A family matter that brought down a government!

Haq (Right, Hindi, 2025)

Director: Suparn Verma

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt36642456/

This story is based on the trial that led to the collapse of a government. It was not the sole reason for the Congress’ defeat; however, it was the nidus for other developments and the subsequent rise of the BJP to power. 

In short, the story is about a Muslim homemaker whose lawyer husband secretly marries a second wife without her consent after 14 years of marriage. She is told to the ‘good wife’ to accept her husband’s new wife. Born to a scholar father, who taught her all the teachings of the Quran, she knows it is improper. She leaves her matrimonial home. Initially, the husband gave a measly amount, but it later stopped. She and her father filed a case at the local courts. 

As the case was in progress, the husband professed the triple talaq to dissolve their marriage with a substantial amount of payment. In the husband's mind, the dissolution of the marriage, with the handing over of a lump sum, absolves him of any responsibility.

What was initially supposed to be a family dispute soon came to be pictured as a threat to the Islamic way of life. It came to be viewed as a conflict with Islamic laws governing marriage and inheritance. In the court's view, monetary support to an aggrieved ex-spouse from her former husband of sufficient means under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) should be available to all Indian citizens, irrespective of religion.

The film ends as a happy tale of perseverance and women's empowerment, with the wife promised increased alimony, but in real life, the case did not end there.

It created a lot of unease among the conservative Muslims. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board viewed the Supreme Court's decision as a threat to their existence in India. They thought these things were agreed upon at Partition and at the inception of India's Constitution.

Two lingering questions were whether triple talaq recited at one single instance is acceptable, and whether the husband's financial responsibility extended beyond the cooling period (iddat).

My years-long interfaith discussions with my dear childhood brothers, AK and FM,  have taught me this. The Prophet preached that one should not make any decisions in a fit of anger. Hence, avoiding triple talaq makes more sense. There must be a cooling period before the third talaq is recited and in the presence of others. There is also the concept of sustenance (nafkah) for their dependent children. 

https://www.bollywoodshaadis.com/articles/do-you-know-the-background-
story-of-haq-starring-emraan-hashmi-and-yami-gautam-68723

That is where the film differs from the actual trial it was supposed to be based on: the 1985 Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano case, a maintenance lawsuit. Shah Bano was 62 when she was divorced, so nafkah for children did not arise. The filmmakers decided to make their heroine 35 years younger with young kids. I guess the story of a grieving postmenopausal divorcee would not sell in India. They also must have incorporated another Supreme Court case (Shayara Bano v. Union of India, 2017), which declared instant triple talaq unconstitutional.

What made the 1985 case interesting is what happened afterwards. Apprehensive about the orthodox Muslim clergy's discontent, the Congress government overturned the decision. It was viewed by the majority as minority appeasement and as indicating that the Rajeev Gandhi government was no longer secular. BJP and other Hindu politicians jumped on the bandwagon to demand the construction of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. The roar of the dissidents grew louder, and together with the lingering Bofors scandal, the Indian Congress Party lost the election for a second time in 1989.

The Shayara Bano case in 2017 declared triple talaq in one sitting to be unconstitutional and ruled it violates the fundamental rights of Muslim women.

In Malaysia, the utterance of talaq outside the confines of the syariah courts is a serious offence. Triple talaq by short messaging service (SMS) is also illegal. The Ulamaks, however, disagree with this. It is said that many Islamic schools of jurisprudence, like the Hanafi, approve of it and consider it valid. It was even accepted by Caliph Umar as a final and irrevocable divorce.

As it stands, triple talaq is illegal in India and most Muslim countries, too. Indian Mulsim women groups are welcoming of the Supreme Court’s judgments about the triple talaq, but not the clerics. 

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

The State has its responsibilities too?

Janaki V vs State of Kerala (J.S.K, Malayalam, 2024)

Written & Directed: Pravin Narayanan

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt23458804/

I heard about this film even before its release. Thanks to the free publicity generated by its legal entanglements, even those least interested in watching the film found themselves eagerly awaiting its launch. Sometimes, one wondered whether these legal disputes were self-inflicted. With so many films being produced in India nowadays, without such spicy elements, some movies might simply go unnoticed. There are only so many hours in a day!

