Book Review – Indian trilogy of V.S. Naipaul

To understand the Indian trilogy that V.S Naipaul wrote, we need to first understand some background of the author. This may not be true for all the novels or travelogues but it certainly is true for this particular one. His ancestors travelled from India to Trinidad for good – Some three generations ago. This makes him ethnically an Indian but disconnected geographically but somewhat connected through the vestiges of culture and customs that went into Trinidad along with this forbearers. But he is interested in India – not because he loves it or anything of that sort –but he wants to understand his ancestral land from which his grandfather and others migrated centuries ago. This quest of wanting to know led him to travel to India and he stayed in India for years and this trilogy is the fruit of the quest.

An area of Darkness 

The first among the three installments is a deeply depressing account of the author’s first encounter with India where he faces a sense of estrangement – culturally and otherwise. This is quite normal for any westerner who visits India for the first time even today, not to mention how it would have been in the 60s where things were even worse. They will experience a cultural shock, a kind of estrangement which most people cannot handle. India is much beyond that, India is much deeper than that. He concurs in the very introduction that India was never his country and never will be. But he can’t stop caring for it for whatever reason. There is an element of concern, in his observation and analysis.

He describes the squalor, poverty, corruption among other things that the country is mired in an objective way. As mentioned before, this is a depressing account. In the sense, India looks like a static and decayed society (true in a sense, whatever may be the reason) in Naipaul’s portrayal which is beyond any kind of redemption. If anyone doesn’t understand the intent of the author, it’s easy to lump this work among the others which deliberately show India in a bad light. But that’s not the case here.

India: A Wounded Civilization

This is written around the time of emergency, 1975. By his own admission, this is the shortest book he has ever wrote – 161 pages. Here he explores the country which was invaded multiple times and the lasting impact the invaders had and continue to have in the land, the average Indian psyche, the attitude with which Indians face any problem. 

He brings in many contemporary authors and their works to make his case, although he doesn’t take them at their face value, he uses them to penetrate into the Indian mind. Some of the contemporary writers, especially like that of R.K. Narayan have a very good insight into the Indian way of life and have depicted it so very well in their novels. The observation that impressed me was – how some Hindus interpret the philosophy of Karma in a fatalistic sense and use it as a way to escape from performing any action or taking any responsibility. Forget solving the problem, many times they don’t even acknowledge there is one. In comparison, this work is not as pessimistic as the previous one.

India: A Million Mutinies Now

The last in the Indian trilogy is also the longest one (of over 600 pages) and written in the year 1990. He visits the places he had visited 2 decades ago and meets the people he had met then. He sees the changes the country is subjected to in these two decades. He traverses across the country – from West Bengal to Tamil Nadu, meeting all kinds of people – the Naxals, the Dravidianists, the Dalits, the Brahmins, the Shias, the feminists etc. and tries to understand the nation through their own personal experiences, struggles – the result is a riveting story which slowly reveals the nation with its admixture of immense complexities and possibilities.

The past narratives meet the present challenges and dilemmas and how some of them correlate to the progress of India as a nation. Although there is negativity around, there is also a glimmer of hope in this book much unlike the previous works.

Conclusion

Let’s face it – India is an immensely complex country to understand – even for Indians, not to talk about an average Occidental. Naipaul is uniquely placed in this task. He is a Westerner for all practical purposes with long detached cultural root in this ancient land. Naipaul has tried to do this daunting task with his travels across the country, perspicacious observations, numerable interviews and he is successful in building a new narrative from the facts, stories and observations arising out of these. 

There is unabashed precision in his observation but there is also empathy and concern for the people and for the country. Naipaul is recognized in the world as one of the best writers of travelogues and novelists of our times. Reading this work will make you realize why it is so. 

Mind — Incessant Chatterbox

[This was in a draft from a long time. Just thought of redeeming it quickly]

One of my ways of escaping from the incessant chatter of thoughts is to bury myself in some good literature or shove my ears to the headphones and go with the crescendo. 

