about Vikas Swarup

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar ji,I know the other thread is closed now, but I am clarifying a point raised by Mr Siddhartha, lest he thinks that we are biased. Please allow this post, as it is also general information for everyone.

//why is no one saying anythig about the author of the book Q & A on which the movie is based? because he is indian?//Let me give some facts on this. I am telling this as my duty because I know Vikas Swarup personally, having worked with him closely a couple of years back when he was posted at the HQs. This novel Q & A was just about out at that time. He was very happy doing it, and surely, it became a popular work winning many prizes all over. It was also adapted into plays and musicals and ran successfully all over. He is a respected diplomat and a very good human being, let me tell you. Very intelligent too, obviously. The novel has nothing wrong, many Indian writers have ventured into such stories. It was written as a story of hope.

While he was posted in London, Doyle decided to make a film based on this novel to which Vikas agreed. (now he’s posted to South Africa). Doyle wanted to make a clever film (what I mean by this, I’ll tell you a later), so he changed the title of the book and kept a more sensational ‘Slumdog’. Vikas was not happy with this.

In his own words, " I was not very happy that the title of the book was changed to Slumdog Millionaire. "  And he did show his resentment about the change in title, and he was told that " this is the norm in a book-film tie, which is targeted mainly at people who have not heard of the book and come to the book only after seeing the film " .

So the film was out and the whole canvas appeared different. When you read a book, it is entirely different, but visual depiction can be gory. There are various changes in the script, including the climax and role of destiny, about which also he was not happy. He says he prefers his own version which says you create your own luck.

Now of course, no one is complaining with so many awards under its belt, the film has created history. But this history has been created on the skeletons which have now been buried for good. Vikas also is happy naturally, with the kind of success and name and fame He is human after all. But he did raise his concerns over the issues.

Let me come back to why is it a clever film. The film is made as an out-and-out “crowd-pleaser” which is done through punching together as many stereotypes that Westerners have about India as is humanly possible. People live in garbage heaps. A character jumps into a huge heap of human excreta and without batting an eyelid comes running out covered in brown slime, as if it is the most natural thing in India, to get an autograph of a star.  The hero, a Muslim, sees his family slaughtered by Hindu rioters and sees along with it a rioting kid (presumably) dressed as Lord Rama, in blue paint and with a bow and arrow in hand, standing as a sentinel of doom, an image whose indelibility in the character’s mind becomes a principal plot point. A character is booked on the flimsiest of charges and then he is beaten black and blue in a police station and given volts of electricity. What else? Let’s see. Child prostitution, yes. Forced begging, yes, Blinding of innocent children, yes, Rape, yes, Human filth, yes.

Well. the novel makes a different statement, but the film is a far reaching media and like a readymade dish. It is what it looks. While a novel is an intelligent media and it is a lot of what the reader is. Hope you get my point.

When all the hellish things possible are shown in one place, then it stretches reason and believability and just looks like you are packing in every negative thing that Westerners perceive about India for the sake of “crowd pleasing”.  Because audiences and jury members “feel good” when their pre-conceived notions are confirmed. On the flip side, nothing disquiets a viewer as much as when his/her prejudices are challenged. So Boyle does the safe thing.

This is the reason why no-one is talking about Vikas Swarup. There was nothing that he did intentionally. RegardsNeelam

[Guest guest]

Dear Neelamji,

I have read books of Kamala das , Shobha de, but then stopped wasting money over these books, because I realisied that they were cheap books titilating on sensual, just to reap in money from the public. So was khushwant Singh alway trying to show his macho image of his endless sexual exploits with foreign and Indian women. We have many such types more, I dont remember the names, who exploit on women, nudeness and on the nerve centres, who may not be exactly authors of books but who know what to tap, and when for public fame and noteirety. Satyajit Ray, Shyam benegal, medha Patkar, mamta Banerjee, all fall in same category. recently one Indian born author earned worldwide acclaim by writing a book on Rikshaw pullers of India. These are all the scum of society who just want sensation to Live. Like the parasitic worms in somebodys intestines who eat food meant for the body where they have been given home to Live. The Guru of all is the perverted old man, with one leg in the grave, MF Hussain.

Nobody is going to watch good paintings as per them, so they make nude paintings .

Nobody is going to watch family movies as per them , so they make these ditry movies.

Nobody is going to read good fiction as per them, so they write on sex in name of fiction, to get famous.

But the common man, as well as the intellectuals, they understand everything, and they cant fool them. No Sir, they cant.

