One Evening

"Look at what you've done! It's done for!!!! I had it all going so perfectly and now that's gone! GONE! Can't have it back now. Oh dear god!"

She sat there looking at him calmly while he burst out like that, studying him, not feeling indignant, defensive or angry in the least. For the briefest moment she tried to imagine what it was like for him and then gave up because it was out of the reach of her fathoming, of even her rather ample imaginative and cognitive powers.

While he stood there, his face a mix of equal parts of exasperation, panic, loss, anxiety, bewilderment, amazement and wonder.

Still looking over at him calmly, she said "Yes."

"What's that?" he asked her unable to at once apprehend. And then went from looking puzzled to rather relieved to sheepish and finally embarassed as he said "Sorry dear, it came to me all at once and I guess it still hasn't quite sunk in but I assure you, I fully intended to ask you properly. Will you do me the honour of marrying me?"

Not too long later.

She: "We really should get going or we'll be late."

He: "Oh yeah. What did you say we were going to see, again?"

"The Taming of the Shrew". Heh

The Tale of Genji — The Beginning

Right then, by popular demand.

For actual information on the book and its publication, go here.

There are of course other editions and versions... and given how they all seem to be translations or interpretations, they will have rather major differences between them. I picked up this one because it seemed the longest, had been around for a while, appeared to be keeping to the original better than the older translation by Waley and just somehow more appealing than the other long translation published by Penguin. Its hardback edition versus the paperback by Penguin also tilted decision in its favour.

I did read the introduction (I know, how many people do that really?! But this is what working in publishing does to you. You really do get hooked to the smallest thing about books) — I shall be referring to the introduction in between because it gives an overlay of the book and I feel it would be better to refer to it in relevant places than finish it off at once. Oh btw, the introduction is a very well-written one. Next they have Note on Topography, Note on the Text, Select Bibliography followed by the Chronology.

I loved how they've done the layout for the Chronology. They've spread it across two pages and alongside the date, they have a section for Author's Life, then a Literary Context and finally a Historical Events section. They've used small caps for the headings and it is very appealing to the eye. The one thing that puzzles me is, this is the second instance I have seen of the beginning of things being measured against the spread of Islam. As in, they take the spread of Islam as the starting point of anything... can anyone throw any light on this? Why is it that important? Wasn't Hinduism in existence long before that?

In the 50 pages that I have finished, I have covered two chapters (I'm taking this slowly because this is a book that demands to be read at ease, at leisure. It's literature, to be savoured. Not a thriller to be finished soon as you can so you know the end).

The basic premise is that this is a book about the life of Genji, who is a prince by birth but leads the life of a commoner. The first chapter describes how his father, the emperor is so deeply in love with one of the women at his court, someone not of a very high rank, that he comes dangerously close to throwing off his imperial status and duties for her sake. The lady meanwhile suffers much at the hands of the other courtiers for being so favoured. In all fairness, she isn't a woman who uses her wiles to attract the attention of the emperor but someone very virtuous and beautiful and deserving of such devotion — sadly only not in a position that would silence her adversaries. She has a son by the emperor but slowly falls victim to an illness that makes it very difficult for her to perform her duties at court and removes to her mother's house, away from the court. After a while she succumbs to her illness and the emperor is left heart broken and grieving.

The boy meantime, is being raised by his grandmother and when the emperor recovers somewhat from his loss, he begs with the lady to send his son to court so that he may give the child the advantages an emperor is capable of and because having the son near him alleviates his pain in some measure. And thus our hero comes to live at the court. Being the son of a woman thus despised, one would expect him to be shunned by one and all. But being possessed of a countenance so pleasing and charming, he is much adored by everyone present. The empress, mother to the heir apparent, too softens somewhat on encountering this beautiful child, setting aside her worries about the child usurping her son's position as heir apparent.

