Korean Drama Spotlight: Itaewon Class

It has been a while since I completed a Korean drama. I fell into a slump after watching Doctor Slump (pure coincidence). I am not exactly sure why. It is not that I didn’t start any new ones. I did, but I never completed them. I was probably missing the crackling chemistry I witnessed in the first few Korean dramas, or it was K-romance fatigue. I’m unsure. However, finally, that dry spell has been broken.

I had been holding back on watching Itaewon Class because I wasn’t sure if it would be my cup of tea. I’m happy to report I enjoyed it. The good reviews are justified.

What’s It About?

An ambitious ex-convict starts a new pub in the busy streets of Itaewon with the main motive of seeking revenge. The series focuses on how he and his loyal staff work together to fulfill the seemingly impossible dream of beating the best pub in town.

Thoughts

I am convinced Park Seo Joon is the best Korean actor out there. I am yet to feel underwhelmed seeing his performance. He not only handles the nuances of his characters perfectly, but his understated charisma has the power to keep you hooked. Itaewon Class is no different.

However, the main star for me in Itaewon Class was Kim Da-mi. Her character is beautifully sketched, a total badass woman who doesn’t resort to the stereotypes of the “modern woman” we see on the big screen. Usually, in new-age cinema, a woman of today is depicted as someone promiscuous and flippant. But in Itaewon Class, the female characters have different shades, they aren’t black or white, they are all sorts of grey. Kim Da-mi plays someone who is, in her own words, a “social psychopath,” yet she feels deeply for her boss and his painful past.

Soo-ah, played by Kwon Nara, is ambitious and a go-getter who does not believe in making sacrifices, such as leaving her cushy job to maintain relationships. She has a “my way or the highway” aura about her, yet she’s soft. Ambitious women are often portrayed in a villainous way, but kudos to the writer for showing how a woman can follow her dreams and still be vulnerable, and that it’s okay if she wants more.

It was interesting to watch such multilayered female characters in a series because it’s not something I often come across in Indian cinema.

Itaewon Class is streaming on Netflix. It has 16 episodes, with each episode lasting over an hour.

Hindus Least Likely to Migrate, India Is Top Source and Destination Country: Pew Survey

Did you know that around 3.6% of the world’s population lives outside their country of origin? The Pew Research Center has come up with some interesting insights on the religious composition of the world’s migrants in their latest survey. Who migrates more? What are the top three origin and destination countries for each community? Which country hosts the most number of immigrants? The survey answers all these pertinent questions and more with detailed insights.

This post includes infographics created by the CNN-News18 creative team.

Reasons for migration

Why do people migrate? The survey reveals several reasons, such as the need to find jobs, to live with other family members, or for better education. However, religion also plays a part in migration. Migrants have often moved to escape persecution. There is also the need to live with people with similar religious beliefs.

To quote the survey, “Many migrants have moved to escape religious persecution or to live among people who hold similar religious beliefs. Often people move and take their religion with them, contributing to gradual changes in their new country’s religious makeup.“

Worldwide migrant counts have increased for all major religious groups

Religious groups most and least likely to migrate

Hindus tend to migrate less as compared to other religious groups and Christians are most likely to migrate from their place of origin.

As per the survey, “Christians are the largest migrant group, but Jews are most likely to have migrated.”

The top source and destination country for Christian migrants

To quote the survey, “Christians make up a much larger share of migrants (47%) than they do of the world’s population (30%). Mexico is the most common origin country for Christian migrants, and the United States is their most common destination.“

Top source and destination countries for Christian migrants

The top source and destination country for Muslim migrants

In relation to Muslim migrants, the survey says, “Muslims account for a slightly larger share of migrants (29%) than of the world’s population (25%). Syria is the most common origin country for Muslim migrants, and Muslims often move to places in the Middle East-North Africa region, like Saudi Arabia.” Interestingly, Muslims tend to prefer migrating to “richer” regions that follow their religion. The top destinations for the community are Muslim-majority nations, such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and UAE.

