A menless future?

Nocturnal Animals 2016
Director: Tom Ford

On the one hand, people talk about masculine toxicity, while on the other, they want men to exert their muscular prowess to protect them. When the situation warrants, they want a man to 'act like a man'. When they want to be left alone, they say, 'Don't gaslight me!'

This quite compelling movie has the same intensity as 'Cape Fear' (both Robert Mitchum and Robert DeNiro versions). It tells the story of a couple and their teenage daughter who are carjacked while travelling through the Texan countryside. The man is taken for a joyride while the wife and daughter are raped and killed. All through the movie, the man is mocked by the young punks hoodlums who carjacked the vehicle for not being manly enough to give them a good fight to protect his family.

The film's story is mainly about a novel draft written by an ex-husband for the ex-wife to read. The movie rolls as she reads through the draft and reminisces about their time together. During their stay together, the persistent issue that crept up was that the husband was not assertive and ambitious enough. Her push for him to sit and write his first novel did not augur well.

As the story progresses, a year later, the man, together with the investigating police officer, returns to the crime scene. As the evidence was weak to arrest the criminals, they took the law into their own hands. The man feels satisfied that he became man enough to kill his family's killers.

Amami spiny rat with no Y chromosome

As if by synchronicity, I soon heard of a science report about the possibility of the Y chromosome going extinct after watching this movie. The X and Y chromosomes initially started being about the same size. Over the years, Nature found many of the genes of the Y-chromosome superfluous and unnecessary. About 1,600 genes disappeared in about 166 million years. We now have 55-56 genes on the Y chromosome, but only 27 are needed to make a man a man. At a rate of loss of 10 genes in a million years, the Y chromosome may disappear in 11 million years. Are we looking at a manless future?

Scientists discovered that a Japanese rat species, the spiny rat, had no Y chromosome. Other chromosomes, however, evolved to ensure the presence of a male-determining gene to maintain the male-female distribution.

As with the complaint that modern men are being domesticated to the extent that the Y chromosome may risk being a vestigial one, fearing the brink of extinction, fear not. Their bodily hairs may reduce, and the skin may be unblemished, but the human species may not have to resort to parthenogenesis or self-pollination to procreate.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Finding the Fulcrum

 https://borderlessjournal.com/2024/09/16/finding-the-fulcrum/

I decided to care for my ailing octogenarian mother, not because she willed me a great fortune or because I have a great liking to care for the sick. Neither do I want to gaslight her for all the not-so-nice things she said about me and my family in better health all through her healthy life.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons 

Everyone loses in a war!

Once a war starts, nobody can control its trajectory. The promise of a swift surgical strike with minimal casualties is anything but a fallacy.

We have more than enough examples to tell us this wisdom in our present times, but we just refuse to listen. The Kuwait War and Iraq Wars were just propaganda wars attacking something non-existent. It also proved that there is no such thing as precision bombing with zero casualties. It is no use telling us it is just collateral damage. 

The Vietnam War showed how elections can be lost. When the body count piles up, and the disadvantaged fraction of society bears all the sorrows of seeing their sons returning in body bags while the elite dodges their way from drafting, the public knows they have been taken for a ride. It happens because, like a broken dam, war has a mind of its own that cannot be reined at will.

An episode in the Mahabharata tells us a thing or two about wars. All the war ethics were closely followed until about day 12 of the Kurukshetra War. With the battle heating up, casualties piling, and almost reaching a standstill, the Kaurava side decided to play dirty. Maybe the Pandavas, too. Krishna and Arjuna (of the Pandava clan) were steered away to fight with another faction. At the same time, Arjuna's son, 16-year-old Abhimanyu, was lured into a complex military calyx devised by master strategist Drona. As skilled as Abhimanyu was, he had learned about the military formation. He knew how to get in, but he was not taught how to escape from it. When Abhimanyu was caught in the maze, he was trapped and was unceremoniously killed from the back.

On learning of Abhimanyu's death, Arjuna took revenge the following day.