Meanwhile, the emperor summons to court the relation of another woman at court who is said to very closely resemble the love he lost. Genji takes to her immediately — one cannot say if this is due to her countenance or because she reminds him of his dead mother. Yearning to be near her always, Genji has to eventually learn that there cannot exist free interaction between them as he grows up and she is obliged to use the screen used for conducting meetings between members of opposite sexes.

As he grows older, Genji's initiation ceremony is performed by the emperor with much splendour, just as if it were the heir apparents. And yet, realising that Genji cannot be promised the life of someone born nobly, the emperor decides to make him a commoner and appoint him at the court, and hus gives him the name 'Genji'.

Genji's somewhat high standing prompts his marital alliance with the daughter of the Minster of the Right. However, as his bride is older than him and he does not have an evident connection to her, this leads to him spending much time at court and, if the rumours are to be believed, having as many affairs as he can be bothered to.

The proof of his infidelity is presented when Genji goes to stay at the house of a court official later and seduced the young step-mother of the official while there. And, the next night, when she refuses his advances, her younger brother.

There is a dialogue between Genji, his brother-in-law and two lesser court appointees in the chapter detaling the kinds of women there are, the perfect woman, and why the said women do not meet the requirement for being the perfect women. A dialogue that would get the goat of feminists all over for being a rather condescending and shallow appraisal of women in those times.

The thing that I found somewhat odd about the period spoken about here is that everyone seemed to be having affairs with everyone else rather openly. Or rather, supposedly secretly. The women seem to be decorative pieces, even when serving at the court and having duties. Also, every character seems rather young. Age referred to in the work is the number of years that the person has seen rather than the actual period of twelve months that is counted as a year. So a child that is said to be of three years is perhaps actually of the age of 18 months or two years.

In the rather short space of two chapters, we see the transformation in the hero that the introduction forewarns us about. Genji goes from being the perfect young protagonist possessing all the virtues imaginable, to a questioning young adult in whose character the cracks are beginning to appear.

What do YOU think of it, thus far?

At the speed of thought

Bliss is the first lick of chocolate-topped cappucino froth in the morning.

Can three years really be defined as a 'long time' to have been in a relationship? It seems reasonably long but not something that should make people go 'Wow how did you stick that long?!'. Isn't that more five-years or seven-years and more sort of thing? I dislike the committment-phobic, non-stick trend that is rampant these days. Whatever happened to longevity and forever-after? Actually, fuhggedit. I needn't care about what other people do.

Committment-phobes. Or 'rubber-bands' as some of them are want to be. I thought it's easy to spot them since they do follow a pattern. But drawing the line between hanging on because there is hope and they will change and cutting-loose because it's not going to change... man, that's a bloody tight-rope walk. Last word? Shouldn't keep someone hanging.

Just in case you're thinking this relates to me, it doesn't. It's stuff the papers have been full of lately.

Friends who are getting hitched? Get done with it already!

'He's not a monster'. Really?! $*&*&$$()()*&^%%$$"£%$£%$£$£$£!!!!!

Torn between ridiculing and treating it with contempt.

Japani

I love Japan.

Old and ancient Japan that is. Or some part of it anyway. Some of its quaint customs and rituals. And I'd love nothing better than to go off gallivanting there given half a chance. No no, I have no intention of going there and singing 'Sayonara Sayonara' while dressed in a Kimono and looking very touristy. I'd probably land there with Dad though, given he's just as mad about the place as I am (Really Dad, what next? First it was the Carpenters and now this. What next I ask you?)

But given I'm not rich enough to actually do that, I do the next best thing I can. Lose myself in descriptions of Japan and its people whenever I can. Yes 'Memoirs of a Geisha' was super, I loved it but it still wasn't enough... something was missing. I'll prolly look up 'Oshin' again.

But right now, I am reading 'The Tale of Genji' — and intend to finish all 1184 pages of it. It's only a translation, wish I could read it in Japanese ... translation doesn't quite cut it you know. It's supposed to be the first ever novel written... should make interesting reading.

