Friday, February 16, 2007

Skimming the Surface

On the surface, Deepa Mehta would have you believe that her movie Water is something that has the potential to immerse your senses and spirit into. As the opening shots of the movie roll out, they do capture your attention and hold it in anticipation to make you sit through what is to follow.

It's set in colonial India and intents to act as a mouthpiece to highlight the plight of Hindu widows then (and, we are told, even today, something which needs to be substantiated). Few moments into the movie and it is easy to see why it's called ‘Water’. Water is symbolic at many levels. The obvious one being that the story unfolds on the banks of the river Ganges. Extended a little further, ‘Water’ could be symbolic of the significance that it's Gangajal has in Hindu culture - as a cleansing and purifying element. Seen in the context of the movie - as a cleansing and purifying element in the lives of the various characters, who are living in some forms of a personal hell that they seek deliverance from.

Therein lies the irony too – the very river considered to be the symbol of purity, has been sullied and desecrated down the ages, with scant regard towards what is actually needed to keep it pure, healthy and alive. And so, the story of the river could actually be the story of the women in the story – deified as Goddesses by the same culture that stoops to an ugly form of societal dominance to dehumanize them through the systematic elimination of all that is pleasurable from their lives once they are widowed (and hence, once they discontinue to serve any purpose in the family, and as a character in the movie states, ‘is just another mouth to feed’).

Subsisting within the confines of a life marked by self-denial and forced abstinence (a hellish life which, ironically enough, according to the scriptures, is to ensure their place in heaven) - some of them aspire to be like the lotus, which blossoms despite the filth surrounding it. But then, neither is a woman a lotus (as one of the characters reminds us), nor is she desirous of being deified as a Goddess – she wants her place in the world, equivalent to any other human being, to enjoy and partake every worldly pleasure that she is entitled to, by virtue of being an individual. This, is my interpretation of what the director intends to convey through the movie. Also referred, in parallel, is the non-violent, nonetheless strident war of Mahatma Gandhi and his followers, towards achieving a similar objective – freedom. Making the freedom struggle for the country's independence another parable in the movie.

‘Water’ unfolds through the eyes of 8-yr old Chhuiya (played by Sarala), who is the newest inhabitant of the Vidhvashram when she is widowed at an age even too young to know what marriage means and is frighteningly caught in an adult world of social norms that are fraught with hypocrisy and perversion. We are subsequently introduced to the other inhabitants – the stoic, serene Shakuntala (Seema Biswas) who has chosen to devote her life to the piety her dharma has initiated into, till the day she is forced to choose between her dharma and her antaratma (inner conscience). Then there is the impossibly-beautiful Kalyani (Lisa Ray) who, we learn eventually, is the ‘jewel’ of the ashram as she serves a more odious purpose in the functional well-being of the ashram. The other characters include the dictatorial Madhumati (Manorama), who has through unexplained means taken up the charge of running the ashram. And Bua, a geriatric occupant who has been living this life of forced deprivation ever since she was a little girl, and her days are spent fantasizing about the delectable sweets that she last indulged in on her wedding day, as that little girl who was too young to even comprehend marriage.

The other significant character in this tale is that of a young law student and a Gandhian idealist, Narayan (John Abraham), who is smitten by the lovely Kalyani and sets out to defy tradition by marrying a widow.

Despite the potent metaphor (captured beautifully through the lens of the cinematographer in luminous shots that seem to be drenched in hues of green and blue), some poignant moments and a competent performance by Seema Biswas and the little Sarala, unfortunately the movie fails to touch a chord.

Neither does it have the brazen starkness of a ‘Bandit Queen’ (a movie which is truly capable of shaking you out of your cocoon of oblivion and pushing you into a horrific world which is as real to some as your refined urban existence is to you) nor does it have the lyrical angst of a ‘Pinjar’. The weakest point of the movie is the crux it rests on – the dreamy love story between the beautiful widow and the handsome idealist. It is far too flimsy, which makes the core intention of the movie trivial.

To begin with, the task of carrying the movie through the love story rests on the pretty shoulders of two model-turned actors – Lisa Ray (playing Kalyani) and John Abraham (playing Narayan), who undoubtedly make an attractive pair but do little to add any weight to their characters. And you are left wondering what was the director’s objective behind this casting. Wouldn’t the need to tell the tale in all earnestness have driven the choice of actors to be based on acting capabilities rather than aesthetic appeal ?

