Another old profession - gossiping!

Civil War (2024)

Director: Alex Garland

The world thought the USA's second Civil War was about to start when Donald Trump lost his second term in office. The Capital Building ambush by Trump's far-right supporters on 6th January 2021 was forever enshrined as the biggest desecration of the American democracy.

In this movie version, it is sometime in the future when America is in a civil war. America is divided into areas controlled by regional militias and other extreme factions. The President is re-elected for a third term, and people are unhappy. There is mayhem in the country. Local vigilantes have taken control of most areas. In essence, it is like a war zone.

Amidst this chaos, two photojournalists have to travel by road across the country to Washington, DC, to interview the President. The film is about their experience of seeing America in a civil war.

I was intrigued by the special privileges and status that journalists hold when they carry out their jobs in high-risk areas. The Geneva Convention has determined that they should be protected. Journalists have the right to report things as they see, as they are supposedly giving firsthand accounts of events. They are given special privileges to attend events deemed of public interest. Journalists are also protected from having to reveal the source of their information.

As the world awakens from its long slumber, the question is whether the journalists' accounts of events are indeed the undeniable 'truth'? If schooling taught us anything, it told us that History lessons taught to us are testimonies written by victors. We are often fed with contradictory news in the immediate past and the present. It is expected to get many versions of what is happening in Ukraine, such as who is winning and who has more casualties. In the Israel-Hamas conflict, every journalist from either side paints a different picture of the situation on the ground.

Previously, the CCP insisted that Urghur Camps in Xin Jiang were reeducation centres, whilst many opposers of China insisted they were nothing like internment camps of dissidents.

Another thing that keeps cropping up is fake photos of victims in war-torn zones. It is often mentioned that many of the so-called 'victims' were paid actors who kept on appearing again and again at various disaster sites. An Afghani girl with amber-hued irises who emerged during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan was seen resurfacing during the Syrian civil war. Then, the tale of the walking corpse. I guess journalism had lost its professionalism and integrity.

          

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

It's one country!

Article 370 (Hindi; 2024)

Director, Screenplay: Aditya Suhas Jambhale

In some circles, the mention of abrogating Article 370 is a bad word. In their mind, it denotes a loss of independence, dignity, and rights. As complicated as this issue is, it gets more convoluted as time passes, and politicians with personal agendas get intertwined in the imbroglio.

The story of Kashmir goes back to the time of Indian Independence. It is all about religion and whether it should be acceded to India or Pakistan. When Great Britain wanted to give India independence, Kashmir, being a princely state, i.e. run by royalty, was given the option of joining India or Pakistan. The ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharajah Hari Singh, wanted to stay alone. The problem is the ruler was a Hindu in a predominantly Muslim population. The local popular political parties closely associated with Jinnah's Muslim League were adamant about joining Pakistan.

What happened afterwards depends on who tells the story, Indians or Pakistanis. The Indian version is that Pakistani vigilantes, dressed as tribesmen, moved into Kashmir and started commotion. The Pakistanis say the Kashmiri Hindus brought in RSS members and Hindus from the rest of India to tip the Hindu-Muslim balance. Gandhi squarely blamed the Maharajah for mishandling the communal riots that ensued later.

Hari Singh then sought military assistance from India. As per the wish of the majority, as the upheaval was seen solely as Pakistani Army's doing, he signed off the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India. He abdicated to Bombay after appointing a Governor and a Prime Minister.

The skirmishes between India and Pakistan continued until they engaged in a full-scale war. Even though Kashmir was theirs for control, in his wisdom, Nehru thought that the United Nations should be involved. The UN called for a ceasefire, drew the line of control and divided Kashmir between India and Pakistan in about 2 to 1 ratio.

In 1965, the countries went to war again over Kashmir. This time, Pakistan thought it could stir the sentiments of the Muslims to riot against India. It was called Operation Gibraltar. It again ended in a stalemate after the US and the Soviets appeared as peacemakers, making them sign the Tashkent Declaration.

The fact that Pakistan named the operation Gibraltar is indicative of its vision. As in Islamic history, where the Iberian peninsula was attacked by Muslim invaders from Gibraltar, Pakistanis perceive the whole of Kashmir as legitimately Islamic land that cannot slip away to infidels. That is the bottom line.

