When the lion tells its story...

History has nothing to do with the narrator’s gender. Yet it has everything to do with the validity of his narrative, the narrative of the victors. The history lessons that were shoved down our throats during our schooling days are increasingly being disputed for their authenticity, reeking of imperialists' vested interest. It stands as a living proof of justifying Western powers' action to fulfil the duty of the white man's burden - to go forth to civilise and bring development to the natives. In the post-colonial era, historians continued to preach the subject from a leftist angle, glorifying Western power and downplaying Eastern society.

In the 21st century, history is no longer the dry subject that it used to be. With many natives now well-versed in European languages, they can tell their side of the story. As the African proverb goes, 'Until the lion tells its story, the hunt will always glorify the hunters', the natives can now tell how they were highly civilised way before the Westerners 'discovered' them and 'civilised' them.

The 21st century sees two types of historians: the first, a nationalistic one who tries to put the nation in a positive light, and the second, those who parrot the success of the hunters.

Closer to home, in Malaysia, a lecturer at one of the premier public universities has been going around making outlandish claims about the country's ancestors. Her assertions have been so ludicrous, but she has been receiving a lot of attention from the general public. She is a cult figure of sorts. Her statements include things like one of Prophet Muhammad's wives was a Malay, that the Malay DNA is not linked to Yunnan ancestry in China but to the Arabs, and lately she uttered that the Malays gave the Romans lessons in shipbuilding.

The funny thing is that none of her theories are challenged by fellow academics. For the record, the said soon-to-be Professor, Solehah Yaakob, is not a historian; she is trained in Arabic language studies. Her sentiments are in line with the racial hegemony that the ruling government is trying to propagate. To keep their voters happy, the leaders constantly hammer home grandiose ideas that magnify their ancestors' feats. They rule by feeding a constant diet of fear, telling the public of a conspiracy from within and without to topple the dominance of the majority in the country. Her outrageous claims augur well in boosting the ego of the majority.

Everyone knows what she is saying is not right. But Malaysians are too polite. Nobody wants to bell the cat. They do not want to seem to upset the status quo. It is their rice bowl they have to be concerned with, above all! 

In a healthy intellectual society, everyone should be able to speak from their mind. Each opinion should not be consumed as a divine decree but should be debated intelligently. In retaliation, the opinion should be supported by hard facts and proof. They need not run behind politicians to cling to their petticoats for validation, as is happening now.

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

div style="text-align: center;">

The unreal Reality TV!

https://www.reddit.com/r/LGBTindia/comments/1mgqjr8/l
esbian_couple_in_bigg_boss_malayalam_7/

Everyone's actions and inactions are being scrutinised with a fine-toothed comb. Their activities may become a yardstick by which their downline can measure themselves. People are always on the lookout for gossip as well as something new to try out, no matter how outlandish or impractical it is. In other words, monkey see and monkey do, bypassing the higher centres altogether. It is referred to as fashion or high culture, depending on the context.

Fashion and culture are constantly shifting. What is considered the latest avant-garde idea today could be outdated in the blink of an eye. Tomorrow's runways in Milan and Paris will feature fashions that your grandmother wore in the 1970s. 

The media plays a vital role in determining what is in and what is out. What magazines and newspapers used to popularise in the 20th century is now done by TV and social media. People perform outlandishly silly and dangerous things just for the fleeting moment in the limelight. 

It started with putting the camera in front of people to see how they would react in a potentially embarrassing moment. The final outcome turned out hilarious. Everyone had a good laugh. The antics seen on "Smile! You are on Candid Camera" remain iconic to this day.

Then somebody thought, "Why not put the camera in front of the faces 24/7 and see how they react!" Thus was born the concept of reality TV, as seen in shows like Big Brother and Survivor. People became accustomed to living their day-to-day lives under scrutiny. Slowly, their real, hidden, ugly sides began to show. When elimination of contenders remained the mainstay of the game, the contestants had to dig deep to make a pact with the devil to bring down the other.

Maybe because it is actually voyeurism—a trait scorned in decent societies—reality TV provides a legitimate avenue to peep into people's private lives and vote them in or out. If voyuerism is an accepted behaviour, surely bad-mouthing, foul language and evil intent are alright, as that is what happens in real life. They must call it reality TV for a reason. So that kind of behaviour is the norm, then bitching and cuzzing must surely be. 

