The badshah-samrat feud

In one of the biggest Bollywoodian ironies, our hero Shah Rukh Khan finds himself in a new "circus" very different from his TV serial, with a "sena" very different the army he played fauji for once on his way to stardom!

On the face of it, SRK's first comment on the IPL bidding process was an objective comment based on logic and the inescapable peacenik attitude that no Indian can deny. Except: SRK is one of the league owners! So either he is responding to a misrepresentation of the IPL league owners' attitude, or he is admitting that even in the face of this noblest of reasons he chose not to bid on Pakistani players, thereby leading credence to the perceived attitude of the IPL league owners!

Now let's turn to the other party: the Shiv Sena. Thousands of minds were once again "saddened" (as they do ever so often), and SRK was asked to apologize. Thus started the baadshah-samrat feud! Deftly weaving this controversy with their Maharashtra plank, they have swung into action protesting any SRK endeavour. Like the comic sidekick who cannot help but insert himself into a scene, our CM takes a side to ensure the release of a movie rather than control a law and order situation. Give it a few days: like a couple fighting, soon nobody will remember what the original controvery was.

There's something nostalgically filmy about all this. Remember the scene from Sholay where Veeru is chained, Basanti is in the clutches of Gabbar Singh on a hot afternoon in the Chambal Ghaati? Gabbar says "naach! Jab tak tu naachegi, iski saans chalegi!" (Dance! So long as you dance, he'll breathe). Basanti obliges until Jai comes to the rescue.

So to teach Shah Rukh a lesson, the Shiv Sena decide to stop the screening of his film by storming into cinema theaters who are planning to show it and tearing off posters. Who's being punished: the cinema theaters and the producer Karan Johar, and the public who once again will see his movie not with the intention of paying SRK but for their entertainment! This is masochistic patriotism: destroying your own property and threatening your own fellow citizens to show loyalty towards your own country!

So how will this movie end? Will an apology from SRK magically nullify all his seemingly unpatriotic utterances? Will an apology make him patriotic and fit to live in Mumbai once more? What will be remembered: the original controversy or that a political party that won the "people's agitation"? Meanwhile it has been reported that a certain Pakistani player went on Pakistani TV and spewed venom against India whose antidote is once again: money! Bid on us to prevent hearing nonsense from us.

The sunny optimistic person that I am, I have a solution for this controversy. Rename the movie "My Name is Khanzode". Suddenly its not an autistic Muslim fighting for justice, it is apla marathi manoos! No Sena will boycott that movie!

Doctor doctor where art thou?

My dad sent me this anecdotal article of an American's experience in the Indian healthcare system. For someone who has been in the US for the last 8 years and has seen more than his share of doctors, the healthcare system and people's attitude towards it does amuse me sometime! Here are a few gems:

1. Proponents decry any form of government-funded healthcare as vile because it "adds bureaucracy", "government coming between you and the doctor", etc. Here is a typical experience at a doctor's clinic:

I get a fever. I call in my doctor, who by the way I have to select as my Primary Care Physician. I cannot go to any other doctor without informing my insurance company first. Anyway, the earliest appointment they have is two weeks away (if by then my fever does not go away I might have to visit a hospital).

During one particular lucky fever I was able to get an appointment within the fever's life time. I walk into the clinic, check myself in with the receptionist. After a 5-10 minute wait the nurse calls me in. After checking my vitals, she asks me about my symptoms. I tell her everything. She takes copious notes, and then leaves. About 15 minutes pass. Then the doctor arrives. Asks me what happened. I repeat everything I told the nurse. A few questions, an exam. The doctor decides to prescribe me something. He asks me which pharmacy I'd prefer (people who don't know this will find it even more amusing that a lot of insurance companies mandate which pharmacies you can or cannot go to, to receive "full coverage"!). Call me naive, but a doctor hiding behind two levels of nurses....bureaucracy anyone? Anyway in a particularly impressive stroke of "unbureaucracy" he manages to electronically send my prescription to the pharmacy of my choice, so that I can pick it up on my way home.

The moral of the story according to me: there IS already someone between me and the doctor.

2. Anything more than a fever or a simple wound, and you can be assured of a "referral" to a specialist. I've had the unfortunate privilege several times. The specialist's wait time is even more hilarious: in weeks. My germs pitied me and surrendered after just hearing the waiting time. Even they couldn't wait for the medicine that long!

3. I moved a couple of years ago. I had to transfer my medical records to the new place. I went in, and they told me I had to sign a release form in order to send the medical records. Fair enough. But here's the catch: "Send the medical records" meant that they would print it out for me and I would physically carry a file. Again, no worries. But why did I have to sign a release form to release MY OWN medical records TO ME? Apparently the right to medical privacy applies to my internal organs as well.

4. This truly is the country of personal choice. Doctors give you treatment options and ask you to choose. Amongst much of the knowledge that I gained when we were having our first baby that I could've lived all my life without, came the debate about epidurals or not. Apparently the doctor explains you the pros and cons of taking it, and then leaves the choice to you. Muster the courage to ask the doctor "what do you think I should do" and you're assured of a gem of an escapist reply. But no, the doctors are more than competent. They simply fear the judicial system in case the patient sues them later on.

5. Pharmaceutical companies are free to advertise their prescription medicines on TV. Every ad has the following gems: "Talk to your doctor about XYZ" (I pity the doctor who has to answer these sentences), "side effects include..." (for some medicines, this includes heart attack, blood clots and stroke :-) ), etc. The best ad that I saw (that was subsequently questioned by medical journals in the UK) was for a medicine for "restless leg syndrome". The ad was so wonderfully vague that anybody getting up after sitting on the couch for an hour may mistake the funny feeling in his/her legs for the "restless leg syndrome". The ad came on so many times, it may have been another mutation of the flu!

5. Pharmacists have very important jobs. I don't deny it. Why they take about 20 minutes to dispense medicine is beyond me. "Too many customers" is particularly unimpressive for a guy coming from India...I was once given some cream in a tablet bottle!

I'm sure there are perfectly valid reasons for each one of the above, but hearing about the health care debate on the news hardly helps. Upon being carried to the hospital and treated promptly in Hawaii when he was on vacation, a smug Rush Limbaugh commented "...based on my experience here I don't think there is anything wrong with the healthcare system in this country". This from a very famous radio talk show host who is rich enough to contemplate buying a professional football team. That's like Amitabh Bachchan saying "based on my life there is no poverty in India" :-)