[This is an article I have been itching to write ever since I first saw this film]..
This is the Wikipedia version of the story of Sohrab
Modi’s famous 1939 film “Pukar”: “Set at the court of the harsh Mughal
Emperor Jehangir (Chandra Mohan), the film tells two separate love stories: the
first of Mangal Singh (Ali) and Kanwar (Sheela) amid the violent feud raging
between their families, and the second, the famous one of Jehangir and Nurjehan
(Banu). Mangal kills the brother and father of his lover. His father, the loyal
Rajput chieftain Sangram Singh (Modi), captures his son and Jehangir passes the
death sentence. Jehangir's claim that the law knows no class distinction is put
on the test when a washerwoman (Akhtar) accuses Queen Nurjehan of having inadvertently
killed her husband during a hunt. Jehangir offers his own life but the
washerwoman magnanimously forgives him.”
Is there one single iota of truth
in this description of the story of this film, either in respect of the
contours of the plot or of the depiction of the different characters in the
film? Does this film really show Jehangir as a person who passes the alleged
test of his claim that the law knows no class distinction? Does this film show
justice being done? Or does it give the most gross, blatant and brazen
depiction of the insolence of the rich and powerful who twist and turn laws to
their personal advantage, who use the poor and helpless as pawns to achieve
their own ends in the most callous and ruthless ways possible, and then add
insult to injury by contemptuously expecting those exploited poor to be
cringingly grateful for having been exploited and crushed?
It may be noted at the outset
that it can be nobody’s claim that the events depicted in the film actually
took place at all or took place in the manner depicted in the film, much less
that the dialogues in the film are historical records of the exact words spoken
by the historical characters concerned. Therefore, no indictment of the story
of this film, or the characters in this film, can be taken as an actual
indictment of the historical Jehangir or of Sangram Singh (if, indeed, such a
person existed at all, and is not a creation of this film). But it certainly is
a very strong indictment of Sohrab Modi’s sense of ethics and of his intellect,
and I would say even of his sanity, if it is true that he intended this film to
show Jehangir’s Justice or Justice in general. Or was this film a
tongue-in-cheek attempt by Sohrab Modi to show Jehangir and the Rajput
chieftains of the period as cold-blooded tyrants and shameless hypocrites?
An analysis will require a
detailed (and to many readers, a long and boring) narration of the story of the
film. This will be followed by a short expression of my own views on the larger
issues behind the kind of warped mentality demonstrated by such perverted
concepts of "Justice" and Virtue:
I. "Justice" in the
Film "Pukar".
II. Virtuousness as depicted in
Indian family TV serials and family films.
I.
"Justice" in the Film "Pukar"
A. Prelude:
The film starts with the sound of
bells ringing loudly. A washerwoman (Rani), a central character in the
film, is heard telling someone: "There is a chain at the royal gates.
The Emperor has made arrangements that when anybody in the kingdom suffers
injustice, they go and pull the chain and the bells ring. The Emperor Jehangir
himself (appears at his balcony) and hears the complaint and dispenses Justice
there and then. No distinction is made between tiger and goat when dispensing
Justice. Rarely does a subject of this kingdom require to pull the bell!"
Jehangir comes out on the
balcony on hearing the bells ring. The petitioner is holding the dead body of a
person. The accused (who killed the dead person) also stands beside him, apart
from a crowd of common people. On hearing the complaint, the Emperor declares:
"Whoever kills a subject of my kingdom insults my kingdom's honor. The
only punishment for this crime is the death sentence prescribed by our Law".
The accused begs for mercy and
cites the bleak future of his children if he is executed. His wife pleads that
her husband is not at fault: he is a boatman, and the death occurs as an
accident when the boat capsizes at sea. But Jehangir declares: "Even an
accidental death must be attributed to the boatman's mistake. Jaan ke badle
jaan hi Jehangir ka insaaf hai: A life for a life is Jehangir's Justice".
The accused is sentenced to death, and the crowd disperses chanting the praises
of Jehangir.
B. The Main Story:
A group of soldiers are
discussing the romance of Mangal Singh ( an eminent archer, son of the
court chieftain Sangram Singh) and Kanwar (daughter of a rival court
chieftain Uday Singh). The girl's brother Ranjit Singh hears and
is furious, and immediately goes riding off to check and to confront his
sister. Mangal Singh and Kanwar are discussing the family enmity
between their fathers which will act an obstacle to their union. On hearing Ranjit
Singh coming, Mangal Singh rides off, but he is chased by Ranjit
Singh who is immediately followed by Uday Singh as well. Mangal
Singh is forced to fight them against his will and kill both of them in
self-defence. There are no witnesses and Mangal Singh rides home,
injured. He tells his mother about it. His father Sangram Singh hears about it
from his wife, and he tells his son: "Although they died at your hands,
you are not guilty (because you fought in self-defence). I have faith in the
Law. You will not be punished".
