My verdict on 'Rajneeti'

These are my personal views. You may or may not endorse them. If you don't see eye to eye with me, let's just agree to disagree. As an avid cinegoer, I have never blindly lapped up everything Bollywood has dished out. Besides, I am not swayed easily by the hype and hoopla generated by a well-oiled PR machine filmmakers have at their disposal these days, which often predisposes impressionable minds towards accepting and applauding their efforts on celluloid. Prakash Jha's 'Rajneeti' failed to impress me. I would not put it in the same league as 'Rang De Basanti' or 'Black' or '3 Idiots' or even 'Taare Zameen Par'. I thought it was a pretty average film.

I would like to qualify my criticism, however, by highlighting some obvious plusses. Prakash Jha is a reasonably good filmmaker. Along with Madhur Bhandarkar, Jha is perhaps the only other filmmaker in Bollywood in this day and age who has successfully bridged the gap between "art" and "commercial" cinema. Nobody in Bollywood is better at making films on current realities as these two men are. And, I am a fan of both of them. Furthermore, nobody is better qualified, in my opinion, to make a film like 'Rajneeti' than Jha is. Having been in active politics and even contested an election in his native Bihar, Jha has the benefit of an insider's view of electoral politics in the hinterland of India.

Coming back to 'Rajneeti', there was nothing original about the story. Jha tried to create a heady mix of elements drawn from the Mahabharata and The Godfather with incidents thrown in from the lives of individuals belonging to India's first political family. Thanks to a taut script, the first half, I thought, was much more engaging. The second half, though, didn't work for me. It became quite a drag. Parts of it were exaggerated and unrealistic. For instance, prominent politicians firing gunshots at each other, openly and in broad daylight, during the climax was stretching things a bit too far. 'Rajneeti' reinforces stereotypes pertaining to Indian politics and politicians in the public psyche. Any young man or woman who harbours political ambitions is bound to encounter stiff resistance from his family if they are to base their judgement of the Indian political scenario on films like 'Rajneeti'. 

As far as perfomances were concerned, the only individual who shone for me was Manoj Bajpai. Nana Patekar was too subdued for my liking. Perhaps the script did not offer him much scope to display any of his usual histrionics. Ajay Devgan—a Jha favourite—had bagged a crucial role, but couldn't make the most of it as he came up with an altogether uninspiring performance. Perhaps a younger actor may have been a better choice to play the part Naseeruddin Shah was made to play, who looked half-embarrassed getting wet in the rain and getting cosy with a girl half his age, not to mention impregnating her in a single sexual encounter, when he clearly seems to be past his prime!

The suave Arjun Rampal looked a thorough misfit playing a second-rung, regional politician mouthing dialogues that sounded too laboured for comfort. As for Ranbir Kapoor, his was a complex, multi-layered role that should have gone to a more mature and intense actor—someone cast in the Aamir mould. To play a self-styled, mafia don-like politician who also happens to be a doctoral research student abroad was not an easy task. In my opinion, Ranbir did not suit the part. He is better off playing light-hearted roles like the ones he played in 'Bachna Ae Haseeno' or 'Rocket Singh—Salesman of the Year' at this stage in his career.

Ranbir's dialogue delivery in English was flat and devoid of expression. Perhaps, Jha should have roped in someone like Sabira Merchant or Shernaz Patel to help him hone his dialogue delivery skills in English. Shahid Kapoor spent quite some time with an ENT specialist before shooting for 'Kameeney' to understand how and why a man stutters. Ranbir also looked distinctly uncomfortable in intimate scenes and even his liplocks seemed like coy pecks of an adolescent on his first date. Perhaps, he should watch his dad smooch aunty Dimple in 'Sagar'. Some have predicted that Ranbir will be the next superstar, the next "number one" after Shah Rukh. But, that is what they all said about Vivek Oberoi, Hritik Roshan and even Shahid Kapoor. In any case, even if he gets there some day—and I wish him luck—he may become the biggest star like SRK is today, but perhaps Shahid will still be the better actor, much like Aamir is today. Let's see. Time will tell...     

