2 states...a lesson for parents

2 States, a story of two IIM students, Krish, a young lad from Punjab and Ananya, a cheerful Tamilian girl. Story undoubtedly was quite refreshing and had a different taste, which I think can be understood by the people who underwent such circumstances. Quite a realistic movie, yet novel was more elaborative.
Based on Chetan Bhagat’s bestselling novel, it's about a boy and a girl who love each other but decide that they will only marry with the approval of their parents, which infact is a normal approach of any love birds in India(If you are living abroad, then you won't understand this society driven mindstate). The story was well woven with the typical indian mindset of love marriages. The college life was shown nicely from classes to placements, reminded me of my college days. While they want to get married they have to convince their families to like each other, which by Indian standards, is considered as the ‘Grand Finale’ before the next stage of the relationship – marriage! They both set out to win over each other’s families, which usually happens in our society. Ananya’s parents were shown conservative and simple. Krish was however blessed with a over loving and melodramatic mother who insists on calling Ananya’s family ‘Madrasis’ and an alcoholic father with serious anger-management issues. Quite a potrayal of a typical north indian family.
                            In the first half, a sweet, unassuming love story was delivered showing a warm and modern sense of companionship between Krish and Ananya. Their mothers — played by terrific actors like Revathy and Amrita Singh — present interesting oppositions. Both the characters were well played, but Amrita Singh managed to leave an impact of a typical punjabi mother.

Alia lighted the screen as Ananya, she was charming, charismatic and a cheerful girl. After reading the novel and watching the movie, I must say Ananya's character was well played by Alia. Her expressions, reactions and dialogues everything was upto the mark, maybe I am being lineant for a new comer. Her presence on the screen was refreshing, the chemistry between the two was worth watching.

Arjun, departing from his earlier violent roles, makes a nicely goofy Krish and later from a immature lover to a serious matured and responsible lover boy. Krish was a potrayal of an IIT alumini and an IIM student. By the way of talking, behavior, etc the character tried to grab the essence of a nerd, Arjun tried his best and in my opinion he did well. From the scene where a young college boy is shivering in front of his angry father to a matured lover who presents confidently himself in front of the girl's parents had an impact on audience. His muscular look however was not matching with the nerdy image of the character.
                            The main melodrama started when the parents of the love birds met each other (a typical scene from our society). The meeting of punjabi mother, Amrita Singh, and the parents of Ananya was hilarious. It was well framed and showed the real life marriage meetings and the clashes between the "Ladke waale" and the "ladki waale", Krish' mother being sarcastic all the time, calling Ananya's family "Madrasi". The dialogues were so closely related to the real life, that it astonished me. "Apko to yaakin nahi hua hoga..ki apko beti ko, Itna handsome aur qualified ladka mila ". Whether it is Krrish-Ananya’s pre-maritaal sex talks or the Punjabi mother v/s Tamilian mother battling out on ‘how marriages are done in a community’, these conversations seem extremely realistic, giving a glimpse of how our modern society actually behaves.
                     Mrs Malhotra (Amrita Singh) felt that 'Ananya has ‘phansaaoed’ their ‘gora chitta ladka’'. Ananya being fairer than their 'gora chitta' boy, and holds down an equally well-paying job. So what’s the problem? Krish’s mom was submissive, open mouthed and passive-aggressive, like all good moms of boys who think their ‘laadla’ is being stolen away, but her downer against Ananya appeared to have no real reason, just like in the book: culturally opposed parents may start off warring, but they also have ways of getting around these things without so much pointless sparring. The film exaggerates well both the cultural specificities and the spurious differences.
                              It sets out to be a slice-of-life drama about a real couple grappling with the politics of inter-community marriage, along with that it generated enough energy and warmth in the viewer. For a boy and a girl who fall in love outside their respective caste, inorder to take their relation to a next level, a life long knot, they have to prepare for a 'jung'( an almost war). First convincing their own parents, then convincing the partner's parents and 'uske baad agar unme pyaar bachta hai to wo log shaadi kar lete hai'. That's how our society works, that's how we are. Who can say we have modern mindset? No matter how advanced we claim ourselves to be, no matter how much liberal we call ourselves, some roots are still somewhere deep down into these orthodox soil which always pulls the parents from giving their children a liberty to live their own life as per their wish and to find their own happiness.

Finally I can only say ,
To compare 2 States with DDLJ would be a sin in many ways, but all I can say is that it’s time to move over DDLJ, Raj and Simran and welcome Krrish and Ananya into our world!  DDLJ was a fantasy but 2 states was reality. The film stands out from many clichéd romances and is fresh like a breath of air. When we have gone for so many romances, that have lacked depth, 2 States is certainly far more enjoyable and applauding! It certainly deserves a watch.
I think my last post well matches with this one.