Just then there is a knock on the
door. A bleeding Uday Singh, dying but apparently still alive, comes and
asks for Mangal Singh's head. Sangram Singh tells him to approach
the Emperor for Justice, and promises to accept the Emperor's judgment. But
just then, hearing them, Mangal Singh escapes from the back door. Seeing
this, Uday Singh taunts Sangram Singh and goes off (to approach
the Emperor), while Sangram Singh berates his wife for allowing their
son to escape.
Uday Singh rings the
Emperor's bell to ask for Justice for his son's death, but falls dead before he
can tell the Emperor his complaint. The Emperor summons Uday Singh's
daughter Kanwar to uncover the truth, but she denies any knowledge. Just
then, Sangram Singh himself comes forward and reveals that his own son Mangal
Singh killed them, and then escaped because of his wife's (Mangal Singh's
mother's) perfidy.
The Emperor assures Kanwar
that the killer of her father and brother will be brought to Justice, and puts
her (as she is now orphaned) under the care and protection of Sangram Singh.
Mangal Singh meanwhile has
taken refuge (in some far-off place) with his friend Haider Ali. He
sends a messenger to assure his parents that he is well and will go somewhere
far away. He tells the messenger to go to Agra, and give the message to Rani
Dhoban (the washerwoman at the washermen's bay - on the banks of the river
- near his house) who will convey the message home. Rani Dhoban conveys
the message to Sangram Singh. On hearing of his son's whereabouts, Sangram
Singh sets out all the way to Haider Ali's house (two days' journey
away), "arrests" his son and brings him back before he goes even
further, and presents him in the royal court before the Emperor Jehangir
and Empress Nurjehan.
C. Jehangir's Justice 1:
Jehangir asks Mangal
Singh what he has to say in his defence. He relates that he was forced to
kill Ranjit Singh and Uday Singh in self-defence. When Jehangir
asks him why he ran away if he were innocent, he says because he was
apprehensive of Jehangir's rule of "a life for a life".
The Emperor is furious, and goes back to his palace leaving judgement pending.
Sangram Singh seeks
private audience with Jehangir to plead for his son's life.
The following is an almost
verbatim translation of the dialogue between a sycophantic and opportunistic
court chieftain who has "brought his son to justice" only out of confidence
that his special position in the court will secure the exoneration and release
of his son, and an arrogant and smirking Emperor who tauntingly plays with this
sycophant as a cat plays with a mouse:
J: What brings you
here?
SS: Before sentence
is passed, I have come to plead for royal Mercy, in expectation that my plea (pukar)
will not be rejected.
J: Meaning?
SS: I have come to
beg (bhikh mangne) the Emperor for that very lifelong savings of mine
(i.e. my son) that I had brought to be sacrificed at your feet.
J: I see! But
something given in sacrifice is not meant to be asked back, nor to be returned!
SS: I have not come
as Sardar (court chieftain) Sangram Singh, but as a father. Sangram
Singh loved his duty, and so brought his son to Justice. The father loves
his son and has come to plead for his life.
J: If you have come
not as the Sardar Sangram Singh but as a father, then I am also not the
Emperor but only Jehangir. So I have no power over royal Law and
Justice!
SS: Jehangir is
all-powerful! I am not a petitioner come to seek royal Justice but a father
come to seek royal Mercy. I am expecting that royal Justice will heed the voice
of royal Mercy. Oh Annadata (=Provider of Food), you may not command royal
Justice but you can command royal Mercy. Sangram Singh has done his
duty, Justice has done its duty, but Mercy has yet to do its duty!
J: I accept that Sangram
Singh holds his duty dear, and a father holds his son dear, Jehangir
holds Mercy dear and the Emperor holds Justice dear. No-one likes to see harm
done to what is dear to him. How will the Emperor like to see Jehangir's
Mercy shedding the blood of his Justice?
SS: Emperor!!
J: Sangram Singh,
I sympathize with you. But you are asking for something not in my power.
[Now a change of tone]
SS: Many generations
of my family have spent their lives in the service of the (Mughal) Emperors.
Think of their service and unstinting loyalty, and grant my plea!
J: I know many
generations of your family have spent their lives in our service! But you
forget that you have not come as my court chieftain Sangram Singh, and I
am not before you as the Emperor.
SS: Annadata!
Mangal's life is my life! I who have shed drops of my blood in the Imperial
service, placed my neck against a sea of swords, and routed countless enemies
of the Emperor! The bones of my ancestors, who fed the Imperial throne with
their blood, are buried in the ramparts of the royal palace! Their dead bodies
formed the foundation of the Empire! They did their duty against terrible odds,
and remained loyal!
J: (angrily) Sangram
Singh!! Don't cross the limits! Past services cannot be honored by
insulting royal Justice! Justice has been done! These are my final words!