What I am getting at however is, should I do short updates/reviews of the book as I finish parts of it? Here? I don't do book reviews here as such. Should I do it with this one? Yes? No?

Tell me.

Hey, Doll!

Every year, in the run up to the day that declares me older, I wonder if I shall finally be given a prettily dressed Barbie as a present. Hasn't happened so far, but I live in hope. And have done so for the last 15 years at least.

Which is not to say I have never had a Barbie. I was given two of them, 1980s versions (Men out there, just in case you didn't know, Barbie is a brand, a legend, that is just like those cars, bikes, what have you that you covet and keep a strict eye on year after year). Long after I had outgrown the stage of playing with dolls, I'd still spend the odd Sunday afternoon lovingly washing their various outfits and going over my collection, taking a break from reading copiously. One afternoon I nearly washed out the strawberry print on this very pretty summer gown and spent the next hour feeling very sad.

As she turns 50 this year, being celebrated with a £ 20 m six-storey departmental-store of pink and crystal fabulousness, questions that go deeper than Barbie's smooth plastic skin are being asked.

One could almost write it off as new age falderal — the aggressive, vehement often acerbic tirade of this doll being the most anti-feminist icon to have ever been seen on the planet, how it is encouraging millions of little girls and women alike to aspire for an impossible figure, doing themselves much harm in the process and how we'd all benefit if it were completely obliterated.

My first reaction to this was 'Balderash!'. Except of course, one can no longer ignore such talk. Simply everything becomes subject to debate as being feminist or anti-feminist, progressive or regressive. Which is why one can almost write such talk off, almost. But not quite.

So before I jump into the discussion, let me first proclaim: It's just a DOLL. A plaything. Why is there a need to turn it into an object of such serious attitude? Sure it's very girlish, in the mien of ideas of the feminine in a patriarchal society: pink, curvaceous, charming, pretty ... but it's still a harmless object that is the source of much fun, joy and fond memories.

Having said that, I wouldn't dream of thinking Barbie as being anti-feminist or regressive or harmful to the female populace. One of the arguments for her was that since she has been just about every sort of woman one can imagine, an astronaut, doctor, veternarian, olympic participant, etc., "Barbie lets the imagination run free ... Barbie is also a brilliant role model." There are those who will say '"Career", of course, is another name for "outfit",' — Both very valid points. Although, I don't think there are many women out there (or even little girls) who decided they wanted to be in such and such profession because they saw Barbie like that. Besides, it would be really confusing considering how many careers she has changed and how fast. So, sure, she's more of a clothes prop. What's so wrong with that then? Being feminist hasn't stopped women from buying outrageously expensive, beautiful clothes, has it? Or wanting to look good?

Logically, the two have no connection. Unless you get into that argument about how all the models are stick thin and they're inspiring a generation of eating-disorder ridden women who are perpetually unaccepting of their natural selves. That still might hold some water. But to declare that a plastic plaything gives rise to the same effect is a bit much. Other real women inspiring inferiority complexes, insecurities and doubts, I can fathom. But an inanimate object? If you're letting something like that be the source of your unhappiness, or thinking it could cause such issues, then maybe you need to have your head examined. That attitude is akin to thinking donning a cape will make you a super-hero. Really. There is something inherently wrong in thinking a real-life individual equal to a fictitious character, or comparing the two. Which is what Barbie is, in the end — fictitious. And if you're going to put forth the argument of why she can't be sown in more realistic light, then let me point you towards those creations known as Russian Dolls. They're still too pretty, wait. A rag-doll then.

Barbie is certainly a feminist, however. Simple because she is every woman. Put aside her role as pilot, rockstar, cyclist, etc., aside. She is every woman out there. She has been an Indian woman in her various avtars, an Irish princess, a Maori princess ... representing 45 nationalities in total. She has successfully united women over the world in her unique way, by just being female. And isn't that feminism in its basic form?