Truth , very few people write, and I read such a book, which was better than fiction, and read it at one go, from morning to evening, a book by bangaldeshi writer Tasleema nasrin, who has the guts to write on the atrocities committed on the Hindus in bangaldesh , our women raped, and the thousands of temples been ravaged there.

The movie in question is all rotten falsehood exhibited. the slums of Dharavi, are no more what they show. Go to dharavi, and you will find every hut has a Coloured Television set. Not a single boy there you would find rolling in sh.. like they showed in the movie. Not a single Goonda you willl find in Bombay singing Lord krishna bhajans and remving eyes of poor children to make them pitiable beggars. Not a single case of Muslims being attacked or tortured as they have shown in the movie will you find. The movie makers are catching on the sentiments of minorities, and the commonly known underprivilged ( ?? ) to take in the moolah. On the contrary you will find the opposite hapenning in Bombay, exactly. thats the truth, which was not shown.

Bhaskar.

 

, neelam gupta <neelamgupta07 wrote:>> Dear Bhaskar ji,> > I know the other thread is closed now, but I am clarifying a point raised by> Mr Siddhartha, lest he thinks that we are biased. Please allow this post, as> it is also general information for everyone.> > //why is no one saying anythig about the author of the book Q & A on which the> movie is based? because he is indian?//> > Let me give some facts on this. I am telling this as my duty because I know> Vikas Swarup personally, having worked with him closely a couple of years> back when he was posted at the HQs. This novel Q & A was just about out at> that time. He was very happy doing it, and surely, it became a popular work> winning many prizes all over. It was also adapted into plays and musicals> and ran successfully all over. He is a respected diplomat and a very good> human being, let me tell you. Very intelligent too, obviously. The novel has> nothing wrong, many Indian writers have ventured into such stories. It was> written as a story of hope.> > While he was posted in London, Doyle decided to make a film based on this> novel to which Vikas agreed. (now he's posted to South Africa). Doyle wanted> to make a clever film (what I mean by this, I'll tell you a later), so he> changed the title of the book and kept a more sensational `Slumdog'. Vikas> was not happy with this.> > In his own words, "I was not very happy that the title of the book was> changed to Slumdog Millionaire." And he did show his resentment about the> change in title, and he was told that "this is the norm in a book-film tie,> which is targeted mainly at people who have not heard of the book and come> to the book only after seeing the film".> > So the film was out and the whole canvas appeared different. When you read a> book, it is entirely different, but visual depiction can be gory. There are> various changes in the script, including the climax and role of destiny,> about which also he was not happy. He says he prefers his own version which> says you create your own luck.> > Now of course, no one is complaining with so many awards under its belt, the> film has created history. But this history has been created on the skeletons> which have now been buried for good. Vikas also is happy naturally, with the> kind of success and name and fame He is human after all. But he did raise> his concerns over the issues.> > Let me come back to why is it a clever film. The film is made as an> out-and-out "crowd-pleaser" which is done through punching together as many> stereotypes that Westerners have about India as is humanly possible. People> live in garbage heaps. A character jumps into a huge heap of human excreta> and without batting an eyelid comes running out covered in brown slime, as> if it is the most natural thing in India, to get an autograph of a star.> The hero, a Muslim, sees his family slaughtered by Hindu rioters and sees> along with it a rioting kid (presumably) dressed as Lord Rama, in blue paint> and with a bow and arrow in hand, standing as a sentinel of doom, an image> whose indelibility in the character's mind becomes a principal plot point. A> character is booked on the flimsiest of charges and then he is beaten black> and blue in a police station and given volts of electricity. What else?> Let's see. Child prostitution, yes. Forced begging, yes, Blinding of> innocent children, yes, Rape, yes, Human filth, yes.> > Well. the novel makes a different statement, but the film is a far reaching> media and like a readymade dish. It is what it looks. While a novel is an> intelligent media and it is a lot of what the reader is. Hope you get my> point.> When all the hellish things possible are shown in one place, then it> stretches reason and believability and just looks like you are packing in> every negative thing that Westerners perceive about India for the sake of> "crowd pleasing". Because audiences and jury members "feel good" when their> pre-conceived notions are confirmed. On the flip side, nothing disquiets a> viewer as much as when his/her prejudices are challenged. So Boyle does the> safe thing.> > This is the reason why no-one is talking about Vikas Swarup. There was> nothing that he did intentionally.> > Regards> Neelam>

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar ji,Of course what you say is absolutely correct and I agree with you. I was trying to say that originally this book was not meant to create any such sensation and its purpose was not this. In any case, a diplomat is quite responsible and accountable, and the Ministry of External Affairs does not allow screening of any films or promoting any such literature which show India in poor light outside India.

