2023 Men’s Cricket World Cup Finale - A looksee

Background: The stage was set for the men in blue. The build up was almost perfect. Having won the Asia cup just prior to the World Cup, team India went up to the top of the ranking in 2 of the 3 categories of cricket formats. Rohit and his team went hammer and tongs against all teams in the league games of the WC. All top batters were tested in the 10 games preceding the finale. The template was set. The captain leads from the front. When batting first, team India goes ultra aggressive led from the front by their captain who makes batting look easy. The strike rate of Rohit far outweighs all other batters in the 2023 WC. The selfless approach to live and die by the sword, setting the stage for the remaining batters to leverage the boost given to going on to building an insurmountable total, which takes the game out of reach for the opposition. When batting second, the inspired captaincy of Rohit led to the right bowling changes at right times, getting key wickets at critical intervals, making the bowling attack seem like a pack of wild dogs hunting for the kill. No mercy even for smaller teams was the characteristic of the 2023 WC campaign. Having beaten all teams in the leagues, there didnt appear to be a single chink in the armor and stage was set for the grand finale at the world’s largest cricket stadium in Ahmedabad.

Laurels: Highest run scorer - Virat Kohli
Highest wicket taker - Mohammed Shami
Highest number of sixes in a World Cup - Rohit Sharma

On the day: Rohit losses the toss and yet gets to bat first which seemed to be team India’s strength. Rohit starts going his usual flamboyant style with scant disregard for the opposition. However, the intent from the Aussies were very evident from the first over, where the fielding team did some exceptional fielding, stopping a lot of boundaries in the first power play. This was done by studying each and every batsmen’s strengths and setting the field and bowling to the field set. It seemed like the best of shots seemed to be finding fielders instead of rushing to the boundary. A couple of inspired catches and the opening batsmen have departed, but the crowd isn’t that worried as team India has a lot more star names who have been in similar situations and have taken on the arduous task of rebuilding and the initial platform was set for the same reason. However a couple of back to back wickets meant that the task just got a little bit harder. Both batsmen seemed to be lacking in intent towards taking the fight to the opposition, content with batting at a below par 3 runs per over. Kohli is known for converting ones to twos and twos to threes and ends up putting the opposition under pressure. However during the stand between Rahul and Kohli, this intent was missing. Rahul seemed to be playing a test match, which was needed for a few overs to consolidate, but 15 overs without the ball touching the fence meant that the intent was missing and the team was more keen to avoid a total collapse and instead focus on getting to a ‘respectable’ score, which may not have been sufficient to challenge the opposition, but there was a well placed faith in the lethal bowling attack on a pitch that seemed to be unfavorable to the batters. However when Kohli got out to an inspired delivery from Cummins after doing a lot of the toil, the game was all but lost, as there needed to be a consolidation to preserve the previous consolidation. When a total of 240 was set, it seemed to be 40 runs short of what an at-par score would have been. However, the bowling attack may have been able to get early wickets and bring back the game in favor of team India. The bowling changes by Rohit was mostly uninspired which was different from the rest of the games. Shami has been tried and tested with the new ball and his record with that hasnt been stellar, which was opposite to Siraj. The decision to hand the new ball to Shami was inexplicable. The Indians didn't seem to have done their homework on player to player match up, exploring weakness and bowling to the field set. An aura of invincibility can always lead to God-complex, which seemed to be the case. Full marks to the Aussies for doing their homework and bringing their A-game to the game that mattered the most, which is something the Aussies have always done in all big tournament finals.

Conclusion: Having followed the team journey for the entire WC and even before, I would still say that this was the best team that has ever been put up by team India in World cups. This was the best bowling attack with all bowlers having delivered in league games. All batsmen had performed in all league games as well. Despite the final outcome, I would bleed blue all over for now and every sport has got to have a winner and a loser and the better team wins. The best of champions can have an off day where everything seems to not go their way, and that is exactly what happened. The fact that the bad day happened on the most important day is definitely unfortunate and seems to be a ghost that seems to haunt team India from a long time. However, I am proud of the team accomplishments during happy days, and will be there as a proud supporter even during challenging times as well.