The emasculating effect of ahimsa (Part 9)

I am not anti-ahimsa per se. Non-violence as a way of life adhered to by an individual is creditable and praiseworthy. I have no quarrels with it. If individuals embrace the creed of ahimsa and practice it faithfully, society as a whole will automatically become more peaceful. After all, social change cannot be brought about successfully without changing the individual. When the individual undergoes an inner transformation, his perspectives, attitudes and conduct change. It is this individual metamorphosis that triggers social ferment leading to progress. That is how civilizations have marched on. That is how cultures have evolved and become more refined.

However, the state cannot afford to embrace ahimsa as its policy. It must be prepared to act decisively and wield the stick whenever and wherever required. It must not shirk from its underlying responsibility to activate its own coercive mechanisms to maintain law and order within its own frontiers. Or, for that matter, mobilise its armed forces to counter external aggression to safeguard its own vital interests. And sometimes, offence is the best form of defence. The state cannot afford to cushion its resolve in idealistic notions of ahimsa that paralyse it into inaction. Unfortunately, that is precisely how India seems to have become. It has degenerated into a soft state with weak and indecisive leaders. Countries that are inimical to India’s interests like Pakistan have exploited this to the hilt and got away with it. They know very well that no matter what they do India will not cause them any harm.

India will make the usual noises. There will be a sudden chill in diplomatic relations. India will suspend all dialogue on contentious issues—its so-called “composite” dialogue. It will try to mobilise world opinion against Pakistan. It will just go into a sulk. That is all. Finally, after some time, there will be a thaw in relations once again. It seems like an old soap opera playing itself out for the umpteenth time. Sadly, the Indian populace, its viewers, have still not got bored of it. So, why blame the establishment? Why blame our leadership? And, why blame Pakistan if they refer to us as “banyaon ka mulk” and have the temerity to ask, “woh hamara kya ukhad lenge?” If we continue being as docile as we are as a nation ever since our independence, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Pakistanis finally start referring to us as “hijron ka mulk”!

*** Concluded

The emasculating effect of ahimsa (Part 8)

Allow me to quote the inimitable and irrepressible Meghnad Desai. He has commented on the way the Indian authorities dealt with Union Carbide and the callous and conniving manner in which the government of the day allowed Warren Anderson to get away scot-free.

This is what he has stated in his weekly column that was published in The Indian Express on Sunday, 20 June, 2010.

"Just compare this superior Indian way of conducting our affairs with the way in which the US President Barak Obama is conducting his campaign against BP where only a dozen or so people have died. We believe in ahimsa and we follow Gandhiji's teachings. We don't abuse our guests even if they have caused severe environmental damage and caused the death of 15,000 people. BP has to create a fund to compensate Americans who have suffered economic damage due to the oil spill. BP CEO Tony Hayward had to appear before Congressional Committees and even face some harsh words from the President. But, that's not our way. No harsh words, no parliamentary investigation. We are not like the US. We are a Secular, Socialist, Democratic, Republic." Telling comment! Actually, many more than that number perished. 

Any way, I agree with the point Megnad Desai has made. Secular, socialist, democratic, republic? Yes. And, the common thread that runs through them all... You guessed it! Gandhian ahimsa. This philosophy of Bapu has permeated every area of Indian statehood. India's secularism, its socialism, its democracy and the very fabric of its republic. Is it any surprise that we have become a soft state? Is it any surprise that those who plot and scheme the dismemberment and destruction of India and everything that this country stands for in Pakistan, have no real fear of possible reprisal in their hearts? Is it any surprise that China should claim an entire Indian state (Arunachal Pradesh) as its own territory and object to even the Indian prime minister's visit to that state?

