Remembering Jallianwala Bagh massacre...

Sardar Udham (Hindi; 2021)
Director: Shoojit Sircar

One always wonders how a cult started by a group of semi-literate fishermen at the fringe of the Roman Empire by the Sea of Galilee could eventually grow up to impress the whole of the Empire, including its rulers. This rebel's rhetorics soon triggered justified wars and legitimised usurping of lands to claim their hegemony. The belief system garnered potential believers because it targeted the oppressed or the persecuted. The marginalised and the dying were given the dignity to exist with others on Earth. In return, the converts were willing to trade in their lives (or, in their words, sell their soul) for the religion. Yes, martyrdom played an essential role in recruiting more new members. 

As India goes on a spree to rewrite its national history, more and more heroes of yesteryears come to the fore. Sardar Udham Singh (@ Sher Singh @ Ram Mohammad Singh Azad) is one such example. He had been conferred the title Shaheed-i-Azam Sardar Udham Singh, the great martyr, after Indian Independence to honour him as one of the freedom fighters in India's war of Independence. He is credited for assassinating Michael O'Dwyer, the former Lt Governor of Punjab who gave orders to Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer to open fire on a crowd of 20,000 inside Jallianwala Bagh, an enclosed park, in 1919. These people congregated in an enclosed garden near the Golden Temple in Amritsar to celebrate Vaisakhi, at the same time, to express their protest against the British colonial masters for arresting Congress Party's satyagraha proponents, Satya Pal and Saifuddin Kitchlew. The congregants were accused of violating the law, which banned any assembly of more than four people.

Udham Singh

Udham Singh from an orphanage, himself a late teenager, was witness to the brutal assault at Jallianwala Bagh. Deeply traumatised by the whole event, he joined the movements of the masses to oust mighty Britain from their country. He, a member of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Movement, made it his life mission to assassinate the perpetrators of the killings at Jallianwala Bagh. The army shot at the unarmed civilians not to warn them but on a mission to kill. They hit till their enormous cache of bullets ran out.

Udham Singh was running away from the British Imperial Police all his life. He crept out of India, through Germany and Russia and finally sneaked into England. His revolutionary activities were influenced by Bhagat Singh and the Gaddarites, the overseas Indians who supported India's quest for self-rule. 

21 years after the incident at Jallianwala Bagh, Udham Singh shot Michael O'Dwyer in cold blood after he delivered a lecture in London. This film gives a rundown account of this whole saga, spending a lot of time on the aftermath of the shooting and death at Jallianwala Bagh.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

A balancing act!

The Crown (Miniseries, S1-S4; 2016-present)
Netflix

I had been resisting the urge to immerse myself into another miniseries for so long. But, no thanks to DKLA's persistent persuasion and continually dangling the proverbial carrot that British history was intertwined in its storyline, I caved in. It did not disappoint but instead turned out to be quite an informative and educational one, actually. It is a sort of a history revision for me, of course, from a colonial perspective and the one which puts the British Crown above all.

Throughout the whole series, the Damocles' sword that seems to be hanging over the royalties is the fear that they might be ousted at any time. The idea of a single-family, through lineage, ordained by God to rule over his subjects cannot be swallowed by the common man anymore. The nearest they can get to this by being the leader of the Church. Even then, the Crown members' behaviours were neither Christian-affirming nor exemplary for the subject to emulate.

Their contemporaries the world over, one by one, seems to be shown the exit door, sometimes unceremoniously.  Just look at Prince Philip, who had to be smuggled out of Greece in an orange crate to escape an angry mob. What started as hungry French peasants demanding bread but were given cakes instead slowly led to the brutal killing of Rasputin and the annihilation of the Romanov family. Monarchs in Asia, Africa and the rest of Europe were dropping like flies in the 60s, which added much to their anxiety. The challenge faced by the Windsor castle occupants was just that -  to stay relevant with the times. The idea of the Crown filling the intermediary gap between God and people is laughable when every human being is supposed to be created equal. Why then do royalties earn a special place in society, placed on a pedestal and demanding courtesies, the people ask? 

This thoroughly researched miniseries starts with Philip taking a new surname, Mountbatten, after renouncing his Danish and Greek nationalities. He is related to Admiral Louis Mountbatten, the Viceroy of India. Philip is inducted into British royalty with his marriage to Elizabeth in 1947. 

Prince Philip @ Duke of Edinburgh
had no problem kneeling before his wife.