BharatBhakt

Kashmir, the modern Kurukshetra

Yada yada hi dharmasya
Glanir bhavati bharata
abhystthanam adharmasya
Tadatmanam srijamya aham
Paritranaya sadhunang
Vinashaya chadushkritam
Dharma sansthapanarthaya
Sambhawami yuge yuge

Translated into english, it means, “Whenever there is decay of righteousness, O Indians (or descendents of India) and a predominant rise of irreligion, I (God) will come to protect the good and for the destruction of evil-doers. For the sake of firmly establishing righteousness, I (God) am born in every age.” In today’s world, this ancient shloka cannot be more true than ever. In the “broadway” of Article 370 and the subsequent bifurcation of the “disputed” state of Jammu and Kashmir into 2 Union Territories, the characters bear an uncanny resemblance to the original cast of the epic saga of Mahabharat (Story of India).

For the sake of brevity, I am restricting this tale to the Indian independence timeframe and beyond. Jawaharlal Nehru automatically draws comparison to the blind Dhritarashtra, who was willing to do harm to the great kingdom of Hastinapur only to ensure that he and his heirs sit on the throne. On the way, he made a bunch of foolhardy and sneaky decisions like trusting the Chinese (foolhardy) or taking Kashmir to the UN (sneaky). Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel can be equated to the great Pitamah Bhishma. Despite having unbelievable power in assimilating the 565 princely states into the kingdom of India, he was duty bound to support Nehru even in the face of miscalculations by Nehru to take Kashmir to UN, similar to Bhishma’s decision to side with the Kauravas in the great war. Krishna, who was the chief strategist of the Mahabharata on the side of the Pandavas can be equated with the ever shrewd Amit Shah, who lays the chess pawns at the right time and strikes when the time is right. The chief warrior Arjun can be equated with Subramanium Swamy, who has been incessant in his attacks against the Gandhi family and anything which is amoral. His word is his honor and he would do whatever it takes to make sure the honor is intact.

The head Pandava Yudhishthir has of course got to be Narendra Modi. The popularity of both draw the comparisons. However, both have their flaws and have their followers and their detractors, always encouraging animated debates on both sides of the aisle. The fourth Pandava Nakul was known to be a handsome person, amicable in behaviour. Arun Jethley with his eloquent usage of English can be equated to him, if we translate the physical beauty to eloquence. In the war of Mahabharat, the deputy strategist was Sahadev whenever Krishna was absent. Sahadev went about his work, without much publicity and achieved the team goals. In this saga, he can be equated to Ajit Doval, the NSA head.

Bheem was one of the most fiercest warriors of his era and lot of times thought with his brawns than his brains. He was very vocal with his opinions and there was seldom any ambiguity about his thoughts. He can be equated with Yogi Adityanath, who bears similar traits. Duryodhan, the main protagonist in the Mahabharata was known for his deceit and his arrogance and his belief in being the “rightful heir” to the throne, draws automatic comparison with Rahul Gandhi, who is not exactly known for his intelligence and does seem to act like he “owns” the legacy. Duryodhan’s younger brother Duhshashan was known for his blind allegiance to his elder brother as well as his violent outbursts. There are two claimants to this position. The chief claimant can be Digvijay Singh with his outlandish opinions and outbursts. A known amoral individual with worse vices than can be described. Always a staunch and blind supporter of the Gandhi family. Mani Shankar Iyer, a loose motormouth comes a distant second for this role.

When we talk of Duryodhan, the picture that comes to mind is of an overprotective mother Gandhari, who would do anything to protect her son, including using her “divine vision” to strengthen him in the appropriate time. The comparison is fairly obvious with Sonia Gandhi, who has time and again tried to keep the “throne” bereft of thorns for her progeny.

Dronacharya was the guru for both the Pandavas and the Kauravas. Although the Pandavas adored him and went with his every command, the Kauravas were not shy to voice their opinions and always felt a step-fatherly treatment from him. In this narrative, Mahatma Gandhi takes that position. Nehru was smart enough to play him to get what he wanted and yet not many people got wiser to the idea. The Prime minister Vidur was a wise man, but his wisdom was mostly discarded and towards the end, he had no voice, so he stopped advising. Is it a mere coincidence that Dr. Manmohan Singh with his infinite economic wisdom was also India’s prime minister and yet seldom spoke?