Looking inwards, is it any surprise that Kashmiris burn the Indian flag and get away with it? Is it any surprise that the naxals control vast swathes of Indian territory with impunity and cock a snook at the Indian state? Is it any surprise that the common man on the street has lost faith in the ability of the Indian state to act decisively in matters that count, in matters that by default presuppose courage? Is it any surprise that the Pakistanis scoff at us as "banyaon ka mulk" and have the audacity to ask, "woh hamara kya ukhad lenge"? Is it?   

*** to be continued

The emasculating effect of ahimsa (Part 7)

Earlier, Indira Gandhi's father, our very own Chacha Nehru had raised the slogan of "Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai". His guru's ideals of ahimsa and universal brotherhood made him reach out to the Chinese going more than half way to meet them. It was another matter that the Chinese did not harbour any such brotherly affection for us. They stunned Nehru and India by the 1962 war in which they inflicted a humiliating defeat on India. Nehru's idealism derived from Bapu made him incapable of perceiving China as a potential threat given its geo-political ambitions and natural rivalry with India.

Years later, another prime minister displayed similar tendencies. Interestingly, he was not a Congressman. In fact, he was schooled in the strident Hindutva ideology of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh — Atal Behari Vajpayee. Incidentally, when Nehru first heard a fiery young Vajpayee speak in the Lok Sabha, he had predicted that he will become the prime minister of India one day! Vajpayee was seen to be a moderate by people cutting across the political spectrum. Govindacharya even famously referred to him as a "mukhauta", a mask, once when he first came within striking distance of the PM's gaddi. The poor party ideologue had to pay for it politically because he was completely sidelined and shunned after that off-the-cuff remark.

Any way, Vajpayee also displayed the same tendency towards ahimsa that sycophantic Congressman always did. He undertook the famous bus journey to Lahore and hugged a reticent Nawaz Sharif who hardly seemed warm and friendly when he received him. And, what is worse, while all this pappi-jhappi was on, Pakistan's army general, Pervez Musharraf was busy planning the Kargil incursion. In fact, he refused to show up at Lahore along with the air force and navy chiefs saying he did not wish to be seen saluting the prime minister of an enemy nation. Vajpayee, on the other hand, went to town displaying his oratorial skills to the Pakistani elite and making symbolic gestures that had little meaning in real politik after more than 50 years that Pakistan had been in existence.

Not only did the Pakistani army infiltrate into Kargil in Kashmir, but later, during Vajpayee's tenure as the PM of India, Pakistani terrorists even attacked the Indian parliament. And, what happened as a consequence? What did India do? Did it make Pakistan pay for it? Did it put the fear of the devil in the hearts of its leaders? Beyond all the sabre-rattling and an unprecedented military buildup alongside the border adjoining Pakistan, what did India do? It turned out to be just another bark. There was no bite in it! Pakistan did not feel any pain. They got away scot-free, yet again. Is it any wonder they refer to India as "Banyaon ka mulk"? Does it surprise you that they have the cheek to ask, "Woh hamara kya ukhad lenge"?

*** to be continued
  

The emasculating effect of ahimsa (Part 6)

Our very own "Iron Lady", whom even her political rival, Atal Behari Vajpayee, famously referred to as, "Durga Ma", after the Bangladesh war, had another chance during her 17-year (overall) stint as the prime minister of India. It was rumoured in the corridors of power then in New Delhi that Israel had once sent a secret emissary to India with an irresistible proposal. This was at the height of the Cold War. Israel proposed to launch a joint air strike with India on the nuclear installations of Pakistan. Yes, that's right.

During the Cold War, Pakistan was an ally of the United States, and India enjoyed the unstinted support of the erstwhile USSR. However, Israel was the most important ally of the US and meant much more to the Americans than Pakistan did. Pakistan had its own strategic significance to the US as the bulwark against the spread of Communism and Soviet imperial expansionism. And, when the Soviets took control of Afghanistan and installed their own puppet, President Najibullah, in that high office, Pakistan became a very important ally. In fact, that was when the US started pumping in sophisticated military hardware and millions of dollars into Pakistan.

