Pope Francis considered "Babette's Feast" (1987) to be "One of the best movies he had ever seen" & it was one of his top 3 movies of all time. About the film, he said,
"The story takes place in a very strict Calvinist community in Denmark. The protagonists, two sisters, daughters of a Protestant pastor, had each fallen in love but rejected this feeling because it was wrongly considered contrary to the very strict morals they had inherited. They lived a life of renunciation, not only in love but in everything, including food and clothing. A kind of continuous self-flagellation.
The French cook Babette, a ‘foreigner’ in this context, after winning a rich lottery prize, decides to cook a sublime meal for the whole community, and by this gesture she manages to make everyone feel and see human beauty. She manages to make them perceive this divine pleasure that has been wrongly suppressed for too long.
Choosing one’s own food is one of those choices. It is a powerful mechanism for change: it means rewarding one productive and economic model rather than another."
P.S: On this day, 39 years ago, Gabriel Axel's "Babette's Feast" (1987) was released in Denmark.
The young goat that lost its mother in a wolf attack in Sivas and was rejected by the rest of the herd started going to sleep with the shepherd dogs every night so it wouldn’t be alone
As the search of the next Bond heats up, my vote for the next James Bond after Daniel Craig would be John Abraham. He has the cool ‘shaken not stirred’ persona and certainly good actor with the ‘Bond Charm’
By the way Daniel Craig was cast as James Bond after the producers saw him in my film Elizabeth.
#JamesBond #JohnAbraham @TheJohnAbraham
There is a certain genre of writing that substitutes accusation for argument. It begins by assigning motive, then arranges facts,real, distorted, or imagined, to fit that conclusion. The recent commentary on my views on India-Pakistan relations follows that familiar script.
Let me state the essentials clearly. To argue that India must combine deterrence with engagement is NOT to diminish the reality of terrorism, nor to excuse it. It is to recognise how serious nations manage adversaries. India has, across governments and decades, done precisely this, responding firmly to terror while retaining channels of communication where necessary to prevent escalation and miscalculation. This is not sentimentality. It is statecraft.
The suggestion that engagement grants “impunity” rests on a false binary, that one must either talk or act. In practice, states do both. To collapse that complexity into a moral accusation may make for forceful prose, but it does not make for sound policy.
The caricature of a women’s caucus is equally misplaced. It is not proposed as a substitute for national policy, nor as a solution to entrenched conflict. It is a modest Track II initiative, one of many possible avenues, to widen dialogue, reduce hostility, and explore areas where cooperation may still be possible. Such efforts do not require approval from those who see every form of engagement as capitulation.
Invoking the suffering of victims of terrorism to argue against any form of dialogue is particularly troubling. Their loss demands seriousness, not rhetorical deployment. Accountability is not strengthened by narrowing the space for thought.
The claim that an idea is discredited because it is welcomed by a Pakistani voice is also a curious standard. If the merit of an argument is to be judged by who agrees with it, then independent judgment itself is surrendered. Ideas must stand or fall on their own logic.
Beyond the rhetoric lies a more fundamental question: what is India’s end game with Pakistan?
If it is to reduce Pakistan to rubble, that is fantasy dressed up as toughness. It is not going to happen, and any attempt to move in that direction would risk catastrophe for the entire region, not least for India. Nuclear geography is a stern schoolmaster. It does not indulge chest-thumping.
The real end game has to be containment, deterrence, internal strengthening, and selective engagement.
In plain words:
India’s objective should be to make Pakistan’s use of terror too costly to sustain, while preventing the relationship from sliding into permanent uncontrolled escalation. That means four things.
First, raise the cost of terrorism. Through intelligence, border management, diplomatic isolation where warranted, calibrated military response when necessary, and relentless exposure of the infrastructure of proxy violence. No illusions there.
Second, deny Pakistan veto power over India’s future. We should not let our growth, our diplomacy, our regional ambitions, or our internal confidence be held hostage by a single hostile neighbour. The greatest strategic answer to Pakistan is a stronger, more cohesive, more prosperous India.
Third, manage the conflict, not romanticise it. There will be no grand reconciliation in the near term. But neither can every interaction be reduced to rage. Ceasefire mechanisms, back channels, water safeguards, crisis hotlines, and limited functional engagement are not signs of softness. They are instruments of control.
Fourth, keep open the possibility of a different future without betting on it. That is where dialogue belongs. Not as wishful thinking, not as “aman ki asha” balloon releases, but as disciplined statecraft. You talk not because you trust, but because you must understand, signal, warn, probe, and occasionally de-escalate.
So the end game is not rubble.
It is a Pakistan that is deterred, constrained, denied easy success, and unable to derail India’s future.
Fury is a mood. It is not a policy.
Cause only in India exploitation is normal, where poor people are expected to show up at work at 6 am because the elites want to have paneer tikka roll while watching a fucking movie
You love India because of easy it is to exploit a lot of people for the convenience of a few
So this is what @goibibo does? Books tickets through backend/group inventory without customer consent — and when the flight gets cancelled, the passenger is left stranded between airline and agent. 24 hours and still no rescheduling update from @GoibiboSupport. How is this legal?
We regret any trouble, Puspangshu. We always try our best to maintain the departures as per the schedule. However, at times, due to certain unavoidable reasons, we face a change/cancellation. Please note that this is a group booking made through a travel agency (ORN Vacations Private Limited), wherein the passengers' names are not updated. Kindly contact the source of the booking for any further assistance or clarification related to your booking. You may also write to [email protected].