In Kalyani’s character, at no point do we feel the anguish of a woman who spends her days locked up like chattel and at nights ferried across the river to fulfill lasvicous needs of aging men. We expect, but don’t sense any cynicism towards men and matrimony in someone who has experienced only the dark side of both. Neither do we understand why Narayan is motivated to defy tradition to marry Kalyani (besides her porcelain good looks and a set of self-righteous ideals infused by Gandhian ideology). What is it that binds them as individuals and draws them to one another, to indulge in forbidden love. Here are two people, caught in a stifling social order - we fail to experience the sense of release they would have felt in the brief moments of liberation that they snatch to get away from the reality of an existence that has become fetid with age-old customs. And though we would want to feel the exuberance of unexpected, tender moments they experience or the pain of unrequited love, we feel nothing. In short, the two characters seem to be playing a part in a fairy tale, reciting poetry and exchanging soulful looks, drowning the whole purpose of the movie in cheesy, adolescent-like love.

The dialectic process that leads the character of the stoic Shakuntala to go through an awakening (who till the end seems to be resigned to her fate) provides the movie some credibility in attempting to state its message of social reform, however, in conclusion, the movie disappoints and fails to connect at any level, leaving you with no images or thoughts that have the potential to linger on. And I wonder what were the protesters protesting against. They have done more service than disservice to Deepa Mehta, by sensationalising it - which allowed Deepa Mehta to bank on the curiosity generated by the controversy. In reality, the movie is worth no protest - and if this was considered worthy of an Oscar nomination, an Oscar nomination too means little.


Monday, January 29, 2007

We went to Vegas

We went to Vegas, and had a great time. A holiday in Vegas is like an outing to a large amusement park – a festive mood hangs over the city during the day that translates into a night long party. The major attractions, ofcourse, are the hotels themselves, which have gone beyond fresh linen and a clean bath - the most rudimentary need a hotel is meant to fulfill - but there is nothing rudimentary about Vegas – its opulent, lavish and every other similar adjective.

During our two day visit, we lodged at the sprawling MGM Grand – built around the theme of the Hollywood MGM Grand Studios.

Most of the hotels are built around a chosen theme – which have been executed innovatively. Though we did not tour every hotel, some of them represent their themes through striking exteriors.

In the morning we stepped out of the MGM Grand, to begin the Vegas sight-seeing tour – which is essentially a walk on the Vegas Strip ( the 4 mile stretch of Vegas where most of the attraction of the ‘Sin –City’ lies).

A few steps around the corner, we were facing the Hotel New York - New York. The façade of this hotel is built to resemble the Manhattan Skyline of New York– complete with the Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, Chrysler Towers, Brooklyn Bridge.

A walk further down led us to the Hotel Paris – well, as the name suggests, built along the Paris theme, with a replica of the Eiffel tower, cobbled pavement and a road side Bistro. I personally found the above two hotels very aesthetic in the way the theme was represented through the external architecture. Lovely.

The most beautiful and classiest employment of its theme was at The Venetian – built along the theme of Venice. From the paintings on the ceilings, to the branded souvenirs (consisting of the famous Venetian masks and little gondolas on cups, fridge magnets etc, the souvenirs were more Venice than Vegas) - Venice resides in the details. The ‘Grand Canal Shoppes’ – the shopping arcade of the hotel, is an expansive indoor arena – only that the way its designed and built, with a false sky, the ambient lighting, a canal, with gondolas, winding through (though, the water in the canal was uncomfortably swimming-pool blue). We felt we were outdoors.

The shopping area even has an ‘open’ market place with eateries and stalls (selling ‘Venetian’ merchandise)

Ofcourse, a noticeable activity in this entire hotel hopping was the occasional indulgence in the pastime this ‘Playground of America’ is best known for – casinos. Suffice to say, we lost, we won, we lost again and won again and had some good fun in the process – and at least, at the end, were not left in the negative. And also marveled at how profitable a venture like this would be - to dole out money, in a five-star ambience, with drinks on the house and still, at the end, still laugh all the way to the bank.

Vegas had some other interesting sights too, like this 'Elvis' pair we spotted, outside a 'Harley Davidson' Cafe.