[Sangram Singh goes away
sadly, lamenting to himself].
Jehangir issues a public decree announcing
the death sentence for Mangal Singh, son of Sangram Singh: but
"as the holy month of Ramzan starts the very next day, the execution
will take place two days after the month of Ramzan ends".
Sangram Singh returns home and
reveals what happened. His wife bewails her fate and taunts him for having
proved himself a loyal servant and a brave father: he has no answer.
D. The Machievellian
Strategy:
[Scenes of singing and dancing by
the washermen and washerwomen at the washermen's bay (dhobi ghat)].
Kanwar arrives in her
carriage to meet the Empress Nurjehan to appeal for Mercy for Mangal
Singh.
At the moment, the Empress is on
the terrace of the palace demonstrating her archery skills to her maids by
shooting down a distant branch. She comes down to meet Kanwar and
listens sympathetically to her appeal (which includes the following statement:
"You must be aware that every Hindu lady becomes sati and burns herself
on her husband's funeral pyre. My turn has come now, since I have long accepted
Mangal Singh as my husband"), but expresses her helplessness to
interfere in matters concerning the Emperor's Justice. But after Kanwar
leaves, she sends a maid to summon her husband to speak to him about it anyway.
Just then, a maid comes in and
points out a new target for demonstrating the Empress' archery skills: a bird
on a tree. Nurjehan comes out on the terrace and shoots an arrow, but it
hits Ramu Dhobi on the dhobi ghat, and kills him instantly.
Unaware of this, Nurjehan goes in on being told that the Emperor has
arrived.
Meanwhile, Kanwar,
returning home in her carriage, hears the commotion at the dhobi ghat.,
and on investigating finds out that Ramu Dhobi has been killed by an
arrow which came from the direction of the palace. She remembers the
bow-and-arrow she had seen in Nurjehan's hands, and realizes what has
happened. She gleefully hastens home and tells Sangram Singh to go to
the palace and ask for Justice for Ramu Dhobi. As she tells him: "The
Emperor will never sentence his wife. So he will be compelled to pardon Mangal
Singh as well". Sangram Singh also gleefully races to the dhobi
ghat, and instigates the washermen, and particularly Rani Dhoban
(the now grief-stricken and wailing wife of Ramu Dhobi) to accompany him
to the palace to ask for Justice.
Meanwhile, all unaware of this, Jehangir,
talking to Nurjehan, declines to pardon Mangal Singh, and
playfully declares: "Justice is blind. It doesn't see the criminal's
face when it grabs his neck. Why pardon Mangal Singh just because he is the son
of a loyal chieftain?... If even you put a finger in a snake's mouth, it
will bite you. Don't think that being a queen will save you from the
consequences of Nature. God forbid that you ever have to face Justice, I will
stand by Justice!"
Just then, the bell starts
ringing. Sangram Singh, Rani Dhoban, and a crowd of washermen and
others have arrived to ask for Justice. Sangram Singh instigates the
confused Rani Dhoban with full vigor. The ensuing dialogue verbatim:
SS: Pull (the
bell-rope)! Pull harder!! Today royal Justice will face the test! I accepted
that my forefathers' loyalty should not affect the course of Justice! Let us
see how Justice functions today!.
J: (arriving on the
balcony) Who has come to ask for Justice?
Rani: My husband
has been killed. [But she hesitates to say the name of the accused]
SS: She is afraid
to say the name.
J: Do not fear! You
are standing in the presence of the Law. The Law does not fear even me! To
receive Justice you must name the person (who has killed your husband). You
will get Justice under any circumstance! I will give Justice! Say the
name without fear even if it is I myself!
Rani: The Empress.
J: Fariyadi
(=petitioner)! Are you accusing the Empress of killing your husband? Do you
have proof?
Rani: Yes your
majesty!
J: Produce it!
Rani: (holding it
aloft) The Empress' arrow!
[The Emperor is stunned and
stands silent. Sangram Singh starts taunting the Emperor}
SS: Today there
will be no Judgment! Today the chain of Justice has become tangled. We will
have to wait for an answer to see what happens now!
[The crowd starts calling out to
the Empress for Justice. On being told about this, Nurjehan comes out on
the balcony. When she is told what has happened, she gives them her firm
assurance that Justice will be done under any circumstance.
Then follows a long scene where Nurjehan
confronts Jehangir in his private room and urges him to give Justice to
the petitioner even at the cost of sacrificing his Love for her. This scene is
obviously entirely fictitious, since no-one can have been privy to the private
conversation between the Emperor and Empress in his bedroom, and her subsequent
behavior in court (except for admitting to the crime) does not fit in with such
saintliness. However, it may be accepted as part of the story. Nurjehan
ends her plea with the clinching question: "Do you want me to be cursed
by all the people, and blamed for ever, and accused of destroying your
reputation for Justice?"