Fast forward fifty years later, the country still has not resolved its internal issues. The 1990s saw further deterioration of inter-religious relationships, resulting in massive persecution and exodus of its Hindu population.

From an Indian lens, they see Kashmir as a prodigal child. Even though it is technically Kashmir is part of India, it seems to have special status. It has its own flag. Article 370 was a temporary measure enactment to give autonomy before it got on its feet.

With the passage of time, political wrangling, and internal law manipulation, the article became an entitlement. The ruling class and their lackey seem hellbent on maintaining the status quo, as the BJP saw when it was campaigning to form the Government in 2014.

Modi, could be AI generated!

This film centres around the time when the Government of the day went around trying to repeal the temporary Article 370 to get Kashmir to be under Presidential rule with cloak and dagger method in a cat-and-mouse chase to hoodwink the internal cabal that wants to keep the status quo. The Kashmiri leadership are comfortable with the previous arrangement as it kept them in power and enriched their cronies. 

The film, criticised by many who do not favour the current Government, is said to portray a very right-winged look Hindu look at the whole scenario. It is suggested that the movie is a propaganda piece for the upcoming Indian general election. The film suggests that the Kashmiri leadership is colluding with India's enemy, Pakistan, to uproot the state out of the Union. The battleground is tattered with religious ideology. And money (lots of it) is a lubricant. The ending suggests that things are better in Kashmir after the abrogation. Peace is noticable. Tourism is picking up, and so is hoped, the economy.

The friction has been going on for so long that each person looks at the other as if they are from a different country. This is observed in one of the dialogues, 'It is not about us and them. We are one country!'

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

In war, everyone loses!

Ugetsu Monogatari (Japanese, 雨月物語, Rain-Moon Tales; 1953)
Director: Kenji Mizoguchi

Geopolitical strategists will want us to believe that war is a necessary evil the human race must endure to advance. For a nation, a race or whatever name we give to a group of people with the same thinking to survive, they must engage in combat to stay relevant. Failing which, their ideology will have to change to suit the aspirations of the victors.

Again and again, we see wars are started by great powers to create business. The whole military-industrial complex thrives on it. Citizens sleep well, knowing their neighbours will not overpower them anytime soon. Leaders think they are serving the nation excellently by marching into wars. They purposely overlook the pain, destruction, sorrow and inner demons that it brings out to devastate humanity. Families are torn apart. Food production is disrupted. Peace of mind is broken into pieces. Social mores are shredded. Human values take a backseat.

This is one of the movies that put Japanese cinema on the world map. And it is also one of Martin Scorsese's favourite films. Kenji Mizoguchi holds a special place in Japan, comparable to legendary moviemaker Akira Kurosawa.

This film is set in the Samurai era (1568-1600) when civil war was spreading all over. Genjūrō, a potter, and his brother-in-law, Tōbei, lead a simple life. Genjūrō is all out to make profits with his blossoming business. Tōbei dreams of being a samurai. As hostility is imminent, Genjūrō's wife posters him to leave the village, but Genjūrō goes off anyway to make one last sale before leaving. He goes off with his Tōbei to town. It proved to be a big mistake.

Genjūrō's wife is stabbed by soldiers. Genjūrō is charmed by a ghost and almost marries her. In the confusion of the civil war, Tōbei became a samurai by presenting a severed head of a general as his killing when he merely stole it from a warrior. Tōbei is feted as a samurai and goes places only to find his wife working in a brothel. They return home to lead their old life. Genjūrō returns home to find his wife and son. The following day he realises it was just his wife's apparition.

In the wise words of Lao Tze, everybody loses in a war, especially the common man. The tranquillity and growth achieved all the peaceful years go down the drain, and a reset button is started, littered with tragedy, death, destruction and disappointments.

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

Law is maintained only as long as it is respected.

I always wondered what is it that maintains order in our lives. What ensures total silence in the cinema when the movie is starting? What is it that assures that the viewers in an art gallery do not go around touching their exhibits with their dirty stubby fingers? What forces a patient to pay at a clinic after a consultation and the customer settle his bill after enjoying (or hating) his meal? They can jolly well just scoot off, now that their mission is accomplished. 