RegardsNeelam2009/2/28 Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish

 

 

 

 

Dear Neelamji,

I have read books of Kamala das , Shobha de, but then stopped wasting money over these books, because I realisied that they were cheap books titilating on sensual, just to reap in money from the public. So was khushwant Singh alway trying to show his macho image of his endless sexual exploits with foreign and Indian women. We have many such types more, I dont remember the names, who exploit on women, nudeness and on the nerve centres, who may not be exactly authors of books but who know what to tap, and when for public fame and noteirety. Satyajit Ray, Shyam benegal, medha Patkar, mamta Banerjee, all fall in same category. recently one Indian born author earned worldwide acclaim by writing a book on Rikshaw pullers of India. These are all the scum of society who just want sensation to Live. Like the parasitic worms in somebodys intestines who eat food meant for the body where they have been given home to Live. The Guru of all is the perverted old man, with one leg in the grave, MF Hussain.  

Nobody is going to watch good paintings as per them, so they make nude paintings .

Nobody is going to watch family movies as per them , so they make these ditry movies.

Nobody is going to read good fiction as per them, so they write on sex in name of fiction, to get famous.

But the common man, as well as the intellectuals, they understand everything, and they cant fool them. No Sir, they cant.

Truth , very few people write, and I read such a book, which was better than fiction, and read it at one go, from morning to evening, a book by bangaldeshi writer Tasleema nasrin, who has the guts to write on the atrocities committed on the Hindus in bangaldesh , our women raped, and the thousands of temples been ravaged there.

The movie in question is all rotten falsehood exhibited. the slums of Dharavi, are no  more what they show. Go to dharavi, and you will find every hut has a Coloured Television set. Not a single boy there you would find rolling in sh.. like they showed in the movie. Not a single Goonda you willl find in Bombay  singing Lord krishna bhajans and remving eyes of poor children to make them pitiable beggars. Not a single case of Muslims being attacked or tortured as they have shown in the movie will you find.  The movie makers are catching on the sentiments of minorities, and the commonly known underprivilged ( ?? ) to take in the moolah. On the contrary you will find the opposite hapenning in Bombay, exactly. thats the truth, which was not shown.

Bhaskar.

 

, neelam gupta <neelamgupta07 wrote:>> Dear Bhaskar ji,> > I know the other thread is closed now, but I am clarifying a point raised by

> Mr Siddhartha, lest he thinks that we are biased. Please allow this post, as> it is also general information for everyone.> > //why is no one saying anythig about the author of the book Q & A on which the

> movie is based? because he is indian?//> > Let me give some facts on this. I am telling this as my duty because I know> Vikas Swarup personally, having worked with him closely a couple of years

> back when he was posted at the HQs. This novel Q & A was just about out at> that time. He was very happy doing it, and surely, it became a popular work> winning many prizes all over. It was also adapted into plays and musicals

> and ran successfully all over. He is a respected diplomat and a very good> human being, let me tell you. Very intelligent too, obviously. The novel has> nothing wrong, many Indian writers have ventured into such stories. It was

> written as a story of hope.> > While he was posted in London, Doyle decided to make a film based on this> novel to which Vikas agreed. (now he's posted to South Africa). Doyle wanted> to make a clever film (what I mean by this, I'll tell you a later), so he

> changed the title of the book and kept a more sensational `Slumdog'. Vikas> was not happy with this.> > In his own words, " I was not very happy that the title of the book was> changed to Slumdog Millionaire. " And he did show his resentment about the

> change in title, and he was told that " this is the norm in a book-film tie,> which is targeted mainly at people who have not heard of the book and come> to the book only after seeing the film " .

> > So the film was out and the whole canvas appeared different. When you read a> book, it is entirely different, but visual depiction can be gory. There are> various changes in the script, including the climax and role of destiny,

> about which also he was not happy. He says he prefers his own version which> says you create your own luck.> > Now of course, no one is complaining with so many awards under its belt, the> film has created history. But this history has been created on the skeletons

> which have now been buried for good. Vikas also is happy naturally, with the> kind of success and name and fame He is human after all. But he did raise> his concerns over the issues.> > Let me come back to why is it a clever film. The film is made as an

> out-and-out " crowd-pleaser " which is done through punching together as many> stereotypes that Westerners have about India as is humanly possible. People> live in garbage heaps. A character jumps into a huge heap of human excreta