Shakuni was one of the chief conspirators and can be argued to be the single instigator to cause the war. He was instrumental in bringing up Duryodhan to a high-pedestal and his reasons for the same were purely personal gains. I find no other claimant for this position, but P Chidambaram, who has been propping up the Gandhi family for his financial gains. Shakun in sanskrit also means vulture. Interesting! Pandu was the father of the Pandavas and was a genuinely nice king and well liked by the citizens and was a just ruler. However, his trust in his brother was largely misplaced. Atal Bihari Vajpayee fits in seamlessly in that role. Well liked by friends and foes, he trusted all parties to play fair and was mostly idealistic.

Ashwathama was strong and had his powers. However, he was mostly known for his participation in the immoral slaying of Abhimanyu and his guerilla warfare which ended in killing Draupadi’s sons in the middle of the night. He was well aware that he cannot win in a conventional fight with any of the Pandavas, hence the deceit. The simili between Ashwathama and Pakistani Army who employ jihadists and suicide bombers to try and bleed the nation of India is self evident. Karna was known for his valor and he had a lot of redeemable qualities. However, he had provided his tacit support to a few immoral incidents like the disrobing of Draupadi and the slaying of Abhimanyu by providing unconditional support to the whims of Duryodhan. I find a semblance of resemblance with the antics of Shashi Tharoor, with his unconditional support to the Gandhi family, despite having many pro nationalistic bearings.

The story of Mahabharat would be incomplete without a mention of Draupadi. Draupadi was fairly vocal in her views and also had to face the humilation multiple times. She also had the famous spat with Duryodhan at the Sheeshmahal, which Duryodhan could never forget. Smriti Irani has been trolled multiple times for her educational qualifications, her being a TV actress and yet she turned out to the giant killer when she defeated Rahul Gandhi (Duryodhan) in Amethi. Queen mother Kunti was the Pandavas mother and commanded equal respect from both sides of the aisle. She took care of the Pandavas as a true mother even during agyatwas. Sushma Swaraj was definitely the Queen mother. She was a beacon of hope for Indians stranded abroad due to any issue. Her untimely demise and the accolades that flowed from both sides, proved her likeability.

Drupad was Draupadi’s father and was a key factor in the Pandava’s victory. His earlier conduct with Dronacharya and his vengeful nature was in the past and raises questions on his moralities, but in the end, he redeemed himself. Hemanta Biswa Sharma was in Congress and is from Assam. There was an interaction which he had with Rahul Gandhi, where Rahul Gandhi had compared him with a biscuit with a dog. Hemanta could never forget that and he switched sides and has been the chief architect behind the BJP’s victory in Assam and most of the North East.

No tale of Kashmir is complete without a mention of Abdullah's, the “first family” of Jammu and Kashmir. Sheikh Abdulla had a similar power over Nehru. He was deemed to initially be the “Prime Minister” of Jammu and Kashmir and eventually passed on the legacy to his son Farookh Abdullah. Jarasandha was a very powerful ruler and he was undefeatable in his territory. His daughter’s ended up marrying Kamsa, another powerful ruler. Although Jarasandha and Kamsa were not related by blood, I would equate them to Sheikh Abdullah and Farookh Abdullah. Another family of importance which deserves a mention in this tale is the Mufti family. The PDP were in power with the BJP for a brief period in Jammu and Kashmir and the allegiance fell apart because of differences in ideologies. King Shalya was the maternal uncle of Nakul and Sahadev and ended up fighting for Kauravas as the charioteer of Karna. I would equate Mehbooba Mufti to Shalya.

When the Pandavas were “given” Khandaprasta, Khandaprasta was ruled by Mayasura who was the ruler of raksas and asuras. When Arjun defeated him, he surrendered to the Pandavas and ended up building a surreal palace for them using his magic. I find a little bit of similarity with Mamata Banerjee, although the jury is out till the next elections in Bengal.

The Mahabharat ended in mass destruction and was the beginning of the Kaliyug. Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, which can end up destroying the world!!!

In order of appearance:

Jawaharlal Nehru as Dhritarashtra
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel as Pitamah Bheeshma
Amit Shah as Krishna
Subramanian Swamy as Arjun
Narendra Modi as Yudhishthir
Arun Jethley as Nakul
Ajit Doval as Sahadev
Yogi Adityanath as Bheem
Rahul Gandhi as Duryodhan
Digvijay Singh/Mani Shankar Iyer as Duhshasan
Sonia Gandhi as Gandhari
Mahatma Gandhi as Dronacharya
Manmohan Singh as Vidur
P Chidambaram as Shakuni
Atal Bihari Vajpayee as Pandu
Pakistani Army as Ashwathama
Shashi Tharoor as Karna
Smriti Irani as Draupadi
Sushma Swaraj as Kunti
Hemanta Biswa Sharma as Drupad
Sheikh Abdullah as Jarasandh
Farookh Abdullah as Kamsa
Mehbooba Mufti as Shalya
Mamata Banerjee as Mayasura

