Secularism, its Indian version & Saffron terror

There are many corrupted words amidst us. Some of them are god, love, soul etc. People have misused these words so much that they have deviated from their original meaning long long ago. Whenever people use these words you can be assured that they are using them in the wrong sense in most of the cases. We have one more word in India which is more corrupted than any other words and the word is secularism. Even though every party and ‘intellectuals’, journalists talk about it, they don’t have a clue about it whatsoever.

There is an immense need today to define secularism than ever because of its rampant misuse. Just an example: If you see the political parties most of them call themselves secular and almost all unequivocally maintain BJP as a communal party. In fact, there is no party which is absolutely secular in this nation. BJP tries to woo the majority vote bank. The rest of the parties try to woo the minorities eyeing on their vote bank and shamelessly call themselves secular. If BJP is communal then rest of the parties are communal too. But they act on the garb of secularism.

If we observe the appeasement policy of the political parties and the 'secular' media, we clearly can infer they will woo only the majority among the minorities but not the real minorities. That is to say, if there is a conflict between the Sikhs and the Muslims, you can be sure that they take the side of Muslims even though Sikhs are the real minorities compared to the Muslims. The real minorities in India are Parsees, Jains, Buddhists. But the media portrays Muslims and Christians as the only two minorities. Politicians don't have any problems with that because there is where their vote bank lies.

Secularism in the real sense should mean there should not be any kinds of discrimination whatsoever based on caste, religion and sex. But does the situation in India echo this fundamental characteristic of secularism? The answer is no. There is obvious deviation from the real secularist principles. Or to put it in a better way, India was never a secular republic in the real sense like say the U.S. In the U.S, it doesn’t matter what religion, race, or sex the person belongs to, he would have equal opportunity in all the spheres. Competence and ability are the only criteria for ascendance in any fields. Unfortunately, secularism exists just as a word in India. Or to say it in a better way, secularism is just a circumlocution of minorityism. When media claims it has championed secularism, you can be sure that it has championed minorityism.

K.M. Munshi had warned about this over fifty years ago:

"If, however, the misuse of this word 'secularism' continues ... if, every time there is an inter-communal conflict, the majority is blamed regardless of the merits of the question... the springs of traditional tolerance will dry up. While the majority exercises patience and tolerance, the minorities should adjust themselves to the majority. Otherwise the future is uncertain and an explosion cannot be avoided."

If you see the recent trends and happening in the country Munshi’s words appear prophetic. The latest example is the communal violence bill that the government is mooting to pass. According to the bill, when any communal violence occurs, no matter who instigated it, the majority will always be the culprit. If the bill is passed, it will surely have disastrous consequences in the long run. Though, most of the times majority has exercised tolerance, it can’t be expected till perpetuity when their own existence is at stake.

Discrimination is rampant in India based on the religion and caste. Somehow, the appeasement of religious minorities has become official principle of most of the political parties. The trend has reached dangerous levels where people are ready to compromise on national security just to appease some section of society. If the same trend continues, the doomsday for India is not far away. Someone had put it well “In a democratic polity the power rests with the majority with due protection of the minority interests. But in India this principle has been turned on its head by rampant minorityism. The wishes and feelings of majority can be trampled underfoot and ignored with impunity in the secure knowledge that the minority vote banks will deliver power to the ones who most stridently champion their cause. The majority because of division in its ranks can do little but wring its hands in dismay”.

About the caste politics: It is impossible to do politics in India for people who don’t understand caste equations. It has percolated at all levels of governance. The nation clearly discriminates people based on caste. None would have counted the kinds of reservation that exists in this country. India is perhaps the only nation where many group of people wants desperately to remain backward. There is a huge competition to remain backwards. Some expedient politicos like Mayawati and the likes have made caste, religion based reservation their trump cards.

Now nowhere existing saffron terror is imminent

In one of the press conferences the then home minister Chidambaram said that the saffron terror was more dangerous than any forms of terror. There was one incidence then in Malegaon (in which some Hindus were accused of an act of terror) which prompted him to give such ludicrous remark. One can be sure that even thousand such incidences by the Islamist terrorists would not have prompted the ‘secular’ person like him to talk about the green terror which was more global than any kinds of terror.