They claimed it was meant to wage war against Communism for them. It is another matter that all the military and economic aid Pakistan received from the US was invariably used against India. If Mrs. Gandhi really cared about the strategic long-term interests of India, Israel's secret offer would have been more than welcome to her. If India would have undertaken a joint air strike along with Israel on the nuclear installations of Pakistan, the US would have remained neutral since Israel was involved, and the USSR was on India's side any way. Just imagine the opportunity we lost.

It would have pegged back Pakistan's nuclear programme by decades. That country would not have been able to build its nuclear arsenal to present-day levels, totally nullifying India's edge over it in conventional weapons. However, Indira Gandhi turned down the offer without even considering it. She had been blowing the trumpet of India's non-violence before the world all along. She had been strutting across the global stage to reinforce a carefully-crafted image of herself as a responsible world leader. There was no way she was going to undo all that. Good old values of Gandhian ahimsa were at play yet again. India was packaged and presented to the big wide world as the country of Bapu that had won its freedom by non-violent methods.

It was almost as if the onus was on India, then as it is now, to remain non-violent at all times, even in the face of serious provocation. After all, the reputation of the "father of our nation" seemed to be at stake. How could we bring a bad name to Gandhiji who taught us ahimsa? Is it any wonder that the Pakistanis think of us as "banyaon ka mulk"? Is it any wonder that they have the temerity to ask, "woh hamara kya ukhad lenge"?

*** to be continued  

The emasculating effect of ahimsa (Part 5)

It is this Gandhian ahimsa that has influenced state policy in India ever since it gained independence from British rule. When the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir had still not acceeded to either India or Pakistan, Jinnah tried to annex it militarily. Pakistani army regulars dressed as tribesmen raided Kashmir and were knocking on the doors of Srinagar after having captured one-third of the state. When Hari Singh, the king of Jammu and Kashmir, signed the Instrument of Accession with India and merged his state with the Indian Union, Nehru sent the Indian army into Kashmir. But, what the army did was prevent Pakistan from capturing all of Jammu and Kashmir. It did not retrieve from Pakistan what that country had already gained control over by stealth and brute force.

The Indian army was ready to take back Pakistan occupied Kashmir there and then, but Nehru refused them permission. He wanted to flaunt his democratic credentials before the watching world. He did not have the stomach for war. His thinking was clouded by his guru's ahimsa. Nehru's daughter, the Iron Lady of India, the one who was conferred with the Bharat Ratna after the Bangladesh war was not much different, tactically. During the Bangladesh war, when East Pakistan became a separate, sovereign nation, Bangladesh, the Indian army had captured large portions of West Pakistani territory.

After the war ended and India had inflicted a humiliating defeat on Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto flew down to Simla to meet Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. He came as the vanquished leader of an enemy country. He had no bargaining chip up his sleeve. Yet, he proved a better negotiator than Mrs. Gandhi. When she asked him to choose between the thousands of Pakistani prisoners of war that India had captured on the one hand and Pakistani territory under Indian control on the other, he chose territory. He knew India would treat the prisoners of war well. Ultimately, it would become a human rights issue. International human rights watchdog agencies would pressurise India into releasing the POWs. And, that is exactly what happened, eventually. 

Indira Gandhi could have demanded Pakistan occupied Kashmir as a quid pro quo for Pakistani territory captured by India. She didn't. The wily Bhutto convinced her that anything remotely close to such a prospect would amount to a sellout to India, and he would not have been able to justify it to his own people back home. Our own "iron lady" appeared nervous during the negotiations and relented. She opted for the easy way out. What was at work here? You guessed it. It was good old ahimsa of our beloved Bapu. Is it any surprise that the Pakistanis think of us as "banyaon ka mulk" and defiantly ask, "woh hamara kya ukhad lenge"? I would be surprised, if you are surprised!