> and without batting an eyelid comes running out covered in brown slime, as> if it is the most natural thing in India, to get an autograph of a star.> The hero, a Muslim, sees his family slaughtered by Hindu rioters and sees

> along with it a rioting kid (presumably) dressed as Lord Rama, in blue paint> and with a bow and arrow in hand, standing as a sentinel of doom, an image> whose indelibility in the character's mind becomes a principal plot point. A

> character is booked on the flimsiest of charges and then he is beaten black> and blue in a police station and given volts of electricity. What else?> Let's see. Child prostitution, yes. Forced begging, yes, Blinding of

> innocent children, yes, Rape, yes, Human filth, yes.> > Well. the novel makes a different statement, but the film is a far reaching> media and like a readymade dish. It is what it looks. While a novel is an

> intelligent media and it is a lot of what the reader is. Hope you get my> point.> When all the hellish things possible are shown in one place, then it> stretches reason and believability and just looks like you are packing in

> every negative thing that Westerners perceive about India for the sake of> " crowd pleasing " . Because audiences and jury members " feel good " when their> pre-conceived notions are confirmed. On the flip side, nothing disquiets a

> viewer as much as when his/her prejudices are challenged. So Boyle does the> safe thing.> > This is the reason why no-one is talking about Vikas Swarup. There was> nothing that he did intentionally.

> > Regards> Neelam>

[Guest guest]

Dear Neelamji,

 

Of course I did not put this author in the category of the other people

whose List I had put, because I do not judge on hear say. And you have

anyway clarified the truth of this author. So please understand that I

understood.

 

regards,Bhaskar.

 

 

 

 

, neelam gupta <neelamgupta07

wrote:

>

> Dear Bhaskar ji,

>

> Of course what you say is absolutely correct and I agree with you. I

was

> trying to say that originally this book was not meant to create any

such

> sensation and its purpose was not this. In any case, a diplomat is

quite

> responsible and accountable, and the Ministry of External Affairs does

not

> allow screening of any films or promoting any such literature which

show

> India in poor light outside India.

>

> Regards

> Neelam

>

>

>

>

> 2009/2/28 Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish

>

> > Dear Neelamji,

> >

> > I have read books of Kamala das , Shobha de, but then stopped

wasting money

> > over these books, because I realisied that they were cheap books

titilating

> > on sensual, just to reap in money from the public. So was khushwant

Singh

> > alway trying to show his macho image of his endless sexual exploits

with

> > foreign and Indian women. We have many such types more, I dont

remember the

> > names, who exploit on women, nudeness and on the nerve centres, who

may not

> > be exactly authors of books but who know what to tap, and when for

public

> > fame and noteirety. Satyajit Ray, Shyam benegal, medha Patkar, mamta

> > Banerjee, all fall in same category. recently one Indian born author

earned

> > worldwide acclaim by writing a book on Rikshaw pullers of India.

These are

> > all the scum of society who just want sensation to Live. Like the

parasitic

> > worms in somebodys intestines who eat food meant for the body where

they

> > have been given home to Live. The Guru of all is the perverted old

man, with

> > one leg in the grave, MF Hussain.

> >

> > Nobody is going to watch good paintings as per them, so they make

nude

> > paintings .

> >

> > Nobody is going to watch family movies as per them , so they make

these

> > ditry movies.

> >

> > Nobody is going to read good fiction as per them, so they write on

sex in

> > name of fiction, to get famous.

> >

> > But the common man, as well as the intellectuals, they understand

> > everything, and they cant fool them. No Sir, they cant.

> >

> > Truth , very few people write, and I read such a book, which was

better

> > than fiction, and read it at one go, from morning to evening, a book

by

> > bangaldeshi writer Tasleema nasrin, who has the guts to write on the

> > atrocities committed on the Hindus in bangaldesh , our women raped,

and the

> > thousands of temples been ravaged there.

> >

> > The movie in question is all rotten falsehood exhibited. the slums

of

> > Dharavi, are no more what they show. Go to dharavi, and you will

find every

> > hut has a Coloured Television set. Not a single boy there you would

find

> > rolling in sh.. like they showed in the movie. Not a single Goonda

you willl

> > find in Bombay singing Lord krishna bhajans and remving eyes of poor

> > children to make them pitiable beggars. Not a single case of Muslims

being

> > attacked or tortured as they have shown in the movie will you find.

The

> > movie makers are catching on the sentiments of minorities, and the

commonly

> > known underprivilged ( ?? ) to take in the moolah. On the contrary

you will

> > find the opposite hapenning in Bombay, exactly. thats the truth,

which was

> > not shown.

