No Smoking

No Smoking is a film by Indian director/writer Anurag Kashyap. This film deals with themes not normally encountered in Indian cinema, which make the movie an interesting watch.

This post contains many spoilers, so if you haven't watched the movie yet, first watch it and then come back.

No Smoking is about systems of control, totalitarian authority figures, and rights and responsibilities in society. The movie follows the travails of smoking addict (K) who enrolls in an unconventional rehabilitation program. K's nightmarish experiences during his treatment reflect a relentless tension between individual freedom and the inevitable conflict it generates with acceptable norms of a broader society. Smoking merely serves as a metaphor for human desires that are not deemed acceptable in the "normal" world. Individual freedom is often overridden by an infinitely larger matrix of rules and regulations. K lives in an illusory world where he believes he has complete freedom in making his own choices, although he has to constantly reassure himself that this is the case and ends up being inconsiderate, arrogant and egotistic. Such an attitude invariably has a negative impact on his relationship with the rest of society (for example, he has a strained relationship with his wife, he has health problems, his brother blames him for his missing lung etc.).

In the end, we see K succumbing to the requirements of a greater system of control, and the only way he can do his is by submitting himself to an existence in full conformance with the world of rules and morals. K's nemesis in the movie represents the relentless power that makes an individual conform (via real repercussions or even just the threat of repercussions).

The movie alternates between K's inner world of resistance to authority and defiance on one hand and the "real" world of rules and constraints on the other. Questioning which world is more "real" is an interesting philosophical discussion.

The significance of the 'one rupee' payment and the eventual destruction of K's self is not clear to me (from my trivial literary knowledge, the only mythological reference I know is to the coins that were placed on the eyes of a corpse (in Greek mythology) as payment for the ferryman who would carry the dead person across the River Styx into Hades)

In the end, K seems to get in line with society and in the process appears to settle into some form of uneasy compromise. Certainly, K's expression at the end doesn't seem to indicate that deep inside he believes this is a good thing. But the benefits for him are many (better health, a good relationship with his wife etc.).

2 possible interpretations:

• Depressing interpretation: K's surrender at the end indicates materialism and freedom are fundamentally incompatible with each other. At some point, all human beings unknowingly (or by being bludgeoned into submission) make a choice to relinquish their freedom in pursuit of short-term material gains. 
• Positive Interpretation: K's submission (sacrifice? relinquishment?) is actually a good thing that enables him to lead a better life. K is no longer egotistical, inconsiderate and clinging on to a false sense of self-importance, but rather is at peace with the world around him. This doesn't mean extinction of K's agency, but rather means that K's individuality and the world as a whole merge together seamlessly, effortlessly and without conflict. (Tat Tvam Asi?)

A second viewing will probably reveal more intricacies and other trivia.

Other interesting tidbits:

• K's one-lunged brother (or is it step-brother ?) is called J (J comes before K, but in the movie, J is probably younger than K)
• Some level of similarity between the experiences of K (from the movie) and Josef K. from Kafka's The Trial. Both characters go through unreal experiences that they can't understand.
• Seems to be no point to the Annie/Anjali angle (other than being reminiscent of David's Julie/Sofia confusion in Vanilla Sky)
• Some resemblance to a Stephen King story (Quitter's Inc.)
• K's wife watches Nazi gas chamber archival footage before breakfast. (why?!)
• Underworld in the movie a reference to Hades?
• I got some serious deja-vu when watching the detectives interrogate K in a cell. Reminded me of the conversations between David/McCabe in Vanilla Sky.
• Best scene in the movie is K’s descent into the underworld (the first time he goes to Kalkatta Karpets or KK). Brilliant!
• I love the mysterious visiting card concept. ‘Kalkatta Karpets’ correspondences in other movies I can think of are ‘Consumer Recreation Services’ or CRS in ‘The Game’, ‘Fleur de Lys’ in LA Confidential, ‘Life Extensions (LE)’ in Vanilla Sky.
• The midget reminds me of a similar character from Twin Peaks.

Movies with related themes (probably many more)

• Vanilla Sky
• The Trial
• Brazil
• 1984

Democracy as an "Internal Problem"

Yet another clear example of how the Foreign Policy establishment's conception of democracy is at best a complete travesty. The hypocrisy was recently revealed in official Indian and American reactions to the failure of the Indo-US nuclear deal which failed to gain enough support in India. I've commented on the numerous problems with the deal earlier here.

Although the Indian Congress Party tried its level best to implement the agreement (with little public debate, of course), the Leftist party in India has been opposed to the deal from the start by contending (correctly) that the benefits of signing such an agreement would be limited to the Indian Elite, Arms Dealers and Nuclear Businesses and would have a minimal impact on India's energy needs and more importantly, the extreme poverty that has pushed India down to 127 in the UN Human Development Index (HDI) of 2003 (was at 115 in 2001). Additionally such an agreement would violate India's long-standing Non-Aligned policies by essentially being an offshore arm of US-led imperialism. Failing to win full support for the passage of the bill, the Congress was forced to back down.

Now to anyone who is not a complete hypocrite, this would be considered as the healthy functioning of the democratic process with checks and balances working as they were intended. But, as has been evidenced recently, it is clear that the United States has no such system although it pretends that it does. The most obvious recent example (there are numerous other examples) being that after a year of the American populace voting the Democrats into a majority in the House and Senate, the war in Iraq continues unabated with virtually no intention of any real withdrawal. The system of checks and balances seems to be complete fiction. Both parties are accountable only to corporate power. When the American establishment thinks that the current system is indeed democratic, it comes as no surprise that they wouldn't recognize a real democratic process even if it slaps them in the face. This is evidenced by the reactions of both establishments to the failure of the Indo-US nuclear deal.