Day 2 of Habitat for Humanity trip to Guangdong

Day 2 started off with thunder clouds and torrential rain. The team decided to go to an existing habitat village (Tao) a couple of miles prior to the Yangwei village. We were welcomed by an elderly local couple in the Tao village to have tea with them. Being of Asian descent and having spent majority of my life in India, I could easily see the striking parallelism between the 2 Asian cultures. We were offered tea and biscuits (cracker) by this couple. The tea was prepared by them by drying the tea leaves plucked from the tea gardens and brewing it at home. It is not often that a team of 20 adults would get an impromptu invite from strangers to their abode. The hospitality and relative uncomplicated and unpretentious nature of the elderly couple was refreshingly breathtaking and overwhelmed most of the people and definitely gives a perspective on life in general. During the ground/back breaking hard work, the team seemed to be able to rally around in a much more efficient manner than day 1. We had an assembly line going which started with locating the bricks and putting them in baskets and moving them from ground to the second floor. The importance of team work was definitely illustarated today and everyone seeming to identify their strong areas and much more comfortable with their respective strengths which we could utilize to the best advantage for the work on hand. The age old adage of 'Building a house - a brick at a time couldn't have been better vivified by the exploits of 'Oceans 18' on day2. (Ocean is the local Chinese contact who worked with us for Habitat)

How to Write the Dreaded Self-Appraisal

How to Write the Dreaded Self-Appraisal No one likes review time. For many, self-appraisals are a particularly annoying part of the process. What can you say about your own performance? How can you be honest without coming off as arrogant, or shooting yourself in the foot?

What the Experts Say

Dick Grote, author of How to Be Good at Performance Appraisals, has a lot to say about self-appraisals and most of it isn't good. "I'll admit it's important to get the employee's point of view in the process but this is the wrong way to do it," he says. In his view, since study after study has shown that we are horrible judges of our own performance, any self-evaluation should focus exclusively on positives; people should not be self-critics. Timothy Butler, a senior fellow and the director of Career Development Programs at Harvard Business School, agrees that self-assessments aren't the best way to evaluate performance, but believes they do serve a purpose: "They're an important source of information about what happened in the past year," Butler says. No matter where you stand on their value, self-appraisals are a staple of office life. So the question is how to handle them. Here are some principles to help you when review time rolls around.

Know how your boss will use it

Before you put pen to paper, ask your boss how he plans to use the self-appraisal. Will it play a key role in his review? Will he use it to make decisions about promotions and bonuses? Will he share it with anyone else? Knowing these things will inform what and how you write. "Many lazy bosses see it as an easy way to shuffle off the difficult task of writing a review," says Grote. If that sounds like your manager, write your appraisal in a way that allows him to copy and paste from your form to his, replacing every "I" and "my" with "she" and "her."

Emphasize your accomplishments

Both Grote and Butler agree that you should emphasize your achievements. Don't be arrogant but don't downplay your successes either. "If you've had a great year, you should talk explicitly about your accomplishments," says Butler. "Be very clear about what contributions you've made to the business unit." Grote adds there is no shame in being political. "It's OK to put the best face on what you did," he says.

Acknowledge mistakes — carefully

Of course, unless you're the best thing that ever happened to your office, you're likely to have faults or have made missteps too, and you should mention those, even if it's only in passing. Grote again advises to put the best possible spin on problem areas so you don't give your boss "the noose with which to hang you." Butler suggests using developmental language. "You don't want to say, 'Here's where I really fall down.' Instead, say 'Here's an area I want to work on. This is what I've learned. This is what we should do going forward.'"

Keep the focus on you

It can be tempting to talk about others in your appraisal — particularly if they're hindering your progress — but remember this is about you, not them. "Don't use defensive language or criticize other parties. That doesn't move things forward," Butler says. "If you're having a significant problem with a co-worker, talk to your manager long before the review — with the door closed, not in a written document."

