Amitabh Bachchan, 70: A birthday bash to remember

Its a nice feeling when you know that someone likes you,

someone thinks about you,someone needs you;but it feels much better when you know that someone never ever forgets your birthday.

“HAPPY BIRTHDAY”.Sir..................

Amitabh Bachchan, dressed in a black velvet outfit, came with his family -- wife Jaya Bachchan, son Abhishek, daughter Shweta, daughter-in-law Aishwarya Rai Bachchan

The red carpet at Amitabh Bachchan's 70th birthday party was not just a roster of the who's who of Indian cinema, it was also a walk down memory lane. Rubbing shoulders with today's stars were a roll call of Mr Bachchan's co-stars from his glory days as the Angry Young Man. 

Perfect picture: Big B, Jaya, Abhishek and Aishwarya

The Indian film industry's biggest stars like Dilip Kumar, Yash Chopra, Shah Rukh Khan and southern superstar Rajinikanth to high profile politicians like Samajwadi supremos Mulayam and Akhilesh Singh Yadav, and Union Minister Praful Patel flocked to the big bash organised on Wednesday to usher in Amitabh Bachchan's 70th birthday.

The red carpet was rolled out for as many as 800 guests at the Reliance Media Work, Film City, Goregaon.

SRK with wife Gauri

Mr Bachchan, dressed in a black velvet outfit, came with his family -- wife Jaya Bachchan, son Abhishek, daughter Shweta, daughter-in-law Aishwarya Rai Bachchan -- and he too walked the red carpet with a live orchestra playing hit numbers from his films.

Graceful Beauties - Sridevi and Madhuri Dixit with their husbands.

Mr Bachchan, who turns 70 today, told the media, "Thanks for coming", while Aishwarya, lovely in gold, told reporters, "We are so happy that we are all here today celebrating his birthday. Thank you so much."

Leading the Bollywood gang were old-timers and Big B collaborators Hema Malini (Satte Pe Satta, Naseeb), Waheeda Rehman (Kabhi Kabhie, Trishul), Vinod Khanna (Amar Akbar Anthony, Hera Pheri), Pran (Don, Zanjeer), Zeenat Aman (Don, Pukar), Danny Denzongpa (Agneepath, Hum), Neetu and Rishi Kapoor (The Great Gambler, Amar Akbar Anthony, Naseeb) and Shashi Kapoor, with whom Big B made a memorable Jodi in Deewar, Shaan and Namak Halall, who was wheeled in to join the revelries.

From the South, superstars Rajinikanth, who co-starred with Amitabh Bachchan in Hum, Khuda Gawah co-star Nagarjuna and Chiranjeevi with family were early arrivals. Chiranjeevi's son Ram Charan Teja is making his Bollywood debut playing the role that made Amitabh Bachchan famous - inspector Vijay - in a remake of 1973 hit Zanjeer.

Aishwarya and Abhishek played the perfect hosts and escorted 89-year old legend Dilip Kumar inside the venue.

Mr Bachchan's one time competitor Vinod Khanna, who rarely speaks to the media, was in a generous mood and said: "I wish him all the happiness and good luck." 

From the current lot of young actors, stars like Deepika Padukone, Parineeti Chopra, Anurag Kashyap and his wife Kalki Koechlin, Sonakshi Sinha, Vidya Balan, John Abraham and Arshad Warsi came to wish Mr Bachchan.

Southern spice: Rajinikanth, Chiranjeevi, Nagarjuna

Other guests included Khuda Gawah co-star Sridevi, Madhuri Dixit with her husband Sriram Nene, Shakti co-star Anil Kapoor, Ajay Devgn and Kajol, Mahima Chaudhary, Abbas Mastan, Sudhir Mishra, Subhash Ghai, Alka Yagnik, Boman Irani, R Madhavan, Ameesha Patel, Tabu, Sanjay Dutt, Sunil Shetty, Jackie Shroff, Divya Dutta, Ashutosh Gowariker, Juhi Chawla, Preity Zinta, Vipul Shah, Rana Daggubati and Urmila Matondkar.

Main Azad Hoon co-star Shabana Azmi called him an "iconic figure" and added: "I got an opportunity to work with him. He is my favourite."

Madhuri wished him all the "happiness and success", while Juhi said: "I respect him, admire him and I had a great time working with him."

Vidya, who played his mother in Paa, said that "he is an inspiration not only for actors but for everyone".

