In recent years, Sonam Kapoor has been acting in boundary-breaking films that have expanded the horizons of Bollywood and that desire to tackle different subjects has led her towards The Zoya Factor.
Her newly-released romantic-comedy is a big-screen adaptation of the acclaimed 2008 film about an unlucky girl, who suddenly becomes a good luck charm for the Indian cricket team and unexpectedly finds love.
Eastern Eye caught up with Sonam to discuss The Zoya Factor, superstition and inspirations.
Is it a coincidence that all your recent roles are so different to each other?
I have been deliberately choosing different projects, because I like to do different things and don’t want to be typecast into a particular genre.
What did you like about The Zoya Factor?
I thought it was a lot of fun, an easy-going film and harmless entertainment. It had something quirky about it and I really loved the book when it came out, which is written by Anuja Chauhan. I was also dying to play a relatable, fun, young girl.
Tell us about your character?
I play Zoya Solanki and she is born in 1983 on the day India won the cricket world cup. She is actually lucky for everybody, except herself. She is unlucky in everything. She is an advertising executive and is sent to work on a Pepsi commercial with the Indian cricket team. She meets Dulquer Salmaan’s character, who plays for the Indian cricket team and falls in love with him. But the conflict is that she is lucky for the team, but he doesn’t believe in luck and only in hard work. She is a regular girl who has issues with her love life, professional life and life in general. I think she is pretty relatable to young urban girls out there right now.
How does Dulquer Salmaan compare to other leading men you have worked with?
I think he is amazing. I have worked with some incredible actors and he is in the top few in that list of amazing talents.
How much of a sports fan are you in real life?
I love sports. I like cricket, but my favourite sport is basketball. But, yes, I do like cricket because I am an Indian and don’t know any Indian who doesn’t like cricket.
How superstitious are you in real life?
I am perhaps as superstitious as the average person. I think it’s about having a natural synergy to doing things that might not be logical, but that is just an Indian thing.
Are you superstitious when it comes to work?
I don’t know about that, but I do believe in hard work. If you work hard enough you can change your destiny or destiny will favour you. In real life, I believe that I can work hard and change my life.
Do you have a lucky charm?
I don’t, but I do believe that everything good that is happening in my life recently is because of my husband (Anand Ahuja). He brings in a lot of joy and fortune into my life.
What according to you is the definition of luck?
I don’t think there is any definition for luck. I think when things go right, despite the circumstances, you consider yourself lucky. So usually you feel lucky in hindsight and think, ‘oh that happened despite all these circumstances’.
What do you do on days you don’t feel so lucky?
I just pray and ask god for help.
What is your favourite moment in the movie?
It is when I am with my dad and brother in the film. I think, those scenes are really funny. Obviously, working with Dulquer was fabulous too.
Comedy is the most difficult genre, but you are a natural at it. Where does that come from?
I don’t know, I just love doing it I guess. Comedy is very difficult, but you have to make it just natural and fun. I just enjoy that genre a lot and have a natural affinity for it. It just works well in that way. It is my genre and I like that space. I hope those who like seeing me in dramas, like me as much in comedy.
What is the master plan going forward?
I do have a couple of announcements, but can’t speak about them right now. I will speak about them as soon as The Zoya Factor releases. But, yes, I will keep mixing characters and genres as I don’t like being stuck in the same place. I like doing different things.
Is there a territory you haven’t ventured into, but would like to explore?
I really want to do horror. No one has offered me a film in that space yet.
What inspires you professionally?
Content and working with good people. Those two things are important because I want to work with people I like. Even if it was some big filmmaker, if I thought they were a nasty person I wouldn’t want to work with them. I want to work with good co-stars, and do good work because, at the end of the day, you need to be happy going to work. That, to me, is really important.
You are a strong symbol of girl power, how important is that for you?
It is super important to have a sense of self-respect because as soon as you have that, you can conquer the world. So I think it is essential, especially, for women in this age to have that.
Do you have ambitions away from cinema?