It seems how hard you may try, some thoughts refuse to go away. The pattern repeats and it goes all circular. There is no point in indulging in it, you know. But alas! you can't stop it. All those descriptions likening the mind to monkey make more sense to you now. I take refuge in music. For a brief time, I seem to be free. If I were an alcoholic, I would have taken refuge in alcohol. It would have calmed me down. Music does no less a job. 

These are but temporary solutions. The more I think about it the more these Buddhas's word makes sense to me - " It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles. Then the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you, not by angels or by demons, heaven or hell ". The toughest challenge you face is not someone, it's just yourself. It's perhaps true that if you have managed to successfully handle yourself, you can handle anything in the world.

Mother Teresa – Hollowed be thy name

Mohan Bhagavat, the RSS supremo while speaking in a conference made a reference to Mother Teresa (now Saint Teresa after the beatification). He said mother Teresa’s supposed service to the poor; the destitute was not without any motive. Her motive was conversion to ‘one true faith’. That was enough to ruffle many secular feathers. Many seculars, liberals came in unison against Bhagavat for commenting against a ‘noble’ soul. Many well-meaning people who are fed with the hallowed imagery of Teresa and of the missionary of charity came against Bhagavat strongly. [I remember studying a chapter on Mother Teresa in my middle school titled ‘Nirmala Hrudaya’ which translates into ‘Noble or Pure Heart’] Among others, the statement of Bhagavat did one good thing – It initiated a debate and more people got to know the real truth behind the supposed saint. But, did Bhagavat say anything wrong? Was he off the mark? When you try to investigate, you know the answer is no.

You may have your own misgivings on the RSS on various issues. But its service across the nation without motive can be seldom faulted. But can you say the same with respect to the Christian Missionaries? Not for a second, not once in a millennium. Charity is one of the important tools for proselytizing. They are pretty much open about it. Recently, the pope made the point amply clear. If the experience with the aftermath of the Tsunami disaster in South India is anything to go by, conversion is the pre-condition to get any kind of help from the missionaries. How low can these missionary hawks plumb? Nevermind. Now, coming to the issue on hand – Did Mother Teresa do the same? Yes, she did. It’s all well-documented by the first-hand accounts. It’s just that the Indian media is too lethargic and dishonest to dig out the truth.

Mother Teresa was a fundamentalist Christian. Like any fundamentalist of any religion, she minced no words about it and was pretty straightforward on the issue. In many of the interviews she stated her position as such. In one of her interviews, she was quoted saying "We are not nurses, we are not doctors, we are not teachers, we are not social workers. We are religious, we are religious, we are religious". She was against the use of contraception, against abortion and in fact in her Nobel Prize ceremony she proclaimed the greatest threat to world peace was abortion! Viola! Everyone was struggling to figure out the factor which was detrimental to world peace – This lady had an answer – abortion. Abrahamic religions especially Christianity exalts suffering as virtue. It springs from a fundamentalist belief – Man is a sinner. God sent his only son Jesus to earth to save us from sin and he suffered enormous pains in the process – all for us. So, if anyone is suffering, he is being closer to Jesus. This is one of the many other beliefs which shaped Mother Teresa’s psyche.

Money was never an issue for missionaries for charity as its PR machinery was very strong and millions of dollars kept pouring in. But, testimonies allude to the worst living conditions of the patients that were living there. Proper medication was not given even to the patients who were suffering from chronic diseases like cancer where pain was immense. Basic painkiller like morphine was also not given to many. When questioned, all was pushed under the carpet saying ‘love’ will substitute for all including necessary medications. It was a living hell. Christopher Hitchens called her ‘Hell’s angel’. Baptism was performed for the dying without anyone’s consent – as the process was altruistic because the motive was to ‘save’ the soul from eternal damnation.