There were some palpable disappointments though – the eagerly looked forward to ‘Vegas Shows’. This was one place where the slick 'Vegas packaging’ failed, and I am compelled to say that content simply did not match up to all that hype. The other was the Lion Habitat at the MGM Grand, which had been publicized something like this - ‘Separated from the lions by only one and a half inches of glass, visitors can watch as these majestic creatures feed, play, groom themselves and sleep’. What we saw, ahem, were two extremely bored lions sleeping in some obscure corner of the ‘habitat’ (a disappointingly small glass enclosure). Maybe we just caught the lions at the wrong time.

To sum it up, few hours into Vegas, and you realize that what is most fascinating about Vegas is the fact that it is a dazzling tourist spot built out of virtually nothing – no natural treasures, no culture or history to boast of. Its just the All-American entrepreuner spirit that packages some good entertainment and markets it just the right way, and a post WWII cheap, shoddy town in the middle of the desert gets transformed into the 'All-American Road' .


Sunday, October 22, 2006

The movie 'Lajja'

Today I watched the film 'Lajja', released in 2001 - directed by Raj Kumar Santoshi, with a top of the line star cast that boasts of Madhuri Dixit, Rekha, Manisha Koirala, Mahima Chaudhuri, Anil Kapoor, Jackie Shroff, Ajay Devgan. And as if that was not enough, there are two 'item numbers' by Urmila Matondkar and Sonali Bendre.

The plot was interesting enough to get me to watch the movie - a story that narrates the tale of four different women as seen and experienced by one of them. And despite its melodrama, obvious cliches and a lot hamming, the movie made an impact. The central protagonist, or the sutradhar, is Vaidehi (Manisha Koirala). She is the wife of a NRI tycoon - who feels lost in his materialistic world that she finds debase and unfulfilling.

Vaedehi's attempt to escape from this shallow world and preserve her integrity in the process, takes her on a journey - a journey which brings her face to face with some stark, brutal reality. Through her eyes, we witness lives that remind us of the grim situation that continues to exist in India even today. Lives that are representative of the greatest ironies of Indian society - where the female form is worshipped as goddesses on one hand and defiled through practices of dowry, infanticide and rape on the other hand.
The story weaves in an out of the lives of the four protagonists --

Vaidehi, the wife of a selfish, egotistical man. She's being hunted by him and is on the run. A flight the takes off falteringly, but ends with her soaring to reach out for the purposeful-ness she is searching for.

Mythili, the college-educated demure middle-class girl who displays spunk in revolting against the back-breaking dowry demands and the constant humiliation suffered by her father at the hands of her future in laws.

Janaki, the bold and independent small town stage actress who is unabashed about her pre-marital pregnant status - and rises up against the hypocritical standards of proprietary that society imposes solely upon women.

Ramdulaari, the progressive, backward-caste mid-wife living in a small village somewhere in northern India who challenges the oppressive ways of the upper-caste local politician - plodding relentlessly to uplift the dismal status of the women folk.

As the story progresses, we find ourselves, like Vaidehi, drawn into the plight of these women, and are left stunned, disgusted and shamed. Overly-dramatic they maybe, but the tales being played out are real stories of real women in contemporary India. And not too different from Vaidehi, we are left in awe of the way these women choose to stand up and face their grim situation bravely and courageously.

Amongst the performances, Madhuri Dixit steals the show. She sizzles as the brassy nautanki-actress who lives life on her own terms. The entire 'Ramayan' sequence that conveys what is essentially the crux of the movie, is sterling. It draws an analogy between the life of Sita and these women, questions the double standards that exist in the entire Agni Pariksha episode and goes a step further to state that Ram's victory over Ravana would have been futile had it not been for Sita's will to keep Ravan's overtures at bay. Madhuri competently emotes the myriad emotions of heartbreak, disbelief, agony and rage that the character, Janaki, goes through during the course of the stage play - as backstage, she is confronted with the reality of her own life that is coming apart.

The other female leads are adequate and do justice to the roles they are called to enact. The chilling gang-rape scene is chilling and portrayed sensitively, managing to do what it is meant to do - make one cringe.