Top source and destination countries for Muslim migrants

The top source and destination country for Hindu migrants

As per the survey, “Hindus are starkly underrepresented among international migrants (5%) compared with their share of the global population (15%). India is both the most common country of origin and the top destination for Hindu migrants.” Hindu migrants to India are most likely to originate from neighboring regions like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, where minorities face severe persecution. This is evident from statistics indicating a drastic decrease in minority numbers within these regions over the years.

Top source and destination countries for Hindu migrants

The Pew Survey offers a lot more detailed insights, so I would highly recommend going through it.

The Most Intriguing Fact in “Kashmir Narratives” by Colonel Ajay Raina

I recently bought a book titled Kashmir Narratives. It is authored by Colonel Ajay Raina, a retired Indian Army officer. To quote his bio on Amazon, “I am the only son of refugee parents who were young kids when the 1947 bloodied partition saw the creation of two new States of India and Pakistan and when the biggest ever migration of humans took place on this earth. Post my education, I got commissioned into the Indian Army as an officer in 1990 and served till the end of 2017.“

I happened to see his interview somewhere and decided to buy the book. It has a lot of information on Kashmir, focusing on its history, but what I found particularly interesting was the information on the condition of the plebiscite in Kashmir. Before we get to that, let’s understand what a plebiscite is.

What is a plebiscite?

A plebiscite is a direct vote by the people of a region (in this case, Kashmir) on an important public issue. In simpler words, in relation to Kashmir, a plebiscite allows Kashmiris to vote for its future – specifically, whether the region would join India or Pakistan. Interestingly, only these two options were presented, with no option explicitly listed of allowing Kashmir to function as an independent state.

How did the idea of a plebiscite in Kashmir emerge?

The idea of a plebiscite came into effect following the partition of British India in 1947 when the princely states were given the option to join either India or Pakistan.

Jammu and Kashmir initially chose to remain independent. However, after an invasion by tribal forces from Pakistan, Maharaja Hari Singh sought military assistance from India and signed the Instrument of Accession, formally acceding to India. This led to the first Indo-Pakistani war in 1947-48.

To resolve the conflict, the UN intervened, and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed Resolution 47 in 1948. This resolution called for a ceasefire, the withdrawal of Pakistani forces from the region, and a significant reduction of Indian army officers. This was to allow for a free and fair plebiscite under UN supervision without any sort of intimidation. The plebiscite was supposed to let the people of Jammu and Kashmir decide their allegiance to either India or Pakistan. The result of the plebiscite would have depended on the majority vote.

However, the plebiscite was never conducted due to several reasons, including disagreements between India and Pakistan over the conditions set by the UN.

Clause (a) in Resolution 47

Most of us aren’t aware of Clause (a) in Resolution 47 passed by the UNSC. It states the condition of a plebiscite in Kashmir. Refer to UN Digital Library – Resolution 47 (1948) – Page 4:

To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State.

The clause requires the complete withdrawal of Pakistani forces from the region. However, this condition remains unfulfilled as militants keep infiltrating the area.

Interestingly, India keeps getting the majority of the blame for not allowing a plebiscite, while it’s clear that Pakistan hasn’t fulfilled its part of the resolution. The resolution placed initial responsibility on Pakistan to withdraw its forces from the region. Only after this withdrawal was India supposed to reduce its military presence. This was then to be followed by a plebiscite. Because neither side fully complied with the conditions set out in the resolution, the situation has remained unresolved.

Final thoughts

I can’t help but wonder, had the “freedom seekers” in Kashmir known about this condition for a plebiscite, would they have applied more force on Pakistani militants to move out of the region? As stated, the first step toward a plebiscite is to ensure the Pakistani militants have withdrawn completely.

The UN has not formally retracted Resolution 47. It is currently in a dormant state. However, there is a possibility of Resolution 47 being re-invoked if the UNSC decides to revisit it.