No discussion on Mother Teresa would conclude without mentioning Christopher Hitchens’ name. He wrote a complete book on her with a provocative title – The missionary position. He along with Tariq Ali made a documentary for channel 4 – Hell’s Angel. Even before Hitchens, Dr. Aroup Chatterjee wrote a book on her - Mother Teresa: The Final Verdict, which challenged the popular perception of Teresa which we all had. In these works lists all the misdemeanors of Mother Teresa and her institution - misappropriation of money given for charity, hobnobbing with the worst of criminals and dictators and so on. Hitchens called her 'fraud, fanatic and a fundamentalist'.These are all very well documented. But the pusillanimous liberal media never dared a debate on it.

The fallen façade of the media – again!

Indian media as a rule treats the issues related to Christianity and Islam with kid gloves. This issue was no different. Forget getting deeper into the issue, the media did not have the guts to even take up the issue for the debate. Bhagavat had disturbed the hornet’s nest. Media treated Bhagavat like a man who had committed blasphemy for insulting their holy god. An honest or a neutral media would have ensured a debate in which there was a say for all the parties involved. But, that never happened. Only social media, blogs and a few online portals discussed the matter in depth. This is one of the outcomes of deification of any person. He becomes insulated from any criticisms or questions. The very act of questioning becomes a kind of blasphemous act. The way some media guys behaved as if it’s a crime to even question a revered figure like Teresa testifies the point. This just proves they lack two important qualities that are required for journalism – Intellectual rigor and honesty.

Mother Teresa was beatified in 2003. Beatification is the third step in the four-step canonization process. The main condition for a person to be beatified is that the person should have performed some miracles in others’ life which they should testify. This looks like classic case of superstition and sham. But as it is practiced by Christians, this will go unquestioned in most intellectual circles. The same media which doesn’t question this goes hammer and tongs whenever the issue is of Hindus. They question the authenticity of the Makar Jyoti in Sabarimala, they question the authenticity of Hindu gurus, and they question the rationale behind Hindu beliefs. Fair enough – As long as they question other faiths with same tenacity. That, they would never do. All in all, this entire incident was yet another naked display of pusillanimity and double-standards of our liberals and seculars.

Deconstructing PK

At the time of writing this, news are pouring in that all the previous box office records are shattered by PK, currently it is the only Hindi movie in 300 crore-club. The 'intellectual class' is genuflecting Aamir khan and Rajkumar Hirani for enlightening the masses about the social evils, superstitions and fraud gurus. The opinion about PK was swinging from critical acclaim to debunking it as trash. Well, I thought let me figure that out for myself. 

I assume you have watched the movie and thus I am saving the trouble of reviewing it. I read in some review that it’s a lift from the Robin Williams sitcom “Mork and Mindy” and adapted to Indian scenario. I’m not sure on that but its brief description looks like they are strikingly similar. Also, it goes without saying it has taken a lot from OMG! We will let that pass. In this post, I’ll try to focus on some of the issues raised in the movie.

The movie starts with making a caricature of what is perceived as popular Hinduism. It’s not the first movie to do so, of course. The director brings in the ‘godmen’, bhajans, bhakts and uses them to ridicule pop Hinduism. Sure, there are many fraudulent babas, gurus in present day India and there were such people in the past too. These kinds of people needs to be exposed for what they are, no doubt. But to paint all gurus as frauds is not only stupid but also malicious. 

In India, the Guru-Shishya parampara is held sacred from time immemorial and for a reason. In many ways, I can say this parampara is the bedrock of Hinduism. Hinduism, being a tradition which has open architecture gives people the freedom to choose whatever path they want. There is no ‘one book, one god, one messiah’ concoction in it. I guess the film makers have absolutely no issues about the faiths that administer such concoction. 

