Follow your heart?

A Hidden Life (English/German;2019)

Director: Terence Malick

This is one of the movies that kept my eyes locked on the screen even after the credits rolled. It presents a long-lasting quandary about divinity and our purpose on Earth.

Most movies that we see usually depict Germans as a whole of homogeneous block that unequivocally supports Hitler and what he was doing to uplift Germany from the clutches of hopelessness. For a change, the main character in this film actually stood against German nationalism in the Hitler style. A devout Christian and a conscientious objector to conscription into the Army, Franz Jägerstätter opposes Hitler's rhetoric of a superior race. In his everyday life, Franz is a simple farmer living happily on the hillside of Austrian country, minding his wife, three little daughters, and the unending farm work.

So when he is called to serve the Army and state his allegiance to Hitler by instituting the Nazi Salute, he naturally refuses. Franz is arrested and imprisoned. Before his arrest, the people in the village were already looking at Franz's family scornfully. After his arrest, his family was boycotted by everyone, save for some who gave support, albeit clandestinely.

In prison, Franz is verbally and physically abused and told to just utter his loyalty to Hitler and get scot-free. Franz stuck onto his guns like a divine decree and endured the gamut - insults and grieve. All through his incarceration, he has an internal struggle with whether what he is doing is the right thing. All these were recorded in Franz's written communication with his wife, Fani. They provide the basis for the film. Franz's soliloquy is echoed in the voiceovers. Franz was finally executed. The rest of the story tells the hardship Fani, their daughters, and Franz's mother endure in making a life for themselves.

The burning questions that went through my mind were these.

We are social animals and are somewhat skewed in our thinking to be in sync with the thought of the majority. Perhaps because we are all clueless about our real purpose on Earth, we grope along and clutch on straws. We try to convince ourselves that we are indeed doing the right by apeing others. We follow the powerful, the wealthy, and the elders as we feel they are more knowledgeable about things in the world. At the same time, we realise these people are mere mortals like us, equally ignorant of the right path. The leaders also have vested interests. Is it not helpful for a shepherd if his flock is abundant and well-fed? The scary part is that the shepherd would one day lead them to the slaughterhouse.

The almighty, omnipresent and omnipotent in all his wisdom through the Book of John, has wielded to his congregation, "I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world, you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." (John 16:33).

Franz saw the events surrounding the war, the superiority of one race over the other, and saluting a man with these ideas as wrong. However, the verse in John convinced him that what he was doing was right, just as Jesus fought against the hypocrites in Judea. Just like the event on Cavalry Hill that changed the world, Franz was convinced that his resistance would have lasting impressions.

A man plants a mango tree, but the generations after him are the ones who reap the benefits the tree offers. They stop to rest under its shade and occasionally sink their teeth into the succulent fruit. Nobody turns around to thank or say a prayer to the planter of the tree. For all they are concerned, the tree just happened to be there! We should do things expecting returns. It is for the generation next.

We are responsible for our dependents if our actions affect those who will come after us. Franz has specific duties as a father, son, and husband on Earth. Is he relegating his duties by being an absent parent? His kids will grow up with the trauma of not having a father, the wife without a companion, and the mother with the ache of burying the son she delivered. Can Franz be so cocksure that he will indeed find his place in the promised land? Is he convinced that what he did was indeed what God wanted him to do? Guess we will never know!

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

A giant awakens?

Awakening Bharat Mata: The Political Ideologies of the Indian Right
By: Swapan Dasgupta (2019)

History tells us of a time when Indian soft powers ruled beyond their lands. Indian (read Hindu) way of living was the only way to live to the East of the land irrigated by the Sindhu Saraswati river systems. The nearest advanced culture to them was the Persians. Now they had an issue pronouncing 'S'. They did not have 'S' in their spoken language but used 'H' in places occupied by 'S'. Hence, the people living around the Sindhu Valley became known as 'Hindus', and their way of living was Hindu.

The perplexing thing is that from an era when the whole world was imitating their culture whilst the rest of the world was in the dark ages, at the time of its independence, it was a nation quite apologetic to its way of life and its history. What gave?

Perhaps it was the repeated invasions and trans-generational traumas with a tinge of Stockholm Syndrome. Still, the bulk of Indians, during their independence from the British colonial masters, had a very low esteem of themselves. They tended to look at other civilisations as superior and scorn upon their own way of living. Maybe because they had missed the bus of the first and second Industrial Revolution and the mercantile type of economy ruled the world, the socialist-minded Prime Minister and his ruling party thought it was pertinent they should be followers, not leaders of the world. They even refused a UN Security Council seat. Government-sanctioned leftist historians reinforced Western false narratives. 