Consequently Jehangir asks
for the court to convene the next day, and orders the "arrest" of the
Empress, followed by melodramatic scenes of her (that night) being given the
same food as the other prisoners]
E. Jehangir's Justice 2:
Jehangir convenes a full
court and asks the petitioners and commoners to be present, as also the accused
to be summoned in court. The final classic court scene depicting Jehangir's
Justice with the verbatim dialogues:
J; Rani, is
it your accusation that the Empress has killed your husband with an arrow?
Rani: Yes annadata!
J: Empress, you
have heard the accusation. Do you have any arguments in your defence?
Nurjehan: No, I have no
defence!
J: Do you plead
guilty?
Nurjehan: Yes!
J: The accusation
stands proven beyond a doubt. Listen to the sentence…
[Courtiers interrupt and start a
commotion pleading Mercy}
Courtier: Your
majesty! A life for a life is Jehangir's principle. But this should not
apply to the Empress! If the plaintiff agrees, she can be compensated
financially. Islamic Law allows this!
J: I do not want to
be accused of bending Justice for my own convenience!
Courtier: But all
courtiers here present this plea for Mercy!
J: I refuse to
accept this plea for Mercy! I do not want to be accused of using my power to
turn the Law around. Before the Law, both King and Subject are equal. The Law
will not discriminate! Let no-one interfere with (the process of) Justice!
[Sangram Singh looks
nonplused at this turn of events. But not for long!]
J: (to courtier)
Give a bow and arrow to Rani Dhoban. (to the Empress) Empress! Being the
Empress does not give you the right to play with people's lives for your
entertainment. Law does not give anyone this privilege! Justice is blind. My
judgment is as follows: as you drowned this woman's husband in blood, so also
now this woman will drown your husband in blood! I therefore condemn your
husband to death at the hands of Rani Dhoban!
[Note: this is a new kind of
"Justice"! In the Mangal Singh case, he not only does not tell
Kanwar to kill Mangal Singh's father because Mangal Singh
had killed her father (and brother, in self-defence), but he refuses to accede
to Kanwar's own plea for Mercy in the case. Nor in the earlier case does
he ask the petitioner to kill the boatman's family members because the boatman
had (perhaps through no fault of his) inadvertently caused the death of the
petitioner's family member! But here he now places the onus on Rani Dhoban!
The following intimidating scene follows]
J: Rani!
Shoot the arrow into my chest! A life for a life is Jehangir's code! On
that basis, shed my blood! Drown me in my blood! Grind me in the jaws of my own
Law! Sacrifice me to Justice! Place my corpse at the feet of Justice! Give my
Justice eternal life!
[A terrified Rani
hesitatingly raises the bow and arrow and stands uncertainly]
J: (in an
increasingly louder and louder voice with a pause between each repitition) Obey
my order!! Obey my order!! Obey my order!! Obey my order!! Obey my order!!
[Now starts the most
unbelievable, disgusting and nauseating scene in the whole film. Sangram
Singh, who has instigated her and brought her all the way to the Emperor's
court to ask for Justice, now takes his cue and turns on the terrified woman]
SS: Rani Dhoban!
To avenge your husband's death, you can deprive all the women of the world of
their husbands, but NOT THE EMPRESS! Don't deprive the world of Justice for
your own selfish sake! Renounce this right that the Law has given you!
Sacrifice it! The world will thank you!
J: Sangram Singh,
you are raising your voice against royal Justice and crossing your boundaries!
SS: Forgive me, annadata!
But your life is too precious to all your subjects! The Emperor exists for his
subjects and they have a right to speak!
[Immediately a chorus from the
courtiers and the crowd, asking for Mercy]
A "subject":
Yes, this is not the plea of one person, it is the plea of all the people in
your kingdom!
[A chorus, like the chanting of
the sheep in Orwell's Animal Farm: "Long live our annadata!"
A smirking Sangram Singh steps forward to address Rani Dhoban]
SS: Your husband's
blood has not been shed in vain! Had it not been shed, the world would never
have witnessed this truth, that if Justice can sweep away huts it can sweep
away palaces too! If stones are crushed in the mills of Justice, so are
mountains! If wax melts in the furnace of Justice, so does iron! …, (turning
sycophantically to the Emperor with folded hands) Today Sangram Singh
has also learnt all this!
[Strangely enough, it never seems
to have struck this sycophant that if he had allowed the Emperor to execute his
(Sangram Singh's) own son, the world would have witnessed even more
vividly the truth that if Justice could sweep away the households of poor
boatmen, it could likewise sweep away the households of the Emperor's own
powerful court chieftains!!]
[The Emperor smirks fully and
openly. All is going according to plan!]
Rani: (laying down
her bow and arrow and falling on her knees with folded hands and downcast eyes
and head, as if she is the accused) I renounce my right.
