Ashutosh Gowariker has made some of the finest Indian movies, the most memorable being Lagaan. His other movies too had great artistic quality, for example Jodha-Akbar though it unduly romanticizes the life of Akbar who, in reality, was a ruthless emperor.
His latest directorial venture – Khelein Hum Jee Jaan Se, is based on a less known venture of Indian freedom fighters – Chittagong uprising. I have to say with some embarrassment that the full extent of this great enterprise by Indian revolutionaries led by Surjyo Sen (played in the movie by Abhishek Bachchan) was not known to me.
As I watched the movie, I was full of strong emotions. Thoughts jostled in my mind one after another. I have to admit that, among other things, the movie forced me to question many of my assumptions about Indian politics and my views about Indian strategic interests. This piece is the first in a series about the issues that the movie forced me to face and an analysis of the issues. I hope that these analyses will enrich the thinking of readers about what modern India is and how we should conduct ourselves with other nations.
Before I begin, I must say that the movie has been labeled “mediocre” in terms of artistic quality. It was described as rather “flat” and un-engaging by most critics. Though my wife and I enjoyed it thoroughly and felt strong emotions, I could concede that it is not a tight narrative and feels more like a glorified documentary made for school children. However, any Indian with patriotic sentiments in him, political types like us, will like it immensely. As an aside, though, another movie, much more “flat”, much less “engaging” and poorly produced and acted in was labeled a “landmark” movie by these same critics. Only because it gave a politically correct message of “humanizing” Pakistanis and Muslims. The name of that movie is “Khuda ke Liye”. Such is the spirit of the times that an insipid production like “Khuda ke Liye” gets a “must watch” rating by Indian critics only because Indian secularists like the message of the movie.
But on to Chittagong uprising now. As I said, I had to confront many issues when I watched the movie. The first one was this – if action by Indian freedom fighters against the British government was justified, then how is the Kashmiri separatist movement unjustified. After all, the emotions we felt as we watched the movie appear very similar to what Kashmiris perhaps feel vis-à-vis India.
We are angered to see the presence of British forces on our soil, taking away our lands at will. So are Kashmiri Muslims angered at Indian army doing the same? We are angered when we see the British establish their domination over us as they act against the revolutionaries – they entered our houses, forcibly carried out “checks” and sometimes even landed a few lathis on our person even when there was no proof against the householder. Kashmiris face the same behavior from Indian forces.
We are outraged to see the British contempt for Indians. They lead a highly refined life in their beautiful and luxurious houses and clubs waited on by a posse of servants and treat Indians like half animals. So are Kashmiris angered to see Indian businessmen and politicians lead better lives and also have domination over them? We hate to see the British torture Indians to extract information about revolutionaries. So do Kashmiris feel the same when reports of tortures by Indian army come out?
Indeed, I was forced to think what precisely is the difference between Kashmiri separatism and Indian freedom movement. The movie will force you to raise that question. Most important, it will put you in the shoes of the Kashmiri separatists.
However, a little thought will reveal that the analogy is fallacious. The similarities between the Indian sentiments and the Kashmiri ones are superficial. The differences are deep.
Imagine a similar movie being made about Kashmiri separatism. If it is an honest movie, it will show the ruthlessness of Indian army and the corruption of Indian politicians and some businessmen. But it also has to show ethnic cleansing of Pundits from the valley. It has to show hateful sermons from the mosques of Srinagar and elsewhere in the valley. It has to show the famous slogans shouted every Friday from mosque loudspeakers: O Pundits, leave the Kashmir valley but leave your women here for us. (This was before Pundits left the valley)
There was no equivalent behavior by Indian revolutionaries towards the British.
A movie on Kashmiri separatism also has to show presence of democracy in Kashmir as also it's special status because of which no Indian from other parts of India can settle there or buy land. People of J&K, largely Muslims, run their own government which also happens to be heavily biased towards the Muslims of Kashmir valley and ignores Hindus and Buddhists in other parts of the state.
Again, there is no equivalent of all this in Indian freedom movement.