The never ending fixation with Pakistan

The heroine who is studying in Belgium falls in love with a Pakistani guy and they decide to get married. Situations force them to not get married by casting aspersions on his religion and nationality. Eventually he turns out to be a good guy after all. It has become the template of many Bollywood movies in which the heroine falls in love with a Pakistani guy. It’s difficult to understand Bollywood’s fixation and love with Pakistan and Pakistanis. It’s a subtle way of saying – “You idiots! Love knows no nationality or religion”. True, that. So romantic, you exclaim! Many Bollywood movie makers make the same job like some communist writers or naxal sympathizers do – to romanticize terror a serious issue and anyone associated with it. These are 'aman ki asha' type pacifists who advocate Gandhism even at the face of imminent death. To romanticize any issue is to kill it — in the sense, that romanticization disables the faculties to examine critical issues at hand. 

Inter-religious marriages

The portrayal of the heroine who falls in love with a Pakistani guy and the eventual turn of events is nothing but the synthetic pipedream of Hirani and his type of secularists. The parents of the heroine who happen to be Hindu object to the heroine’s desire of marrying a Pakistani and anyone with right mind would do exactly that. Forget Hindus objecting to getting their daughters married off to Pakistanis, I doubt whether even Indian Muslims can muster courage for such unnecessary adventures. The way in which it is showed out is completely divorced from reality and militates against common judgement. 

Let us ask this question – Are inter-religious marriages especially those of Hindu-Muslim so simple and based out of merely love? And no other issues involved and no implications at all? We need not go far. Just try to pick examples from the industry to which Rajkumar Hirani belongs to – Bollywood. Sharmila Tagore married MAK Pataudi and became Begum Ayesha Sultana, Amritha Singh had to convert to Islam before marrying Saif Ali Khan and there are examples of Lucky Ali and the likes. The cases where there was no need to convert, say like that of Mr. Sultan of Sanctimony Amir Khan, they would have expressed their desire explicitly of bringing up their kids as Muslims. Enough said. Needless to say, this is the case with the so-called ‘progressive’ Muslims.

The truth of the matter is Islam or Islamic law sharia’h to be specific, doesn’t recognize the marriage between a Muslim and a non-Muslim. Even if one marries, and refuses to convert, that marriage is unlawful according to Sharia’h. With Islam, it’s always one way street. You can get into it but can’t get out of it. This is one of the many truths that PK successfully covers up. 

Lampooning of Lord Shiva

The scene which has been the reason for the ire of many Hindus is the scene where Lord Shiva (from the protagonist’s point of view) is chased inside the toilet and also shown in his underwear. Lord Shiva is one of the important gods in the Hindu pantheon. In Yogic lore, he is considered the first and the supreme Yogi. Anyone who knows the stories of Shiva from the lore also knows that Shiva is beyond this dichotomy of good and bad, ugly and beautiful, he is often depicted as a cool man smoking chillum. So, he is a cool god. He, as with his followers would not give two hoots for this BS. He is not one of those jealous gods who might go into incessant fits and call for a divine retribution for the perceived blasphemy. Of course Hindus didn’t kill or threatened to kill Rajkumar Hirani for this. 

Self-criticism has remained the hallmark of Hindu society. Anyone who takes some pain in studying intellectual history of India would know this as a fact. Criticism is welcome. So, the issue here is not whether Hindus are offended or not by this but the dripping hypocrisy of the film makers. Any remotely similar treatment to the other revered religious figures like say Jesus or Muhammad would have had violent repercussions. With the former, the movie wouldn’t have got the clearance from censor board; with the latter the movie maker would have met his creator. They know it and they always go for the easy targets. No risks but full bounty. 

Idol worship

Idol worship is lampooned, caricatured to the cringing levels possible. In one of the scenes, the protagonist takes a stone and pastes the stone with the paan and keeps it in front of a college building. This he does to demonstrate the stupidity of the people that they worship anything. True to his claim, people worship. Ergo, people are stupid. Thus goes the argument and its interpretation. 