[And now the final humiliation
in the name and game of Justice]
SS: No!! Don't renounce
your right! It will mean that you have done a favor on the Empress by forgiving
her! You will be humiliating and humbling her! Making her bow down her head
before an ordinary subject is a great impertinence on your part! Don't grant a
favor to the Empress! This kind of behavior does not behove you (tumhen
shobha nahin deta)!! Take the price
of blood. That is Justice!
Rani: (on her knees
with folded hands) I accept.
[The crowd starts chanting:
"Long live the Empress! Long live the Emperor!". Sangram
Singh gives a triumphant look all around. The Emperor gives a smirking look
all around and then calls out: "Long live Sardar Sangram Singh!"
Sangram Singh bows to Jehangir, and both exchange smirking looks:
only the wink and the thumbs-up sign are missing].
And so Justice remains enthroned
and indeed becomes immortal!
F. Epilogue:
1. The Empress requests the
Emperor to "celebrate this day" by releasing all prisoners. Jehangir
readily agrees, and all the prisoners pour out of the prisons: Mangal Singh
most prominent among them. To celebrate, and justify, the Empress' exoneration,
all the prisoners - doubtless including hundreds of dangerous convicts,
gangsters and dacoits, murderers and rapists - are let out.
2. Rani Dhoban and her son
are shown gathering up the gold, ornaments and money thrown at them, and even
trying out the ornaments with happy smiles.
3. Kanwar's doli
(wedding palanquin) is carried in a procession along the road. From the
interior of the palanquin we hear Kanwar prattling away: "What a
great man our Emperor is! For his one joy, he gave happiness to the whole
world! The Empress is also a good woman! Rani Dhoban is a very good
washerwoman! And Ramu Dhobi was the best washerman of all!" (because
he sacrificed his useless life so Kanwar could marry Mangal Singh?).
4. The triumphant trio (Sangram
Singh with the bride and groom) enters the palace grounds. The Emperor and
Empress give them their blessings from the balcony. Gold coins are showered in
all directions.
THE END.
II. Virtuousness
as depicted in Indian family TV serials and family films
The extreme injustice
shown in this film is compounded by the fact that it is actually intended that
it should be treated by us as a supreme case of Justice! From the very first time that I saw this
film, in my college days in the late seventies, on Doordarshan, the injustice
depicted in this film literally made my blood boil, and I had always intended
some day to write an article on it. But it is not an isolated issue of one
film. To my mind, this is an indicator of a much larger malaise in India. And I
will take this chance to say a few words on the subject.
There is no doubt that injustice
takes place all over the world as much as it does in India, or, in many places,
even more. But there is a special quality to the kind of attitude towards Truth
and Injustice which is found in present-day Modern India, which to my mind is
the key to understanding the answer to a fundamental question: what is it that
makes Indians so susceptible to self-destructive or inherently perverted ideas
of Truth and Justice, to the extent that Hindu society has been meekly
accepting grossly unjust treatment from all its enemies, while it has always
been ready to be hostile to those who would be their friends and saviors and at
the same time to be grossly unjust towards unfortunate and helpless sections of
its own society. Is it just the fall-out of centuries of political slavery or
is there some kind of invisible indoctrination going on all the time?
In my opinion, the three basic
tenets of any social philosophy, or of any ideology or system of morals or
ethics, should be Truth, Justice and Humanitarianism.
That humanitarianism has no place
in public debate in India is a given. See my blog article "Rapists, Child
Rights, Left and Right": the only persons who have human rights and who
deserve humanitarian consideration and treatment in India, if one is to believe
the "Human Rights" activists, are gangsters and mafiosi, terrorists,
rapists, mass-murderers and the ultra-rich (including not only various
categories of Indians but also foreign missionary organizations and
multinationals) - the more heinous their acts and activities, the more they
become eligible for special human-rights: their victims just simply don't matter
except as incidental fodder. That such a situation can prevail in India is
because of the fundamental perversion of ideas of Truth and Justice.
From the Hindu point of view, the
extent of this perversion can be seen, just to take one example, in the leftist
propaganda on the Ayodhya issue. As I put it in my blog article "Parameters
for the Writing of Indian History": "Just one example of the
omnipotence of this propaganda machine will suffice: the demolition of one
mosque structure in Ayodhya on the 6th of December 1992. This,
probably the first non-Hindu religious structure deliberately demolished by
Hindus in the whole of historical memory in order to make way for a Hindu
temple, is today branded as one of the most atrocious and momentous acts in
human history, easily comparable with the holocaust of Jews in Nazi Germany.