The main issue the complainants had with the film was its title. It was initially called 'Janaki vs State of Kerala'. In the story, the protagonist, Janaki, is raped. Therefore, naming a rape victim after the revered goddess Sita is disgraceful, according to the plaintiff. Janaki is another name for Sita, Lord Rama's consort and an avatar of Goddess Lakshmi. To make matters worse, the officer who helps her navigate an uncooperative police system and formalities is Muslim. The legal expert who carefully examines the facts to prove her innocence is Christian.

The courts considered their plea and chose to insert a 'V' after Janaki, the character's father's name, Vidhyadharan. That move soothed everyone. So simple.

Every Hindu has a name that may be linked to the 330 million gods in Hinduism. How can a person bestow a name without invoking any of the deities?

An IT professional visits her hometown to attend a religious festival. She is sexually assaulted by an unknown individual and cannot remember the incident because she was possibly drugged. When her father tries to report it to the police, he gets caught in a stampede at the station during a separate protest related to another case involving a Bishop. The evidence is inconsistent, suggesting a possible unseen influence from above. Janaki became pregnant, likely as a result of the interaction.

The film highlights a very relevant point. Law and order services are established in the country to protect its citizens. Citizens, through the democratic process, periodically elect their preferred government to maintain peace and order. When the State fails to provide the promised adequate protection to its people, is the Law responsible for addressing or fixing the consequences of their failure? Just as the State endeavours to defend the voiceless and marginalised when they are wronged.

Towards the latter part of the film, when her case finally reaches court, Janaki is already seven months pregnant. The perpetrator is eventually identified. Through her solicitor, she demands that the State of Kerala absolve her of all mental trauma and public humiliation of being an unwed mother, all due to their incompetence. She requests that her fetus be surgically removed and placed under the care of the State from the neonatal stage until the child reaches 18. The courts agreed, which I thought was quite far-fetched. But that is poetic justice for the masses.

P.S. In my twisted mind, I wonder. Just because the rapist turned out to be a lowly loafer who is a nobody, did Janaki demand the termination of the pregnancy? If he had been the son of a millionaire or someone with deep pockets, would she have decided to keep the baby? Just thinking.

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

Not illegal, just skirting the truth.

Illegal (1955)
Director: Lewis Allen

https://www.blu-ray.com/Illegal/331947/

I ended up watching this film after seeing Mariska Hargitay's documentary about her mother, Jayne Mansfield. This must be one of Jayne Mansfield's earlier films, in which she played a minor role.

It is observed that Mansfield's character reflects that of Marilyn Monroe in 'Asphalt Jungle', another noir film. From the beginning, viewers are given an impression of how the law can be so flexible that it can be bent to suit the perspectives of the articulate speaker and a clever lawyer. An innocent man is sentenced to death, only for the actual perpetrator to make a dying declaration. His confession arrived too late, as it could not prevent the execution. Even though everything was done legally, the reality was that an innocent person was dead.

Then, the said lawyer, who had won the case as the prosecuting officer, after going on a drinking binge, defends another man in court illegally when someone boasts that he is a professional boxer and cannot be defeated. The lawyer punches him with rolled-up coins under his clenched hand to make his point.

Lawyers often manipulate the law to serve their own interests. When the mentioned lawyer transitions into private practice, an accountant arrives at his office with a stash of money. He had misappropriated funds from his firm. Here, we see how the clever lawyer shields his client from prosecution while protecting the accountant's employers from the embarrassment of losing the client's money. He does all this not to uphold justice but to prioritise his personal gains. Above all, he ensures he receives his professional fees first. Therefore, a lawyer works for his own benefit, bending the law and the truth to suit himself and his client, but certainly not in pursuit of universal justice.

The story shows him becoming involved with the local mob. Ironically, he ends up working for, unwittingly, the same person he once despised as a prosecutor. The film highlights his theatrical antics in a different trial. His client is accused of poisoning someone and causing their death. To demonstrate that the supposed poison was harmless, the lawyer drinks the contents of the bottle displayed during the trial as Exhibit A. This casts doubt on the chemist's report to the court, allowing his client to evade conviction. What no one else knew was that the lawyer left during an expected recess, due to the uproar caused by his antics, to undergo stomach lavage and evacuate the poison from his system. 