What people fail to realise is that, even though it is called reality TV, the whole thing is, in reality, scathingly scripted to boost viewership. The producers will continue to push the boundaries of obscenity and impolite social etiquette just to earn money. People, being spineless, will use them as the yardstick for what it means to be current, just as the Kardashians set the standards for how family dynamics should be.

Recently, on Big Boss Season #7 Kerala Edition, the participation of an openly lesbian couple, Adhila Nasarin and Fathima Noora, created a lot of discussions amongst the conservative section of society. Whilst the younger generation feels everyone has the right to live life as they wish, and moments like this were profoundly affirming, others think shows like these try to normalise LGBTQ culture. By the way, after years of struggle, the couple obtained a landmark injunction from the Kerala Courts in 2022, affirming their rights as consenting adults to live together.

Broadly speaking, Donald J Trump is actually the product of one such reality TV show and is currently living in an illusion of an episode of his 'The Apprentice'. He makes sudden, unprovoked, random statements, then retracts his statements. Then one of his sycophants would sing his praises and suggest something outlandish, like nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize, to get everyone talking. Like in these shows, where viewership and rating are everything (to draw advertisers), he is perpetually in the headlines all the time to boost his own rating. This is complemented by the constant blowing of his own horn. It is out of tune, but who is going to tell?

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

div style="text-align: center;">

The Iron Man of India

Sardar (1993)

Director: Ketan Mehta

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0240879/

Sardar Vallabhai Patel is said to be the best Prime Minister India never had. Dubbed the Iron Man of India, a title given to him by Mountbatten, some believe he might have led India along a different path if he had been chosen as the first Prime Minister instead of Nehru.

It was 1946. World War II had just ended, leaving England to tend its wounds. It faced a huge bill to pay and had lost its dominance on the world stage. The sun had finally set on the British Empire. The Anglo-Saxon cousins across the Atlantic, the Americans, had come out on top, as shown by the Conference in Yalta. Managing the colonies had become an expensive undertaking. England had to cut its losses and relinquish control over the colonies. 

With that background, India had just formed its interim government. The Congress Party had recently won the elections. They were preparing to select the first Prime Minister of independent India. 

Maulana Azad, at that time, was the President of the Congress Party. He had been its leader since 1940. No elections were held since 1940 after the Party announced the 'Quit India' movement, and as a result, most, if not all, of its senior leaders were behind bars. Gandhi, as the senior member who commands profound respect from his members, expressed his displeasure with a leader seeking reelection. Azad withdrew his nomination for reelection as the President. 

Fifteen regional and state Congress committees were tasked with nominating their candidates. Twelve of these nominated Patel. Nehru got none, and the remaining three committees chose not to nominate anyone. 

Surprisingly, Gandhi vetoed their decision. He requested that Patel withdraw his candidacy and suggested the Cambridge-educated, modern-looking Nehru to become the Party President and Patel to be his Deputy. Being a 'respectful lieutenant' and showing his respect for Gandhi, Patel obliged. 

Gandhi believed the modern, forward-thinking Nehru would be a better choice than the traditional-thinking Patel. However, insiders suggest that it was probably Gandhi's fear that Nehru might cause trouble if he was not selected. The Congress might split, and the British could use that as an excuse to delay self-rule. 

Being the compassionate man Gandhi was towards the Muslim plight, he thought Patel, as the Prime Minister of India, would be harsh against Muslims. 

 

Nehru became the Prime Minister with Patel as his Deputy and Home Minister during the tumultuous times of newly independent India. With Pakistan being the albatross around India's neck and Patel and Nehru disagreeing on everything about the handling of Kashmir, it is a surprise how the Indian machinery remained intact. 

King Hari Singh initially aimed to remain independent, like Nepal and Bhutan. When Pakistani agents infiltrated Kashmir, Hari Singh abdicated to Jammu. He consented to accession to India. Nehru, contrary to Patel's suggestion, called in the United Nations and advocated for a plebiscite. Patel had wanted the Indian Army to march in. The result of this approach led to repeated unrest, two subsequent wars, and the latest confrontation. 

Junagadh, a princely state with a Hindu majority and no shared border with Pakistan, had a Muslim ruler determined to join Pakistan. His subjects revolted against him, and he abdicated in favour of Pakistan. With India's support, Junagadh was integrated into the State of Gujarat. 