An Ode to Seeking Justice By Exercising Your Power to Vote

In Kerala, recently, CPM faced a sharp setback. A state known to be deeply faithful to its comrades turned its back on the communist party in the Lok Sabha Elections. CPM could secure only one seat. This was a big shocker for the party when the results were announced. It wasn’t for the people, however. The grievances were such.

What went wrong? Plenty. Fund mismanagement, corruption, hooliganism, dictatorial tendencies, lack of acknowledgment of mistakes, farmer deaths, pension delays, etc. The list seems endless. A sort of arrogance had crept in after CPM’s second consecutive term. It was reflected in their attitude towards commoners and overall leadership. People started catching on to their lies and false promises.

How did Malayalees react? Through their votes. CPM could secure only one seat in Kerala in the recent Lok Sabha Elections 2024, facing an overall 2-4% dip in vote share. They suffered a severe blow even in their strongholds like Kasaragod, Kannur, Vadakara, and Palakkad.

Kerala is a prime example of how to get your revenge against political parties if they fail to meet your standards. No freebies were promised in the state, so the votes were cast purely on the basis of the political party’s performance.

The only way a common man in India can express his disappointment towards political parties is through his votes. Yet, Indians do not show up when the time comes. Excuses pop up, “We have work,” “We don’t want to travel,” “What’s going to happen, anyway?” Due to this, the parties that were a disappointment continue to be in power.

The point I am trying to make is concerning West Bengal. The government had already shown its true colors before the election. They tried to cover up the Sandeshkali rapes and protected the party member from arrest. Police officers were attacked when they went to arrest the party member. Hooliganism was its max. Everyone witnessed it. Yet, the party won again.

Someone said if an election were to be held tomorrow in West Bengal, TMC would again win. This is unfortunate. In such cases, is the government alone to blame? Aren’t we the citizens enabling such a behavior, too? TMC’s supporters turned up en masse to save and vote for the party while the others relaxed at home in the sweltering heat. There was post-poll violence in the state because TMC members were furious they did not secure enough votes as before. Yet, somehow, we refused to acknowledge what we saw. We continued to believe the words of the party who was placing the blame on everyone else except itself. We celebrated the “saving” of democracy, unaware that the party we voted for was no better.

Indians are expressing their anger on social media and the streets now, but they forget they can do it the Kerala way too. When the time comes, hit where it hurts – through your votes. This is the only way to get a political party to introspect and correct themselves. It is a powerful tool. Use it.

***

Photo Courtesy: PTI Photo/Swapan Mahapatra

An Ode to Intermingling With Other Faiths

Yesterday, a Muslim friend visited, and we ended up discussing religion. She’s a practicing Muslim but not overly devout; for instance, she only wears a hijab when her mother-in-law visits.

During our conversation, she shared something beautiful:

People do things in the hope of reaching paradise. There’s so much fear surrounding it. But no one has ever returned from death to confirm if paradise truly exists. What we have now is paradise, isn’t it? You and I, of different faiths, sitting here together, conversing, laughing, and enjoying each other’s company—what better paradise could there be?

I asked her how she developed this perspective when everyone around her follows religious rules so strictly. She said it might be because she attended a non-religious school instead of an Islamic one. She emphasized how important it is to interact with other communities rather than only associating with people from our own. Her husband shares the same outlook. While he offers Namaz five times a day, he hasn’t imposed any religious restrictions on his wife or children. They are the only ones in their family who approach religion this way.

This principle is applicable to all communities. The more we engage with people from different backgrounds, the more open-minded and accepting we become of diverse ideas and perspectives. Conversely, isolating ourselves can lead to more rigid and extreme viewpoints.

I believe this may be why Indians tend to integrate more easily in foreign countries. Growing up in a society where different faiths coexist has shaped our ability to adapt. This is why I feel we should be sharing our culture with the world rather than adopting foreign ones. India’s inclusive culture, which embraces all faiths, is truly beautiful. I hope we continue to honor and preserve it.