Also, consider the fact that Barbie is not limited to the presence of a man. There is Ken, sure. But Ken is more of 'Oh yeah, Barbie's Ken' figure than being the figure of authority who defines her existence. The expression is 'Barbie and Ken', not, not 'Ken and Barbie'. Anti-feminist? Really?

And as Moira Redmond wrote, "Here are some things I defy you to imagine Barbie doing: housework; sucking up to men; cowering; being bullied or intimidated; being sexually harassed." Okay other than the housework bit, (which I don't think as being anti-feminist, it's just the victim of gender stereotyping, IMHO), if you can actually visualise the rest, something is wrong with you.

Lastly, she was created by a woman. In some measure, that makes her more believable than a similar creation dreamed up by a man wh has only the faintest idea of such a thing. And just how plausible is it that Ruth Handler sat there thinking 'Hmmm... let's see... what can I do to outrage millions of women in the decades to come? I know! Let's make this beautiful doll they will hate for being beautiful!'. Less pretty dolls would have been very popular, pity a majority of the world seems to think Barbie is better. 'sides, I'm not sure any mother out there who loved her daughter would want to put out a doll she named after her little girl if it wasn't the prettiest around. That's what it began as, really.

She's pretty. She's popular. She's rich. And the only point of her, is to have her.

Female, 24, seeks Romance*

Lately, when anybody asks me 'Watched any movies?', I blank out. It might be due to the fact that when someone puts me on the spot I draw a blank anyway, but in this case it is more to do with the fact that none of the movies I watch seem to be the sort that stay with you hours after the credits have rolled. It's also true that I do not watch a lot of movies as such. I firmly believe in selective absorption of popular culture. And after one particularly traumatic incident (I don't remember what it was), I decided I was going to be very very choosy about which movie I watch, given how I was devoting 2 hours of my life to it when I could be making better use of those precious hours.

So, it's mostly been a case of trying to watch P.S. I love you/Bride wars/Marley and Me/random supposedly good flick and turning it off after a few minutes because I cannot bloody stand the nincompoopery I am being subjected to. I really should learn to apply the Bechdel test before I start a movie, as recommended by a reader when I cribbed earlier about movies.

And then I read this article and had a 'Twing!' moment. I kept reading and my brain was yelling 'She is so bloody right!!!'. The piece basically compares the rom-coms of yore to those of today and draws a conclusion that modern-day rom-coms are essentially misogynistic and dumbed-down versions. In a really bizzarre manner, it appears that movies about women in this supposedly modern era actually portray them in a poorer light than those earlier. Evidently, the heroines of yesteryears were far more advanced, individual, liberated and strong compared to the heroines of today. As the article says

... the women who people today's romantic comedies seem to have three main obsessions ... [shopping, babies and marriage].

And

Now, at a time when 70% of women are in the workforce, career women in romantic comedies are generally either portrayed as incompetent, cruel, or both... [it is] quite insulting that a career woman now is something that is so frowned upon. You see depictions of women who are supposedly at the top of their game, yet they can't walk down a corridor in a white suit without pouring coffee on themselves or walking into a bush. The films are not very subtly saying 'yes, they may be at the top in their jobs, but actually what they really need is a man. In fact, a husband.

And while on one hand there is this pre-feminist portrayal to be worrying about, there is another aspect that is equally worrying. With more and more heroines being portrayed as independent, career-minded, selfish individuals who get 'tamed' by the men involved, the message being sent out is that it's okay to simply expect that one will only get the best without having to put in work, that if something isn't perfect at the start and on the surface then there's no need to dig deeper but simply give it a boot.

As one of the girls Kira Cochrane interviewed post the movie watching, said, "I see marriage as a bit of a negative thing ... You're signing your life away. Very few of our parents are still together, so why would we want to go through all that?"