In the end, my conclusion in the matter is that a nation- state or a political ideology cannot be judged by what I call “micro level” actions. You cannot condemn an ideology only because its followers occupied certain lands, killed it's opponents, tortured those who fought against it or harassed a community. Every nation state in history (and Muslim states more than other ones!) have done such things. In modern times, Israel has done it, so has USA, so has USSR and China and sure enough, so has India (or for that matter, Pakistan). Political ideologies too do it when they are struggling against established states. Apart from Islamist movements in Kashmir, Chechnya and Palestine, both leftist and rightist movements in Latin America and Africa have done similar things.
No, nation states and political ideologies have to be judged based on their ultimate aim. We have to consider what kind of societies they have established or seek to create. Will it be more just, more equitable or will it institutionalize grave injustices as so many have done in the past. Those considerations are more important when you take sides in a political struggle between two ideologies.
Indian freedom struggle was a noble and great enterprise. People who were not career politicians seeking more power, but members of a civil society, suffered torture, abuse and death in order to end the British rule. They were not driven by a desire to establish the supremacy of one community over another. They wanted to build an India in which all were equal.
All Indian freedom fighters first repudiated caste and gender based discrimination before they started their struggle. The British, on the other hand, were fighting for the supremacy of their race. They had institutionalized a government that was overtly racist. They were not willing to treat Indians at par with “Europeans” in the eyes of law. And they wanted this iniquitous arrangement to be permanent.
When we come to Kashmiri separatism, we find the situation quite the opposite. Kashmiri separatists are not fighting for a just and equitable society. They want to institutionalize Shariah law that establishes supremacy of Islam and Muslims over non- Muslims. In a Kashmir of separatists' dreams, non-Muslims can live only as dhimmis without equal political power. I have myself seen both Geelani and Mirwaiz Farooq say this openly on Indian media. Kashmiri separatists don't want freedom for Kashmiri Muslims. Muslims already have all the freedoms that modern societies offer. They are incensed that non-Muslims too have equal freedom. They want to end that – the equality between Muslims and non-Muslims in the eyes of the law. It cannot be done within Indian constitution, hence the desire to separate from India.
I wrote this because there are bound to be those who will draw parallel between Chittagong uprising and stone-pelters of Srinagar. For a while, I too was forced to ask what the real difference is between the two. India has upper hand in this conflict not because our methods are any different from the British – they are not. We are able to prevail because of the difference between the ultimate aim that we are pursuing and the one that separatists desire. I hope those leading the fight on Indian side never forget this.
His latest directorial venture – Khelein Hum Jee Jaan Se, is based on a less known venture of Indian freedom fighters – Chittagong uprising. I have to say with some embarrassment that the full extent of this great enterprise by Indian revolutionaries led by Surjyo Sen (played in the movie by Abhishek Bachchan) was not known to me.
As I watched the movie, I was full of strong emotions. Thoughts jostled in my mind one after another. I have to admit that, among other things, the movie forced me to question many of my assumptions about Indian politics and my views about Indian strategic interests. This piece is the first in a series about the issues that the movie forced me to face and an analysis of the issues. I hope that these analyses will enrich the thinking of readers about what modern India is and how we should conduct ourselves with other nations.
Before I begin, I must say that the movie has been labeled “mediocre” in terms of artistic quality. It was described as rather “flat” and un-engaging by most critics. Though my wife and I enjoyed it thoroughly and felt strong emotions, I could concede that it is not a tight narrative and feels more like a glorified documentary made for school children. However, any Indian with patriotic sentiments in him, political types like us, will like it immensely. As an aside, though, another movie, much more “flat”, much less “engaging” and poorly produced and acted in was labeled a “landmark” movie by these same critics. Only because it gave a politically correct message of “humanizing” Pakistanis and Muslims. The name of that movie is “Khuda ke Liye”. Such is the spirit of the times that an insipid production like “Khuda ke Liye” gets a “must watch” rating by Indian critics only because Indian secularists like the message of the movie.
But on to Chittagong uprising now. As I said, I had to confront many issues when I watched the movie. The first one was this – if action by Indian freedom fighters against the British government was justified, then how is the Kashmiri separatist movement unjustified. After all, the emotions we felt as we watched the movie appear very similar to what Kashmiris perhaps feel vis-à-vis India.
We are angered to see the presence of British forces on our soil, taking away our lands at will. So are Kashmiri Muslims angered at Indian army doing the same? We are angered when we see the British establish their domination over us as they act against the revolutionaries – they entered our houses, forcibly carried out “checks” and sometimes even landed a few lathis on our person even when there was no proof against the householder. Kashmiris face the same behavior from Indian forces.