Ask for what you need

Smart employees use self-appraisals to lobby for career development opportunities. Even if your boss doesn't explicitly ask for this, Butler says you should include it anyway "because if you don't ask, it's not going to happen." Be specific. Explain the aspects of your job that most excite you and suggest ways you can become more involved in those things. You might ask to be included in certain brainstorming meetings or request funding to take a class on data analytics. Just remember to make sure these requests reflect what your business unit needs as well.

Managers: Work to improve the process

Both Butler and Grote believe there are ways for managers to make self-appraisals more effective. Butler would like to see managers ask more about employees' motivations and interests so they can create jobs that are better suited for them. He suggests asking questions like, "Where do you think you can make your biggest contributions in the coming year?" and "Which types of projects and activities would you like to see more of in your day-to-day work?" Grote recommends focusing on the positive. Maybe ask for a "good stuff list," where employees can write down what they're really proud of. "That puts a very appropriate, positive view on the process," he says.

Principles to Remember

Do Understand how your self-appraisal is going to be used Focus mostly on what you've accomplished in the past year Try to improve the process if you're a manager — ask about your employees' motivations and interests Don't Harp on your weaknesses — talk about them carefully, using developmental language Be defensive or criticize others — this is about your performance Forget to ask about growth opportunities — be specific about what you need

Case Study #1: Take it seriously and they will too

Darin Freitag has filled out six self-appraisal forms in his time at Ryan Associates, an employee-owned construction company based in San Francisco. The company uses a standard form that includes a handful of questions such as, "What are your job responsibilities and have you gone above and beyond them this year?" Darin spends between two and four hours filling out his form each review time. "I make sure my managers know that I take this seriously," he says. He knows that his immediate boss (the company's COO), the CFO, and the head of HR all review his form and he gears it toward them. "This is my one time of year to push for my career growth," Darin says. He's explicit about how they can help. In the past, he's used the form to request new responsibilities and exposure to different types of projects. But he's honest about his performance as well. "I know that I have characteristics that require some comment. For example, I often get sucked into the details," he says. "I don't make a big deal about it but I recognize that's what I'm working on."

Case Study #2: Be honest when you can be

Two years in a row, Liz Steele*, a senior HR partner at a global non-profit, didn't achieve the goals she set for herself. "I was just too optimistic about what I could accomplish," she says. Since her self-appraisal required that she assess her performance against those objectives, she struggled with what to do. "Most people just talk about their accomplishments but I didn't feel comfortable doing that," she says. After carefully thinking it through, she decided to list each goal, explaining which ones she didn't meet. She also highlighted work she delivered that wasn't part of her original plan. She admits that it was a risky move: "I knew that it could backfire. In some cultures that would've been equivalent to career suicide." But she was confident in the security of her role and knew she was well-respected by her manager and her clients. Plus she felt her integrity mattered more. As an HR partner, Liz's success relies on her ability to influence others. "I can't influence if people don't trust me," she says. Her immediate boss and the Head of HR reviewed her self-appraisal and were surprised. "They were amused but they also appreciated that I was willing to call myself out on my own failures," she explains. Her manager specifically noted on this year's evaluation that she was not afraid to admit her own mistakes. She knows she took a calculated risk by being so truthful, but in this case, her honest and careful approach paid off.

Tees Maar Khan – What went wrong?

For the hindi movie aficionado in search of a good laugh riot, there are a few directors who oblige and deliver … sometimes. Farah Khan is out of that cabal. Erstwhile chic and queen of Bollywood masala, Farah seems like a fish out of water. Whatever could have prompted a veteran director of sorts to venture on a pitiful debacle of Tees Maar Khan, remains a mystery. The plot hangs around a modern day Frank Abagnale (Tees Maar Khan), who also doubles up as a Houdini when it comes to giving the cops the slip. Khan accompanied by his sidekicks lands up in a village while being on the run. His desire is to do an ultimate caper of robbing a train, which would require a mini army of sorts. The brainwave of pretending to embark upon a Bollywood nationalist movie requiring every denizen to play a small role in the great train robbery is a new chapter in the art of conniving cons which is laudable, but fails to deliver with mediocre directing and editing. The audacity of the movie which expects the public to lap up the drivel that is offered is seen to be believed. There are a few positives in the movie – a few funny punches, a decent music score, a decent performance from both Akshay’s. Tees Maar Khan is reminiscent of a movie which could have been made a box-office winner if more thought was put into it. The veteran director David Dhawan, who has a penchant for such drivel could possibly have a pulled it off and gone laughing all the way to the bank. But in its current state, we can just say – ‘Tees lakh Maar khao’ for Tees Maar Khan.