So while every other rom-com tells the girls of today that they can get away with being selfish and not settle for less than what they expect until marriage happens and all that will change, they are also sending the message across that marriages, nay, even stable relationships are hard to come by and do not last. Is it any surprise then, that the target audience ends up in a 'Why make an effort then?' rut.

It's a rather scary scenario. Specially for parents. It's come to a point where parents are simply thankful to see their children married at all, at whatever age, than simply shacking up with someone or turning out to be gay (no offense to the gay community there).

Coming back to the point though. It's imperative that the whole notion of romance and the role of a heroine are drastically altered from their present day avtars.

It's not just movies and TV shows that are the problem. Even books seems to be going the same way. Chick-lit's taken off in a big way but instead of liberating the modern woman, it has shackled her worse than before. And romance novels, or rather Mills & Boon romances, are not the same as before either. They seem to get raunchier and raunchier with nothing else to bind the pages together except the smut. As my friend D once said "It's not fiction dude, it's fuction!!!"

Now while I tend to avoid romance novels like french beans curry, I did read a few good ones. The most prominent ones in my mind are Georgette Heyers' books. Her heroines really were the sounky, imaginative, spirited creatures that heroines are supposed to be. Not in all her books, but most. I particularly enjoyed Sylvester and Cotillion. And if I were forced to choose an M&B work, it would have to be The Faraway Bride. Describing the journey of an orphaned English girl who marries an Australian visitor when he proposes to her in a fit of anger at his match-maing aunt, the book is more about the heroine's move to Australia and her very successful efforts at acclimatising herself to her new home while slowly building a relationship with this stranger she married than any action between all characters involved ... it's a book that has stayed in my mind for years. It's description of Australia and its characters made it a wholesome read. I often wondered why it was made into a romance novel ... I thought it deserved better than to be clubbed with 'fuction'.

And I truly wish this is what I could find in the movies, TV shows and books of now. A female role model who is spunky, imaginative, creative, smart, intelligent, hard working and just flawed enough to make her human. Someone who does not have outrageous expectations of romance but is happy to go along and play the game, make the best of it and emerge a winner. I wish to find A Heroine.

* No this is not an ad inviting proposals, decent or otherwise.

One Sixth

Rayshma has tagged me. I must pick up the sixth photo in the sixth folder of my photos and post it here with a brief descritption-cum-explanation. Here goes:

Luckily for me it turned out to be a somewhat non-personal photo and oddly it was in a folder titled 'Photo efforts'. I remember this clearly. I had set out one cold March morning last year with the express purpose of doing some photography with my hardly-used, snazzy new camera which promised to make a photographer of me yet. I somehow ended up in Green Park and walked to Piccadilly Circus taking random shots. I found myself opposite Burlington Arcade (purportedly Britain's longest covered shopping street, and its first shopping Arcade too) and standing where I was I thought the lights hanging along the arcade's ceiling made for an interesting photo op and I took a few shots. This is the very first of those shots and my composition improved with each successive effort. Not my best, but I did say I only just made an effort.

I'd like to tag: Clueless Chick (I hope her photo is one of Rummy!), Anna Bond, Orange Jammies, Amey, Vaudevillian and Anu.

NDTV and Barkha Dutt, it sucks to be you!

That's right, I'm joining the bandwagon of bloggers speaking up against NDTV and Barkha Dutt's recent misbehaviour and misdemeanour.

Wait, this is the press right? And she is a journalist, right? Someone please send them a howler or whatever it takes to remind them of that basic tenet of journalism.

Opinion is free, facts are sacred.

Please note, opinion. It's a free country. Everyone is allowed an opinion. And the fundamental right to the freedom of speech and expression. The press meantime, is expected to do their duty and present facts for the edification of the general public and not indulge in colouring up their reporting in whatever hues they wish. Expecting the public to simply swallow whatever is thrown their way and not speak up when they think something isn't right is stupidity.