The male actors complement the female characters and do not attempt to hog the screen. They are presented to us in varying shades of morality - the self-indulgent,arrogant husband (Jackie Shroff); the good-hearted small time thief played by Anil Kapoor. The larger than life, super-heroic Robin Hood-ish Bulla (Ajay Devgan),a character which feels a tad out of place in this tale that is principally intended to be 'feminist' in tone.

The movie by no means is perfect or brilliant. It never really achieves to question our own conscience in the manner Rajkumar Santoshi's earlier film Damini did. Neither does it match the complex moral terrain Damini dragged us into. The situations and characters are either white or black - lacking the subtlety that blurs the line between right and wrong in real-life situations. The only too human mental conflict that a Rishi Kapoor's character (in Damini) goes through is missing, rendering the situations unrealistic and the characters that are reduced to being caricatures - and our own involvement in the movie fleeting, being held only as long as the movie lasts.

Despite all of this, I found Lajja engrossing - absorbing enough to make me write about it. Its a gripping narrative of a subject which is beaten-to-death. Most importantly, it argues the case of resting the task of a woman's emancipation on the woman herself - being bold enough to state that had Sita refused to concede to the Agni Pariksha (and in the modern day, if women in similar situations, reject traditions, customs that only humiliate their selves), things might be different.

And, Madhuri Dixit definitely made the film worth the watch.


Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Sibling Stories

"Pramod Mahajan shot by his younger brother Pravin Mahajan" : This particular news headline has, to say the least, shocked the entirevnation and today as he battles for his life, all hope for his recovery. NDTV reports:

According to the Mumbai police, Pravin Mahajan has revealed many details about why he shot his brother Pramod:
• Pravin harboured a long standing resentment against Pramod
• He feels Pramod has not done enough for him
• Pravin feels that he has paid the price for being the sibling of a famous brother
• Pravin also said that whenever he needed to contact Pramod, he was made to go through secretaries who were very rude

…..Pramod Mahajan is known for his skills in bringing together political adversaries. Yet somehow he was unable to mend the rift within his own family.

The Times of India further reports :

Pravin Mahajan’s lawyer gave a new dimension to the mystery behind shooting by indicating that his client was mentally disturbed. But police commissioner A N Roy said the accused certainly showed no signs of mental illness or disturbance. He said the attack appeared “premeditated.’’ Police sources said Pravin looked to be “a deeply frustrated man’’ who suffered from an inferiority complex

Pramod Mahajan is the eldest in his family and has been known to be a father figure to his younger siblings. Pravin Mahajan, the youngest, as believed, too was dependent on Pramod Mahajan in many ways. This dependence, Pravin told the police turned into a long burning resentment.

The incident sparked a strain of thought – unrelated to the act per se – the thought, instead, veered towards the dynamics that exist between siblings and the immense differences in status as well as fortune that define some of them (like in the case of the Mahajan brothers). This bond comes perhaps just second in influence to the parent-child relationship in defining ones life.

With siblings we share a lifetime of stories and experiences - a wealth of shared history. Unique, by virtue of being incontrovertible and everlasting, the bond can be complex and multilayered. The presence (or absence) of a sibling can be a prominent determinant of an individual’s personality. Factors like one’s birth order position, age difference between siblings, gender roles, difference in capabilities – intellectual, physical, amiability - and most critically, the parental role (or a lack of it) in managing these differences : undeniably play a crucial role in defining individual character traits and a person’s general attitude towards dealing with future life issues. Ofcourse, overriding all of these could be the child’s opinion about himself – a factor of his intrinsic attitude.

Psychologist Alfred Alder’s work includes a very interesting theory on birth order dynamics in personality formation. More on Birth Order may be read here

He also asserts how the feeling of inferiority due to the presence of a sibling who exhibits more superior (or perceived as superior) qualities, may lead to what he calls ‘compensation’ – an attempt to make up for those perceived inferior functions – something which may lead to a useful direction towards exceptional achievement or a useless turn towards excessive perfectionism – leading to a ‘fictional final goal’ – something which promises relief from those feelings of inferiority. In reality, birth order, perhaps, has a greater role to play in the event of early parental loss, especially in the context of a large family (as was the case in the lives of the Mahajan siblings).

American sociologist Dalton Conley, in his book ‘Pecking Order’, differs from the ‘Birth Order’ theory or any other factor like genetic differences to explain differences between siblings, especially in the case of siblings born in economically disadvantaged classes. He believes that in families of two kids, birth order does not matter much. And that for most of us, good genes count only to the extent that they ‘fit in’ with the social circumstances around us.