King George VI's reluctant ascent to the throne in 1936 as the Crown's head and the British Commonwealth came about when his brother, King Edward VIII, thought love was more important than the Crown. He abdicated his throne when the Crown decided that there is no place for a divorcee in the royal household. Edward's beau was an American twice divorced with two living ex-husbands. This situation was deemed inappropriate for a queen consort as the King was the head of the Church of England, and divorce was socially not accepted in Britain at that time. The story often rolls back to Edward and Simpson's back story and their shenanigans from their exclusive chateaux in France. I suppose, with the liberty of creative licence and the need for dramatisation, the scriptwriters have also painted Simpson as a German spy. In reality, the exposè of Marburg files highlighted the cosy relationship between Edward and Hitler. There was an elaborate to reinstate Edward as King after a German victory over Britain.

Every episode brings one or two so-called controversies that rocked the public imaginations in the 60s. In real life, they were mere storms in a teacup. The Queen and her band of minders averted any bad press. During the Profumo affair with a young model who in turn was linked to a Russian naval ataché, Philip is mentioned to be a fellow attendee of their wild parties.

Churchill is portrayed as a farsighted statesman who built a fantastic working relationship with the Queen. Being a politician, his masters are British and the Crown, not the starving peasants in the rest of the world. Even the mighty Churchill is not infallible as bungled up with handling the 1952 Great London Smog. He erroneously attributed inefficiency as an 'act of God'.

  

Talking about Prime Ministers, the idea of having a PM started in the reign of non-English speaking King George I in the early 18th century. After messing up with the South Sea Company, which hails across the Atlantic Ocean delving in a myriad of trades, including slaves, he appointed an astute businessman, Robbert Walpole, to sort out the mess. The job continued as the PM post, and the tradition dictated that he should have a weekly audience with the monarch. Interesting that they were many non-English speaking rulers who ruled Britain. Even as late as 1917, the royal family's surname was 'Saxe-Coburg-Gotha'. Due to anti-German sentiments at that time, the family name was changed to Windsor. Philip's sisters were not on the royal wedding's list as they were Nazi party members.

In the first two seasons with both the Queen and Philip in the prime of their youth, we see the Queen immersing deep into overseeing the 'ruling' of the country whilst Philip absorbed into his role of a royal house husband. His secretive boys' outings at the Thursday Club and long weekend outings portray Philip as a philandering husband. A particular Russian ballerina is mentioned as 'the other' (or rather one of many others) woman. His shenanigans came to light after his 1954 world cruise aboard Royal Yacht Britannia when his best friend Mike's estranged wife got hold of some evidence of their mischief.

A memorable episode is the mining disaster in Aberfan, Wales, which claimed 116 children and 28 adults. The CGI looks so believable. 

Talking about following royal decorum, Queen Elizabeth's sister, Margaret, has been the subject of many embarrassments. Starting off with an affair with a married man at a young age, she had to sacrifice her beau in place of losing her sovereign benefits. A party animal and a sort of person who finds comfort amongst the plebeians, her consort turned out to be one with an illustrious extramarital prowess. As is depicted in this series, Margaret's magnum opus could be how she smoothened UK-US strained relationships after Edward Heath refused to support US entry into Vietnam. 

JFK is portrayed here as an insecure person who is apprehensive of Jackie's popularity. Maybe the Malaysian public did not notice that the series poked fun at the Malayan royalty in the earlier season. The British royal couple were seen showing around Buckingham palace to a Malayan aristocrat who seems to be going on and on about their courts back home. Queen and Philip sat exhaustedly in the next scene, saying, "I thought they will never stop!"

Another remarkable episode is about the Apollo 11 astronauts. Philip, being a licenced pilot, was fascinated with the Apollo mission. He invited Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins to the palace. He thought of getting a philosophical view of the whole expedition and a first-hand account of their heroism.  He was into an existential crisis of sorts. What he saw, instead, were young technicians who were more concerned with protocols, the task at hand, ticking off the checklist and down with flu; not enlightened men with answers about life.

Spitting image?
Iron Lady and Jillian Anderson

The climax of all seasons so far must surely be Margaret Thatcher's role, who was played convincingly by Jillian Anderson in Season 4. Viewers can understand the obstacles that one has to go through to lead a country. For those who hail Thatcher as a feminist, you are wrong. She probably believes in women empowerment and that the fairer sex should grab opportunities that come their way. Her cabinet had no women. When asked about the absence of female representation, she merely replied, "Oh, they are too emotional!"