If glamour was at its peak, the big names from the political corridor including Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader Praful Patel, Shiv Sena executive president Uddhav Thackeray, Samajwadi Party supremo Mulayam Singh Yadav and his son and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav also gathered here to wish Mr Bachchan.

Samajwadi Party supremo with his son and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav and Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group's chairman Anil Ambani.

Not to be left behind was businessman Anil Ambani, an old friend of Amitabh Bachchan.

Watch video

 

Read More

“CIVIC CENTER DELHI सिविक सेन्टर (दिल्ली की सबसे विशाल इमारत)”

दिल्ली या कहो कि नई दिल्ली, जिसे दुनिया में भारत INDIA की राजधानी के नाम से जाना पहचाना जाता है, दिल्ली को भारत की राजधानी बने सौ साल से ज्यादा हो चुके है। यह भारत की राजधानी दिल्ली वर्तमान में कोई सौ साल पहले 1911 में अंग्रेजों ने इसको अपनी राजधानी बनाया था। दिल्ली को राजधानी बनाने से पहले कलकत्ता भारत की राजधानी हुआ करता था। दिल्ली को राजधानी बनाने के बाद यहाँ पर अंगेजों ने बहुत सारी ईमारते बनवायी थी, उनमें कुछ है, इण्डिया गेट, राष्ट्रपति भवन, कनाट प्लेस, लोहे का पुल, आदि बहुत कुछ बनवाया था। अंग्रेजों ने, अरे हाँ एक बात और दिल्ली तो पहले भी भारत की राजधानी हुआ करती थी। मुगल भी इसके पीछे लगे रहे। महाभारत काल के पांडव भी यही से अपना राजकाज चलाते थे। मुगलों के समय में तो यहाँ कई इमारतों का निर्माण किया गया था। उनमें से लाल किला, जामा मस्जिद प्रमुख है। कुतुब मीनार तो कुतुबदीन ने बनवाई थी। अब आजादी के बाद भारत सरकार ने भी इस शानदार शहर में कुछ बनवाया था या नहीं यह ध्यान देने वाली बात थी। काफ़ी गौर किया तो पाया कि भारत सरकार ने दरियागंज के पीछे यमुना किनारे नेताओं की कब्र या कहे उनके अंतिम संस्कार स्थल पर समाधी बनाने के अलावा और कोई मुख्य कार्य नहीं किया था। अब जाकर दिल्ली में एक ऐसी विशाल इमारत का निर्माण कार्य हुआ है जिस पर दिल्ली वासी गर्व कर सके। दिल्ली में गर्व करने वाली जिस इमारत के बारे में मैं बताने जा रहा हूँ उसका नाम है सिविक सेन्टर, दिल्ली नगर निगम का मुख्यालय “सिविक सेन्टर” मात्र नाम नहीं है, बल्कि एक पहचान है, जिस पर दिल्ली को इसकी शान पर गर्व है। यह वर्तमान में दिल्ली की सबसे विशाल व ऊँची इमारत है। यह इमारत जमीन से ऊपर मात्र अठाईस मंजिल है, व ऊपर आकाश छूती मंजिलों के अलावा तीन मंजिल जमीन के नीचे भी बनाई हुई है, तहखाने में बनी तीनों मंजिलों में केवल पार्किंग है। 101 मी ऊँचीई वाली यह इमारत देखने में भी बहुत सुन्दर है। यह इमारत नई दिल्ली रेलवे व नई दिल्ली मेट्रो स्टेशन के पास ही है।

रामलीला मैदान से लिया गया फ़ोटो है।

सडक पार से लिया गया फ़ोटो है।

 

एक फ़ोटो यहाँ से भी।

यह कहना तो बेकार सा लगता है कि यह इमारत कहाँ-कहाँ से दिखाई दे जाती है, अगर मौसम साफ़ है तो आप दिल्ली के लगभग सौ किलोमीटर लम्बे रिंग रोड पर बनी किसी भी ऊंची बिल्डिंग के ऊपर खडे होकर इसे देख सकते हो, यह इमारत पूरे पाँच साल में बन कर तैयार हुई है, और केवल 600 सौ करोड रुपये इसको बनाने का बजट था। दिल्ली नगर निगम पहले पूरी दिल्ली में एक ही विभाग हुआ करता था लेकिन अब इसको तीन भागों में विभाजित करने का कार्य प्रगति पर है, उसके बाद देखते है, कि यह स्थल किस निगम का कार्यालय बना रहता है। इस इमारत पर दिल्ली सरकार की नजर लगी हुई है, और भविष्य में सम्भव भी है, कि यह दिल्ली सरकार के मुख्यालय में बदल जाये। इस ईमारत में छोटे-छोटे कमरे ना होकर, बडॆ-बडे विशाल हॉल है, जिनमें बैंक की तरह, कार्य करने के स्थल बनाये हुए है। इमारत की सभी मंजिल पूर्णतय: वातानुकूलित बनायी गयी है, चाहे लिफ़्ट हो या गैलरी, हर कही मौसम की मार से बचे रहते है। दिल्ली नगर निगम में कुल सवा लाख कर्मचारी कार्य करते है, जिस कारण यह विश्व का सबसे बडा/या दूसरा सबसे बडा नगर निगम भी है।