Simply stated, he says that how innate talent is rewarded, depends on the socio-economic structure of that time, how well it matches with the values of the family and its circumstances to be able to perceive it as being valuable. For example, in a family valuing reading, a child’s innate athletic talents may go unrealized.

Citing the example of Bill Clinton and his half-brother Roger Clinton, he goes on to explain, that the differences in the way their individual lives turned out (one went on to be the President of the United States and the other an ex-convict -coke dealer) was largely due to the fact that there existed a good fit between Bill Clinton’s talents, and the political opportunities in a small state like Arkansas. And the lack of financial resources prevented the younger sibling from availing opportunities, like good schooling, which could have rewarded his talents. And though they shared a cherished childhood bond, the acute differences in their adult lives was a cause of much embarrassment, guilt and trauma to both.

The dynamics between siblings are to a large extent defined by the way the relationship is managed by the parents. Understanding the uniqueness of each child and responding accordingly. Instilling a sense of belonging and oneness with the family fold in each. Consciously cultivating a sense of mutual care and love between siblings - these are some of the ways through which parents handle, shape and forge realtionships between their children, which in turn, may mold their individual lives.

Complexities of the relationship apart, many sibling stories are happy stories. Healthy sibling bonds are an asset. They run deep and harbor mutual support, care and love. The treasure of shared history, comprising of childhood memories, games indulged in and tales assembled, is invaluable, especially as the years go by. Siblings provide a cushion of support and solace during times of crisis and represent the family sanctuary.

And though sibling relationships evolve over time and some siblings move apart in pursuit of careers, marriage and life in general, later events often draw them back. Simply stated, siblings are for life.

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

The Mathematics of success= - Maths or + Maths?

This newsreport recently caught my eye. It talks about a proposal moved by the ministry of youth affairs and sports to make mathematics an optional subject after Class 8

I cannot claim to have any expertise to be able to comment on the decision, hence shall refrain from doing the same. The following post is less about the government’s decision, which I understand is going to incite opinions that are divided on the issue, in this post I am merely sharing my own tryst with the subject during my school life and the consequences, that I believe resulted thereof.

Without mincing words, let it be known that I was what could be referred to as being ‘average’ in Maths. It was a subject that always evoked panic, fear and also feelings of inferiority – as proficiency in the subject was supposedly inevitable to be considered ‘intelligent’ and hence if one was ‘poor in maths’ meant one could be relegated forever into the ‘not-so-bright’ breed. This perceived relationship between excelling in maths and excelling in life perhaps propelled me to fight tooth and nail with what was a lack of a ‘natural flair’ for the subject and a veneration for it dominated most of my student life (and it was the fear of this ignominy of being deemed 'unintillegent' that fuelled acceptable performance in the subject more than a natural comfort in the it). On hindsight, I never enjoyed maths but I believed strongly enough that one just had to be good at mathematics to make it anywhere significantly in life. End result – the focus of your life becomes something you want to be better at (hence are at most ‘ok’ in it), instead of being something you are inherently good at (and can potentially excel in).

This obsession with ‘proving’ one is good at mathematics or anything else for that matter could be partly self-created, driven by aspirations to model oneself on someone else who, for example, excels at that. Partly responsible could be a not-so-sensitive school teacher who could explicitly or implicitly hint that a student was ‘slow’ as proficiency in maths was not upto desired levels (sensitive, impressionable children, whose need for approval is very high, are especially susceptible to this). And mostly responsible is the general social scenario in our country where the more lucrative and high-profile jobs go to the engineering and/or MBA breed of professionals, a fundamental requirement of the engineering course being proficiency in mathematics (and in turn, 70% of MBAs are from engineering backgrounds, followed by economics, science and commerce, rarely arts.). Non-traditional career options that emanate from an aptitude, for instance, in the liberal arts, natural sciences or even those who possess non-academic talents like art, music, sports are considered neither lucrative nor worthwhile a student’s time and effort.