Politics is not for the faint-hearted. One needs to learn to juggle many roles, wear many hats, listen when needed, and sometimes make unpleasant decisions. 

The screenwriters did not ink Prince Charles in a favourable light. He appears to be a moody, sentimental insecure fool who seems run to Camella Bowles's skirt for assurance that he never got from his mother. His liaison his Mrs Bowles predates his marriage. Conveniently, he blames all his miseries on his absent father. The saga will continue with two more seasons with a switch of casts.

Coming from a country with nine Sultans and a rotating post for a King, the answer to how the Malaysian royalty remained relevant all through the years may lie within this miniseries' storyline. Our royalty is even older than the British Crown if we start counting from the reign of Parameswara of the Malacca Sultanate in 1403. Through feuds, intrusions, pirate attacks, Siamese and Chinese hegemony, colonial invasions, the World Wars, and the post-colonial uprisings, it still commands respect through the years. The British exerted their dominance over the administration, and the Japanese terrorised with their brutality and torture tools, but they came out smelling of roses.

Life, despite the occasional doubt on their relevance, is unthinkable without them to many. Their importance is enshrined in the Rukun Negara (National Principles). Their role as a buffer in the balancing act between politicians may be a testimony of this.

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Filling up the bottomless pit!

The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire (Documentary; 2017)

Director, Producer: Michael Oswald

I always wondered how Britain, after 200 years of ruling over almost half of the globe, survived after losing everything after the Second World War. It is a mystery how they continued their role in being one of the economic powerhouses of the world.

It is no secret that WW2 marked the beginning of setting of the sun over the British Empire. Slowly, one by one, its colonies demanded to be cut off their attachments to the Crown. The coup de grâce must have come after their disastrous 1956 campaign over the nationalisation of the Suez Canal by President Nasser.

The value of the pound-sterling plummeted. Foreign investors withdrew their investments. A special market was created to circumvent the control of the monetary bodies of the UK. Hence was born the London Euro-Dollar market to keep investors' interest in Britain. This was the precursor to the setting up of the spider's web of secrecy jurisdiction in the remote off-shore tax havens. 

These tax havens were mostly British territories like Cayman Island, Virgin Islands, Bermuda and Jersey in the UK. Soon Americans set up their own concerns in the Caribbean with the same midis operandi - funnelling global funds which were obtained clandestinely and laundered into London and other Western markets. The web attracted bankers, lawyers, accountants and the elite of the society. It formed like a secret society that drew in ill-gotten spoils from drugs and corruption the world over to syphon it to finance more than 90% of international loans.

Bankers are a protected species. No law so far has significantly brought down big banks. Bank of England and its affiliates carry out their tasks with impunity. The City of London, it seems, because of 1066 William the Conqueror's failure to capture this town, has its own council and elected its own Lord Mayor. (Cf. Mayor is a political post elected four years once; Lord Mayor of London is an annual apolitical appointment by the Sovereign.) The council is made up of a guild of businessmen, retired high-ranking civil servants and aristocrats who have no qualms using public funds for personal gains. They are also seen making use of public monies for dubious business ventures. They are experts in creating shell companies and concocting creative accounts to cover their trails. Just in case their endeavours go south, the general public can always be used to bail them out. They are, after all, protected by the law. 

Losers of the deal are also the citizens of Africa and other third world countries who are regularly looted by their elites with the help of these financial wizards. CIA is known to finance covert operations via this channel. 

One of the purposes of this offering is to make its viewers aware of the dealings of these big conglomerate. The general public, in turn, must demand greater transparency in their leaders' dealings. The national agreements should not be official secrets but must be assessed by concerned citizens.

https://asok22.wixsite.com/real-lesson 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/riflerangeboy/

Life on fast lane

My Generation (Documentary; 2017)


This documentary is mainly about the rise and demise of the British Invasion generation. It was the time after World War 2. Euphoria was everywhere. Clement Attlee and his Labour Party gave a shot in the arm for the working class people. NHS made medical services accessible to the average Joe. Education became free. The divide between the aristocrat and the common man soon became blurred. The class demarcation became a thing of the past. Everyone has the opportunity to prosper. Clothing became democratised. The normal sombre tone of the garments became strikingly loud and short. Dressing-up was no longer to cover the bare essentials and to keep warm but became a statement of anti-establishment.