*** to be continued 

The emasculating effect of ahimsa (Part 4)

Bapu was much influenced by Jain philosophy and the life of Jesus Christ who was the ultimate pacifist. Much of Gandhi's ascetic ways, including celibacy, could be traced back to Jain doctrines. His pacifism was a refection of Christ's teaching who insisted on turning the other cheek. It had nothing to do with Hinduism even though Bapu always invoked Hindu symbols and spoke of establishing "Ram rajya". At best, it only meant an ideal state. It had nothing to do with the Hindu way of life as such.

Oddly enough, it is the use of such expressions that made the elitist Jinnah, who was an agnostic at the time, become suspicious of Bapu. Pakistani historians have always claimed Bapu wanted to establish a Hindu rashtra and their "Quaid-e-azam" Mohammed Ali Jinnah created Pakistan as a safe haven for the Musalmans of the Indian subcontinent. Jinnah who was once the President of the Indian National Congress withdrew from this pan-India political outfit to head the blatantly sectarian Muslim League, which ultimately divided British India. "I detest the man's methods", Jinnah had said about Bapu's satyagraha. 

Gandhi is still considered the tallest leader of our freedom struggle. There were so many great men and women who struggled all their lives to liberate India from British rule. Many of them made the ultimate sacrifice—they paid with their lives. However, Gandhi alone has been accorded the status of "father of the nation". Successive Congress governments at the Centre have spared no effort in perpetuating Bapu's legacy. Even the Indian Rupee carries his picture. The Gandhi topi and khadi kurta-pyjamas have come to be accepted as the uniform of politicians in India.

Unfortunately, Gandhi's ahimsa also got institutionalised along the way. It became an inviolable creed. Is it any wonder that the UPA government headed by the Congress even today has qualms over using force against naxals? Is it any wonder that India has been unable to make a terrorist think twice before entering India? Is it any wonder that those who aid and abet such enemies of the Indian state have no fear of reprisal in their heart? Banyaon ka mulk hai. Woh hamara kya ukhad lenge?

*** to be continued 

The emasculating effect of ahimsa (Part 3)

None other than the Dalai Lama himself said recently, “When dealing with terrorists, with whom we cannot reason, and who are bent upon violence, we cannot continue to be non-violent as a matter of policy”, or something to that effect. This was highlighted publicly by none other than our current Home Minister P. Chidambaram, who said, “It’s a sad conclusion that the Dalai Lama had drawn, but the right conclusion”. Wonder if the destruction of the historic Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan not-so-long ago by the Taliban in Afghanistan was in his mind when His Holiness made that startling remark.

The question is, is ahimsa synonymous with Indian culture and political philosophy as it has been made out to be ever since Gandhi emerged on the scene? Has ahimsa always been the bedrock of Indian statecraft? Is it our dharma to be avowedly non-violent at all times? Does our karma have to be shaped by this age-old choice? If that is the case, what about Kshatriya dharma? What about the significance of weapons in the life of a Kshatriya? What about ‘raj dharma’, which includes protecting the lives of the subjects of a kingdom or citizens of a nation?

What do our shastras say? What do our epics teach us? What about that celestial song, the Bhagwad Gita? Where does ahimsa fit into its rich and varied tapestry of Indian philosophy at its loftiest? What did Lord Krishna tell Arjuna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra? Did he preach ahimsa to him? Did he forbid him from shedding blood? Did he counsel him to retreat from the arena to a life of contemplation? Did he propose a non-violent solution to what was an intractable problem? No!

Lord Krishna urged Arjuna to be true to his Kshatriya dharma. He asked him to pick up his weapons and fight. He reminded him that nothing was higher than dharma. He cautioned him against emotionalism associated with his clan and kindred. He explained the meaning of life to him and the imperishability of the atman. He soothed his frayed nerves saying that if Arjuna killed even his close relatives on the battlefied in the interests of dharma, it was not wrong, it was not murder. It was "vadh", not "hatya". Interestingly, that is exactly what Nathuram Godse said after he assassinated Bapu!