Another state, quite distant from Pakistan, that wished to join the dominion was the landlocked state of Hyderabad. It was surrounded by regions under India's control. The Nizam, once the wealthiest man in the world, also ruled over a Hindu majority. Using his immense wealth, he managed to procure arms from Europe through British arms dealers, pre-Partition. The Nizam had deployed a paramilitary group, the Razakars, led by Qasim Razvi, to terrorise Hindu peasants into submission. Meanwhile, the Communists were also attempting to benefit from the situation. Patel, citing Nehru's departure as an excuse, used the nation's machinery to launch police action to forcibly annexe Hyderabad into the union.

Nehru and Patel's differences were challenged by a series of resignation letters, but they were softened by Gandhi's persuasion. Gandhi's assassination compelled these two leaders to collaborate until Patel's death.

 

In recognition of his contributions to India's political integration, the Statue of Unity, the tallest statue in the world, was erected in Gujarat.

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

Give a miss!

Thug Life (2025)
Director: Mani Ratnam

https://www.justwatch.com/za/movie/thug-life-2025

Following the release of this film, one realises the extent to which external forces are harnessing the power of social media to sway public opinion on various matters. Furthermore, films act as platforms for disseminating the ideologies of political parties.

Even before the film's release in Karnataka, during his promotional tours, Kamal Haasan, the central star of the movie, inadvertently – or perhaps not – provoked a diplomatic row between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. In his speech, he stated that the Kannada language is an offshoot of the Tamil language. This was not taken lightly by loyalists and politicians alike, who spoke the Kannada language. 

It is no secret that Kamal Hassan's political party is currently allied with the DMK, the ruling party of Tamil Nadu. The DMK practises divisive politics based on language, ethnicity, and anti-Hindu sentiments. Kamal Hassan is merely announcing his resurgence in Tamil Nadu politics. The State of Karnataka was a latecomer, having been carved out of the Mysore Presidency in 1956 on linguistic grounds, and has faced conflicts with Tamil Nadu over the flow of water from the River Cauvery, the worst of which occurred in 1991. This was when anti-Tamil looting and the burning of vehicles bearing Tamil Nadu number plates escalated after a Tribunal ordered the release of Cauvery water into Tamil Nadu. Although Hassan's statements were not incorrect, the Kannadian fundamentalists are unlikely to accept any of this. It is irrelevant that Tamil is an older language with evidence from ancient tablets, or that both languages may have arisen from a common ancestor, the Proto-Dravidian language.

The row has taken on monumental proportions, with the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce collaborating with politicians to ban its screening in the state of Karnataka.

The film itself was not groundbreaking. Movie enthusiasts have encountered numerous films with similar storylines. In fact, Nayagan, which the director made in 1987 with the same star, featured a son avenging his father's death, just as this one does. Narratives of betrayal and rebellion among gangsters are nothing new. Netizens were quick to point out several glaring plot holes. There is an awkward moment when an adopted daughter might have married her brother. In another instance, both father and son could be vying for the same woman in intimate relationships. The characterisation is superficial, and there are far too many characters who do not contribute significantly to the story.

 

https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people
/thuggees-002145

I was more interested in the origin of the word 'thug'. It has Indian origins. It was during the time of the British Raj, and the colonisers were eyeing the mineral-rich interior lands, which were home to a tribal group that prayed to a form of Kaali named Thugee. The Thugees naturally wanted to defend their land. Just as the Mau Mau people of Kenya were vilified by the British to create stories of them being cannibals and baby snatchers, the Thugees were described as deadly assassins who moved in groups to identify their prey. Their weapon of choice was a bandana, with which they would strangle their victims and kill them. The Thugs were feared so intensely that they entered the English lexicon.

There is another connection between thugs and the origin of the word 'assassin'. Not all thugs are Hindus; some are Muslims. The Muslim influence can be traced back to the mid-1200s in Persia. There was a group of mercenaries who were compensated with hashish; hence, they were called 'Hashshashins'. The Hashshashins became known as assassins in the English language. They moved about, fighting for and against the Muslim kingdom while opposing the Crusaders. They battled the Mongols quite disastrously, who chased them away to India, where they lived among tribal communities. They mingled with the Thugee worshippers and collaborated with them. The Hashshashins revered Kali but did not worship Her. Of course, all this could merely be a figment of the British Raj's imagination, conjuring a bogeyman out of the Indians.

 

(P.S. A film that is not worth discussing. There are already far too many YouTube channels offering brutal rundowns on this movie.)