India's ambassador to Washington, Ronen Sen, who appears to think that such deals can be passed without approval of parliament says (speaking for the Indian establishment elite and claiming that democracy is a problem of 'insecurity')

"It has been approved here by the president, and there it's been approved by the Indian cabinet, so why do you have all this running around like headless chickens, looking for a comment here or a comment there, and these little storms in a tea-cup."

"I can understand such a debate over the deal immediately after India's independence. But sixty years after independence! I am really bothered that sixty years after independence they are so insecure ­ that we have not grown up, this lack of confidence and lack of self-respect."

Not to be outdone, the usual suspect Henry Kissinger spouts more rubbish (basically saying that functioning democracy is an INTERNAL PROBLEM and that the deal getting signed or not is a matter of "prestige" of American leaders)

"Does it reflect an immediate Indian internal problem or does it reflect the fundamental choice which makes it difficult to cooperate with India on these issues"

"It (failure of the deal) would certainly, in an intangible way, affect calculations because when an American leader goes down a certain road, he stakes his prestige on the ability to get it executed. So in that sense, it would undoubtedly be a setback"

References:

Ronen Sen apologises for calling MPs "chicken"
The Nuke Deal is DeadFall of n-deal will affect US outlook on India: Kissinger

The American Century

Some important quotes from key public figures of the "American Century"

George Keenan (The "father of containment", historian, political scientist) in 1948, in 'Review of Current Trends, U.S. Foreign Policy', PPS/23, Top Secret.

"We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 percent of it's population ...In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity ... We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction ... We should cease to talk about vague and ...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization."

Henry Luce, the editor of Time Magazine (who in the Feb. 7, 1941 issue of Life magazine, authored and signed an editorial, "The American Century")

"It now becomes our time to be the powerhouse from which the ideals spread throughout the world and do their mysterious work of lifting the life of mankind from the level of the beasts to what the Psalmist called a little lower than the angels."

"America as the dynamic center of ever-widening spheres of enterprise, America as the training center of the skillful servants of mankind, America as the Good Samaritan, really believing again that it is more blessed to give than to receive, and America as the powerhouse of the ideals of Freedom and Justice - out of these elements surely can be fashioned a vision of the 20th Century to which we can and will devote ourselves in joy and gladness and vigor and enthusiasm."

"Draft Memorandum to President Truman," in Diplomatic Papers, 1945: The Near East and Africa, p. 45, Vol. VIII, Foreign Relations of the United States, U.S. Department of State, University of Wisconsin Digital Collections.

"In Saudi Arabia, where the oil resources constitute a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history, a concession covering this oil is nominally in American control. It will undoubtedly be lost to the United States unless this Government is able to demonstrate in a practical way its recognition of this concession as of national interest by acceding to the reasonable requests of King Ibn Saud that he be assisted temporarily in his economic and financial difficulties until the exploitation of the concession, on a practical commercial basis, begins to bring substantial royalties to Saudi Arabia."

McGeorge Bundy (United States National Security Advisor to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson from 1961–1966) in "The End of Either/Or," Foreign Affairs, Volume 45, No 2, January, 1967, pp. 189-201.

"There are people who understand that we have to be in Indochina and just differ on the tactics, and then there are the wild men in the wings who think there’s something wrong with carrying out aggression against another country."

Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence (a document produced in 1995 as a "Terms of Reference" by the Policy Subcommittee of the Strategic Advisory Group (SAG) of the United States Strategic Command (current USSTRATCOM, former CINCSTRAT), a branch of the Department of Defense)

"The fact that some elements may appear to be potentially 'out of control' can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts in the minds of an adversary's decision makers. This essential sense of fear is the working force of deterrence. That the U.S. may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be part of the national persona we project to all adversaries."

Apocalypse Soon (by Robert S. McNamara who was U.S. secretary of defense from 1961 to 1968 ) wrote in 'Foreign Policy' in 2005.

"It is time—well past time, in my view—for the United States to cease its Cold War-style reliance on nuclear weapons as a foreign-policy tool. At the risk of appearing simplistic and provocative, I would characterize current U.S. nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous. The risk of an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch is unacceptably high."

Dean Acheson (United States Secretary of State in the Truman Administration during 1949-1953) speaks on the Panel: Cuban Quarantine, Implications for the Future, 57 Proc. Am. So. Int'l (Apr 1963)

"I must conclude that the propriety of the Cuban quarantine is not a legal issue. The power, position and prestige of the United States has been challenged by another state and law simply does not deal with such questions of ultimate power - power that comes close to the sources of sovereignty. I cannot believe that there are principles of law that say we must accept destruction of our way of life .....No law can destroy the state creating the law. The survival of states is not a matter of law."

Arthur Schlesinger, Historian and Kennedy aide (see "On the Brink: The Cuban Missile Crisis", John F. Kennedy Library and Foundation, October 20, 2002)

"The Cuban Missile Crisis was the most dangerous in the Cold War. It can be argued further that it was the most dangerous moment in human history. Because never before had two contending powers possessed between them the technical capacity to blow up the world. This was an unprecedented moment in the history of humankind, and we’re lucky to have survived it."

Middle-Class Millionaires

This could be one of the most ridiculous articles ever.

Worth $4 Million -- and Unable to Retire

In a bizarre twist, the word middle-class is given a nonsensical interpretation, and the "plight" of "middle-class" millionaires takes center stage.

Apparently:

"Mansions and yachts are out. The mMillionaires ("clever" acronym for the "middle-class" millionaire) who want to retire before age 65 or 72, find they must live in three- and four-bedroom homes and drive mid-priced four-door sedans and mini-vans." 

"There's no question that more people are accumulating wealth at an unprecedented rate"

I plan to be VERY sympathetic to the "plight" of the mMillionaire.