to a free press. The media sometimes self-censors for fear of reprisal from the state which has been known to book journalists under non-applicable laws. The third indicator for a healthy press is the degree of the government's accessibility to the media. We may be better positioned today as regards media freedom than during the Emergency, but is that good enough? Do we fully reflect Tagore's immortal poem, 'Where the mind is without fear…''
India Gazette
30-05-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
Elite Western universities are a corrupt, parasitic empire
Instead of high-quality education, these institutions are fostering a global neo-feudal system reminiscent of the British Raj In a move that has ignited a global uproar, US President Donald Trump banned international students from Harvard University, citing "national security" and ideological infiltration. The decision, which has been widely condemned by academics and foreign governments alike, apparently threatens to undermine America's "intellectual leadership and soft power." At stake is not just Harvard's global appeal, but the very premise of open academic exchange that has long defined elite higher education in the US. But exactly how 'open' is Harvard's admissions process? Every year,highly qualified students- many with top-tier SAT or GMAT test scores - are rejected, often with little explanation. Critics argue that behind the prestigious Ivy League brand lies an opaque system shaped by legacy preferences, DEI imperatives, geopolitical interests, andoutright bribes. George Soros, for instance, once pledged$1 billionto open up elite university admissions to drones who would read from his Open Society script. China's swift condemnation of Trump's policy added a layer of geopolitical irony to the debate. Why would Beijing feign concern for "America's international standing" amid a bitter trade war? The international standing of US universities has long been tarnished by a woke psychosis whichspread like cancerto all branches of the government. So, what was behind China's latest gripe? The answer may lie in the unspoken rules of soft power: Ivy League campuses are battlegrounds for influence. The US deep state has long recruited foreign students to promote its interests abroad - subsidized by American taxpayers no less. China is apparently playing the same game, leveraging elite US universities to co-opt future leaders on its side of the geostrategic fence. For the time being, a judge has granted Harvard's request for atemporary restraining orderagainst Trump's proposed ban. Come what may, there is one commonsense solution that all parties to this saga would like to avoid: Forcing Ivy League institutions to open their admissions process to public scrutiny. The same institutions that champion open borders, open societies, and open everything will, however, not tolerate any suggestion of greater openness to its admissions process. That would open up a Pandora's Box of global corruption that is systemically ruining nations today. Speaking of corruption - how is this for irony? Astar Harvard professorwho built her career researching decision-making and dishonesty was just fired and stripped of tenure for fabricating her own data! Concentration of wealth and alumni networks The Ivy League has a vested interest in perpetuating rising wealth and educational inequalities. It is the only way they can remain atop the global rankings list at the expense of less-endowed peers. Elite universities like Harvard, Stanford, and MITdominatelists of institutions with the most ultra-wealthy alumni (net worth over $30mn). For example, Harvard alone has 18,000 ultra-high-net-worth (UHNW) alumni, representing 4% of the global UHNW population. These alumni networks provide major donations, corporate partnerships, and exclusive opportunities, reinforcing institutional wealth. If the alma mater's admissions process was rigged in their favor, they have no choice but to cough it up, at least for the sake of their offspring who will perpetuate this exclusivist cycle. The total endowment ofPrinceton University- $34.1 billion in 2024 - translated to $3.71 million per student, enabling generous financial aid and state-of-the-art facilities. Less prestigious institutions just cannot compete on this scale. Rankings, graft, and ominous trends Global university rankings (QS, THE, etc.) heavily favor institutions with large endowments, high spending per student, and wealthy student bodies. For example, 70% of the top 50 US News & World Report Best Colleges overlap with universities boasting the largest endowments and the highest percentage of students from the top1% of wealthy families. According to theSocial Mobility Index(SMI), climbing rankings requires tens of millions in annual spending, driving tuition hikes and exacerbating inequality. Lower-ranked schools which prioritize affordability and access are oftenovershadowed in traditional rankings, which reward wealth over social impact. Besides, social mobility these days is predetermined at birth, as the global wealth divide becomes unbridgeable. Worse, the global ranking system itself thrives on graft, with institutions gaming audits, inflating data, and even bribing reviewers. Take the case of a Southeast Asian diploma mill where some of its initial batch of female students had been arrested for prostitution. Despite its flagrant lack of academic integrity, it grew rapidly to secure an unusually high QS global ranking - ahead of venerable institutions like the University of Pavia, where Leonardo da Vinci studied, and which boasts three Nobel Laureates among its ranks. Does this grotesque inversion of merit make any sense? Government policies increasingly favor elite institutions. Recent White House tax cuts and deregulation may further widen gaps by benefiting corporate-aligned universities