ग्रिल के एकदम पास से लिया गया।

यह रहा प्रवेश द्धार,

अन्दर घुसते ही ये नजारा है।

यहाँ से लालकिला, कुतुबमीनार, कमल का मन्दिर, जामा मस्जिद, कनॉट प्लेस, लोहे का पुराना पुल, इन्डिया गेट, राष्ट्रपति भवन, कमल का मंदिर, बिरला मंदिर आदि सभी इमारते नजर आती है, अगर हम यहाँ की सबसे ऊपर की मंजिल पर खडॆ हो जाये तो। यहाँ की इमारत में एक गजब बात और है कि यहाँ पर मोबाइल में नेटवर्क भी पहाड का यानि कि उतराखण्ड का पकडने लगता है मोबाइल पर sms आने लगते है कि आपका उतराखण्ड में स्वागत है, अगर कोई नया बन्दा यहाँ आये तो वो तो सोच में पड ही जायेगा। अरे हाँ पिछले वर्ष चार जून की आधी रात को दिल्ली पुलिस ने सोते हुए लोगों पर जो कहर बरपाया था यह इमारत उस घटना की मूक गवाह है। बाबा रामदेव पर रात के अंधेरे में किये गये कायरता पूर्ण हमले के कारण प्रसिद्ध रामलीला मैदान तो इस विशाल इमारत के एकदम सामने ही है। इस इमारत और रामलीला मैदान के बीच में सिर्फ़ सडक भर का फ़ासला है। आमतौर पर आजकल के सुखी लोग इतने आलसी हो गये है कि जिस इमारत में लिफ़्ट में लगी हो वे पैदल भी एक मंजिल भी पैदल नहीं चढना चाहते है। यही हाल भी इस इमारत में कार्य करने वाले कर्मचारियों का हो चुका है शायद ही कोई कर्मचारी ऐसा होगा जो लिफ़्ट का प्रयोग किये बिना किसी मंजिल पर आना-जाना करता होगा। साफ़ सफ़ाई व सुरक्षा का अच्छा प्रबंध किया गया है। यहाँ कार्य करने वाले कर्मचारी तो अपना पहचान पत्र दिखाकर प्रवेश कर जाते है, लेकिन बाहरी व्यकित को अपना नाम पता, कार्य उद्धेश्य बता कर ही अन्दर जाने का पास दिया जाता है। बाहरी लोगों का प्रवेश भी अलग द्धार से किया जाता है।

देखते रहो,

भीमकाय इमारत के एकदम पास में जाकर,

ताऊ टोपी पकड, गिर जायेगी।

यह पाताललोक का मार्ग, यानि वाहन ठहराव स्थल का।

लिफ़्ट की ओर जाते हुए।

लिफ़्ट के बाहर।

एक साथ छ: छ: लिफ़्ट।

यह कर्मचारियों की कार्य स्थली है।

ये रहा आपातकालीन निपटने का स्थान।

जीना/सीढियों का।

जीने/सीढियों से नीचे देखते हुए

जीना/सीढियों में ऊपर की ओर

वो सामने कनॉट प्लेस का नजारा

ऊपर से नीचे सडक व रामलीला मैदान का नजा

 

Read More

Untitled

Breaking The Silence

Why we don’t talk about inequality—and how to start again

By UMA PRATAP SINGH  | 1 October 2012

STEVE MCCURRY / MAGNUM PHOTOS

 0 9

Print|E-Mail|

Single Page

1
The New Challenge of Inequality

THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY is having a revolutionary effect on life in contemporary India.” This was the considered assessment of the eminent American political scientist Myron Weiner, writing for Foreign Affairs in 1962. In a society still marked by egregiously obscene forms of inequality, the term “revolutionary” seems extravagant, even five decades after Weiner pronounced his judgment. But determining what constitutes “revolutionary” social change depends on how that change is measured—and in the second decade after Independence, the distance that India had travelled from its starting point would have indeed seemed immense. Political equality had been enshrined in the Constitution, untouchability had been delegitimised, political representation was widely shared, zamindari had been abolished, a new development paradigm was instituted, and the state defined its goals in terms of common welfare.