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

Just another year?

1971: The Year That Music Changed Everything

Documentary - 8 episodes

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14544732/

1971 could have been merely a non-discrete year, but the creators of this docu-series believed it marked a watershed moment. They considered it the year when the carefree values of the 1960s began to shift. It represented the onset of revolutions. The generation born in the post-war years, once content, has aged, and their offspring now find themselves in a world rife with turmoil and uncertainty. 

In the late 1960s, America witnessed its sons returning in body bags from defending a country that did not wish to be defended. The Americans saw no reason to uphold the free world against a perceived communist threat. 

The hippie movement created a new cocoon for disillusioned youths to escape into weed, and rock and roll. In relation to that, the cult killing by the Manson family took centre stage. 

The hierarchical and patriarchal order of society was shifting. The introduction of oral contraceptive pills provided women, for the first time in their lives, an opportunity to control their fertility and potentially their sexuality as well. This was particularly significant, as they gained more self-confidence after emerging en masse to support the economy when men went off to fight in World War II. 

1971 must have seemed meaningless. With the Beatles breaking up, Lennon and Yoko engaging in their eccentric activities, and the great musicians Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, and Jimi Hendrix having passed away, the youth must have felt that music was dead. A new wave of performers emerged, bringing fresh messages and revolutionary ideas. 

Marvin Gaye belted out protest songs with 'What's Going On?'. Aretha Franklin joined the movement of Black Consciousness, and Tina Turner became an icon of female empowerment following her publicised abusive relationship with Ike. The Rolling Stones attempted to fill the gap left by the Beatles, but were often busy rolling dope in the South of France. David Bowie was making his mark on the scene with his androgynous appearance, dressed in a full gown. 

The Black Power movement was in full swing. Angela Davis, a UCLA professor and an unapologetic, card-carrying member of the US Communist Party, was in the spotlight. The gun she had acquired was used in the courtroom killing of a judge. Numerous musicians rallied behind her. James Brown's soul music empowered Black men and women. 

1971 was also when the world realised that our minds can be fickle and suggestible. The Stanford Experiment taught us an invaluable lesson that remains relevant today—anonymity caused people to behave in a despicable manner. The Charles Manson trials revealed how impressionable, naive young minds can be manipulated into committing outrageous acts. The US Army massacre at My Lai in Vietnam demonstrated that the Americans were no different from the Germans in Auschwitz and the Japanese in Nanking.

It was a time of political awareness, social change, and musical experimentation. It was also the birthplace of many fantastic singer-songwriters, such as Carole King and Joni Mitchell. Music was explored using electronic devices, such as synthesisers, as exemplified by the band The Who.

1971 witnessed the UK's longest obscenity trial, which involved a 1960s counterculture publication, Oz. In one of its editions, schoolchildren were invited to edit the Schoolkids' Issue, which included pasting a cartoon mascot from the Daily Express into a sex strip illustration. The editors received jail sentences. John Lennon and Yoko Ono, who were themselves embroiled in controversy over nude album covers, came to their defence by organising protest marches and dedicating a song to this cause.

Logically, not everything changes in a year. Many of the things mentioned evolve over time.

 

1971 could be merely a random year. Every year contributes slightly to the transformation of our life on Earth. 1971 might serve as just a talking point, much like the story of how the Hardy-Ramanujan number came about. When visiting mathematician Ramanujan in the hospital, Professor Hardy, unsure of how to break the ice, mentioned that he took a taxi with the number 1729, which he considered dull. Ramanujan responded by stating that the number was interesting because it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways. [1729 can be expressed as 1³ + 12³ = 10³ + 9³]

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

In a secular nation?

Hindus in Hindu Rashtra(2023)
Eighth-Class Citizens and Victims of State-Sanctioned Apartheid
Author: Anand Ranganathan

I felt as if I were listening to him debate on Indian internet television. For the uninformed, a debate in the Indian context differs from the BBC's 'Hard Talk' or a conventional debate in which one person is given the stage to speak while others listen.

On these Indian shows, what we see on our monitors are multiple smaller windows, reminiscent of those in 'Brady Bunch' or ‘Hollywood Squares’, with everyone yelling at the top of their lungs simultaneously to make their point. With the rapid-fire speed of speech, often seen in speed debates, and the caustic choice of words, it is quite a spectacle. Everything is drowned out in the cacophony of each speaker's voice. Amidst all this, the anchor begins to argue at a higher pitch without turning off the guests' microphones. Sometimes, I wonder why the guests bother to attend at all. 