"Boy sees girl. Girl befriends boy. They fall in love and tie the knot.
Hang on. This is India and ...
Humare yahan Hindustaan mein do chaar steps aur hote hai. Ladki ki family ko ladke se pyaar hona chahiye. Ladke ke family ko ladki se. Ladke ke family ko ladki ke family se pyaar hona chahiye aur ladki ke family ko ladke ke family se!!!"

in case if you want to read the novel online or want to download it, here is the link:

https://archive.org/stream/Chetan_Bhagat_-_2_States_The_Story_of_My_Marriage.pdf/Chetan_Bhagat_-_2_States_The_Story_of_My_Marriage#page/n0/mode/2up

Society and a common boy....Part -2

After all these definitions now we are in condition to discuss about this topic.
First talking about our daily observations, one who uses the Western commodities and norms regularly is considered as advanced. For status, people are ready to do almost anything. And in turn society has placed their norms on people. I am supposed to go to the club in party wear, who decided that norm! Paul Sweeney argued quite correctly, " How can a society that exists on instant mashed potatoes, packaged cake mixes, frozen dinners, and instant cameras teach patience to its young?". If a man kills another man, he will surely be punished and even in every religion this is considered as sin. But if the same man kills 20 other men on the war front, he will be awarded. Similarly killing someone for self-defense is not considered as sin. So basically the idea of norms and duties changes with the place and the circumstances.  In the early 19 century there were notorious bands of robbers in India called thugs; they thought it their duty to kill any man they could and take away his money; the larger the number of men they killed, the better they thought they were. That was right for them. Therefore we see that it is not the thing done that defines a duty. To give an objective definition of right or wrong is thus entirely impossible. Yet there is the subjective side.
                          The highest form of duty(right or wrong) is like worship. Do your duty towards your parents, do your duty for your wife, children, society and if everything went well, you will be at peace. But the problem with this statement is that it doesn’t apply to modern era, where if you are following this philosophy, you are only one following. This philosophy undoubtedly can make this world a better place if everyone follows it. If a man fulfills his duties for his children and his wife, if his son fulfills his duties towards his father and his mother, if his mother is fulfilling her duties for both of them, the family will surely be at peace and happiness will prevail. But even if a single person doesn’t follow it, the idea flies away. But I forgot to mention the last but most important line ,”When a duty is done, no expectation in return”.
"Society is one vast conspiracy for carving one into the kind of statue likes, and then placing it in the most convenient niche it has."-Randolph Bourne
In the following paragraph one can treat moral as right and immoral as wrong, it wouldn't make much of a difference.
Human society is a graded organisation. We all know about morality, and we all know about duty, but at the same time we find that in different countries the significance of morality varies greatly. What is regarded as moral in one country may in another be considered perfectly immoral. For instance, in one country cousins may marry; in another, it is thought to be very immoral; in one, men may marry their sisters-in-law; in another, it is regarded as immoral; in one country people may marry only once; in another, many times; and so forth. Similarly, in all other departments of morality, we find the standard varies greatly.
                     According to KarmaYoga, "Every man should take up his own ideal and endeavour to accomplish it. That is a surer way of progress than taking up other men's ideals, which he can never hope to accomplish. For instance, we take a child and at once give him the task of walking twenty miles.Either the little one dies, or one in a thousand crawls the twenty miles, to reach the end exhausted and half-dead. That is like what we generally try to do with the world. All the men and women, in any society, are not of the same mind, capacity, or of the same power to do things; they must have different ideals, and we have no right to sneer at any ideal. Let every one do the best he can for realising his own ideal. Nor is it right that I should be judged by your standard or you by mine. The apple tree should not be judged by the standard of the oak, nor the oak by that of the apple. To judge the apple tree you must take the apple standard, and for the oak, its own standard."                                         
     In India there was a very old custom for princesses to choose husbands in this way. Each princess had certain ideas of the sort of man she wanted for a husband. Some would have the handsomest man, others would have only the most learned, others again the richest, and so on. All the princes of the neighbourhood put on their bravest attire and presented themselves before her. The princess was taken round on a throne, in the most splendid array, and looked at and heard about them. If she was not pleased with what she saw and heard, she said to her bearers, "Move on," and no more notice was taken of the rejected suitors. If, however, the princess was pleased with any one of them, she threw a garland of flowers over him and he became her husband.
Try to practise this today !! I can't even imagine what will happen. Earlier what was correct has now been changed. Now at someplace girls are not even asked about their opinion for marriages. They are just made to sit on the mandap and do as their parents will tell them and then follow the instructions of her husband for rest of their life.
                                Now lets dig it deeper, if a Christian finds a piece of beef before him and does not eat it to save his own life, or will not give it to save the life of another man, he is sure to feel that he has not done his duty. But if a Hindu dares to eat that piece of beef or to give it to another Hindu, he is equally sure to feel that he too has not done his duty; the Hindu's training and education make him feel that way. When it comes to marriage in our society, the conflicts are seen, the norms framed by society comes into picture. Parents are willing to send their child to foreign countries, to live their lives as they want, but as they are nubile and ready for marriage, they are supposed to follow the social norms.
Still the question remains what is right and what is wrong and who decides this? Society decides it all for a person, then the idea of free will is partially gone. There is a code attached to every single place, thing or time. It's not a revolt, I was just trying to figure out the quote "Life isn't about finding yourself, it is about creating yourself". I guess the debate continues.