whilereducing public fundingfor others. This move was generally welcomed by the Ivy League until Trump took on Harvard. With such ominous trends on the horizon, brace yourselves for an implosion of the global education sector by 2030 - a reckoning mirroring the 2008 financial crisis, but with far graver consequences. And touching on the 2008 crisis, didn't someone remark that "behind every financial disaster, there's a Harvard economist?" Nobody seems to be learning from previous contretemps. In fact, I dare say that 'learning' is merely a coincidental output of the Ivy League brand The credentialism trap When Lehman Brothers and its lesser peers collapsed in 2008, many Singapore-based corporations eagerly scooped up theirlaid-off executives. The logic? Fail upward. If these whizz kids were truly talented, why did they miss the glaring warning signs during the lead up to the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression? The answer lies in the cult of credentialism and an entrenched patronage system. Ivy League MBAs and Rolodexes of central banker contacts are all that matters. The consequences are simply disastrous: A runaway global talent shortage will hit$8.452 trillionin unrealized annual revenues by 2030, more than the projectedGDP of Indiafor the same year. Ivy League MBAs often justify their relevance by overcomplicating simple objectives into tedious bureaucratic grinds - all in the name of efficiency, smart systems, and ever-evolving 'best practices'. The result? Doctors now spend more time on paperwork than treating patients, while teachers are buried under layers of administrative work. Ultimately, Ivy League technocrats often function as a vast bureaucratic parasite, siphoning public and private wealth into elite hands. What kind of universal socioeconomic model are these institutions bequeathing to the world? I can only think of one historical analogue as a future cue: Colonial India, aka the British Raj. This may be a stretch, but bear with me. Lessons from the Raj AsNorman Daviespointed out, the Austro-Hungarians had more bureaucrats managing Prague than the British needed to run all of colonial India - a subcontinent that included modern-day Pakistan and Bangladesh. In fact, it took only 1,500-odd white Indian Civil Service (ICS) officials to govern colonial India until WWI. That is quite staggering to comprehend, unless one grasps how the British and Indian societies are organized along rigid class (and caste) lines. When two corrupt feudal systems mate, their offspring becomes a blueprint for dystopia. India never recovered from this neo-feudal arrangement. If the reader thinks I am exaggerating, let's compare the conditions in the British Raj and China from 1850 to 1976 (when the Cultural Revolution officially ended). During this period, China endured numerous societal setbacks - including rebellions, famines, epidemics, lawlessness, and a world war - which collectively resulted in the deaths of nearly 150 million Chinese. The Taiping Rebellion alone - the most destructive civil war in history - resulted in 20 to 30 million dead, representing 5-10% of China's population at the time. A broad comparison with India during the same period reveals a death toll of 50-70 million, mainly from epidemics and famines. Furthermore, unlike colonial India, many parts of China also lacked central governance. Indian nationalists are quick to blame a variety of bogeymen for their society's lingering failings. Nevertheless, they should ask themselves why US Big Tech-owned news platforms, led by upper-caste Hindu CEOs, no less, showed a decidedly pro-Islamabad bias during the recent Indo-Pakistanimilitary standoff. Maybe, these CEOs are supine apparatchiks, much like their predecessors during the British Raj? Have they been good stewards of the public domain (i.e. internet)? Have they promoted meritocracy in foreign lands? (You can read some stark exampleshere,hereandhere). These Indian Big Tech bros, however, showed a lot of vigor and initiative during the Covid-19 pandemic, forcing their employees to take the vaccine or face the pink slip. They led the charge behind the Global Task Force on Pandemic Response, which included an "unprecedented corporate sector initiative to help India successfully fight COVID-19." Just check out thecredentialsof the 'experts' involved here. Shouldn't this task be left to accomplished Indian virologists and medical experts? A tiny few, in the service of a hegemon, can control the fate of income inequalityis now worse than it was under British rule. A way out? As global university inequalities widen further, it is perhaps time to rethink novel approaches to level the education field as many brick and mortar institutions may simply fold during thevolatile 2025-30 period. I am optimistic that the use ofAI in educationwill be a great equalizer, but I also fear that Big Tech will force governments into using its proprietary EdTech solutions that are already showing signs of runawayAI hallucinations- simply because the bold new world is all about control and power, not empowerment. Much like the British Raj, I would say. (
The Wire
20-05-2025
- Politics
- The Wire
What Jayant Narlikar Wrote on Scientific Temper a Decade Ago Still Holds True