Incidentally, did you know there is a facebook group called "Can u please take BARKHA off air!"? So what are you going to do next? Sue all 100 odd members?

I can't express myself as well as Chandni, MM, or Amrutha Upendran have, all I'm going to say is that is doesn't matter who is doing it, a big corporate giant and a well-known journalist (?) who react as they have done, are still akin to bullies on the playground and while they may have the sympathy of the higher authorities for a while, it won't last. The playground won't be so cosy anymore when the rest of the kids get fed up and push you out.

I'm standing up for myself and my right to the freedom of speech as a law-abiding citizen who expects a few basic rights in exchange for paying taxes and keeping the country going, by displaying this badge I borrowed from Sunayana Roy.

Edited to add: The badge is courtesy MayG actually. Thank you MayG and Sunayana.

Too good to not share

Remember 'Kids say the darndest things'? The Guardian recently had a bunch of kids interview celebrities and published, along with the actual interviews, a set of questions that were not allowed. Here you go:

To Steven Gerrard "Do you ever get drunk?" George Coyle, 11

To Zac Efron "Are you gay?" Alex Mackay, 9

To Banksy "Would you do graffiti on our house? I'm sure my mum wouldn't mind." Daniel Redfern, 8

To Gordon Brown "I'm afraid of dying, and sometimes afraid of the dark. Are you?" Margot Leys Johnston, 7

To Bob Dylan "Why aren't you a lady?" Marco Lewis, 4

To Damian Lewis "Sometimes people in year 6 and year 4 make up songs about my hair and follow me round singing them, like, 'Get back in your biscuit tin, Ginger, Ginger.' Did anything like that happen to you at school?" Bali King, 10

To Kylie Minogue "Are you jealous of your sister's success?" Emma Jacobs, 10

To Amy Winehouse "Is it true that you put Haribos up your bra?" Francesca Scott, 9

To Wayne Rooney "What would you have done if it wasn't for football? Postman is a good job." Lewis Barclay, 8

To Mick Jagger "Do you know the answer to: 1,000,000,000 x 1,000,000,000 - 300 + 1,000?" Billy Hill, 9

To Darcey Bussell "Have you ever eaten a whole Mars bar?" Breeze Cockburn, 10

To Lewis Hamilton "What do you do if you need a wee while you're racing?" Rhys Birkin-Flory, 9

To Alex Ferguson "You're one of the most successful managers in the world. But my dad, a Rangers fan, says you weren't so good when you were centre forward for his team. What qualities do you bring to management that you didn't have as a player?" Dan Wolff, 9

To Victoria Beckham "Do you ever get blisters wearing them gorgeous high heels?" Eliza Newman, 11

To Bart Simpson "I have one little ear and one big ear. Why are your ears so tiny?" Cullum King, 6

To Tom Daley "Do you have any views on Tibet?" Orla Kearns, 10

To the Queen "Have you ever met my granny in your dreams?" Lucy Edgar, 6

To Johnny Depp "How many pairs of pants have you got?" Kirill Everett, 11

To Derren Brown "I've seen you, have you seen me?" Geno Racklin, 6

To Anthony Horowitz "Do you think the earth is doomed?" Ronan Duff, 11

To Justin Timberlake "If you walked into a shop that sold everything from a simple bag to a
mirror that, when you walked through it, would take you to a mirror world, what, if you could only buy one thing, would you get?" India Morgan, 11

To Roger Federer "Is Gillette really the best a man can get?" Fabien Ruthven, 11
To Dougie Poynter [of McFly] "Did you see me throw my bra on stage at Oakwood?" Felicity Wilkins, 12

To David Bowie "Do you regret calling your son Zowie?" Joel Ronson, 9

To Nick Cave "What pet have you got? My dog Ernie only has one eye and is quite fat, but I think you'd like him." Alice Hadley, 7

