Jaane Tu Ya Jaane Na and Ada - Initial Reaction

I have been listening to Jaane Tu Ya Jaane Na and Ada since last two days, and here're some of my initial thoughts:


Kabhi Kabhi Aditi is a catchy, light and peppy number. I loved it in the very first listen (on the promos). Although Rashid Ali did a commendable job and his voice suits well to the movie's young and fresh look, I wish Rahman had given this song to Adnan Sami. I think this song belonged to Adnan. (Isn't Rashid Ali's singing seem to have inspired from Adnan?) The rationale behind not using Adana though is probably that they wanted to have a new voice for the new face (i.e. Imran Khan) - at least for this 'opening' song.


Rahman has re-used one of his own tunes for this song. The mukhda of Kabhi Kabhi Aditi is same as the guitar interlude in Mustafa Mustafa song from the movie Duniya Dilwalon Kee. I am actually glad that he has done that (i.e. re-using one of his tunes from the interludes of his own song). There are many song by arr which has wonderful instrumental (or chorus) interludes that can be used to create a mukhda of new song (The violin interlude in Ae Ajnabi, Swarnalatha's humming in Sunta Hai Mera Khuda, chorus from the starting of the song Naheen Saamne etc. etc. etc.)


Jaane Tu Mera Kya Hai conveys the melancholic mood effectively. I liked the version sung by Sukhwinder more than the one sung by Runa Rizvi (which is also very good), mostly because of the opening music/tempo and the operatic chorus in the background that takes it to another level.


Pappu Can't Dance has a very catchy tune and feet-tapping beats. However, I don't think it's gonna be one of those songs that I will yearn to hear in a way I feel about most (or at least, so many) of arr's songs.


Abbas Tyrewala has done a good job as a first time lyricist (His earlier work includes dialogues for Munnabhai M.B.B.S.). I really liked that he used the immortal lines 'Papa Kehte Hain Bada Kaam Karega', giving a nod to Aamir Khan's first movie: Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak. (JTYJN is Aamir's nephew Imran's first movie.)


Moving on to the other album released simultaneously with JTYJN - Ada.


Rashid Ali's pronunciations in Ishq Ada sounded a bit weird to me. I think he tried to add an Arabic/Middle-Eastern element to the song - the lyrics, heavy on Urdu words, also confirms this (I hope there's some relevance to that in the movie.)


All songs except Ishq Ada and Meherbaan are written by Nusrat Badr. I was excited to see his name on album cover because I loved his work in Devdas (after which he almost disappeared). But honestly, I didn't find anything extraordinary in his lyrics this time.


Gumsum Gumsum sounds infinitely ordinary (by arr standards). If Ada is a musical journey by arr, then this surely is the worst destination. Tu Mera also belong to the same category. (The lines 'Jise Chaha Mil Gaya' sung by Chitra reminded me - both lyrically and musically - of similar lines 'Tu Mujhko Mil Gaya' from Tera Jaadu Chal Gaya. Vague similarity, though.)


Meherbaan is wonderful and instantly likable. Hai Dard and Milo Wahan Wahan both are, for the lack of better word, interesting - both in structure and sound, very unlike-Rahman, I think (and hope, even more so) these ghazal-like songs has some 'growth potential'. Rahman has rarely used Sunidhi before (in fact, only once in Nayak) who joins Sonu Nigam in Gulfisha - another song that didn't really impress me.


Overall I am disappointed with Ada, and enjoyed JTYJN. As it's universally known, arr's songs (specially the "heavy", deep and long-lasting ones) need repeated hearings and some time to grow on you. Being an ardent arr fan, I hope that it will happen this time too, and my initial assessments will be proven wrong. But deep down, I am skeptical!

Mumbai or Bombay?

 

Vir Sanghvi writes about Marathi chauvinism in his recent column in HT. Now, I don't always share his opinions, but this article looks interesting to me. Here's an excerpt:

[W]hether we like it or not, Bombay is not an ancient Indian city in the sense that, say, Delhi is. It is a colonial creation. There is no record of any city on the site of Bombay before the Europeans got here. 