Legend had it that Jayadratha, who masterminded Abhimanyu's assault, had a special boon. His father, Vriddhakshtra, had learnt about Jayadratha's fall at war by beheading from his birth charts, had done severe penance and subsequently received a boon from Brahma. Whoever drops the son's head on Earth would have his head explode into a thousand pieces. With his unparalleled expertise with his bow and arrow, Arjuna shot Jayadratha's head to land right on the mediating Vriddhakshatra's lap. A shocked father instinctively moved his thigh, causing Jayadratha's head to fall on the floor. Vriddhakshtra's head broke into a thousand pieces as he wished/cursed. Be careful what you wish for; it is one lesson learned from this fiasco. 

Another lesson from this turn of events happened long before this episode when the Pandavas were exiled for losing a game of dice. Jayadratha had acted ungentlemanly with Arjuna's wife, Draupadi. Instead of severely punishing him for his misdeeds, Arjuna and his brothers let him off with a slap on the wrist. If not nipped in the bud, a minor wrongdoing would morph into quite a monster difficult to curtail. Hence, lesson number two is to nip evil in the bud. Do not let it branch out and grow deep roots. 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Only when you need!

Indian 2(Tamil, 2024)

Director: S. Shankar

Even though his movie did not live up to its predecessor, which came out in 1996, there are a few instances in the film that make the Indian diaspora pause and reevaluate their behaviours.

Forget what is happening in India. It would be irrelevant for a person residing in India to assess and enumerate the changes in India since the original Indian movie came out 28 years ago. Let a Malaysian of the Indian diaspora look at what has changed since.

The theme of Indian 1 was to highlight how the system was broken because of rampant corruption and the lack of willpower of civil servants and public figures to change the status quo. It took a pre-independence freedom fighter to re-don his combat gear to highlight the rot to the public consciousness. In his own psychotic ways, Indian Tata (grandpa) brought the people in charge to task, even killing his own son approving the permit of an unroadworthy school bus, which killed many school kids.

That is when the sequel fits in. Corruption never really went anywhere. The police, who were supposed to be the last bastion to uphold law and order, are blatantly on the take and kowtowing shamelessly to thugs and politicians. Court cases are progressing nowhere. Dishonesty and untruths rule the day. The general public is getting hot under their collars. A group of vloggers who fight for social justice reminisce about the time when Indian Tata was around to save the day. As he was never caught, the public suspects he is still alive but had gone underground. They pleaded for Indian Tata to return via social media, of course.

It seems that Indian Tata is all well and hearty in Taiwan, living incognito and minding his own business. He is cajoled to return to India.

After returning to what he does best with ancient Indian martial arts, Varma Kalai, he soon realises that the table has turned. When an apparently wrong person is arrested, Indian Tata becomes India's most hated person. People start chanting, "Go back, Indian! "

The film hits you at two levels. You soon realise that the world and all its affairs are too intertwined. No one saviour can come and save the day. A slash-hammer approach to right the wrong is too simplistic. It is naive to think people do not want to be good and do the correct thing. They simply cannot. Like a Jenga structure, the whole system is maintained in position by complicated ad-hoc, haphazardly placed Jenga sticks. It stays intact as long as the sticks are well placed. Forget about getting it in symmetry or making it aesthetically pleasing. It is what it is.

The phrase 'go back to India' or its Malay translation 'oi, balik India!' has a familiar ring to those who grew up in Malaysia. Quite often in our childhood, we have hurled abuses like these from mobs or groups of young Malay boys all riled up in the spirit of, say, football or hockey games. Even though no one who is non-Indian would tell it on the face of a fellow Malaysian Indian, offensives like these are tolerated.

It is also a lesson that I learned in life that people will hold you in high esteem only if it suits them and would not have a second thought to drop you like a hot potato when your services are not needed anymore. So do not gloat in the praises of others. The same mouth that uttered niceties, in no time, will be cussing you, maybe spitting at you too!

[P.S. An episode in the Mahabharata comes to mind. While travelling from Dwarka to Indrapura, Krishna and Arjuna overheard a fellow traveller singing praises of Karna, Arjuna's arch-enemy. The traveller was talking about Karna's philanthropy. An incensed Arjuna told Krishna that his statement was unfair. After all, Karna's wealth was not his as he had inherited them. He did not earn them. People should be praised for what they have earned or worked hard for. Arjuna had worked to be the great warrior he was. People should be praising Arjuna, not Karna. 