We are outraged to see the British contempt for Indians. They lead a highly refined life in their beautiful and luxurious houses and clubs waited on by a posse of servants and treat Indians like half animals. So are Kashmiris angered to see Indian businessmen and politicians lead better lives and also have domination over them? We hate to see the British torture Indians to extract information about revolutionaries. So do Kashmiris feel the same when reports of tortures by Indian army come out?
Indeed, I was forced to think what precisely is the difference between Kashmiri separatism and Indian freedom movement. The movie will force you to raise that question. Most important, it will put you in the shoes of the Kashmiri separatists.
However, a little thought will reveal that the analogy is fallacious. The similarities between the Indian sentiments and the Kashmiri ones are superficial. The differences are deep.
Imagine a similar movie being made about Kashmiri separatism. If it is an honest movie, it will show the ruthlessness of Indian army and the corruption of Indian politicians and some businessmen. But it also has to show ethnic cleansing of Pundits from the valley. It has to show hateful sermons from the mosques of Srinagar and elsewhere in the valley. It has to show the famous slogans shouted every Friday from mosque loudspeakers: O Pundits, leave the Kashmir valley but leave your women here for us. (This was before Pundits left the valley)
There was no equivalent behavior by Indian revolutionaries towards the British.
A movie on Kashmiri separatism also has to show presence of democracy in Kashmir as also it's special status because of which no Indian from other parts of India can settle there or buy land. People of J&K, largely Muslims, run their own government which also happens to be heavily biased towards the Muslims of Kashmir valley and ignores Hindus and Buddhists in other parts of the state.
Again, there is no equivalent of all this in Indian freedom movement.
In the end, my conclusion in the matter is that a nation- state or a political ideology cannot be judged by what I call “micro level” actions. You cannot condemn an ideology only because its followers occupied certain lands, killed it's opponents, tortured those who fought against it or harassed a community. Every nation state in history (and Muslim states more than other ones!) have done such things. In modern times, Israel has done it, so has USA, so has USSR and China and sure enough, so has India (or for that matter, Pakistan). Political ideologies too do it when they are struggling against established states. Apart from Islamist movements in Kashmir, Chechnya and Palestine, both leftist and rightist movements in Latin America and Africa have done similar things.
No, nation states and political ideologies have to be judged based on their ultimate aim. We have to consider what kind of societies they have established or seek to create. Will it be more just, more equitable or will it institutionalize grave injustices as so many have done in the past. Those considerations are more important when you take sides in a political struggle between two ideologies.
Indian freedom struggle was a noble and great enterprise. People who were not career politicians seeking more power, but members of a civil society, suffered torture, abuse and death in order to end the British rule. They were not driven by a desire to establish the supremacy of one community over another. They wanted to build an India in which all were equal.
All Indian freedom fighters first repudiated caste and gender based discrimination before they started their struggle. The British, on the other hand, were fighting for the supremacy of their race. They had institutionalized a government that was overtly racist. They were not willing to treat Indians at par with “Europeans” in the eyes of law. And they wanted this iniquitous arrangement to be permanent.
When we come to Kashmiri separatism, we find the situation quite the opposite. Kashmiri separatists are not fighting for a just and equitable society. They want to institutionalize Shariah law that establishes supremacy of Islam and Muslims over non- Muslims. In a Kashmir of separatists' dreams, non-Muslims can live only as dhimmis without equal political power. I have myself seen both Geelani and Mirwaiz Farooq say this openly on Indian media. Kashmiri separatists don't want freedom for Kashmiri Muslims. Muslims already have all the freedoms that modern societies offer. They are incensed that non-Muslims too have equal freedom. They want to end that – the equality between Muslims and non-Muslims in the eyes of the law. It cannot be done within Indian constitution, hence the desire to separate from India.
I wrote this because there are bound to be those who will draw parallel between Chittagong uprising and stone-pelters of Srinagar. For a while, I too was forced to ask what the real difference is between the two. India has upper hand in this conflict not because our methods are any different from the British – they are not. We are able to prevail because of the difference between the ultimate aim that we are pursuing and the one that separatists desire. I hope those leading the fight on Indian side never forget this.
Great piece. Take a bow.
ReplyDeleteThanks !
ReplyDelete