Anand Ranganathan has attended numerous such debates. His strong command of English and fluent expression of thoughts make him a standout in right-wing media. 

After listening to so many of his arguments on X, the book evokes a sense of 'déjà vu'. His premise is that Hindus in India are receiving a raw deal. After being overrun by foreign invaders from the West before the Common Era, India finally attained independence 75 years ago. Despite the change in rulers, he argues that Hindus continue to be treated as the stepchildren of the nation. The British governed this vast country using their 'divide and rule' tactics, which, regrettably, persist to this day. 

Ranganathan presents eight points regarding why Hindus in a Hindu nation are receiving a raw deal. Although India's Constitution declares the country to be secular, the State deems it appropriate to oversee the management of Hindu temples. For thousands of years, the temple ecosystem has served as a centre for worship, education, community living, trade, economy, statecraft, and even defence. Every invader understood that to dismantle India, they had to dismantle the temples. The law allows for the appointment of non-Hindus to the boards managing temples. In contrast, mosques and churches govern their own affairs. Court cases seeking the independence of Hindu temples have been ongoing for years.

Back in the 1990s, 700,000 Kashmiri Hindus were systematically driven out of their homes. Thirty years after the massacre, the state finds it more profitable to have them return as tourists for foreign exchange, but not to their ancestral homes. In contrast, Rohingya Muslims are permitted to settle in Jammu and Kashmir. Is the abrogation of Article 370 the right path to rectify the status quo?

The Waqf is considered the third largest landowner in India, after Defence and Railways. What began during pre-Independence times by the British to appease the Muslims has since expanded. Many prominent landmarks around Delhi, as well as Ambaini's house, are now believed to be Waqf land. Any property adjudged arbitrarily by Muslim law irrevocably belongs to Allah for all time. It reached a point of absurdity when a 1,500-year-old Hindu temple in Tamil Nadu is claimed to be situated on Waqf land, despite Islam being only 1,300 years old. The archaeological and physical evidence of lingams at the Gyanwapi Mosque serves as proof that it was constructed atop the grand Kashi Vishwanath temple. Even Aurangzeb, in his verified biography, Masir-e-Alamgiri, conceded to demolishing the aforementioned temple to erect a mosque. The 1995 Waqf Act solidifies the authority of the Waqf Board; however, these days, Parliament is attempting to amend this.

The Right to Education Act (RTE) of 2009 is said to be leading Hindu-run schools towards extinction. The Act dictates financial control, as well as the choice and quota of students and teachers, selectively applying these rules to non-minority schools; failure to comply results in closure. These restrictions compel schools to raise their fees, forcing parents to seek alternatives in schools run by minorities. Even in states where Hindus are a minority, the Act continues to operate against their interests.

The author highlights legislation that appeases non-Hindus but targets Hindus. For instance, bigamy is illegal under Indian law, yet it is permitted under the Muslim Personal Law of 1937, illustrating the double standards. Feminists advocate for equal rights but remain silent when the court permits Muslims to marry upon puberty. The corridors of power are intent on reforming Hinduism and addressing the social ills that characterise Hindu society, while the Abrahamic religions remain untouched.

The author also has a bone to pick with India's fixation on glorifying the invaders of the land. He is particularly scathing about naming one of Delhi's main roads 'Aurangzeb Road,’ referring to a ruthless conqueror who found solace in destroying pagan religions, particularly Hinduism, upholding Islamic law over his territory, imposing jizya on non-believers, and forcibly converting Sikh spiritual leaders. The nearest train station to visit the remnants of Nalanda University is Baktiyapor, named after the invader who burned Nalanda, thus losing centuries of knowledge and wisdom. 

It appears that the actions of the courts show no hesitation in attempting to alter Hindu practices, such as in the Sabarimala case, where women of menstruating age are not permitted to enter the Swami Ayyappa temple. However, the courts chose to remain silent regarding other religions, as exemplified by the case of Nupur Sharma, who is blamed for the killing of an innocent tailor for commenting on the Quran. Ranganathan further illustrates the bias of the Indian courts against Hindus.

Even though the author is an engineer by training, he chose to dedicate most of his time to highlighting the plight of the second class of Hindus in a country where the majority are Hindu. He even states that there is a legislative, judicial, and constitutional apartheid against them. 

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