In his great wisdom, Krishna put Arjuna to the test. Arjuna was shown a mountain of gold to be distributed to the needy. He was given a whole day to complete the task. Getting meticulous in the task, Arjuna tried to divide the gold according to people's needs. He gave halfway as none of the recipients were happy. Those who got less, whom Arjuna thought deserved less, wanted more. Those who got more wanted even more. 

Soon, Krishna assigned the same job to Karna. Karna completed the task in a jiffy, and everyone was happy. What Karna did was to get someone who was already in the charity business to finance him to continue doing his good job with Karna's assistance. The moral of the story is that there are people assigned to do certain jobs. Let them handle it. Do not think you have to solve everybody's problem. Not everyone is cut for the job. You will end up unhappy, and so will others.]

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

I need informed consent!

Golam (Sphere, Malayalam, 2024)

Director: Shamjad.

This is an exciting whodunnit that fans of Agatha Christie would love. The only thing is that the story is not told in an investigative manner. True, it starts off as a perplexing case where a high-flying entrepreneur is found dead in the office washroom. When the inspector tries to write it up as an unfortunate accidental death, the young investigating just-out police-college ASP, Sandeep Krishna, is cocksure that he smells homicide.  

The ASP finds it difficult to understand how the victim could slip and fall to get a fatal head injury on a dry floor. Forensics do not discover any toxins or foul play. 

The initial interview with the office staff, CCTV, and good old police work failed to go anywhere. The only thing unusual is a box of tranquilisers in one of the staff's handbags. She claims she has insomnia.

An interview with the doctor who prescribed the tranquillisers shows that all the workers in the office suffer from some kind of ailment one way or another - miscarriage, alopecia, deteriorating eyesight, memory loss and others. After looking at their cases, the doctor proposed they could be guinea pigs for the Pharma company they work for. In collaboration with their US partner, the Pharma company developed a virus. At the same time, they were creating an antidote. The good doctor suspects that the workers were fed with vaccine-laced drinks. Skin sampling is done to gauge their response to the vaccine when they fingerprint themselves and report to work. The fingerprint has an adequate DNA sample for the scientists to analyse their response to teh virus, codenamed Red Virus.

The ASP came up with a complicated plan how all the ~14 workers could have devised a devious plan to kill off their boss for vengeance, dodging the CCTV camera, locking the boss in the washroom, fuming the washroom with CO₂ gas, drowning his COPD-diseased lung, falling and succumbing to hypoxia. A clever plot! 

What happens next is the clincher. The protractor is apprehended, but instead, the ASP goes on a witch hunt against the Pharmaceutical company. He goes solo, in commando gear, to infiltrate their high-security plant in the interior to expose the company's shenanigans. The filmmakers decide to end the movie, paving the way for a sequel.

The building where yellow fever experiments were

conducted to prove that it is not transmitted using 

infected clothing (fomites). Camp Lazear.

The story of avoiding infections is the story of mankind. As in HG Wells 'The War of the Worlds', the only thing that protects the human species from total annihilation is their protection against common pathogens, not modern weapons. In the process of developing this immunity, many have to sacrifice. The story of Yellow Fever in the 1900s comes to mind.

Yellow Fever was a pressing problem in southern tropical areas of the USA. Although it was common in Cuba, periodically, epidemics broke out in the US. It was thought it was brought by bad air, poor sanitation or infected bodily fluids. It is said that a Confederate Officer tried to assassinate Lincoln by sending him old, dirty garments of patients who died of Yellow Fever, hoping that he would die of Yellow Fever. He obviously did not.

Dr Carlos Finlay of Cuba toyed with the idea that Yellow Fever was spread by mosquitoes, but he was laughed at. In 1900, Dr Walter Reed of the US Army introduced the idea of controlled studies. By using human volunteers who were willing to endure being bitten by mosquitoes for science, he proved that Yellow Fever was transmitted by certain mosquitoes. An army personnel, Jesse Lazear, died from Yellow Fever after contracting the hemorrhagic form of the disease. 

Now, would anybody make such a sacrifice in this age and time? Is it even legal? The Pharma is more than willing to conduct these experiments for us, all in the name of saving mankind. The reason, however, which is not even printed in the fine print, is that of monetary gains. Sure, they would pay off their guinea pigs handsomely. This is, however, just a drop in the ocean for these conglomerates. It would hardly jolt them.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Reality TV in Hindi?

