Bollywood versus Hollywood

I grew up on bollywood films. Right from 1960s when a decent seat in cinema was Re 1.60, while you could get close to the heroine in the front stalls for just 80 paise. Always believed that Bollywood was the ultimate on offer in movies.
But since about last four months, I have been seeing about half a Bollywood movie on TV every night.
Never seen a Bollywood movie after that.
A Bollywood movie is about a star with strong personal mannerisms. They crane their head at an impossible angle, raise and lower eyelids with close alignment with the neck movement, flail arms like windmills and walk in style, talk in style. The story is totally subservient to the star. Not so in Bollywood. Most of their actors look like normal humans that they really are and they simply support the story, rather than the other way round.
Since so few Indians can do the above mentioned antics, there are just a handful of them - maybe about 15 heros and 12 heroines in all. But Hollywood movies are doable with normal humans and therefore there are literally hundreds of heroes and heroines. In the last few months, I have hardly seen a Hollywood hero twice except Sylvester Stallone in the Rocky series - and I see one movie per night!
Bollywood movies have a more than predictable storyline. In all, there are probably 10 plots our guys can think of. In Hollywood movies, each movie has a story like nothing you've ever heard before.
The movie focus, too, is very revealing of the societies they represent. Bollywood movies are about our national pastime - love between a man and a woman. The main job of a woman is to get a man to look at her. Her primary sentiment is 'Tujhe dekhoon to mere tan se khushboo phuten' ( When I see you, my body start sending out sweet fragrances ). Even in a movie with theme of 'Satyagraha', the boy-girl angle is a must. Our movies represent dreams that you can escape into, something our harried society so badly needs. Bollywood movies are more about achievement and challenges - quite representative of their society.
I don't really blame our movie producers for all this. They are business, out to multiply their money. If a movie like Chennai Express gets to make so much of money, why should anyone make movies like Aarth and Massom?

Am I right in being so nasty?

I have frequently been criticized for openly stating that is not worth dying for this country and young men should think twice before joining the armed forces. Many say it is anti-national. That forced me to introspect deeply. My discussion with myself went something like this.
Encouraging people to join the armed forces and urging them to die for the country is a very serious matter. You are, sort of, approving a product and encouraging others to use it. If so, do you not have a responsibility to ensure that the makers comply with what they advertise?
Of late, I have been seeing the new ad for Paan Vilaas masala where two users who recommend Paan Vilaas go around its factory and satisfy themselves that indeed, no tobacco or nicotine is being used in its manufacture, as is advertised. In this case, if they had found that tobacco and nicotine were surreptitiously being used in manufacture, should they still have agreed to put their names behind the product?
I have experienced that the country makes all sorts of promises to improve the chances of the soldiers  coming out alive of a firefight, but does not deliver on the promise. Better equipment, better training, greater number of officers, better infrastructure around the battlefield, better pay and perks of soldiers - all this is promised but not delivered. The drawbacks of the 62 debacle are still to be overcome, so we should not even talk of those of the Kargil war.
As for the seriousness of  the country/government in meeting the needs of the fauzi pensioners, battle casualties and war widows, the lesser said the better. Last fortnight, the retired community has had to file a contempt petition against the Defence secretary ( and others ) for not implementing the Supreme Court orders for payment of dues to pensioners for over 30 odd years! This blogpost doesn't have the space for more example but one about our jawans' families must be cited.
Just some months back, the country suffered the disgrace of having the heads of two of its soldiers severed by the enemy. The country was on boil for a few days with the army chief and the CM of the state trying to beat each other to visit the house of the martyrs. Promises were made overnight to build a memorial, a road to the village and more. It seemed that the country stood united behind these two families. But just a few days back, another incident took place in which five more soldiers died on the Line of Control in Poonch. The bigwigs started rushing off to the mecca of public votes/sympathy i.e. the newly bereaved families. In that melee, I saw a TV clip of one of the widows of the first case, ' What about me? There is still no road to our vllage, no memorial, nothing'. That single clip was rudely pushed aside the screen to make way for the new icons of public sympathy. This is India, meri jaan.
Should people die for her? In such a scenario, will it be ethical for me to encourage others to join the armed forces? People treat the army related views of an ex fauzi, as that of an expert. Should you belie that trust?
As for the officer community, they demand the moon from their subordinates but are not ready to demand even good boots from their bosses, for their men. They only push downwards, never upwards. The right thing would be for the officers to exhort their men to lay down their lives, and alongside, kick harder upwards if even a pin authorized to their men is not delivered. But that does not happen, even in one in a million cases.
If you are not ready to even risk your career, do you have the right to ask someone to risk his life? Generals will fight for hours over the fate of a fictitious 6 man Protective Patrol in a sand model exercise, but will not even read a complaint about thousands of their men, living and breathing, not getting rations and ordnance supplies as per the laid down scale or quality.
For such matters, Generals tend to get 'practical' and delegate the 'administrative matter' to some grade 1 or grade 2  staff officer. This being a reality, shouldn't they allow their men, too, to get 'practical' when the moment comes?
Aren't these guys being selfish and presumptuous?
I will not be intellectually dishonest. This product is not as good as made out to be and will not get my approval.
Do also see this one.

God explained to myself

I'm a vocal non-believer in God. It has occasionally worried me - 'Am I missing some logic, just because of my intellectual arrogance?'. I recently found that missing piece while doing an 'assumption busting' exercise on my beliefs.
I believe that God can not exist, or is not worthy of praise, since he does not look after most of his children. You see, fathers are expected to look after their children and not stand judge to them. Also, they don't discriminate. God fails that test, miserably.
But it struck me recently that maybe I am making a quick, and fallacious, assumption. If he is not benevolent, it could be surmised that he is not a father. However, that doesn't imply that he can't exist? What if he is a cinema story writer?
A story writer is under no obligation to make each character come out smelling like roses. He has no interest in their sentiments or their welfare; they are a just a figment of his imagination.
Makes sense. Even if God is not actually not a story writer, he could well be. So, God not being a father doesn't close all options for his existence.
So, if you say that God is uninterested in the fate of individuals a la story writers, I can understand him. I can also grant him 'creator' status.
But, of course, I then see no reason to praise or please him. That rationale is inconsistent with the 'father' explanation of God.