So, when lawyers say that having adequate legal redress is a human right, what they really mean is that we should find a way to get you out. Nothing more, nothing less! Jayne Mansfield portrays a dumb blonde musician and mistress who gets tossed around like a ragdoll but rises to the occasion when her conscience pricks. 

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

All snuffed out?

Look at the literature on senile dementia. Invariably, the first thing to be mentioned about managing these patients is discontinuing statins. Funny. I remember a time not too long ago when statins were hailed as the greatest of human inventions, after sliced bread, of course. Some even advised starting statins prophylactically after turning 40. Besides its coronary vessel-sparing effects, statistics then proposed protection against fractures and reduced incidences of bowel cancers.

Something so good had suddenly gone over to Dark Side? If one loves long enough to be afflicted with dementia, wouldn't he also be having raised cholesterol, cardiac events and the gamut? Now comes the chicken and egg story. Did the statins precipitate loss of neural functions as the whole 3kg brain is nothing more than a lumpen of fat?

Why am I even not surprised that only after two years of decriminalising cannabis, basically to draw in tourist dollars, it has taken a 180-degree turn. The Thai authorities must have realised that it was all wrong. Now, they want to reserve marijuana for medicinal uses only, under prescription and supervision.

This thought has plagued me since childhood. At six, my father brought me to the race club. I remember getting all excited seeing all those majestic horses run. It must have left a strong impression on my young mind that I became excited when a prancing horse reel appeared on our home 16" black-and-white TV. That is when the fight started. My father must have had quite an earful—one for attending the turf club and, second, for bringing a six-year-old there.

Why is it so readily available for everyone if going to the races is wrong? In the same manner, my mother told me that it is wrong to smoke and indulge in intoxicants. But then, I saw both my grandfathers in a perpetual state of inebriety with beedis or other unfiltered cigarettes slipped between their fingers. Well, that is the schizophrenic world we live in, I soon realised.

If we look back at history, mankind has been yo-yo-ing between promoting and banning intoxicants, between party time and prohibition.

When sailors returned from the New World with leaves that could be smoked, people thought that that would be their new plaything. They thought it was fantastic. Then they realised it gave them nasty coughs. By then, it was too late. They were hooked. The natives back in the New World never had this issue as smoking was customary, not a leisurely activity.

When Europeans brought in the technique of distillation of alcohol from the Islamic Empires, the Europeans discovered drunkenness, bumps and cirrhosis. The Aztecs chewed coca leaves to give vitality. Europeans thought heroin was the panacea for all ailments from fibromyalgia to insomnia and alcohol addiction!

When William of Orange wanted to balance his trade with France, he thought the most novel way to do that was for the British to brew their own gin. This led to the Gin Craze and a generation of abandoned children because their mothers were too high to let their babies suckle. To offset this, a gin tax was instituted by the mid-18th century.

People have short memories. By the mid-19th century, in the Victorian Era, it was hip again to be seen in gin palaces. This was compounded by the fact that gin and beer were cleaner than drinking water, as the sanitation system was non-existent in London. The Thames was an open sewage stream. The flamboyant drinking palaces fizzled out under the weight of drunkards and their disorderly behaviour.

Gin Craze in London

Opium was an exotic Eastern product that made its way into Europe. It became a status symbol to be indulging in a bit of weed every now and then. It was customary for artists, writers, poets and even Sherlock Holmes to be on snuff. In their stately duties in the Empire, the British East India Company was actively growing them in India to balance their trade with China. They also flooded the Chinese market with cheap opium and turned the Chinese population into opium addicts, which they successfully did. Their misdeeds finally caught up with them to bite them at their posteriors.

So, it is a cycle. People will hail intoxicants, and then the ill effects will manifest. People will suppress them, only to forget all about them later. Rinse and repeat. We are just caught in the eternal cycle like a dog chasing its tail. For the record, one theory postulates that the inhabitants vanished without a trace because they were all addicted to soma.