To Alicia Keys "Does your husband have a hairy nose?" Martha Rose Jackson, 4

To Phil Scolari "I guess you've got a new house in London. How many toilets has it got? Ours has got three, one for each member of our family apart from my dad." Charlie Webb, 8

To Brian May "Do you think there is any relationship between music and space?" Yash Sewpaul, 6

To Billie Piper "Why didn't you tell your mum and dad you were going to marry Chris Evans?" Madeleine Attwood-Jones, 10

To Nigel Kennedy "Do you like being called Nigel?" Miranda Stocker, 8

To Miley Cyrus "Do pop stars do homework?" Ruby Smith, 8

You... You... KABOOTAR!!!!!

London does have one thing I absolutely detest. Pigeons.

They're everywhere!!! And guess what? They don't behave like normal pigeons. These ones are completely mentally deranged. They don't fly. Their cries are guttural and revolting. They walk everywhere... and, they have no fear of us humans. Countless times have I seen the bloody birds walk right up to some poor sod who is peacefully hanging out at the park enjoying a picnic lunch and harassing him to no end. They simply walk right up to where you are and stand there staring at you! At worst, they look like a bunch of disgusting dirty lecherous old men and make me want to grab them and wring their necks. At best (relatively) they remind of the quintessential fat bitch in class who was popular for no fathomable reason and went about dumping her considerable weight and attitude on everyone else (who might now be an auntie of the first order attending kitty parties and cooing over Ekta Kapoor's crap) and I feel like giving the stupid kabootars one tight slap. gah.

It doesn't help any that my feline tendencies have gone into overdrive since Rayshma's visit.

And with that bacground begins this awesome story. I have had my status message set to "Eh Kabootar! Khauu kya tereko?" feeling encouraged to bring out my weird side a lot more. Don't get me started on the responses I got for that ... suffice to say I don't have the patience to keep explaining things to everyone who asks. Well that made Catty laugh. It also attracted the attention of Catty's husband Vin.

And provided them much entertainment on a long drive back home from Houston apparently. Copy pasting Catty's email, enjoy:

Vin suggests... and i merely document it.Dewdrop should come out with an album. she can call it "eh kabootar"title song: eh kabootar... khau kya tereko
remaining tracks:
a. kabootar aa aa aa... main tujhko kha kha loon
b. gutur gutur... gutur gutur... chadh gaya oopar re... main kabootar ko khaakar hi lautu re...
c. pet kabootar khaana hai.. har ek ko pakadke khaana hai!
d. eh kabootar! zara chalke dikha... zara udna zara... zara mudke dikha hungry hungry si fiza hai... hole hole se pet mein dauda koi chooha haisomething something... yeh dua hai... roko roko yeh kabootar toh udne hi laga hai... u & me... we were meant to be.. tu mera khaana... yeh teri destiny... kabootar singing chuo na chuo na... par mere todo na... ho jaunga main khafa...
(this was added by urs truly.)
e. mere mann ko bhaaya... main kabootar kaat ke khaya (this could also be ur SM. i LOVE it, actually! :D)
you can enlist the assistance of our beloved Galadriel to put the 2 non-songs to a tune. or even sing with you, if required. :D you share copyrights and royalties with vin. :D i shall observe you guys and have fun.

It doesn't end there. Having spent the morning laughing my guts out imagining myself running after random kabootars and gobbling them up, I found Catty online and having thanked her and Vin for such a brainwave, I said we need to work on this thing a bit more. And here's what followed:

Catty: we gave u six songs. u come up with 2.. and we have an album :D
me: content sourcing tum karogi
Catty: lucky kabootar we can take
me: I'll take anything with kabootar in it :D :P
Catty: so u need one song now
me: I have the perfect idea for our album
ek sad song toh hona chahiye na
Reshma: okay...
me: kyon na un bechaare gateway waale shaheed kaboontron ke naam ek gaana likhen?

Remember you saw it here first and that Vin and I hold copyrights on this one. :D