***

Photo by Markus Spiske

An Indian’s Concern for Bangladeshi Hindus

It is with utter dismay I am reading the news about the attack on Hindus in Bangladesh. Secular Muslims in the country are trying to protect the Hindus. This is positive news, and you can’t help but feel grateful for such people in the community. However, radicals are still deliberately targeting the houses and religious places of Hindus. How can they be stopped?

Often, we have seen that in the struggle between radicals and seculars, the radicals emerge victorious. This has happened previously in Iran. A student uprising in Iran in 1979 played a significant role in the downfall of secularism and the emergence of the Islamic regime.

Student Protestors in Iran 1979 — Student protestors climbing the gate of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979 / Wikimedia Commons

The reasons for the uprising back then were quite similar:

Widespread discontent with the Shah’s authoritarian rule, political repression, and economic issues.
Iranian students, both domestically and abroad, were active in organizing protests, disseminating anti-Shah literature, and galvanizing public opinion against the regime. They played a crucial role in spreading revolutionary ideas and mobilizing the masses.

A simple act of protesting an “authoritarian” rule in Iran brought in a more religious regime that was dictatorial in its tendencies. So how successful would one consider this student uprising, unless the original intention of the riots was not social justice, but a religious takeover? Shah, considered secular in nature, fled the country never to return, which in all probability will be Sheikh Hasina’s trajectory too. Comparisons are inevitable. Iran is still struggling to bring back its golden days of secularism. Will Bangladesh end up being the same? Only time will tell.

I saw Bangladeshi residents expressing their joy over Sheikh Hasina’s ouster, which is valid, as she was unnecessarily brutal in her approach. But I also saw them in private groups worrying about the future of the country and whether they will fall into the hands of radical Islamists. Some even said they would leave the country if it came to that.

What does this mean for India? Sheikh Hasina was considered pro-India in her approach. She kept the fundamentalists like the Jamaat-e-Islami and anti-India elements under check. This is of significance as India shares a long border with Bangladesh and any sort of instability has the potential to spill over to neighboring regions.

The new leader, Muhammad Yunus, is a Nobel Laureate. He has proven himself an intellectual, but how effective would he be as a politician and a peace-keeper? Will he be pro-India and continue to maintain peaceful relations with our country, promising to secure the borders and protect the minority community in Bangladesh? Or will he be a puppet for the radicals? Questions only time can answer.

As usual, the leftist ecosystem in India is working overtime to convince us that the Hindus in Bangladesh are not in trouble. This is not surprising. It is a standard approach when minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and even within India (Kashmiri Pandits) are attacked. The events are quickly negated or justified and brushed under the carpet. A close observation of their responses provides enough proof of their bias. In my 40+ years, I have never seen them acknowledge attacks against Hindus. There is always a “reason” for it.

If by chance you point out the attacks, you are labeled a right-wing communal Sanghi (a BJP supporter). However, if you support any other community, you are a social justice warrior, an activist, and a secular. This double standard is difficult to fathom, and I have seen many becoming BJP supporters because of this hypocrisy.

In India, I am witnessing more secular Muslims openly supporting Bangladeshi Hindus than the so-called secular Hindus. Due to the indifference of left-leaning Indian Hindus, the community will continue to suffer persecution at the hands of radicals. There is not enough support. For the support to pour in, people need to first acknowledge the fact that there is an issue.

It is with some relief I read that all political parties in India are on the same page regarding the Bangladesh issue. The opposition hasn’t yet negated the Bangladeshi Hindu’s plight. They voiced concern for the minorities in Bangladesh and said they would work in unity with the central government. A nuanced approach their supporters need to learn.

Hopefully, peace will soon be restored in Bangladesh, rendering my concerns unnecessary. Until that day arrives, my worries persist.