The science of thought

Its 9:30 AM on a Monday morning in Fremont, a sleepy suburb of San Francisco where I am hurrying up to reach work and tackle the upcoming week. I reach the first major intersection on the way and come up with the first big decision of the week. A green light to go straight and yet I needed to take the right turn to reach my destination. I stop to look for any oncoming traffic and quickly take the right. The next thing I know is that there is a squad car with lights on flagging me to make a pit stop. Err, not a great start to a week. My crime of passion? Making a right turn without stopping for upcoming pedestrians! My grounds for appeal – The pedestrians were on the other side of the road and at no point at risk of being run down by my car. This incident left me in a philosophical mindset, wondering about the purpose of human life. The jobs that we do as humans, is it different from the jobs of our co-habitants on planet Earth?
If we were to take any species of fauna on this planet, what primeval task would we characterize them with? What would be the thing best suited for a tiger? Hunting? What would be the innate thing for a dog? Probably being a follower and being devoted? Now if I were to extrapolate the question around the human species, what would the answer be? The obvious answer would be to be able to surmise and logically deduce. Stephen Hawking is the perfect example of a member of the bipeds who although being severely quadriplegic uses the most important organ given to us all-the brain. Sherlock Holmes, the sleuth from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s fictitious famous detective series said one time to his comrade Dr. Watson explaining the lack of sleep, food and drink when in hot pursuit, “My body is merely an organ to carry my mind from one place to other. I don’t need anything else. The brain is the most essential part of my body and that is what I use the most”. Isn’t that the absolute truth? Yet if I were to look into the variegated professions that humans from across the globe have chosen, what is the percentage of people whose jobs involve thinking? Of the total number of people whose jobs involve cranial activity, how many people actually do justice to that one solitary organ which puts food on their table. In my limited experience of being a human being, I have found that thinking is the single thing that people abstain from. There are rules and regulations around civic society, diktats, commandments which govern our existence. We as humans don’t trust our own ability towards taking decisions. We seem to be more at ease with having someone else do our thinking for us. There are few amongst us who have the aplomb to think and take pride in that fact. The great philosophers of civilization – aka Leonardo Da Vinci, Aristotle, Plato, Machiavelli, Freud to name a few have done this with arguably varying degrees of success. History has always been the precursor for future. When anarchy is rampant, there rises a few good men who has the audacity to envision beyond the evident and the banal. While we complete the first decade of the twenty first century, the world is looking towards one such charismatic leader who can guide us through the labyrinth of phantasmagoria towards the true end.

Band Baaja Baaraat - a looksee

When was the last time you saw a movie that left a smile on your face?
Band Baaja baaraat is one such movie. The story revolves around a simple romance involving a boy and a girl (better to specify). Shruti has dreams of starting her own wedding planning firm - a girl with ideas and certain amount of experience to her credit. Along comes Bittu, a smart alec business savvy dude without realization of his goal or his latent. After trying in vain to impress the damsel, Bittu comes face to face to with reality when post college, he is expected to go back to his pastoral core and carry on with his family profession of farming. Unwilling to go back to the village, he starts off in a partnership with his new friend (Shruti) and strikes gold after some initial teething problems. The chemistry between Shruti (Anuska) and newcomer Ranveer (Bittu) is believable and refreshing. Relations head south when the friendship turns into physical intimacy and cupid rules supreme. The paradisiacal partnership breaks down and claims the thriving enterprise as its first victim. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Bittu and Shruti start up individual establishments and try to out do the other. A string of failures brings down both cartels to the mercy of debt collectors and failure looms large.
Fate intervenes in the form of a wealthy industrialist (aka prize catch) who insists on giving the gig of the marriage of his daughter to the erstwhile older crew.    Shruti and Bittu temporarily bury the hatchet to concentrate on the gig which could potentially be the harbinger of good tidings. One thing leads to another and the movie ends up with a fairy tale ending. ( Go see the movie to know the details).
All in all a whiff of fresh air from the dank murky depths of cliched cinema which seem to be doing the rounds these days. The old adage of a good script thrown in with good music makes up for the lack of big stars and delivers a feel-good flick.
Anushka is decent and Ranveer comes up a surprise package and delivers.
Whether he goes on to be a household name or not, remains to be seen.