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

Hindus fight back!

Oh, My God! 2, OMG 2 (Hindi; 2023)
Written and Directed by Amit Rai.

In 1893, Chicago decided to celebrate Columbus' 400th anniversary of landing in the New World with a six-month-long fair. One highlight was an inter-faith dialogue, 'World's Parliament of Religions'. Swami Vivekananda addressed the crowd there with greetings' Sisters and brothers of America!' to a roaring standing ovation. That must have piqued the interest of the American public in the mysticism of Hinduism and other Eastern philosophies. Even before that, Emerson and Mark Twain were already fascinated with Hinduism.

Vivekananda's lecture impressed the audience that Hinduism was a knowledge-seeking way of life. He further opened the path for other Hindu spiritual masters to make inroads into America.

MK Gandhi, however, painted a somewhat different picture of how Sanarthana Dharma was. He portrayed Hinduism as a pacifist way of life, bearing injuries and insults without flinching, turning the other cheek with non-violence being the lynchpin. It gave a perfect opportunity for the colonial master to rule over them over and forever.

In 1921, under the wing of the Khilafat movement, Moplah Muslims went on a killing frenzy, slaughtering Hindus under the pretext of fighting the British to establish a Dar-ul-Islam with the Turkic Caliphate as the head. Gandhi paradoxically told the Hindus not to fight back but blamed them for not understanding their brethren.

That, continuing with the British handpicked post-independence leaders, who continued with Gandhi's pacifist stance, gave the impression that they were all-accommodating yeomen and pushovers. In keeping with ahimsa ideology, India felt, at least Nehru did, that they did not need an army at one stage after Independence.

Of late, the image of a Hindu being a meek, all-agreeing, head-wobbling individual is slowly evolving. In their own way, this is what this movie is trying to hint at Indians, how, over the generations, they have allowed and accommodated other cultures and teachings into their fold that their own highly-placed values had taken a toss. Starting with Macaulay and his educational reforms, Indians began glorifying foreign cultures and frowning upon their own ancient-old wisdom. And now, they have arisen from their slumber, realising that their old-aged understanding of things around them.

The story revolves around a teenage schoolboy who, through peer pressure, is forced and filmed pleasuring himself in the school toilet. The footage is viralled, and the boy is expelled from a private English school.

His father, Kanti, a shopkeeper and a devout Shiva devotee, pleads for his son to be reinstated to no avail. The principal, the school board and even the head priest of the temple. Kanti, who works as hard as he prays to uplift the family status, is caught in a betwixt and between. A simpleton, a non-English person, but to take the establishment to court, demanding reinstatement, a meagre donation to the temple and a public apology to his son. He acts as his own lawyer, much to the amusement of the townfolks, the defence lawyer and the judge. Unbeknownst to everyone, Lord Siva himself has sent his representative to give Kanti a little prodding and moral support.

Kanti's central defence is that sex and masturbation are natural behaviours sanctioned by India's age-old gurukal system. It remains the school's duty to provide sex education and prepare the young to deal with the biological changes of their body, not to treat sex as a dirty and taboo subject.

The irony of the trial is that the majority of the town, primarily conservative Hindus, whose economic activities revolve around a Shiva Temple, are pro-sex education. In contrast, the educated, English-speaking individuals are against open discussion on sex. Of course, God's side wins in the end.

The most stirring moment in the movie is when a sex worker goes on the stand. She indulges herself in the sex trade solely to finance her son's education in a private school. Despite the stigmata associated with the profession, she is left with Hobson's choice -all to give her offspring a better life.

A recurrent theme that seems to be cropping up is 'Kamasutra', the 2nd century Sanskriti text on sexuality, eroticism and emotional fulfilment. The puzzling thing is how a society which was so open to what happens behind the bedroom doors suddenly became so bashful about sexual desires.