This single demolition followed the 1400-year old long deliberate destruction
and demolition of literally hundreds of thousands of temples all over India and
their replacement by mosques (including in the last seven decades itself,
countless temples in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Kashmir; and including in fact
the very Hindu temple, as the Indian judiciary itself has now confirmed, which
originally stood on the very spot occupied by the mosque-structure demolished
on 6/12/1992), recorded in ruthless and gleeful detail by the Islamic
historians themselves. And yet, this demolition of a single mosque structure
was treated as something more cataclysmic than the explosions in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki: from the day the demolition took place, it has been the subject of
truly countless and endless newspaper headlines, books, articles, speeches,
intellectual discussions, demonstrations and rallies (including maatam
rallies), and endless rhetoric."
I was in New Delhi on the day the
Babri-masjid structure was demolished, for the editing and checking of the
draft of my first book. The next day, the front-page headlines on TV and in the
Delhi newspapers showed maniacally screaming hordes of leftist activists
outside VHP and government buildings, holding placards with slogans like "sharm
se kaho ham Hindu hain" (say with shame we are Hindus)! The same
people who deny, defend, condone or justify the deliberate destruction of
countless lakhs of major Hindu temples by Muslims, and want Muslims to feel
proud to say they are Muslims and Hindus to respect the Islam that sanctions
these acts, still expect Hindus to be eternally ashamed for their
reclamation of one spot, considered by Hindus to be one of their holiest
places, from the occupation of a non-Hindu religious structure which had been
built on the deliberately demolished body of a Hindu temple! The same sense of
perversion is visible in the works of innumerable "academic
scholars", as for example westerners like Audrey Truschke, who strive to
whitewash the thousands of massive, detailedly documented and recorded,
historical crimes of people like Aurangzeb while venting their venom in
castigating a handful of mythically recorded sins of Hindu characters (most of
these sins being recorded in sections regarded by most scholars as
interpolations in the texts concerned).
But the discussion here is not of
"Hindu" issues or leftist venom, it is of general issues of ethics
and morality widely prevalent in the Indian psyche and pertaining to extremely
perverted ideas of Truth and Justice. Just as my blood boiled on seeing Injustice
glorified in Sohrab Modi's film Pukar, my blood always boils with fury
on seeing the endless glorification of Falsehood and Injustice regularly being
indoctrinated into the Indian psyche through films and serials. Pedestrian
though the issue may seem to many, it is nevertheless very important.
India's motto is supposed to be
"Satyameva Jayate" (Truth Always Prevails). I do not
accept the validity of this dictum - what we see around us in this world rarely
if ever shows the prevalence of Truth. I believe in the ideal of "Let
Truth Prevail": Truth is something to strive for, and not to be
expected as a naturally occurring phenomenon. But the motto pushed in Indian
films and serials is "Truth Should Never be Allowed to Prevail".
[By films and serials, I
generally exclude, of course, those of specific genres like crime, horror,
comedy, etc., and even more the ultra-modern varieties featuring political
events, ultra-westernized youth, NRIs and science-fiction themes, and I refer
primarily to social films and serials supposedly catering to the Indian Family
as a whole and supposed to be espousing moral and ethical "family"
values].
It will be noticed that the most consistent
activity of all the "good" people in these films and serials is
telling lies to other "good" people and hiding the truth from them.
In fact, the "good"-er the character, the more determinedly and
firmly and persistently will he or she lie through his or her teeth and hide
things. There are umpteen saintly reasons for telling lies and hiding the
truth, a primary one being that the person (who is being lied to or is having
the truth hidden from him or her) will "feel bad" on finding
out the truth, or will have his or her opinion of someone else (usually a
villain/vamp or dubious character) "spoiled"! That this
results in countless unfortunate and destructive things happening in the lives
of all the "good" people (who are being kept in the dark about things
going on around them, or the true character of people or events) and all kinds
of complicated misunderstandings, problems and troubles, is of no consequence:
Lying is a Supreme Virtue to be promoted as an end in itself!
One very weird and grotesque, and
regular, device by which people, both "good" and "bad", in
these films and serials, can actually "compel" other people,
though only the "good" ones, to tell lies or to hide the truth or
indeed to do or not do whatever is wanted from them, is the "oath": kasam
in (Urduized) Hindi and shapath in Marathi: I don't know what equivalent
words would be used in other Indian languages. I do not think such a concept may
even be known outside India, but in Indian films and serials, it is an extremely
common device. It is natural in any culture to swear to do or to not do
something: "I swear or take oath that I will do this" or
"I swear or take oath that I will not do this", but I
greatly doubt if any other people in the
world can put oaths on other people: "I place an oath on you
that you will do this" or "I place an oath on you that you
will not do this". It starts with "tumhe meri kasam"
and can even go on to "tumhe tumhare maa/bacche/bhai/xyz ki kasam",
and the person so "oathed" is compelled to do or not do
whatever he or she is told! Needless to say, no "good" person ever seems
to think of putting such oaths, or counter-oaths, on the "bad"
people!
[At this rate, wouldn't it be
easy for some resourceful person to catch a billionaire on the street and tell
him: "Give me one crore rupees: tumhe tumhari maa/beti ki kasam"?