AK vs AK
Director: Vikramaditya Motwane

At first look, it looked promising. The idea was revolutionary. The layout gave the feel of reality TV, an idea that probably arose from the makers of ‘The Blair Witch Project’. This is where the camera person is not stationary but will be running with the actors, how a paparazzi would chase its prey.

The characters used their original names, and it looked like the audience would have a peek into their private lives, which they did, to a certain extent.

Trouble brews when Anil Kapoor shares the stage with Anurag Kashyap during an interview. In the course of their conversation, Anil (an actor) and Anurag (a director, mostly)  argue about whose role is crucial in the success of a movie. As they defend their respective stands, things start becoming personal. Anurag accuses Anil of being an ageing actor on his decline, while in retaliation, Anil downplays Anurag’s directorial skills and success in the film industry. It leads to a bust-up, much to the excitement of the media and the general public.

The public takes Anil Kapoor’s side. Anurag is treated like a pariah and struck off the inner circle. He is refused new projects, and the old ones are canceled. Anurag devises an elaborate plan to get himself in the limelight and rejuvenate what he perceives as Anil’s flaying career.


Anurag writes a script where Anil’s daughter is kidnapped. Whilst an irritated Anil tries to shed off the irritating Anurag, he soon realises that the whole set-up is not merely from a script but something more sinister. Anil had to rescue his daughter before sunrise, or she will die. The police cannot get involved, and he cannot get help from friends and relatives. All phone conversations must be on speaker. To top it all up, it is Christmas Eve and Anil’s birthday. He had to put up a straight face with his family. Throughout the debacle, Anurag and a camera woman were to follow Anil and tape his every move.

The movie progresses well with its meta approach to filmmaking. Although dealing with a serious subject matter, there is dark comedy all around. To keep it real, the film goes on to show performers having to kowtow to the tunes of their fans, sometimes dancing monkey acts just to keep them happy despite the inner dilemmas they were embroiled in, but it soon becomes draggy. As in most Bollywood offerings, the filmmakers also become guilty of overdramatisation. The movie ends in an unceremonious dull thud.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

A biopic or fiction?

IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack (Hindi, miniseries. Ep1-6)

Director: Abhinav Sinha

It was the last Christmas season of the 20th century. The airports had not yet begun instructing passengers to remove belts and shoes before check-in, as the Twin Towers had not yet fallen. A simple hand wave would suffice to get one to the boarding area. That was the situation at Kathmandu airport on Christmas Eve 1999, when Indian Airlines flight IC841 departed for Delhi at around 4 p.m. 

Forty minutes into the flight, as they were entering Indian airspace, a masked passenger entered the cockpit (yes, it was not a security zone then). Just as a steward entered to serve drinks, the masked passenger put a knife to the steward's throat and announced that the plane had been hijacked. Indian air traffic control was informed; however, the information did not filter down through the chain of command appropriately. Bureaucracy and apathy were to blame. After all, India had just fought a war in Kargil a few months earlier, and security was supposed to be on high alert. Many high-ranking officers, meant to be on top of things, only learned about it from the media. 

The hijackers wanted the plane diverted to Lahore, but the Pakistanis outrightly refused landing rights. Even the efforts of the Indian High Commissioner proved futile. With critical fuel levels, IC841 had to land in Amritsar to refuel. The plan was to keep the plane on Indian soil while negotiators struck a deal with the hijackers and potentially incapacitated the machine. Sensing something was amiss, the hijackers fled before refuelling, leaving Indian officials staring at an empty tarmac. 

In the meantime, pandemonium was the order of the day on board. Passengers were cowed into submission. Two passengers were stabbed, one fatally. The flight captain pleaded with Lahore to allow the Airbus to land with hardly any fuel. It was again denied. The runway lights were turned off. Only when the pilot was about to land on the national highway did the airport permit landing. Again, Indian representatives failed to arrive on time to negotiate. After refuelling, the plane left Lahore. 

Now, the hijackers wanted to go to Kandahar in Afghanistan. As we remember, Afghanistan in 1999 was a pariah state, ruled by a ruthless Taliban administration. Many countries, including India, did not recognise its government. Kandahar Airport could not handle night landings, as it did not have the necessary facilities, so the hijackers' request was denied. IC814 was hovering around the Arabian Sea, hoping any Gulf states could take them in. They stopped at a Dubai airbase and refuelled in exchange for 27 hostages, including the 2 stabbed passengers, with one dead and left for Afghanistan. 