As it became to generations to come, the generation before thought that the society was heading to a path of decadence and Armageddon was nay.

Music became an annoyance to the elders. Rock and roll music could not be contained by the powers that be. The youngsters, creative as they were, even got around the legal wrangle by transmitting them from a boat as Radio Caroline.

The popular music and their new-age gurus dictated what fashion is and what is haute couture. The introduction of contraceptive pills to the general public further empowered the younger generation and especially the girls, to come out of the cocoon of being treated as second-class citizens. The young ones dictated what they wanted and were not going to take the orders of the oldies lying down.

With music appreciation also came recreational drugs. This, in essence, can be said to be the cause of the downfall of the 60s generation. Addiction, overdose and death brought this flamboyant age to its self-destruction.

https://asok22.wixsite.com/real-lesson 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Just another exchange of vows!

https://scroll.in/article/879633/hidden-under-meghan-markles-givenchy-veil-was-britains-bid-to-hide-its-bloody-colonial-history

COLONIAL HISTORY

Embroidered into Meghan Markle’s veil was Britain’s bid to celebrate its bloody colonial history

The bride’s dress is being praised for its floral motifs of the 53 Commonwealth countries. But colonialism destroyed the lives of India’s weavers.

Danny Lawson / AFP

May 20, 2018 · 12:01 pm
Aparna Kapadia

Meghan Markle wore a beautifully simple, ivory silk dress at her wedding to Britain’s Prince Harry on Saturday morning. The royal wedding has been a global media event though of not much relevance even to the British crown. After all, Harry is the sixth in the line of succession to the throne. And given the pressing world news from just the past week – the killing of dozens of Palestinians in Gaza, North Korea’s threat of withdrawing from nuclear talks – a celebration of the monarchy, of a country barely able to keep itself together, appears strikingly overwrought.

Markle’s wedding dress was created by Clare Waight Keller, a British woman and the first female designer of Givenchy. The garment’s most dazzling feature is its 16.5-foot silk tulle veil that has been hand-embroidered with flora representing the 53 countries of the Commonwealth. The media was all praise for the dress as a sartorial choice that represents a break from tradition. The New York Times’s fashion critic raved that it “placed the woman proudly front center and underscored Ms. Markle’s own independence”. The simplicity of the dress was also widely praised for upholding feminist values rather than those of a fairy-tale princess.

Missing in the commentary was what seems to be an obvious point – the arrogant representation of 53 Commonwealth countries is a celebration of colonial rule. Another reminder, if one was needed, that the true reckoning of the unfortunate history of colonialism in Britain is far away. It is important to restate what that was – a violent period of centuries when the hapless Commonwealth, nearly 25% of the world, suffered under an extractive alien power’s rule.

A conscious choice

Markle’s dress was not a designer’s fanciful faux-pas but a conscious choice. The BBC reports that the bride suggested the design because the Commonwealth will be an essential part of her and Prince Harry’s official work after they are married. Clearly, the sad truth of Britain’s imperial history eludes the Prince and the new Princess. The media too, especially British media, abets this glossing over. And this matters, as recently as 2014, a YouGov survey, for instance, found that most people in Britain still think the British Empire is more something to be proud of (59%) rather than ashamed of (19%).

To add insult to injury, the dress is being celebrated as a hand-crafted work, the creation of a local designer. If one just looked at India, the largest of the Commonwealth countries, of the many British-era atrocities, none were more consequential and impoverishing than the destruction of the local handloom and textiles of India. In the early days of the British East India Company’s trade with the subcontinent in the 1600s, chintz, the hand-printed and natural-dyed fabric with floral designs, was the rage in Europe; first as decorative household furnishings and later for fashionable garments. Known as palampores in Britain, these fabrics and other fine Indian textiles gained so much popularity that a parliamentary act was passed prohibiting their sales.

From this time, until India’s Independence in 1947, the Indian artisan and weaver’s livelihood and skills were systematically destroyed. It was no accident then that Gandhi chose the charkha, the Indian weavers’ basic cotton-spinning tool, as the symbol of India’s struggle for independence.

Markle’s British-designer dress and its veil with the hand-embroidered flora of the 53 Commonwealth countries overshadows this dark past. It should not surprise us, given the new age of denialism, that the royal family and the British media thought nothing of reclaiming the bloody history of colonialism as a point of celebration.

Aparna Kapadia is a historian of South Asia at Williams College in the US.

 https://asok22.wixsite.com/real-lesson 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.