A failure to fulfill this "oath" would certainly result in something
bad happening to the billionaire's mother or daughter as the case may be, so
one assumes he would hasten to hand over the one crore rupees!]
But the biggest casualty of all
this compulsive and inveterate lying is the concept of Justice. Actually,
"a person who tolerates Injustice is as guilty as the person committing
it". But in these films and serials, the ultimate demonstration of
saintliness and virtue is encouraging people to behave unjustly. The
"good" person will not only tolerate Injustice with a saintly
smile or a faintly suffering look of acceptance, but will strain every fibre to
see to it that the person committing this Injustice meets with no opposition
from anyone else and in fact is encouraged, if not instigated, to do more and
more and more of the same. Anyone who tries to interfere in support of this
saint will be severely discouraged. This is for example a regular feature in
the ubiquitous Indian saas-bahu serials, where the bahu
(daughter-in-law) meekly, and with a saintlier-than-thou expression on her
face, submits to insults, harassment, spiteful instructions and even physical
abuse from her in-laws. In the rare case, it is the saas (mother-in-law)
who is the saint and tolerates everything from a waspish and vampish
daughter-in-law. The central point is that whoever is facing Injustice must
accept it as his or her fate (maybe as just punishment for sins in a previous
life?) and not only quietly take it, but encourage the tormentors to go on with
it. The supreme virtue of Lying also enters into play when the saint, by lying
through his or her teeth, prevents other good people from coming to the rescue
by hiding from them the fact that anything is wrong. And if they do find out
anyway, then it is time to gently (and if that does not work, more strongly)
discourage, forbid or prevent them from coming to the rescue.
Incidentally, "good"
people not only do not themselves object to Injustice being done to themselves,
and in fact encourage and instigate the perpetrators to keep it up or intensify
the same, but sometimes they are also quite indignant when they see other
good people trying to resist Injustice to themselves instead of continuing to
accepting it with saintly resignation and fortitude. As we are on films and
serials, a typical example of this is a scene from the famous film "Ram
Aur Shyam" (later remade with a female protagonist as "Seeta Aur Geeta").
In the film, Ram has been kept terrorized and under psychological pressure
since childhood, and his vast property is being controlled by his villainous
and sadistic brother-in-law (sister's husband) who regularly whips him whenever
he is in a foul mood. But, unknown to everyone, Ram has suddenly and
accidentally been substituted by his long-lost twin brother Shyam who is anything
but a meek simpleton. When the villain picks up his whip and tries to carry out
the usual routine, he is horrified to find the whip snatched from him and
himself placed at the receiving end. But the noteworthy thing is the behavior
of his wife (the sister of Ram and Shyam): the saintly lady, who is always
shown standing at a safe distance shedding copious tears for her brother when
her husband is doing the whipping, suddenly jumps into the fray and gives a
resounding slap to her brother and saves her husband from further humiliation:
of course, she sobs bitterly out of sorrow for having slapped her brother, but
she achieves her saintly aim nevertheless. The same theme is shown in the
remake "Seeta Aur Geeta", and is even more incredible. In the first
film, the villain is at least the saint's husband. In the second film, the
villain is the brother of the heroine's uncle's wife (!), and the saint who
comes to his rescue is the heroine's own grandmother who is not even related to
the villain! "Saintliness" and "goodness" is above
relationships!
But, to return to the main point,
why is it that tolerating and encouraging and even instigating Injustice on
oneself (and on other "good" people) is so constantly depicted as a
Supreme Virtue and a sign of Saintliness, Virtuousness and Goodness? One can
understand tolerating under strong duress: a person who is helpless and
powerless against strong oppressors and has no-one to help him/her will
naturally be in no position to resist; but when a person tolerates injustice
just out of "saintliness", there is just no excuse and such behavior
is unforgivable and unjustifiable. The English word for such behavior would be
Masochism or Self-flagellation (and Sadism). But perhaps the ostensible Indian
practitioners of this perverted mentality, depicted in the films and serials as
the "good" people, actually have a secret purpose behind this
determination to tolerate, encourage and instigate nasty and unjust behavior in
the "bad" people? Perhaps they believe strongly in the Law of Karma,
and they want the "bad" people to behave as badly as they want and
can, so that they will get the full punishment for it in their next life?
Perhaps they believe in the same logic as the "injured dog" in the
grotesque story in the Uttara Kāṇḍa of the Ramayana?