Rahul Gandhi who is a novice in some fundamentals of administration and has got to the place not by any competence but by pure nepotism was reported voicing the same opinion of that of Chidambaram (Wikileaks reports). If someone asked both these ‘intelligent’ people to explain the statement made, they wouldn’t surely be having any answers. It was obviously done to appease some section of people and also to satiate the hunger of the ‘secular’ media of India which was waiting for this.

When Malegoan blasts happened, when it was said that for the very first time an act of terrorism happened for Hindutva ideology (at least it was reported so), it really made some sections of people extremely happy. It made many pseudo-secular politicians, ‘sickular’ media, ‘intellectuals’ very happy. The reason is simple. Most of the terrorist acts in India happened for two ideologies: Either Islamic or Marxist. So, whenever people talked about the Islamic fundamentalism the ‘great’ media resorted to same old set of rhetoric ‘Terrorism has no religion’, ‘Terrorism has more socio-politico-economic causes than religions ones’ and the likes. But now they’d found a new defense in the form of Hindutva terror (though the case is still in the court). The alacrity that they showed in this case, had they showed for the right causes, they would have brought some awareness among people and done something good for the nation. The same people who said ‘terrorism has no religion’ did not shy away attributing this lone case to ‘saffron’ and thus to Hindutva ideology. This is a clear display of double standards and nothing short of intellectual prostitution. Most of these media are the brothels in which the person who has paid (in some form) gets the chance to screw whatever he wants. The thing that always gets screwed is the truth.

Now Hindus (those who are not deluded by some tacky ideology) are beginning to understand that no leader or political parties can protect their interests. Their great nation, culture are under attack from within and without. Series of (global) conspiracies are in line for them. They are on their own and can rely on none. They are being killed like animals by Islamic religious fanatics or by Marxist ideological fanatics. Their tolerance is being seen as a weakness, not as a virtue. It is plain insanity to clamor for tolerance when their very existence is at stake. The great Sikh guru Gobind Singhji said it rightly “When all means of redressing a wrong have failed, it is both just and righteous to unsheathe the sword”!!

My Books Review: November '11

1) Notes from the underground – This is the work of Russian writer, philosopher Fyodor Dostoevsky. This is like a confession and rationalization made by the person about the past. When a person examines one’s life and if he is honest enough in examination he would find many feelings, deeds considered to be amoral been done. But it requires courage to accept those. Most of the times, we don’t deceive others but we deceive ourselves. This is an evaluation of the past and rationalization of some mistakes. The book is divided into two parts: the first part of the book is completely a monologue; the second part of the book is about his interactions with the society. This novel explores various emotions of humans like love, greed, jealousy, wrath, self-hate etc. It is said that Dostoevsky’s character in this novel is one of the greatest anti-heroes ever to be created and this work is perhaps the earliest work about existentialism. 

2) Quite honestly – This is a short novel written by the British author John Mortimer. It is a story of young girl Lucy Purefoy who has the desire of dong something good to the society. She joins the department which tries to reform and relocate the criminals out of the prison and bring them back to normal life. During such assignments, she befriends a criminal named Terry and after sometime she falls in love with the criminal. When asked why he was involved in crimes, Terry replies that he wanted to have the thrill of burglary rather than the money involved. To share the feeling with her love Terry, She plans to steal a very expensive painting along with two more. But while doing so she gets caught and lands up in prison. What happens next forms the later part of the story. 

This is an ordinary novel with ordinary tale, a few twists here & there and an unexpected ending.

A tryst with war movies

In Hollywood, ‘war movies’ is a genre in itself. Having seen many genres like sci-fi, romance, comedy, thriller etc I felt that I had not seen much of war movies. So I began watching war movies and for sometime that was almost the only genre I watched. Someone told it right ‘there are no war movies; there are only anti-war movies’. Yes, to a large extent the statement is right. Most of the war movies show the brutalities, causalities of war and hence give the message that war is futile. But there are some movies which see war in a dispassionate angle and don’t conclude in anyway. Usually the later kind of movies became great because they were not trying to make any statements and were just showing the war as it is.

The war movies that I have seen fall broadly into these categories:

1) Based on the two world wars
2) Based on Vietnam war
3) Based on wars fought before the world wars
4) Based on some revolutions or hypothetical wars

The events and the time period of the world war gave fodder for some of the finest war movies ever. So did the Vietnam war which was waged by the US against the popular opinion of the people.