I have my clothing brand Rheson and my husband’s brand Bhane. For me, it’s important for young people to get sustainable clothing that stands the test of time. The best quality clothing that stands out and is amazing. I love dressing up and love seeing young people dress up as well.
I have been interviewing you for nearly a decade and you haven’t changed. What has kept you so grounded?
Family and friends. I think it is really important to have the right people around you. As soon as you have that, they tell you the truth always, no matter how bitter it is. When you don’t have sycophants and have the right people, you don’t change. So, it is very important to have someone who tells you the truth always.
How close is The Zoya Factor to the original book?
Well, Anuja (Chauhan) had a lot to do with the screenplay, so we have tried to keep it as
authentic as possible, but things have changed because fitting a hundreds of page book into two hours is very hard, so we changed a couple of things.
Tell us, why should we watch The Zoya Factor?
It’s a family film and it’s only two hours. It’s a lot of fun and has all the ingredients. It is just a great, fun film. These are stressful times and there are a lot of films with heavy drama in them, but if you wanna have a good time, chill out and watch a cute romantic comedy with a quirk in it, then The Zoya Factor is for you.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that voters are dissatisfied with the political choices on offer - so must they be in want of new parties too? A proliferation of start-ups showed how tricky political match-making can be. Zarah Sultana took Jeremy Corbyn by surprise by announcing they will co-lead a new left party. Two of Nigel Farage’s exes announced separate political initiatives to challenge Reform from its right, with the leader of London’s Conservatives lending her voice to Rupert Lowe’s revival of the politics of repatriation.
Corbyn and Sultana are from different generations. He had been an MP for a decade by the time she was born. For Sultana’s allies, this intergenerational element is a core case for the joint leadership. But the communications clash suggests friction ahead. After his allies could not persuade Sultana to retract her announcement, Corbyn welcomed her decision to leave Labour, saying ‘negotiations continue’ over the structure and leadership of a new party. It will seek to link MPs elected as pro-Gaza independents with other strands of the left outside Labour.
Nigel Farage
Would the new party cooperate or compete with the Green Party? Zack Polanski’s leadership campaign promotes a “left populism” with much overlap with the Corbynista agenda. He is challenging MPs Adrian Ramsey and Ellie Chowns, who offer continuity with the quieter strategy which saw Green gains in their Herefordshire and Norfolk seats while winning in Bristol and Brighton.
On the right, Ben Habib, sacked as a Reform deputy leader by Farage, launched a new ‘Advance Party’ - but could not get Great Yarmouth MP Lowe to join it. Lowe launched a Restore Britain campaigning movement instead.
Habib has yet to make his new party official, claiming it must recruit 30,000 members to be eligible for registration. The Electoral Commission has no such threshold: there are over 300 registered parties. This false claim may just be a recruitment tactic or a device to delay revealing its donors.
A congratulatory tweet from US billionaire businessman Elon Musk reinforced Habib’s hope that the world’s richest man may help to fund his new party. But Musk’s own focus is on launching a new “America Party” as his feud with US president Donald Trump escalates. Musk self-identifies as a centrist, oblivious to his own self-radicalisation after curating an entire social media platform in his own image. Reform had hoped for a multi-million pound donation from Musk too, before he attacked Farage’s refusal to embrace former EDL leader Tommy Robinson. Yet this simply reinforced Musk’s toxic reputation with the British public.
How much political space is there further right of Farage? About a quarter of the Reform vote - about three per cent of the electorate - find Farage too moderate on race and immigration. But these are mostly the same group who supported last summer’s violent riots. Farage believes a boundary rejecting the BNP (British National Party) and Robinson is imperative to be a mainstream party. Farage faces start-up challenges too. Farage wants to bring 300 first-time MPs to parliament - and would have to give top Cabinet jobs to many unknown quantities. Thurrock MP James McMurdock resigned the Reform whip over the weekend after credible allegations of business fraud during the pandemic.