Well, it can happen with the occasional client who refuses to pay, but that is not the norm. Perhaps he is dissatisfied with the service or just because he can. Rather than creating a scene and draw unwanted publicity, the service provider would probably write it off as miscellaneous loss of doing business. To the rest, they know the long arm of the law would get them. They know that as the majority support orderly running of life transactions, they would not garner support against a sea of law-abiding supporters no matter how justified the lawbreaker can be with his wrongdoings. 

The balance will be tipped when the majority starts distrusting the institutions that maintain law and order. Anarchy prevails when the majority begins disrespecting the law. Law must be just and seen to be fair. Public perception is all to it. People hold law enforcement to high esteem not because they are scared of the law, they simply respect too much. 

Ask the British East India Company and the British Empire. They would tell you how a puny force managed to overpower and bring down a nation of many millions over - too much respect given to authority.

Roberto Schmidt/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

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

Should I stay or should I go now?

For Sama (Arabic: من أجل سما‎ ‘min ajl sama‘)
(Syrian Documentary; 2019)

Recently I read of a young mother with her 4-month old infant participating in a civil objection against CAA and NRC at Shaheen Bhag in Southern Delhi. Soon after being in Delhi for a couple of days, the child fell ill and succumbed to pneumonia at the protest grounds. The mother said in a TV interview that she was not saddened by the demise. In fact, she felt proud that her son gave his life for the future of the country. Deep inside, she must be feeling like 'Mother India'. Given another chance, she would do it all over again.

Now, would you call that bad parenting or patriotism?

This is the same question the maker of the documentary 'For Sama' seems to be asking. Waad Al-Kateab, who started filming her life experiences as a university student in Aleppo, realised that her country, Syria, was slowly plunging into civil war. She started getting involved with students' resistance front against Bashar Al-Assad. As from 2011, as the violence by ruling regime against civilians escalated, she had to make a decision whether to stay and fight a good fight or escape the country. She opted to stay back. She soon met a similar-minded doctor Hamza, who made his personal mission to remain to treat the victims of the unrest. Waad continued filming her day-to-day events and sent it to Channel 4 of the BBC for broadcast.

Aleppo: Before and After Bombing pics
©boredpanda.com

Hamza and Waad decided to tie the knot despite the constant bombardment and destruction around them. All through her filming, she kept asking herself whether what she was doing was correct. The uncertainty became more acute as her daughter, Sama, for whom this documentary is dedicated, was born. She often wondered if she was ruining her daughter's future or depriving her of opportunities for a brighter future by her (Waad's) inactions.

All through the presentation, viewers are served with dead bodies, death and rubbles of what used to be buildings. Hamza, who ran make-shift hospitals with necessary facilities to treat victims, was bombed by Assad's and Russian bombers.

Finally, in 2015, Hamza, Sama and a pregnant Waad made a dash to Turkey as refugees. They eventually settled in the UK but has plans to return to Syria once normality returns.

When the comfort zone is rocked, what should one do? Should he run away from the offending agent or stand his ground and fight for his place that his ancestors had set foot, developed and attached their root deeply into the ground? Is it easier to maintain the peace and look elsewhere peace of mind? Anyway, discrimination, inequality and injustice are there all over the world. Deep inside, we are all entirely self-centred. Should we just mind our business, give a damn about others but just care for our loved ones?

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

Malaya: Early Story

To win the mind and heart of the people...

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

Can't live on goodwill and sunshine!

The execution of 38 Sioux Indians by the U.S. Authorities at Mankato, Minnesota. December 26th, 1862.

Heard about another forgotten wars of the bygone era. The state of Minnesota saw, in 1862, amidst the American Civil War, one of the biggest brutalities against the Native Americans. Mass hanging of 38 troublemaker Indians took place under the ambit of the law signed by decree of the President of the USA then, Abraham Lincoln. The story of Dakota Indians is the same story of any marginalised and economically deprived group anywhere in the world.

The tribe of Dakota Indians occupied a large portion of land in the Midwest region of North America. The vast land base was necessary for their way of life; being hunters and wanderers. The whites from the East were expanding to the West. The sure way to get them to gain possession of the land, they thought, was to get the Indians to surrender was the legal way. Through lopsided deals, the white traders sold many unnecessary things to them. After getting all in debt, unable to service the loan, the white traders demanded, as per their signed agreements, their fertile land.
The Dakota Indians realised that they had been taken for a ride and retaliated. The powers that be, the ruling officials, painted a contrasting view of what was actually happening on the ground level. One thing led to another, and before they knew it, the US-Dakota War of 1862 came about.