Now, why would anyone hate idol worship? We need to see the source of the hate of such proportions. It started with Old Testament. There are many verses in Leviticus, Ezekiel, Deuteronomy etc. which warn against the sins of idolatry and then there is the Quran – which has many injunctions to destroy idols. When the Islamic invasions happened, they didn’t just loot the temples but also destroyed all the idols and their action was not without any reason and the actions were divinely ordained.  

The fundamental difference in the position of god in Abrahamic faiths and Dharmic traditions is that, for Abrahamic faith there is a clear duality in god and his creation but whereas in case of Dharmic tradition, god is inherent in everything. Also, when a Hindu worships an idol, he is actually not worshipping that idol but the ideal i.e. god which is represented with that idol. It’s one of the ways of travelling in the path of the ultimate. There! There. You have a problem. You remember the ‘wrong number’ reference in the movie? The insinuation in often repeated reference is that there is ONLY ONE right number i.e only one right way. This is not rational speak. This is coming out from a closet Abrahamic memeplex point of view. 

Somehow, the intellectual class which includes even some well-meaning people has come to believe that there is something wrong with the multiple gods and idol worship but the concept of single god is just alright. But history demonstrates emphatically the faiths which indulged in idol worship were close to nature and never involved in violence to coerce others to their religion. But the religions which advocated in the doctrine of ‘one god, one prophet, one path and one book’ inflicted the greatest violence on the world and it bleeds the world to this very day. But hey, let truth and facts be damned! We are having a gala time and let’s enjoy till it lasts!

Double standards of Censor Board

There are so many things that can be said about the censor board, the system of rating a movie, the way in which the members of the board are appointed and the recently resigned chairperson, the ‘contrived political martyr’ Leela Samson. Leela Samson's crimes — both as the chairperson of CBFC and before assuming that position — are too many to list in a blogpost. Since these issues are beyond the scope of this post, I am not going into the details. 

 

For brevity’s sake let me sum it up – Censor board practiced different yardsticks, standards for different movies. The treatment that PK got was way different from the treatment that the movies like Ya rub, Vishwaroopam, or the recent one MSG got. It was so brazenly different. The best thing that can happen for Indian cinema is to scrap this whole farce called censor board.

In Conclusion

Now, how does these Bollywoodians get so much confidence that they assume the high pedestal and patronize and ‘educate’ Hindus about the ‘superstitions’ they are mired in? – It’s the ignorance of the Hindus they make use of. An average Hindu knows next to nothing about his own Dharma, forget knowing about hostile ideologies or predatory religions. This makes them unable to mount any kind of effective counter-arguments when their traditions, culture are falsely criticized. Many wear this ignorance as badge of honor and mistake it for scientific temper. They think the more vociferous they are in debunking the junk called ‘superstition’, the progressive they look. When they don’t have any knowledge of their tradition & culture, a sense of history, the easiest argument to fall back on is – “All religions are same” – the same cliché-ridden, banal statement which is not only erroneous but also dangerous.

It really doesn’t take any guts to come out with the work of art be it cinema, novel or whatever that are critical of Hindus and their beliefs because you can be cocksure that you won’t be killed or ostracized from the society or from your chosen area. Many regional language cinemas have done it and none of them have run into any trouble. But, it takes real guts to criticize the cherished beliefs of Islam and Christianity ; with the later, your work of art may be censured and with the former you may be killed! One could challenge these Bollywood filmmakers whether they have the mettle to criticize these two religions with the same fervor with which they have criticized Hinduism but knowing their so-called liberalism and the supposed courage is shallow and selective, you know well in advance that the supposed bet is absolutely winnable. 

The malaise is deep, the rot is deep. PK is just a symptom. With all the pomp, PK comes across as an average entertaining movie but tries to preach ‘gyan’ in the garb of being funny. Having said this, I along with many others am against banning of any movie including PK. One of the central ideas of free society is that there should free flow of opinions and ideas – however stupid they might be. And also there is no need to attribute any bad or evil motives to Rajkumar Hirani or Amir Khan in making this movie although there are many reasons to cast such aspersions. I am a firm adherent of this dictum – “Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence”!