As a result of the above, what we achieve is a person who is at best average in what he does. Marcus Buckingham and Curt W. Coffman of Gallup in their book ‘First, Break All the Rules’ share an insight which they have culled during their extensive interaction with successful corporate managers, of course their finding is more aimed at the corporate arena, but in principle, is true of people in general. They say :

People don't change that much.
Don't waste time trying to put in what was left out.
Try to draw out what was left in.
That is hard enough.

In essence, what their philosophy states is that “…try to help each person become more and more of who he already is.”

The point that this post is trying to make is that an archaic education system that defines excellence in a rather uni-dimensional manner fails to tap the potential of the individual (and in turn the huge human resource pool that exists in India which is assumed to be our greatest asset as of today). And the answer does not lie in a solution as simplistic as making a subject/s optional (young students are most often driven by reasons other than a heightened awareness of their own strengths in making academic choices). What is required instead is an innovative system that is able to identify, encourage and nurture a student’s inherent strengths. It could mean making maths optional, or making history/social sciences optional - the suggested approach being one which makes one at the end of it, feel comfortable about one’s intrinsic talents and utilize them favorably.

Sunday, March 12, 2006

I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You!

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.

- Alice in Wonderland

This article on Introversion that I was directed to from here, sparked a chain of thoughts (well, what else do you expect of an introvert!), and further fuelled by the various comments and reactions from friends and other readers the following thoughts emerged, about ‘Introversion/Extroversion’ in specific and ‘type theories’ in general.

(1) Introverts are not necessarily detached or someone who don't need people (as the article mentions – they are not ‘misanthropic’) - Just that the effort required to interact in larger crowds is draining, and they prefer one-to-one interactions. The need to 'connect' at a human level can be very strong for even an introvert (It’s ok even if that connection happens through mail - infact the Internet is a boon for any introvert, as it provides the ideal environment to create connections, without the discomfort of the face-to-face medium), where as on the other hand, you may find extroverts who don't necessarily have the need to connect deeply with people (point is, a tendency towards either orientation doesn't automatically suggest a person's need to be with people)

(2)Though introverts are clearly at a greater disadvantage compared to their extrovert counterparts (especially as a child, when the comfort of 'being yourself' may not have yet developed and a constant push towards being more 'active' may lead to a lack of self-esteem, as the child tends to assume 'something must be wrong with me' to incite constant prodding) - the extroverts too may be at a disadvantage at times (imagine a gregarious extrovert growing up in a family of introverts)

(2) Most of us tend to balance-out our 'inherent' personalities - like everything else in nature, where, magically enough everything strives towards a state of equilibrium, so is the case with the human mind, and infact a lack of that is what leads to most mental/personality disorders (like any other disorder in nature) Which means, over time, introverts get more comfortable interacting with crowds and extroverts realise the need for some 'quite time'. (That tendency to achieve the state of equilibrium, very similar to what Jung calls 'individuation' is perhaps what we are referring to when we find a person 'balanced' - they are people, who have consciously or unconsciously sensed the dangers inherent in an 'extreme' form of anything – ‘too much of a good thing can be bad’)

(4) The true objective and purpose of any theories like these (that enunciate differences in people, like the MBTI, which the article also cites) is to highlight and appreciate the inherent differences, and should not be taken as an excuse to pander ones egos and get stuck in rigid patterns of behaviour (“See, this is how I am supposed to be, you can’t expect me to behave differently!”). The realisation arising out of the awareness of how different people can be, should be liberating, not restricting! It should not only lead to a heightened self-awareness but also to the awareness that we cannot assume everyone has the needs we have and hence may react, perceive and respond to situations differently.

In short as this book describes it excellently, ‘I’m Not Crazy. I’m Just Not You’

Saturday, March 11, 2006

Boys don't cry

I memorise, I walk in line,
carry my sacrifice for the sake of the millions.
All night you be the light on the water,
you be the pride and the sorrow,
shower your love to me there.

Soldiers, father and son,
we're soldiers, nowhere to run,
we fight or we die,
for what are we living for?
Boys never cry.

Soldiers, Bee-Gees

News reports such as those below keep trickling in...

Stressed soldier kills four colleagues. Monday, March 6, 2006 (Jammu).

Army jawan kills colleagues, shoots self. Sunday, October 2, 2005 (Jammu)

CRPF jawan kills seven colleagues in J&K Sunday, November 28, 2004 (Baramulla)

When the going gets tough, the tough too need help to fight the battles within..