> >

> > Bhaskar.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , neelam gupta neelamgupta07@

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Bhaskar ji,

> > >

> > > I know the other thread is closed now, but I am clarifying a point

raised

> > by

> > > Mr Siddhartha, lest he thinks that we are biased. Please allow

this post,

> > as

> > > it is also general information for everyone.

> > >

> > > //why is no one saying anythig about the author of the book Q & A on

which

> > the

> > > movie is based? because he is indian?//

> > >

> > > Let me give some facts on this. I am telling this as my duty

because I

> > know

> > > Vikas Swarup personally, having worked with him closely a couple

of years

> > > back when he was posted at the HQs. This novel Q & A was just

about out

> > at

> > > that time. He was very happy doing it, and surely, it became a

popular

> > work

> > > winning many prizes all over. It was also adapted into plays and

musicals

> > > and ran successfully all over. He is a respected diplomat and a

very good

> > > human being, let me tell you. Very intelligent too, obviously. The

novel

> > has

> > > nothing wrong, many Indian writers have ventured into such

stories. It

> > was

> > > written as a story of hope.

> > >

> > > While he was posted in London, Doyle decided to make a film based

on this

> > > novel to which Vikas agreed. (now he's posted to South Africa).

Doyle

> > wanted

> > > to make a clever film (what I mean by this, I'll tell you a

later), so he

> > > changed the title of the book and kept a more sensational

`Slumdog'.

> > Vikas

> > > was not happy with this.

> > >

> > > In his own words, " I was not very happy that the title of the book

was

> > > changed to Slumdog Millionaire. " And he did show his resentment

about the

> > > change in title, and he was told that " this is the norm in a

book-film

> > tie,

> > > which is targeted mainly at people who have not heard of the book

and

> > come

> > > to the book only after seeing the film " .

> > >

> > > So the film was out and the whole canvas appeared different. When

you

> > read a

> > > book, it is entirely different, but visual depiction can be gory.

There

> > are

> > > various changes in the script, including the climax and role of

destiny,

> > > about which also he was not happy. He says he prefers his own

version

> > which

> > > says you create your own luck.

> > >

> > > Now of course, no one is complaining with so many awards under its

belt,

> > the

> > > film has created history. But this history has been created on the

> > skeletons

> > > which have now been buried for good. Vikas also is happy

naturally, with

> > the

> > > kind of success and name and fame He is human after all. But he

did raise

> > > his concerns over the issues.

> > >

> > > Let me come back to why is it a clever film. The film is made as

an

> > > out-and-out " crowd-pleaser " which is done through punching

together as

> > many

> > > stereotypes that Westerners have about India as is humanly

possible.

> > People

> > > live in garbage heaps. A character jumps into a huge heap of human

> > excreta

> > > and without batting an eyelid comes running out covered in brown

slime,

> > as

> > > if it is the most natural thing in India, to get an autograph of a

star.

> > > The hero, a Muslim, sees his family slaughtered by Hindu rioters

and sees

> > > along with it a rioting kid (presumably) dressed as Lord Rama, in

blue

> > paint

> > > and with a bow and arrow in hand, standing as a sentinel of doom,

an

> > image

> > > whose indelibility in the character's mind becomes a principal

plot

> > point. A

> > > character is booked on the flimsiest of charges and then he is

beaten

> > black

> > > and blue in a police station and given volts of electricity. What

else?

> > > Let's see. Child prostitution, yes. Forced begging, yes, Blinding

of

> > > innocent children, yes, Rape, yes, Human filth, yes.

> > >

> > > Well. the novel makes a different statement, but the film is a far

> > reaching

> > > media and like a readymade dish. It is what it looks. While a

novel is an

> > > intelligent media and it is a lot of what the reader is. Hope you

get my

> > > point.

> > > When all the hellish things possible are shown in one place, then

it

> > > stretches reason and believability and just looks like you are

packing in

> > > every negative thing that Westerners perceive about India for the

sake of

> > > " crowd pleasing " . Because audiences and jury members " feel good "

when

> > their

> > > pre-conceived notions are confirmed. On the flip side, nothing

disquiets

> > a

> > > viewer as much as when his/her prejudices are challenged. So Boyle

does

> > the

> > > safe thing.

> > >

> > > This is the reason why no-one is talking about Vikas Swarup. There

was

> > > nothing that he did intentionally.

> > >

> > > Regards

> > > Neelam

> > >

> >

> >

>