Case against monotheism – A fountainhead of multitudes of ills

The common understanding of monotheism is that it’s a system of belief in one god. Well, that’s only partially correct. It’s a belief in one TRUE god is the complete truth. The emphasis on all three words makes sense – ‘ONE’ ‘TRUE’ ‘GOD’. It’s important that the god to the one – as he brooks no partnership of any kind, also he has to be true because the creed fears impostors and also he is THE GOD. This is the image of god that most of the dominant monotheistic faiths viz Islam, Judaism, Christianity etc profess.

As I mentioned in the very beginning, monotheism doesn’t only mean belief in one god but it also means intense hatred to any other gods. So, hatred is something inherent to the creed of monotheism. The prevalence of the spooky, imaginary creature, the bogeyman called the ‘satan’ and his eternal conflict with the god speaks about the never ending need of the monotheistic creed to hate something to keep the things going.

Monotheism rests on a set of belief system where most of them happen to be out and out irrational. For example, Christianity rests on ‘sin’, virgin birth of Christ; Islam rests on the revelation of Allah to Muhammad, Muhammad travelling with Gabriel to heaven on a horse and receiving revelations from Allah over a period of time. Monotheistic creeds are usually revealed creed. So, the votaries of the creed have to believe in each and every word of their canonical texts. 

Since the focus of this post is on the ills of monotheism, I’ll only stick to it. To begin with, monotheism hacks at the very roots of the most fundamental of human aspirations – Knowing oneself. That thirst of knowing the source of existence is inherent in every human being. Religions (Sic.) with open architecture provide the necessary means for the followers to find the answer. But, with monotheistic creeds one has to quench their thirst for knowledge by the ‘holy’ texts. Anything else amounts to blasphemy. An example of one Mansur Al-Hallaj should explain this or for that matter the burning the ‘witches’ at stake in Europe during the medieval times is a direct influence of blasphemy which in turn influenced by the fundamental tenet of monotheism. We would have seen a great number of seers in Muslim and Christian world if not for ossified monotheism.

As mentioned earlier, the holy texts of monotheism like Quran, bible are canonical i.e. they can’t be edited, deleted or added with. The followers believe the texts are the very words of god and hence, infallible. This belief removes all the possible doubts any reasonable mind possess for good or for worse, usually the latter. This is the main reason that mass killing, arson, rape and other atrocities in the name of religion get passed off as if there are nothing because all of them have divine sanction. Ask any Mujahiddin of ISIS or Boko Haram why he is doing what he is doing. He’ll show you perfect ayat and surah of Quran which completely condones and mandates his action. The so-called terrorists are straightforward and honest. They don’t hide their motives and their inspirations for their actions. It’s only the liberal-intellectuals who provide the smokescreen for the action and motive of terrorists who are confused.  

There is no ideology which has brought the amount of human suffering as the monotheistic ideology has brought. The closest ideology that comes in inflicting the magnitude of human bloodshed to monotheistic ideology is the ideology of communism. While communism is just around two centuries in existence whereas, monotheism is over a millennium in existence and hence the wreckage is naturally more. 

Monotheism has shunted the human growth – both at personal level and societal level. It is incompatible with science. Europe started walking in the path of progress when it cut loose of the Church and fundamental Christianity. The day it was in the stranglehold of church is aptly referred to as ‘the dark ages’. The eastern religions (Sic.) like Buddhism and Hinduism on the other hand, never had such issues ever. They were perfectly compatible with science and there was little difference between scientists and what we traditionally referred to as rishis. Monotheistic creed has been evil and destructive since its inception, it continues to this day and it will continue till its last breath. If there is indeed a god and he is just, I don’t think he can be kind to the founders of any monotheistic creeds.