zen

Is Shami in WC plans too? … Ishant’s height and experience could be useful in South Africa, so wishing him a happy comeback as well

Verity (2026) 4/5 I went with relatively low expectations, only hoping for a good time pass, but it turned out to be better than I expected it to be. Much like the titular character, the film creates enough question marks [SPOILER]to not know who the villain is [/SPOILER]. Maybe it is not a film for everyone. Giving it a 4/5 for being a solid and a different type of film in its genre.

But most would be from this era here! There won’t be anyone from Gandhiji or Swami Vivekananda’s era present here.

While the concept is good, it drastically narrows the field to your own experiences. For example, someone may have not experienced the greatness of Swami Vivekananda first hand but that does not stop Swamiji from being among the greatest Indians!

I tried watching Kalabaaz (1977, Hindi) for Dev Anand. The movie was bad so I had to watch it by skipping most of its segments. It even tried to be like Mackenna's Gold (1969) in its final segment. After finishing the film by watching only selected segments, I had the following conversation with myself: Logic: Why did you watch this film? Emotions: For Dev Anand. Logic: Would you have watched this film if it had some other actor? Emotions: Not a chance! Logic: So you would not have watched Kalabaaz if it had a Dharmendra, a Amitabh, a Anil Kapoor, a Jackie Shroff, a Mithun, a Jeetendra, a Whoever? Emotions: No, I watched it only for Dev Anand, while skipping most of the non Dev Anand segments. After 1975, Dev Anand has struggled to put up a really top film. Almost all of his films post 1975 have either lost money or just managed to recover their costs. And still people watch those films, especially on TV, just because it has Dev Anand. Of course, they would watch his blockbusters from 1975 and earlier period, but here I am only referring to his post 1975 work. That produced a Eureka moment! That Dev Anand is the greatest Indian. No one else has the power to make dumb films and still make people watch those films for him (some fans even gave him money so he could continue to make films, his passion). Dev Anand, the Kalabaaz

Another brave Gujju

That is your interpretation. There would be those who would see Roman rule as oppression. One can weave any such scenario. Celtic Britons were known to have fought the Roman Empire by organizing tribal alliances, fighting guerrilla warfare, organizing massive revolts, and so on. The point is to keep it simple through historical associations, ethnicity, etc.

In India too, we will find British culture (English language, governing laws, clothes, architecture, etc.) Roman ruins in distant lands are not proof of one ethnicity and historical associations.

Shor (1972, Hindi) Another good film by Manoj Kumar. It does have some weak segments and an overdramatic situation in the finale but overall, it is a good watch. In Manoj Kumar films, I particularly like actor positioning and camera angles. After Yaadgar (1970), which may have been indirectly directed by him looking at actor positioning and camera angles, and Shor (1972), Manoj Kumar is back on my list of Bollywood actors whose films in general provide a good overall experience. The list is below: * The Original Trio: Dev, Dilip, and Raj * Shammi Kapoor (Comedy-Romance-Thrillers) * Rajendra Kumar (Drama) * Manoj Kumar (Patriotic and social flavor) * Sanjeev Kumar (Depending on his role and the genre of the film)

I don’t think people look at merely borders, which have changed throughout the history and will likely keep changing in future, when considering ancient era but factors such region, ethnicity, historical associations, etc. So in your above example, ancient Britons and ancient Turks would be different from ancient Romans, even though Rome ruled those areas much like greatest Indian can be from India under the British Rule, which was around 190 years. For example, Rabindranath Tagore would not be considered among greatest Briton just because he lived under the British Rule. Similarly, Robert Browning would not be considered as greatest Indian just because of the British Rule.

“Ek Tara Bole”, the 1970 song is still applicable more that 5 1/2 decades later in 2026:

Yes. India has roughly 18% of world population but only around 2.5% of land. The question is not what a country can sustain (as many can even fit in 20 people in a small house and they may want to produce even more so someone can take care of them in their old age) but what is ecologically ideal. And on that metrics, India’s population cap should ideally have been around 550 million (an average of a range of 400 to 700 million). PS If you listen to Indira Gandhi’s old speeches, she tends to mention “… log bahaut hain.”

He was likely built up by others as the face of a movement as he connected with the masses.

Does the greatest discussion only covers the post independence, after the division of subcontinent, period since 1947?