P.S. I remember reading about Tagore's family being denied entry to a club for dressing indecently. Using Victorian dressing sense as the gold standard, high-collared necks and long-sleeved blouses replaced bare-breasted ladies draping the modesty with the loose end of their saree. In temples, even the heads need to be covered to show chastity. This, however, came about as an aftermath of the Islamic invasion. Women, wanting to hide their identity to escape the rape and torture by the marauding invaders, covered their heads as Muslim women did to blend in. Over time, that became a tradition in Muslim-ruled regions.

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

Money can buy justice, or at least freedom!

Trial by Fire (2023, Miniseries)
Netflix

A management professor once told a joke about the Indian justice system. An 80-year-old man appeared for a molestation charge. After looking at the charge sheet, the judge queried, "you are accused of molesting a 16-year-old girl. Why? At this age..." The octagenarian replied, "Sir, I was also 16 when it happened!"

That is how long it takes the cogwheel of justice moves. It is not an Indian problem but a worldwide phenomenon. Part of the law school syllabus must be a paper on creative ways to dodge a trial and get away with it.

People enter a movie hall thinking they will be transported to a world of make-believe and forget real life's stresses for the next two hours or so. What audience who flocked to Uphaar cinema hall in Delhi on June 13th 1997, was far from it. They ended up struggling to stay alive when a transformer exploded. 59 people succumbed to smoke inhalation.

The general public patronises various public venues thinking that the licensing bodies and the enforcement units will do their part in ensuring safety for the general public. Victims of the fire also realised the hard way that all the while, the public has been short-changed. The businesses had been trying to maximise profits over safety. The local councils have been sleeping on their jobs as well. The question begs whether they deliberately looked the other way after their palms were greased.

Illegal extensions, indiscriminately increasing seats, and the erection of private viewing terraces only blocked exits. The doors were locked and bolted to discourage illicit entrees into halls, trapping and smoking the desperately trapped patrons to their deaths.

When the push came to the shove, even emergency response teams failed them. Their snail-paced lethargic swing to action was much to desired at a time when the public is aware of their rights is embarrassing.

Even the long arm of the law and cogwheel of the system appears to be dragging its feet. After 25 years, the parents of two teenage fire victims, Neelam and Sekhar Krishnamoorthy, are yet to see justice to be meted out to the owners of the ill-fated cinema hall. They, together with other relatives who had lost their loved ones in the fire, had taken a civil suit against the owners for negligence. They allege that they had neglected the safety of their clients.

The owners, big shots in Delhi, who had a hand in all development projects, are said to be big philanthropists with big community projects under their belts that seem untouchable. They are able to engage big-wig lawyers, and even the judges appear to feed off their hands. Delays and postponements are norms. Even the lawyer assigned to the defence by the Central Bureau of Investigation looked disinterested and needed prodding and feeding of information to proceed with the case.

Neelam and Sekhar, who wrote a book about their whole ordeal, had embarked on extensive TV interviews highlighting fire safety in public places. In one of such interviews, Neelam, out of sheer frustration, had blurted that she should have just taken a gun, shot the cinema owners and claim insanity rather than having faith in the legal system that seem skewed to protect the rich and famous. The rest of the population can just be taken for a ride with the false pretence that justice will prevail. In reality, money can buy justice or at least freedom.

This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. 

The thrills and spills of being hip...

Pam & Tommy (2022)
Disney + (8-episode miniseries)

The joyfulness of youth does not last forever. Its spills and its thrills fade with time. All the hormonally charged freshness of young adulthood eventually loses its mojo. They say we want to immortalise all these as you only live one (YOLO). Time and tide wait for no one too. Hence, there is a pressing need to freeze everything you have to last a lifetime. Time is man's greatest foe; the race between man and time always sided time. 

This country, this world is no place for older men or women. It is all about youth, vibrancy and freedom. Even Nature sides the young. With wear and tear, the facial musculature of the old naturally sags, giving its wearer a perpetual frowning facies. In the words of Schaupenneur, the world is a miserable place, and Nature knows it. Senescence is grim. Hence, the lips curve downwards with age, opposite to how a smiling face of innocence appears.

Pamela Anderson, in her iconic role

Photography and later video were God-sent. These can permanently capture the joy and visualisation of assets long after the battle scars of Hard Knocks of Life knock them down. With the advent of recording devices at everyone's disposal, immortalising that notable, intimate, non-event or pornographic material has never been easier.