Rupert LoweGetty Images
Habib can appeal only to those within the segment to Farage’s right who find ethnic minority leadership acceptable. He may be offering too niche a product to find a viable market. Lowe’s agenda is to go much further than Farage on immigration and race. Since Farage’s slogan is to cut net migration to zero, Restore Britain is campaigning for “negative net migration” - pledging to remove ‘millions’ of legal migrants so that “outflows considerably outstrip inflows’. The Migration Advisory Committee projects that the UK population would begin to shrink if net migration was below 110,000. Lowe argues that rising ethnic diversity can be reversed, not just be slowed down. His slogan, ‘stop importing, start deporting’, consciously revives the ‘send them back’ politics of Enoch Powell and the 1970s National Front. Lowe is celebrated by overtly racist bloggers for these efforts to popularise the idea of ‘remigration’. Several London Conservatives are dismayed that Susan Hall has joined this Restore Britain campaign, since the former Tory mayoral candidate leads the party’s Greater London Assembly group. But that criticism remains muted in public. Lowe himself has not ruled out joining the Conservatives before the next election.
The rise of new parties is an expression of democratic politics, but can reflect a misunderstanding of its challenges, too. New parties can voice arguments that citizens feel are missing. But a consumerist search for the perfect party can seek to side-step the inevitable frustrations of compromise. Politics is about how societies make collective decisions when we disagree. Whether we have four-, five- or six-party politics, the challenge for parties - old and new - is how any can secure broad enough support to govern in such fragmented and polarised times.
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration.
By clicking the 'Subscribe’, you agree to receive our newsletter, marketing communications and industry
partners/sponsors sharing promotional product information via email and print communication from Garavi Gujarat
Publications Ltd and subsidiaries. You have the right to withdraw your consent at any time by clicking the
unsubscribe link in our emails. We will use your email address to personalize our communications and send you
relevant offers. Your data will be stored up to 30 days after unsubscribing.
Contact us at data@amg.biz to see how we manage and store your data.
ONE reason I watched the BBC documentary Amol Rajan Goes to the Ganges with particular interest was because I have been wondering what to do with the ashes of my uncle, who died in August last year. His funeral, like that of his wife, was half Christian and half Hindu, as he had wished. But he left no instructions about his ashes.
Sooner or later, this is a question that every Hindu family in the UK will have to face, since it has been more than half a century since the first generation of Indian immigrants began arriving in this country. Amol admits he found it difficult to cope with the loss of his father, who died aged 76 three years ago. His ashes were scattered in the Thames.
Amol, who is 41, was born in Calcutta and was brought to Britain when he was three.
“My dad was my hero, totally and utterly,” he declares.
He recalls: “Very suddenly, three years ago, he got pneumonia, went into hospital, spent five dreadful weeks in intensive care, and died. This was really shocking to me because it was the first time I’d ever lost someone I loved.” Watching the grand final of University Challenge, in which Christ’s College, Cambridge, beat Warwick 175–170 in an exciting finish, we saw Amol’s intellectual and secular side as a BBC TV presenter.
He says he is an atheist, but nevertheless undertook a pilgrimage to the Ganges to see if he could emancipate his father from the eternal cycle of birth, death and rebirth and help him gain moksha. He couldn’t get to the confluence of the Ganges and the Yamuna at the Kumbh Mela because of a stampede in which 30 people were trampled to death and hundreds injured. But he participated in pind daan and took a dip in the Ganges.
Rajan offers the pind daan in honour of his father and ancestors
He says: “I think that one of the things that I wanted to go to the Kumbh Mela to do, was to confront my grief, reconnect with my dad, but also to try and work out what the next 38 or 40 years of my life would have to do with the first half.”
Expressing grief on camera, as Amol does, is a little odd, but he explains: “I think there are three things I want people to take away from this documentary. One is about grief, the other is about faith, and the final one is about family. Every grief is different, and everyone grieves for somebody they’ve lost in a very unique way, but I do think there are certain rules about grief. I do think it does get easier over time, and I do think that sharing grief by talking about it, by connecting with other people that are aggrieved, is a really valuable thing. This documentary is a way of trying to grieve in public, not for vain reasons, but because I think there’s something that people could learn from that.”