Jayant Narlikar. Photo: Wikimedia commons Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute Now Renowned astrophysicist Jayant Narlikar passed away today (May 20). The following is the foreword written by him for The Republic of Reason, published in 2015. A scientific outlook can serve as an antidote to superstition and intolerance and the recent incidents involving attacks on rationalists and others remind us that India, even in the early 21st century, needs intensive campaigns to promote a scientific way of thinking. A scientific outlook should not be the exclusive trait of only professional scientists. Progress in society occurs when a scientific outlook prevails over innate conservatism. I am shocked at the attacks on those who have advocated rationalism and other incidents across the country in recent months. They reflect the persistence of superstitions and intolerance in our society. In order to avoid such incidents, we need to transform society by getting as many people as possible – even non-scientists – to adopt and campaign for a scientific and rational outlook. However, we must realize this may not be easy to achieve. Ancient traditions and ways of thinking are deeply embedded in our social and cultural milieu. They serve as barriers to the penetration of science and rationality. It is hard to change the mindset of older people in society. So we need to focus on younger people, beginning with school-going children. The scientific community itself should be more vocal, not just in the context of such incidents. Scientists should articulate the need for rational thinking all the time. Individually, or as part of a larger group, humans have often lived under traditional beliefs. These books are inextricably mixed with cultural and religious heritage. Conflicts arise whenever the critical appraisal inherent in the scientific temper is applied to these beliefs. In my 2003 book, Scientific Edge, I had quoted Jawaharlal Nehru describing scientific temper this way: 'The impact of science and the modern world have brought a greater appreciation of facts, a more critical faculty, a weighing of evidence, a refusal of tradition merely because it is tradition … I .. But even today it is strange how we suddenly become overwhelmed by tradition, and the critical faculties of even intelligent men cease to function…' This was written during the British Raj, but we appear still to be a long way from achieving the scientific outlook that Nehru considered so essential for our future well-being. The challenge for India lies in facing up to its real problems and solving them through a rational scientific approach.
Indian Express
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Stalin targets Centre over Presidential reference, calls for united legal fight to defend Constitution
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin on Thursday sharply criticised the Union government over the Presidential reference seeking the Supreme Court's opinion on the Governors' powers over state Bills, calling it a 'desperate attempt to weaken democratically elected state Governments'. Left parties, too, have criticised the move. In a strongly worded statement, Stalin described the Presidential Reference under Article 143 as an assault on the Constitution and a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's authority. 'I strongly condemn the Union Government's Presidential reference, which attempts to subvert the Constitutional position already settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu Governor's case and other precedents,' he said in a post on X. The DMK, which has been locked in multiple tussles with Governor R N Ravi over pending Bills, had earlier hailed the top court's ruling on deadlines for Governors as a landmark victory for states' rights. Stalin's latest statement appears to reopen that battle. 'This attempt clearly exposes the fact that the Tamil Nadu Governor acted at the BJP's behest to undermine the people's mandate,' Stalin said, accusing the Centre of seeking to paralyse Opposition-led legislatures through gubernatorial overreach. The Presidential Reference comes weeks after the top court held that Governors must act within a reasonable time when a Bill is presented. The President has now sought the court's opinion on whether Governors and President are justiciable and whether timelines can be imposed on them in the absence of any such provision in the Constitution. In a post on X, CPI(M) general secretary M A Baby quoted Stalin's post and said his party is opposed to the move. 'The governors are acting at the behest of the ruling party BJP and obstructing the functioning of opposition-led state govts. They are violating the federal principles enshrined in our Constitution. All the non-BJP state govts should condemn this move and join together in the fight against centralisation of powers at the cost of states' rights,' he said. CPI general secretary D Raja too criticised the Presidential reference, posting on X: 'The judgment came in response to repeated, undemocratic delays by governors in opposition-ruled states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala — where the British Raj relic of governor's office is being weaponised to block the will of the people.' Stalin, meanwhile, warned of broader implications for federalism, saying: 'This directly challenges the majesty of law and the authority of the Supreme Court as the final interpreter of the Constitution.' He posed pointed questions to the Centre: 'Why should there be any objection to prescribing time limits for Governors to act? Is the BJP seeking to legitimise its Governors' obstruction by allowing indefinite delays in Bill assent? Does the Union Government intend to paralyse non-BJP State Legislatures?' Calling the development a 'grave circumstance,' Stalin asserted that the move revealed 'the BJP-led Union Government's sinister intent to distort the Constitution's basic distribution of powers and incapacitate the State Legislatures dominated by opposition parties.' He said this posed 'a clear exigent threat to State autonomy.' Stalin urged leaders of all non-BJP ruled states to stand united in a legal battle to uphold the federal spirit of the Constitution. 'In these grave circumstances, I urge all non-BJP states and party leaders to join this legal struggle to defend the #Constitution,' he said. 'We will fight this battle with all our might. Tamil Nadu will fight — and #TamilNadu will win!'