I started watching war movies with the 1930 release All Quiet on the Western Front which is perhaps the earliest movies revolving around the world war. Then it was Stanley Kubrick’s Paths of Glory(1957) which depicted the hostility that existed between Germany and France and how soldiers were made to act against their will and fair judgment. Some more from the category: Lawrence of Arabia(1962), The Bridge on the River Kwai(1957), The Best Years of Our Lives(1946) , Judgment at Nuremberg(1961), Letters from Iwo Jima(2006)

Next to the world war movies, the highest number of movies made about an event is on Vietnam war. The significant movies that are made are Apocalypse Now(1979), Platoon(1986), Full Metal Jacket(1987), The Deer Hunter(1978). Platoon is the movie which is directed by Oliver Stone who had first hand experience of Vietnam war as a marine corp. So that fact makes the movie more authentic. The movie Deer Hunter shows the most dangerous game of the world Russian roulette in great detail. Full Metal Jacket is one more masterpiece of Stanley Kubrick.

Among the war movies that were based on the wars before the world war, the movie 300(2006) which depicted the courage and life of Spartans stands out. Apart from that there are some good movies like Gladiator (2000) and Akira Kurusawa’s Ran (1980) which has the story of Shakespeare’s King Lear. I am yet to watch movies like Troy (2004) and Alexander (2004).

The movie The Battle of Algiers (1966) shows the Algerian struggle for independence from the French. The story is told from a neutral point without taking any sides for the portrayal. That makes the movie special. The Manchurian Candidate (1962) is a suspense thriller in which the concept of brainwashing is shown vividly. It also shows the post war trauma that people face. It is perhaps one of the best war thrillers ever made.

Movies with comic touch:

Many movies use comedy to deliver the intended message. The earliest film which used comedy to deliver the ill effects of war was of Charlie Chaplin’s The Great Dictator (1940) in which Chaplin has parodied Hitler. Don’t know whether Hitler had seen the movie or not! Then a movie about a small & happy Jewish family at the time of world war is Life Is Beautiful (1997). The film has a good mixture of humor and emotional appeal. The movie Full Metal Jacket makes profuse use of comedy. Among all the war comedy movies made, the movie which is considered to be the greatest is Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1962). The movie is considered as a masterpiece of black comedy.

The best I have seen so far:

Schindler's List (1993): This Speilberg’s masterpiece depicts the plight of Jews in the Nazi occupied Poland. The cinematography gives the film a sense of timelessness. This is a classic one. 

Inglourious Basterds(2009): I don’t know how true this story is but it is very interesting. In all the movies the Jews are the victims. For a change, in this movie a small group of Jews called Basterds hunt down Nazis and instill terror in their hearts. This is like paying with the same coin. For that factor, the film becomes dearer. 

Downfall (2004): This German movie depicts the last 10 days of Hitler’s life. The actor who has portrayed Hitler has given complete justice to the role. It is considered as an authenticated account of Hitler’s last days. 

Das Boot (1981) Another German movie which is based on the real event of German submarine which goes to attack the British side. The film gives a brilliant account of navy, wars under the sea. Technically, the film is considered perfect and the best submarine film to ever come. 

Full Metal Jacket (1987): The first part of the movie is full of comedy and is carried superbly by the brilliant acting of R. Lee Ermey. The second half gets serious with war scenes showing the difficulty of fighting in Vietnam, the sniper tactics. The movie is highly engaging and entertaining. 

Saving Private Ryan (1998): One more masterpiece of Spielberg! The depiction of war scenes is so raw and seems real. The first 30 odd minutes of the movie seems like cut and paste from the real war. So realistically it is shot. 

The Pianist (2006): This is one of the movies which doesn’t try to make any statements but gives the account dispassionately. The film is based on real story of Jewish musician Władysław Szpilman . Adrien Broody has acted brilliantly. The movie is directed by Roman Polanski who had had first hand experience of the events. 

The given list of movies is definitely not comprehensive in any way. There are still many good war movies I am yet to watch like black hawk down, good morning Vietnam, born on 4th of July and many more. So, the list goes on becoming long…