It is a trend for newlyweds to digitally commemorate the image of their supple young bodies. As part of their wedding photography shootout, they even include a pose in their most sexually enticing pose in their birthday suits. This, they would like to admire way after the scars of life take over their mortal bodies. 

Since everybody is doing it, the peer pressure to get a full monty representation of the shames of the Garden of Eden is ever compelling. So every average Jane does it, and nobody gives a second look. Not when the player is every young man's dream girl - the buxom Pamela Anderson who gained stardom appearing semi-naked every week on Baywatch and had appeared without a thread as Hugh Heffner's bunnies.

Pamela and her then-husband, the wild cocaine-snorting Motley Crew's drummer, Tommy Lee, found out the hard way when their intimate honeymoon sex tapes were stolen that the world is not kind. 

Even though they laugh with you and encourage you to do whacky things, when you get on the wrong side of the law, you are actually alone. The world judges you through their conservative lens even though you think the world has changed. No siree. The media is there to yank you out of any shred of dignity still left you. Everybody just takes you to the cleaners. You are left shivering in the cold while everyone prospers on your account while you salvage whatever self-respect that is. Court injunctions and proceedings are just farce. It does not lead to anything meaningful.

The lesson here is that youth and love are many splendoured things. The underdevelopment of the neocortex of the frontal lobe makes you do many things. But remember, many of these things have long-term effects and ruin the rest of your remaining life. It is OK to be young and free, but freedom comes with specific responsibilities. You do not want to be stuck, on tenterhooks, for the rest of your remaining life with its aftermath.

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

Follow the prescribed story?

Mauritanian (2021)
Directed by: Kevin MacDonald

20 years after the attack on the New York Twin Tower, the world is still at a loss of what actually happened on that historical day or the days leading to the event dubbed as the single most significant attack on American soil. People directly or indirectly will probably never have an appropriate closure to all their questions.

The world is given hopscotch information on what is known, what the intelligentsia believes happened and what they want us to think. Along with all is a narrative that the world should follow. Anyone deviating from the said account is deemed a conspiracy theorist.

The same thing is happening with a particular virus that is traced from the labs of Wuhan. With so many conflicting views, the Joe Public is left perplexed between needing to don a mask or not, vaccinate or not, and even trying alternative remedies. But no! The average Joe cannot form an opinion but instead simply obey the directives meted by the authorities, who themselves are clueless and are guided by self-serving politicians and businessmen. The powers-that-be have decided that citizens must be monitored digitally, and non-vaccination meant the loss of certain privileges. 

I heard about Nancy Hollander through the 'Advocates The Podcast', a podcast sponsored by Taylor's University in Malaysia. After interviewing many top guns in the legal profession from the world over, the interviewers spoke to this New Mexico lawyer. My curiosity piqued to find out more about her. My research revealed that she is a rabble-rouser, involved in cases defending Guantánamo Bay detainees and a military whistleblower, Chelsea Manning, who leaked classified information to Wikileaks. Yes, she received her law degree from the same place as Saul Goodman! I also found out that a film had been made on her endeavour to free a Guantánamo inmate, and Jodie Foster was cast to play her. And here it is.

In the frenzy to put a name to the mastermind who orchestrated the 9/11 attack, a Mauritanian national, Mohamedou Ould Slahi, was incarcerated without a charge for 14 years. Thanks to the passing of the Freedom of Information Act, Hollander, as his defence counsel, was able to scrutinise the day-to-day abuses inflicted upon Slahi. Slahi was able to describe the sexual molestations, the threats to his mother, the waterboarding torture, etcetera in letters which later became the first book (Guantánamo Diary) by a Guantánamo prisoner.

The movie shows what an independent judiciary system can do to open the maggots festering in a system that is supposed to take care of its citizens. In the name of national security and the need to keep information away from the prying eyes of the enemy of the state, injustice is justified. An emotional movie with a stellar performance by its main characters. Benedict Cumberbatch appeared as the conscientious Prosecutor, and Tahar Rahim (seen as Sobhraj before) plays Slahi. 4/5.

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