And yet by another measure—of how much more India would have to achieve to become a minimally equal society—even this progress was small comfort. Formal political equality did not translate into substantive empowerment; abolishing untouchability barely cracked open the hierarchies of caste; political representation coexisted with deep prejudice; zamindari abolition did little to alleviate the vulnerabilities of small farmers and landless labour; development was shockingly slow at expanding opportunities; and the state’s promise of welfare seemed like a cruel mirage to hundreds of millions of Indians condemned to poverty, malnutrition, illiteracy and disease.

Much has transpired since Weiner’s preliminary assessment of the career of equality in India. Economically, India has broken out of the paradigm of low growth that always seemed to make material prosperity so elusive. This new growth is producing far-reaching changes in income, occupational structures, lifestyles and aspirations. Politically, India’s democracy has deepened, giving hitherto marginalised groups impressive representation and recognition. Administratively, the state has acquired unprecedented resources to spend on programs ostensibly designed for inclusion. And there is a palpable change in social consciousness: political democracy has induced a sense of agency and empowerment across different groups in society; today inclusion is a demand of citizens, not a gift given from on high.

Yet these very changes are compelling the debate over equality to take a paradoxical turn. On the one hand, there is impatience with the idea of equality. While an acknowledgement of formal equality is now enshrined in India’s self-image, the politics of equality are often associated with hypocrisy and pretense. One camp in the debate blames India’s ills in large part on an excessive rhetoric of equality—talk that is regarded as a license for maintaining outmoded forms of state control that for decades trapped India’s economy. From this perspective, equality talk has always been a license for economic irrationality: it was used to justify all manner of subsidies, controls and patronage schemes that did nothing but retard development. Growth may be producing new forms of economic inequality, the argument goes, but at least it is more effective at reducing poverty. It is also creating the conditions for a more durable equality of opportunity, by providing the resources for things like education. An excessive preoccupation with equality is seen as a stumbling block: it produces policies that do nothing but appease the conscience of India’s privileged, even as these policies do little to dismantle deep structures of inequality. Let us get on with growth, it is argued, and the opportunities it produces will, somehow, at some point, take care of equality concerns. Equality, on this view, is both a ruse and a distraction.

This sentiment captures a scepticism generated by India’s development experience. It is also of a piece with new India’s self-image of tough-mindedness, not bound by pieties of the past. Yet, on the other hand, this posture is deeply fragile. While equality talk may not have served us well, deep social and economic inequality remain obdurate realities in India. It may be a crude measure, but India’s Gini coefficient—a measurement of the uneven distribution of wealth—is rising. Acute forms of social segregation remain a reality. A large number of social struggles continue to be animated by the indignity of inequality and powerlessness. Despite significant reductions in poverty, it is difficult to deny that India still breathes an oppressive atmosphere of social inequality. The idea that growth and economic development represent our best chance of unsettling fixed hierarchies of power has some truth to it. But we cannot get away from the fact that growth is bringing in new challenges of inequality, which we ignore at our peril. It is also true that much of the political discourse of equality has been hypocritical. But here we must acknowledge that debates over growth and equality rarely manage to dent the psychological resistance we have erected to avoid confronting uncomfortable facts about inequality.

This essay is premised on the idea that the way we think about inequality matters a lot to the shape it takes and to the prospects for its diminishment. At present, Indian thinking about inequality suffers from a triple burden. The topic is cloaked by a deep and pervasive culture of avoidance. But even when it becomes a focus of political reflection, the outmoded idioms through which we imagine equality become new straitjackets that impede solutions. And this, in turn, distorts the understanding of the instruments we use to address the problem. This essay cannot do justice to the full complexity of the problem; it is a modest attempt at clearing some cobwebs. But India urgently needs to confront this issue anew. Or else inequality will remain India’s original sin: reappearing in the face of every resistance, casting a shadow over all social relations, acting forever as a rebuke to the Indian experiment.