Do not expect any parties in Downing Street to celebrate the government’s first birthday on Friday (4). After a rocky year, prime minister Sir Keir Starmer had more than a few regrets when giving interviews about his first year in office.
He explained that he chose the wrong chief of staff. That his opening economic narrative was too gloomy. That choosing the winter fuel allowance as a symbol of fiscal responsibility backfired. Starmer ‘deeply regretted’ the speech he gave to launch his immigration white paper, from which only the phrase ‘island of strangers’ cut through. Can any previous political leader have been quite so self-critical of their own record in real time?
This unconventional approach could be a reminder of Starmer’s best quality: that he is the antithesis of US president Donald Trump. Trump has a narcissistic need to be the main character, a hyperactive addiction to conflict, the attention span of a toddler and no interest in policy substance beyond the television and social media optics. So Trump is the disruptor in chief of global trade, security and the US constitutional order. Given a binary choice, it is infinitely better to have the serious sobriety of Starmer, trying to cooperate with allies to limit Trump’s chaotic contributions to increased insecurity.
Yet, it is a contrast that could be taken too far. Trump realises that politics is about what you say as well as what you do. What Starmer is palpably still missing is a clear public story of what his government is for. This was partly a matter of choice. A gritty public mood has little appetite for new visions, unless shown tangible progress first. It reflects the taciturn character of the leader too. Yet the issue is not simply one of communication. The challenge of finding a narrative reflects uncertainty about the strategic direction of the government.
Judged by its actions, this is a centre-left government. It has made many decisions that the previous Conservative government would not have taken. It changed the fiscal rules, borrowing much more for investment. Despite the constraints of its manifesto pledges on most taxes, it did raise taxes so as to have more to spend on the NHS, and on housebuilding. The government is committed to higher defence spending, and also to net zero, to closer UK-EU relations, within the ‘red lines’ which Labour set out, as it takes care to check if it can take the public with it. It will work with multilateral institutions, rather than quitting treaties and conventions. If this is a centre-left government in its deeds, it may prefer to self-identify as something else, without quite managing to articulate what that is.
So this has been a very tactical government, which has changed its mind about most of its tactical choices. The Comprehensive Spending Review was intended as a reset moment, in giving the government clearer priorities, though it has been challenging to make the numbers add up. But the parliamentary rebellion over its welfare bill could prove a more significant turning point. A government which won a landslide had lost its majority once 125 of its MPs - a majority of the backbench - declared they were unable to pass a government bill without a significant change. This was about the substantive impact of heavy income losses for disabled people - and the lack of a rationale beyond saving money. This rebellion is also about the political strategy of the government. Much of the parliamentary group seem diminishing returns in actively picking fights with progressives who Labour will need to keep the populism of Reform leader Nigel Farage out.
Can Starmer fix his government? The prime minister is 62 years old. He cannot change his personality or working style, not metamorphosis into a visionary speech-maker. There is little point in advisers inventing hypothetical strategies - such as choosing to present Starmer as a radical insurgent, rather than the sober incumbent, which cannot fit with the prime minister they have got, and his gradualist agenda for long-term change. Yet Starmer could use his evident capacity for self-reflection to identify feasible changes. He needs to repair how his Downing Street operation makes decisions - and now knows that backbench support is not unconditional.
Facing a fragmented opposition, Labour’s chances of re-election in four years time may be underestimated. Yet most of Labour’s tactical mistakes have come from trying to run a permanent election campaign in government, four years early. The government needs to govern to generate the substantive record and future agenda it would defend from the populist right in 2029. Australia's Anthony Albanese, who faced many similar criticisms to Starmer, bounced back to get re-elected, though the Canadian Liberals changed leaders to defeat the right. How many years Starmer has left in Downing Street is anybody’s guess. This time next year, he would need a stronger story to tell.
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration.