That explains the name. It is generally believed (though there are other theories) that the word 'Bombay' comes from a Portuguese phrase which means beautiful bay. This was later anglicised — when the city passed to the British — to Bombay. So Bombay is not a Maharashtrian name. In fact, it is not even an Indian name. And that's because the city did not exist before colonisation.

So where did 'Mumbai' come from? The general view is that it is a corruption of 'Bombay'. Indians have a tradition of corrupting city names when we use them in different Indian languages.

There are no references here, but the proposition confirms what I knew about the origins of the names.

 

One can think of many such "corruption" of city names in India. Like (as Sanghvi mentions in this article) Ahmedabad, is commonly and informally spoken of as Amdavad by Gujaratis. But no one claims that Amdavad is the "proper" term, and everyone refers to it as Ahmedabad in writing. Bangalore is probably another such dialectical modification of the original name: Bengaluru. 

 

Burma  is another example that comes to mind. John Wells (a professor of Phonetics) wrote about this in his blog: (link)

As we all know, the ruling junta in Burma would prefer that we call their country Myanmar. In Burmese, this name Myanmar is essentially just a variant of the name Burma. It is transliterated as Myan-ma or Mran-ma, and in the local language pronounced something like [ma(n) ma], as against [ba ma] for the traditional name.

 

According to Wikipedia: Within the Burmese language, Myanma is the written, literary name of the country, while Bama ... (from which "Burma" derives) is the oral, colloquial name. In spoken Burmese, the distinction is less clear than the English transliteration suggests.

 

Coming back to the Indian context, it looks like politicians are, once again, using this "purification" campaign to incite junta and thus earn political dividends. It looks like the Marathi manoos is falling for that, and the politicians are winning in their unstoppable zest of attaining and exploiting power, once again.

Competitive Intlerance

The Delhi High Court has sent a strong message against competitive intolerance by disposing off charges (of offending religious feelings)  against the renowned painter M. F. Hussain. 

Here are some excerpts from the verdict by High Court Justice Sanjay Kaul:

“In a free and democratic society, tolerance is vital. This is true especially in large and complex societies like ours where people with varied beliefs and interests mingle."

“India’s new Puritanism, practised by a largely ignorant crowd in the name of Indian spiritual purity, is threatening to throw the nation back into the Pre-Renaissance era.” 

“Criminal justice system should not be used as an easy recourse to ventilate against a creative act.”

“Art and authority never had a difficult relationship, until recently...Our greatest problem today is fundamentalism, the triumph of the letter over the spirit.” [source]

I cherish each and every word quoted above, and hail this verdict by Justice Kaul. I do feel that our society should become more tolerant and learn to appreciate the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and expression. As I have argued earlier (here), I believe that protecting the fundamental right of freedom of expression should be one of the main goals of a liberal, democratic and morally healthy society.

Many examples come to mind while we're on the topic of cultural intolerance: Banning Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses (India was the first country to do so), trying to get cheerleading banned from IPL, burning the movie theaters that showed the movie Fanaa after Aamir Khan made a controversial remark about those unfortunate displaced families, filing police complaints against Mallika Sheravat for wearing a provocative dress in a function - are just some of the many such incidents.

What's different in M. F. Hussain's case though (from the above mentioned and many other such examples) is that this was actually a communal/religious fervor & hatred wearing a mask of cultural intolerance. Justice Kaul didn't address this facet of the charges in his well-worded verdict (I couldn't find a full transcript, so I am speculating from the quotes I read so far.) I wonder if such charges were filed against a Hindu (let's say for drawing a cartoon of prophet Mohammed), would the court had been able to mete out justice in similar fashion? May be not! But that doesn't mean that the M. F. Hussain verdict is wrong. You can't fight intolerance with intolerance, right?