As per this story in the Valmiki
Ramayana (Uttara Kāṇḍa, chapter 69), a dog, sleeping peacefully on the road has
his head crushed by a nasty brahmin who is frustrated at not having received
any alms throughout the day and vents his frustration on the sleeping dog by flinging
a stone at his head and injuring him fatally. The dying dog crawls to the door
of Rama's palace and wails for justice. On consulting the
"scriptures", Rama's ministers (brahmins themselves) tell him that a
brahmin cannot be punished by law!! Rama then asks the dog himself how he
should punish the brahmin. The dog tells him that the head priest of a very
eminent and respected monastery in Ayodhya has just died and his successor has
not yet been appointed. He suggests that this brahmin be appointed the head
priest. all are stunned and ask the dog how giving him this great and coveted
honor will amount to punishing him. The dog reveals that in his last life he
had been the head of that monastery. He had been an extremely pious and saintly
person. One of his duties had been to extend hospitality to all the brahmins
from all over the land, and from other lands, who visited Ayodhya and stayed in
the monastery. In this also he had been painstakingly meticulous in giving full
and unstinting service to the visiting brahmins. But - doubtless, without
knowing it, and due to circumstances beyond his understanding and control,
there may have been some inevitable shortcomings at various times in satisfying
the visiting brahmins. For those unknown and unintended sins, he was reborn as
a dog in this life. The dog's logic is that this particular brahmin was by nature
a nasty and bad-tempered person, and he would be daily committing sins in his
bad behavior towards visiting brahmins. The Law of Karma would then make him
take birth as a dog for hundreds of lives, and he would get all his just
punishments!!
I personally do not believe in
the Law of Karma - the gross injustice prevailing everywhere in society, where
more often than not the evil flourish and the good and innocent suffer, does
not seem to me to be testifying to the truth of this alleged Law. What is the logic
by which we must assume that the evil person flourishing now is flourishing
because he was extremely good in his last life and the good and innocent person
suffering now is suffering because he was extremely evil in his last life? If
the other person in the last life was so different by nature from the person in
this life, then they are two totally different people. Why should anyone get
the fruits of the good deeds, or suffer the punishments for the evil deeds, of
some totally unknown and totally different person?
One must do good things and not
do bad things simply because that is the only way to make the world we are
living in a better place, and not because there are rewards and punishments in
store for us. The motto should be: "Sarve bhavantu sukhinah, sarve
santu nirāmayāh, sarve bhadrāṇi paśyantu, mā kaścit dukkha bhāgbhavet - om
śhantih śhantih śhantih" ("May all be happy, may all be free
of illnesses, may all see auspicious things, may none suffer; Peace, Peace,
Peace") Even Charvaka, the ancient Indian philosopher who advocated a
full-fledged "nāstika" and materialistic philosophy (denying any
existence after death, believing that existence starts with birth and ends with
death, etc.) and said that the only two aims in life should be to maximize
pleasures and minimize pains was not fully wrong in this. The aim (whether or
not he intended it that way) should not be only to maximize one's own pleasures
and minimize one's own pains, but to maximize pleasures and minimize pains for
everyone around us and for the world in general. Then only will there be real
Justice and Peace.
The above example from the
Ramayana brings up one more very important point: ideas of Truth and Justice
cannot be based on things written in "holy" books and
"scriptures". No God comes to write or dictate books, the writers are
all human beings with their own biases and vested interests. The above story
from the Ramayana, for example, was obviously inserted by some brahmin
interpolator who wanted to stress two principles: 1) A brahmin cannot be punished
by Law. 2) When doing service (sewa) to a brahmin, see to it that there
is not even the smallest shortcoming in it or anything which leaves him less
than fully satisfied, or you will have t pay for this lapse. The point is, Hinduism is the most broad-minded
Philosophy in the world: and/but everything written in the Sanskrit language
long ago, or in a book from any period which is classified as a Hindu text,
does not represent Hinduism. Hinduism is not a Religion of The Book (of any
Book) unlike Christianity and Islam.
[Note added 14/11/2019: I am adding this note to pay tribute to an actress of the Marathi film industry who surprisingly showed sharp awareness of this phenomenon of degrading "saintliness" depicted in our films and serials. It was the period of the Shah Bano case (1984-86). I don't remember the exact date, but the Shiv Sena held a public rally at Nare Park in central Mumbai which was addressed by a range of leaders including the socialist union leader Sharad Rao and the Marathi film actress Asha Kale. Now this particular actress was popular in Marathi films and known for her extremely "sojwal" (i.e. saintly, goody-goody, suffering doormat, weepy) roles. In this rally, Asha Kale addressed the crowd and revealed her extreme repugnance to injustice and to the very saintliness she was compelled to play in films. She pointed out that often when she played these extremely "sojwal" roles, she actually felt very humiliated and depressed at having to depict "saintly" women who encouraged abuse and injustice by tolerating it in a doormat manner, and (or so she claimed) actually shed tears over this after returning home from the day's shoot. I was extremely touched by this rare sensitivity and common sense in a place where I had not expected to see it, and consequently, I have always had a high personal respect for this lady. I wish more people would realize that people who encourage bad behaviour in others and consider it saintliness to do so are greater sinners than the people who indulge in bad behaviour].
No comments:
Post a Comment