Read More

Untitled

Breaking The Silence

Why we don’t talk about inequality—and how to start again

By PRATAP BHANU MEHTA | 1 October 2012

STEVE MCCURRY / MAGNUM PHOTOS

 0 9

Print|E-Mail|

Single Page

1
The New Challenge of Inequality

THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY is having a revolutionary effect on life in contemporary India.” This was the considered assessment of the eminent American political scientist Myron Weiner, writing for Foreign Affairs in 1962. In a society still marked by egregiously obscene forms of inequality, the term “revolutionary” seems extravagant, even five decades after Weiner pronounced his judgment. But determining what constitutes “revolutionary” social change depends on how that change is measured—and in the second decade after Independence, the distance that India had travelled from its starting point would have indeed seemed immense. Political equality had been enshrined in the Constitution, untouchability had been delegitimised, political representation was widely shared, zamindari had been abolished, a new development paradigm was instituted, and the state defined its goals in terms of common welfare.

And yet by another measure—of how much more India would have to achieve to become a minimally equal society—even this progress was small comfort. Formal political equality did not translate into substantive empowerment; abolishing untouchability barely cracked open the hierarchies of caste; political representation coexisted with deep prejudice; zamindari abolition did little to alleviate the vulnerabilities of small farmers and landless labour; development was shockingly slow at expanding opportunities; and the state’s promise of welfare seemed like a cruel mirage to hundreds of millions of Indians condemned to poverty, malnutrition, illiteracy and disease.

Much has transpired since Weiner’s preliminary assessment of the career of equality in India. Economically, India has broken out of the paradigm of low growth that always seemed to make material prosperity so elusive. This new growth is producing far-reaching changes in income, occupational structures, lifestyles and aspirations. Politically, India’s democracy has deepened, giving hitherto marginalised groups impressive representation and recognition. Administratively, the state has acquired unprecedented resources to spend on programs ostensibly designed for inclusion. And there is a palpable change in social consciousness: political democracy has induced a sense of agency and empowerment across different groups in society; today inclusion is a demand of citizens, not a gift given from on high.

Yet these very changes are compelling the debate over equality to take a paradoxical turn. On the one hand, there is impatience with the idea of equality. While an acknowledgement of formal equality is now enshrined in India’s self-image, the politics of equality are often associated with hypocrisy and pretense. One camp in the debate blames India’s ills in large part on an excessive rhetoric of equality—talk that is regarded as a license for maintaining outmoded forms of state control that for decades trapped India’s economy. From this perspective, equality talk has always been a license for economic irrationality: it was used to justify all manner of subsidies, controls and patronage schemes that did nothing but retard development. Growth may be producing new forms of economic inequality, the argument goes, but at least it is more effective at reducing poverty. It is also creating the conditions for a more durable equality of opportunity, by providing the resources for things like education. An excessive preoccupation with equality is seen as a stumbling block: it produces policies that do nothing but appease the conscience of India’s privileged, even as these policies do little to dismantle deep structures of inequality. Let us get on with growth, it is argued, and the opportunities it produces will, somehow, at some point, take care of equality concerns. Equality, on this view, is both a ruse and a distraction.

This sentiment captures a scepticism generated by India’s development experience. It is also of a piece with new India’s self-image of tough-mindedness, not bound by pieties of the past. Yet, on the other hand, this posture is deeply fragile. While equality talk may not have served us well, deep social and economic inequality remain obdurate realities in India. It may be a crude measure, but India’s Gini coefficient—a measurement of the uneven distribution of wealth—is rising. Acute forms of social segregation remain a reality. A large number of social struggles continue to be animated by the indignity of inequality and powerlessness. Despite significant reductions in poverty, it is difficult to deny that India still breathes an oppressive atmosphere of social inequality. The idea that growth and economic development represent our best chance of unsettling fixed hierarchies of power has some truth to it. But we cannot get away from the fact that growth is bringing in new challenges of inequality, which we ignore at our peril. It is also true that much of the political discourse of equality has been hypocritical. But here we must acknowledge that debates over growth and equality rarely manage to dent the psychological resistance we have erected to avoid confronting uncomfortable facts about inequality.

This essay is premised on the idea that the way we think about inequality matters a lot to the shape it takes and to the prospects for its diminishment. At present, Indian thinking about inequality suffers from a triple burden. The topic is cloaked by a deep and pervasive culture of avoidance. But even when it becomes a focus of political reflection, the outmoded idioms through which we imagine equality become new straitjackets that impede solutions. And this, in turn, distorts the understanding of the instruments we use to address the problem. This essay cannot do justice to the full complexity of the problem; it is a modest attempt at clearing some cobwebs. But India urgently needs to confront this issue anew. Or else inequality will remain India’s original sin: reappearing in the face of every resistance, casting a shadow over all social relations, acting forever as a rebuke to the Indian experiment.

Read More