Anniversaries can catalyse action. The government appointed the first Windrush Commissioner last week, shortly before Windrush Day, this year marking the 77th anniversary of the ship’s arrival in Britain.
The Windrush generation came to Britain believing what the law said – that they were British subjects, with equal rights in the mother country. But they were to discover a different reality – not just in the 1950s, but in this century too. It is five years since Wendy Williams proposed this external oversight in her review of the lessons of the Windrush scandal. The delay has damaged confidence in the compensation scheme. Williams’ proposal had been for a broader Migrants Commissioner role, since the change needed in Home Office culture went beyond the treatment of the Windrush generation itself.
The Windrush commissioner, the Reverend Clive Foster, a pastor in Nottingham, found himself on home turf in opening a Windrush event at Nottingham Forest’s City ground. Forest legend, Viv Anderson spoke of the racism that his pioneering generation of players faced, being pelted with apples, pears and bananas as a 19 year old, when sent by Brian Clough to warm up on the touchline at Carlisle in his first away game. The event captured the power of story-telling across the generations about past progress and today’s challenges. The 50th anniversary of Anderson becoming England’s first black full international cap, which coincides with co-hosting Euro 2028, offers a landmark moment for football to tell the story of its journey towards inclusion.
Whether Britain should become a multi-ethnic society was fiercely debated in the era of Enoch Powell, two decades after the Windrush docked. This had become a settled social and political fact by the turn of the century. Indeed, Powell himself saw mass repatriation as a time-limited agenda, impossible once half of the Commonwealth-descended population were British-born by the 1980s. The Conservatives moved on to Margaret Thatcher and Norman Tebbit’s case for integration via assimilation. David Cameron later sped up the visible ethnic diversity at the top of the party. After the Windrush scandal, it was the incumbent Conservative governments which officially recognised National Windrush Day and commissioned the National Windrush Memorial in Waterloo station. Yet, the 2020s online right is dividing over how far to re-racialise arguments about who is truly British.
LONDON, ENGLAND - JUNE 22: Baroness Floella Benjamin speaks during the unveiling of the National Windrush Monument at Waterloo Station on June 22, 2022 in London, England. The photograph in the background is by Howard Grey. (Photo by John Sibley - WPA Pool/Getty Images)
Former Tory and Ukip MP Douglas Carswell was once the most vocal critic of anti-migration nativism among Brexit campaigners, repudiating Powell to avoid Nigel Farage putting ethnic minorities off. So how odd it is to see Carswell flip to tweeting, “Out. I don’t care how long you’ve lived here” in calling for the ‘mass deportation’ of Pakistanis from Britain. Carswell told me he now believes the ‘old demonisation’ of such arguments as racist will fail. Moving to the pro-Trump heartlands of Mississippi for his new think-tank gig has badly skewed his perceptions of how the British public think. Former Reform MP Rupert Lowe and Conservative peer David Frost are recommending accounts that promote prejudice.
Think-tanker David Goodhart last week proposed moving the capital from London to York – telling Evening Standard readers that 2030s London may have too few white people to stay as the capital city. Goodhart began arguing that Britain had become too diverse back in 2004, when the visible minority percentage was in single digits. It goes beyond an argument about the pace of change of immigration when the white British score is made the central indicator of how British a place is. That casts millions of British-born minorities as, by definition, diluting Britishness rather than having a shared stake within it.
Can this government tell a shared story of how we got here and where we are going? Or will it tend to communicate to segments of majority and minority audiences in parallel on separate occasions? Downing Street is now working at pace to deepen the government’s policy agenda. The existence of a new social cohesion taskforce may reflect how anniversaries catalyse attention. The anniversary of August’s riots will be a natural focal point for scrutiny of how far the government has been able to combine getting tough on the riots in real-time with a long-term plan to address the causes of cohesion. The third anniversary of the Leicester disorder of 2022 will also attract further scrutiny into when the delayed independent inquiry report into the local and national lessons may finally materialise.
The prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, regrets the ‘island of strangers’ controversy over his immigration white paper – so he hopes to place as much emphasis on the case for integration as his fear of the risks of its absence. One test of the government this summer is whether it can navigate the contested language of identity more confidently. What will matter most is whether action can be sustained to address the vacuum in national policy once the anniversaries that spur flurries of action go past.
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration.
Keep ReadingShow less
Portraits of Iranian military generals and nuclear scientists, killed in Israel’s last Friday (13) attack, are seen above a road, as heavy smoke rises from an oil refinery in southern Teheran hit in an overnight Israeli strike last Sunday (15)
THERE is one question to which none of us has the answer: if the ayatollahs are toppled, who will take over in Teheran?
I am surprised that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei, has lasted as long as he has. He is 86, and would achieve immortality as a “martyr” in the eyes of regime supporters if the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, succeeded in assassinating him. This was apparently Netanyahu’s plan, though he was apparently dissuaded by US president Donald Trump from going ahead with the killing.
One thing I do know about the regime in Teheran is that it is deeply pragmatic when it comes to its own survival. Right now, it faces the greatest threat to its existence since the Islamic Republic was founded in 1979, after the Shah fled the country.
There was a point in my life when I was spending so much time in Teheran – as the Daily Telegraph’s Iran correspondent – that my hotel suggested I leave my tin trunk behind rather than keep hauling it back and forth between Teheran and London. I suspect it is still somewhere in the basement of the Intercontinental Hotel. I am referring to 1979, when I first arrived in the city as a young reporter on my first major foreign assignment. What was meant to be a three-month stay turned into nearly two years, after militant students captured the American embassy and kept the hostage crisis going for 444 days. I also reported on the long and bloody war between Iran and Iraq, in which a million people died.
My contacts book tells the story of contemporary Iran – and tragically, almost everyone listed in it met a violent death. For example, foreign minister Sadegh Ghotbzadeh was executed by the regime for allegedly plotting a coup against Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the revolution’s spiritual leader. Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, the second most powerful figure after Khomeini, was blown up in a bombing that destroyed the Islamic Republican Party’s headquarters in Teheran. (When I once asked Beheshti for help in extending my visa by a week, he picked up the phone – and I ended up staying for another year.) I know all too well the parts of Teheran now being bombed by Israel.
Although most of my reporting was from the capital, I did travel outside Teheran, particularly to the holy city of Qom. This was where Khomeini was based in the early days until for health reasons he was moved in April 1980 to Jamaran, a village in the foothills of the Alborz mountains north of Teheran, near the Niavaran Palace – the former residence of the Shah. Khomeini issued his fatwa against Salman Rushdie over The Satanic Verses on February 14, 1989, and died on June 3 that same year, aged 86. Since then, Khamenei has ruled. Given the Shia reverence for martyrdom, his death could only enhance his symbolic power – and there is no guarantee it would bring down the regime. My guess is that the ayatollahs are in a dilemma. They know that while they can inflict civilian casualties, they cannot win a war against Israel. As ever, they will be searching for a face-saving way to end the nightly hostilities. The Israeli prime minister, who has likely been planning a strike on Iran’s nuclear sites for years, may not be ready to stop now.
When I first went to Iran, the population was 37 million. Today, it stands at 90 million. Undoubtedly, there are Iranians who would welcome the overthrow of the ayatollahs. But equally, most of the population have known nothing but life under an Islamic regime. The Revolutionary Guard Corps is largely drawn from the younger generation. Iranian scientists almost certainly possess the fundamental knowledge needed to build an atomic bomb. Their facilities may have been destroyed, but their collective expertise cannot be erased. Iran could also withstand the loss of a million lives in a prolonged conflict with Israel.
Israel, to be sure, has a powerful military backed by the United States. But its population is just 10 million, compared to Iran’s, which is approaching 100 million.
The Islamic Republic is built to take advantage of chaos. If I had to make a guess – based on years of reporting on the ayatollahs and watching the regime adapt – it is that politics in Iran is going to move from a state of chaos to even greater chaos.