The plane finally landed in Kandahar on Christmas morning. The next seven days involved intense negotiations. The process proved complex, as India did not recognise the Taliban government. Therefore, it could not send its representatives there and depended on the Indian High Commission in Islamabad and the United Nations. Mediation was complicated with the Taliban since they were not in total control. Osama Bin Laden and ISIS also ruled over a large part of the country, having a say in the running of Afghanistan.

The dilemma faced by the Indian government and its agencies was how to balance giving too much to the terrorists while ensuring the safe return of the passengers. 

For the safe return of passengers, three dangerous terrorists in Indian jails had to be released. The five hijackers were never captured. The released terrorists (Masood Azhar, Omar Sheikh, and Mushtaq Zargar) were later found to be instrumental in many terror activities in India and around the world. The eternal question is whether releasing these nearly 200 passengers in exchange for freeing the three infamous criminals was worthwhile. The criminals ended up killing many more innocent people, causing immense destruction, and being the catalyst for all the chaos we face in the world today. In 1999, with tremendous pressure from the media and the public, making a deal with the hijackers seemed like the most logical thing to do.

Since this web series was released, Netflix has faced significant backlash. The authorities summoned even the Netflix Head of India to address specific queries. The general Indian public has been outraged over two issues. Firstly, intelligence investigations into the entire incident suggested that the whole hostage event was orchestrated by the ISI of Pakistan. The ISI's fingerprints were evident in the planning and execution of the act. Nowhere in the series were the ISI or Pakistan depicted as the antagonists.

Secondly, it is common knowledge that religion provided an essential foundation for the hijacking. The hijackers were all Muslims, and their demand was the release of Islamic extremists. In the eyes of viewers, the filmmakers downplayed this fact. The hijackers' religion was obscured by the use of their codenames throughout. Surprisingly, Bhola and Shankar openly refer to Lord Shiva, the Lord of destruction, while the other codenames—Doc, Chief, and Burger—were secular. Are they attempting to convey to the unassuming, ignorant audience that the hijackers were part of the Hindu terrorism that the opposition to the BJP's rule is trying to promote? Later, Netflix published a disclaimer listing the hijackers' full names in the credits, but this notice was only provided for the Indian audience. The rest of the world can continue believing that the whole incident was part of the Hindu terror that the leftists are propagating. When their co-conspirators were changed, the court documents mentioned the hijackers' codenames as one of their many aliases.

Additionally, the series attempts to humanise the terrorists. Picture the hijacker offering a concerned flight attendant his phone so she can call and check on her sick father in Delhi. In another scene, a romantic connection between a stewardess and one of the hijackers is suggested. After witnessing two passengers being stabbed before their eyes, it seems unreasonable to depict, in one scene, the passengers and hijackers clapping and singing together in a game of antakshari. (It's too early for Stockholm Syndrome to settle in, right?)

The producers claim the entire offering is based on actual events and have no qualms about using footage from yesteryears. Yet they thought it was essential to change the names of the airline crew and the government officials. ISI comes out squeaky clean from this whole fiasco. They bask in depicting a grossly incompetent bunch of bumbling Indian bureaucrats awkwardly trying to defuse a volatile situation. Anyway, the experience of handling such situations was lacking in that era. The director failed to show urgency in their efforts, some of which are even comical.

Furthermore, the event occurred in a hostile foreign land, unrecognised by the government of the day. Is it a coincidence that the ruling coalition then was the same one ruling today? What are they implying—that the present government is also weak?

** The 2001 Indian Parliament attack, the 2002 kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl, the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the 2016 Pathankot attack, and the 2019 Pulwama attack. Azhad later founded Jaish-e-Muhammed (JeM) in 2000, which gained notoriety for the deaths of hundreds of people and armed forces personnel. Sheikh was arrested in 2002 in Pakistan for Daniel Pearl's abduction and murder, and played a role in planning the September 2001 attacks in the U.S. Zargar has actively trained Islamic militants in Pakistan-administered Jammu & Kashmir.

Also, the story's production value needed to be more compelling. The urgency felt by the hostages' fear and apprehension was not adequately transferred to the screen, and the desperation of the whole event was not palpable.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.