*** to be continued

The emasculating effect of ahimsa (Part 2)

If Gandhi had resisted Jinnah’s call for the partitioning of India, even if it meant plunging the country into civil war, who knows, India may not have got divided, Pakistan may not have got created. Another great leader of a great nation across the Atlantic, who was no less non-violent in approach and temperament, was faced with the same dilemma centuries ago. But, he chose civil war to the partitioning of his country. If Abraham Lincoln, idealistic though he was, would have allowed himself to be unnerved by the prospect of large-scale loss of life, today there would have been two countries, viz. the United States of America and the Confederate States of America.

Gandhi made a creed of ahimsa. And, like any other creed it could never be called into question. This was not lost on Jinnah and the new state of Pakistan. The emerging establishment had cleverly gauged India’s weakness. Is it any wonder then that a much smaller and less militarily powerful country like Pakistan has dared to wage war against India, not once but four times? Is it any wonder that Pakistan has blatantly supported secessionist movements in India and trained, equipped and infiltrated terrorists into this country?

Baniyaon ka mulk hai! Woh hamara kya ukhad lenge? So what if our tactics did not work in Punjab? So what if we were unable to midwife the birth of Khalistan and avenge Bangladesh? We can merrily continue to meddle in Kashmir. We can claim non-state actors did it, when brainwashed madmen bred on jehadi ideology, but trained by us, are unleashed with AF-47s in hand into the commercial capital of India, to kill as many innocents as they can. Of course we can… and get away with it. We can attack the very Parliament of India, the symbol of Indian nationhood. And, get away with it. Woh hamara kya ukhad lenge? Aakhir, banyaon ka mulk jo hai!

*** to be continued

The emasculating effect of ahimsa! (Part 1)

"Banyaon ka mulk hai. Woh log hamara kya ukhad lenge?" This is how people in the upper echelons of power in Pakistan speak about India, according to Brajesh Mishra, the former National Security Advisor. He stated this without so much as batting an eyelid on a popular TV show. Lest you wonder why our not-so-friendly neighbours from the north-west have referred to us as 'baniyas', well, the thinly veiled reference, obviously, is to the caste of the father of our nation. 

Bapu has been accorded demi-god status in our country and a pre-eminent position in the pantheon of Indian leaders. So, the automatic implication and extension of this nationalistic metaphor is that all Indians are Bapu's children. Hence, we are all Baniyas. No, this is no laughing matter. You would miss the point completely if you think the Pakistanis were scoffing at Bapu's caste and grafting it on to the rest of the Indian populace, Manu and his social stratification notwithstanding. If that had really been the case, we could comfortably have dismissed it as a rank bad joke of an inebriated mind somewhere in the secretive cocktail circuit of Pakistan.

The implications, sadly, of this comment are deeper and far more telling. They reflect a Pakistani conviction based on dealing with the Indian state ever since independence, not to speak of the baggage of partition they continue to carry. In fact, it goes way back. It goes all the way back to Bapu himself. Gandhi made a creed out of ahimsa, around which he wove his entire political philosophy. Indian historians sympathetic to the Indian National Congress, and its leadership and politics, have harped on the non-violent nature of our national movement. They display selective amnesia, though, when they underplay the communal carnage that engulfed the subcontinent, triggering a mass exodus of populations, which was unparalled in human history.    

Gandhi's ahimsa seemed to have failed. His sermonising seemed to have fallen on deaf ears of blood-thirsty rioters on a rampage of rape and pillage. Thousands of innocent men, women and children—Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs—lost their lives or livelihood, uprooted as they were from their soil, alienated from their home. When Jinnah threatened civil war if India was not partitioned, Bapu developed cold feet. His ahimsa prevented him from accepting Jinnah's open challenge to wage war. In the end, what went on for days and weeks was nothing short of civil war, any way. What is worse, we had already paid the price of partition.

*** to be continued