Through the white-man appointment kangaroo courts, the Dakota chiefs and innocent commoners were hanged. The Dakota Indians who fought against the US government were effectively placed in concentration camps called reservations. So, in the end, they were displaced, and their residence overran and taken over.

Is it just me or does the whole imbroglio not smell a bit like what is happening or had happened in Malaysia? Land used to be for everybody's use. God provided, we as human toiled and reap its benefit. In the 20th century with the New World Order and new global economic structure, things changed. Every plot of land in every country was nationalised and carved out to belong to somebody. The wise ones who were in the know of the law of the day seized their chances. New lands in Malaya were opened and sold for a song. The ignorant fools stayed aloof. They smelled rat everywhere and prayed for God to shower His miracle. They thought they could live on a prayer.

Fast forward sixty years later, and they find that the ignorant find themselves pushed to the fringes. They suddenly find out that the lands that they were occupying never belonged to them. Its new owners have all the documents to prove their ownership, but the occupiers had none. The owners had the long arm of the law to behind them whilst the occupiers had nothing, but goodwill and oral deals which were probably made in the spirit of the moment under the intoxicating effects of social lubricants. They probably realised it a little too late. Verbal promises and hearsays do not hold. The leaders must have the foresight to protect the community from being run over. Still, water must run deep.

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/

No fake news!

Credit: pbs.org

We were told in our history lessons that the American Civil War stemmed from the noble intentions of the Union States to end slavery in North America whilst the Southern States opposed as they were of an agrarian society of which cotton and sugar plantations were labour intensive. Well, that is just part of the story. As in any back story to an event in history, there is always money involved.

The Southern States traded cotton to Europe and the rest of the world. They got their other supplies from Europe and the Northern States. The South found imports from Europe to be cheaper than from their counterparts in the North. To protect the local industries, the Union, mostly comprising the Northern states, started imposing a levy on the European imports.

This incurred the wrath of Europe who stopped purchasing American cotton. The South felt bullied. Resentment was brewing.

Meanwhile, in the European continent, the French, the British and the Germans were apprehensive of a stable booming economy in the other side of the Atlantic. After defeating the Spanish and sending their armada packing from the Caribbean, the Americans decreed the Monroe doctrine which dictated that any attack on Northern or Southern American continent by a foreign force would be considered as an invasion on American soil and the Americans would retaliate. This kept their enemies at bay. The enemies thought a divided America would make their task easier. Hence, the wounded foreign powers had all the reasons to instigate hatred between brothers.

In fact, during the Civil War, the French conquered Mexico to put up a puppet leader in Maximilian, who had a cordial relationship with the Confederate States. At that time too, the British tried to checkmate the Americans by placing troops in Canada. Russia, who had a bone to pick with the French-German-British alliance for attempting to break some Balkan and Scandinavian states away from the Tsar kingdom, placed their battleships in America to threaten the potential invaders.

Lincoln, who was no sympathiser of the African slaves' course and had superiority feeling of the white race over the coloured, just wanted to stop slavery and send them all back to Africa. The problem is that the Southerners had invested a lot of money into acquiring slaves. Losing them immediately would be disastrous. The slave owners actually planned to make slaves freemen over time. Making them free would mean that they were paid for their work. Slaves were getting lazy already.

Credit: mycivilwar.com

The threat of the Southern states to leave the Union was the reason the Americans went to war.

War was good for business, especially for the bankers. Financiers from the European continent moved in to support both sides of the Marcus-Dixon line. From then, money dictated the progression of the course of the war. Many new monetary policies were devised to finance the war. Fiat money was printed and legitimised by legislation. National banking system and war bonds were sold to fund the war. The losing party is the general public. They lost their life earnings. Northerners who demonstrated and opposed the war were shot and killed by the Union soldiers. Imagine, shooting your own people to save slaves!

Lincoln made enemies on both sides of the divide; the Southerners for losing, the Northerner businessmen who wanted to make a more significant killing from the South. It seems that John Wilkes Booth was a member of an organisation that wanted to take over America to establish a military government!