The 1991 Indian general elections must have been a watershed moment in the right-wing movement. Even though they did not win the elections, they sowed their idea of a Ram Rajya (Hindu nation) in the Indian psyche. Their election promises to rebuild the old Ram Mandhir in Ayudhya fascinated the population at large. Just about that time, archaeological excavations revealed that a mosque indeed built atop the site considered the birthplace of the much revered Prince Rama of Ayodhya.

With widespread news of corruption and mismanagement, the 2014 general elections saw the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), headed by the Indian Congress Party, lose to the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), a coalition headed by BJP. BJP, on its own, secured a majority, surpassing the much-needed 272 seats.

The right-wing Hindu parties have always been in the bad books of the Indians. Ever since Godse, a Hindu nationalist, assassinated MK Gandhi, RSS, the social arm of BJP, and other Hindu parties have been painted with the same brush. The anglophilic apologists and leftist historians have created a centre stage for a dichotomy of anglophile 'intellectual elites' versus homegrown saffron politics.

In the late 1960s, Congress weakened, and a wave of anti-Westernisation swept through the nation. The public was uncomfortable with the outward display of modernity and the intellectual move towards the West. They started reminiscing about the alternative intellectual ecosystem initiated by Hindu nationalist bulwarks like Tilak, Aurobindo, Savarkar and more. The new BJP-RSS combo was not anti-Western and anti-technological development but would use technology to improve administration quality.

After much deliberation, Modi was put forward as the PM material for the 2014 election. His economic success story in Gujarat worked in his favour. The naysayers, including the Western media, were rapacious in putting him as the villain in the 2002 racial riots. The foreign press went on a rant that he was bad news for Indian harmony. His visa to the US, UK and EU was denied as he was deemed too controversial.

Tired of the Nehru-Gandhi dynastic brand of politics with ineffective leaders in the Nehru's descendants, in 2014, NDA with BJP as the majority was voted in to rule the biggest democracy in the world. The going on till the time of writing of the book, at the end of BJP's first term, has been anything but smooth sailing. Quickly, many day-to-day issues can be made out to be big deals, even though the general public is not too bothered by them. The politicians and their desire to create a mountain out of a molehill are the root of the problem. After all, historically, India has a reputation for embracing all cultures, including Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity and more. They had played host to many refugees.

A simple recital of a national independence hymn like Vande Mataram can become a national issue. Muslim leaders refuse to allow their people to chant this old anthem as it is considered not secular. Cow protection on one side and insistence on beef-eating as a birthright without compromise is another thorn in the Hindu-Muslim relationship. Even though the Indian Constitution bans cow slaughtering, occasional skirmishes and lynching continue. This is not a new problem. Even in 1966, Sadhus demonstrated in front of the Parliament to criminalise cow slaughtering unsuccessfully.

It is all right for a country to be ruled by Christian, Islamic or even Jewish ideologies. However, it seems Hinduism is not compatible with modern democracy. So says the rest of the world. The colonial masters even thought it was pertinent to emphasise in the Constitution that India is a secular country. In the mind of the right-wing Hindu politicians, Sanathana Dharma is secular. In the eyes of the world, Hindutva is a bad word, implying combative fundamentalism. In reality, it just denotes Hinduness.

In the understanding of the right-wing Hindu leaders, a Hindu is someone born in India, with the cultures of India, bowing to the nation of India. So, in their understanding, a Muslim or a Christian is a Hindu. It is wrong, say a Muslim to have allegiance with their religion and show reverence to an external force whilst turning his back to Bharat.

The book tries to clear many misconceptions started by the colonial masters and the subsequent Anglophile Congress leaders who just held the helm on their behalf. They try to allay the misinformation that RSS and BJP are anti-intellectuals or are lacking intellectual depth. They try to break the mould of slave mentality among the citizens and rewrite the distorted Indian history penned previously by leftist historians to maintain the hegemony of the colonial masters over their subject. 

A good read. 

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

Good to know!

How I Became a Hindu (1982, Third Reprint,2008)
Author: Sita Ram Goel

Trigger Alert. Readers' discretion is advised. 

Sita Ram Goel, Ram Swarup, Koenraad Elst, David Frawley and publications linked to the RSS may not be hailed as literary marvels or considered literature pieces by the mainstream. Yet, the knowledge is there for all to scoop.

The mainstream always labels right-wing writers as rabble-rousers out to tip the serenity of public harmony. Everything they say and write is painted in the same stroke, as venomous. I decided to look at one of Sita Ram Goel's early writings.

For the uninitiated, Goel is revered as a formidable Indian historian, religious and political activist, writer, and publisher known for his influential contributions to the literature on Hinduism and Hindu nationalism in the late twentieth century. With his direct, unapologetic presentation of facts and provocative book titles, he has stirred the psyche of the Hindus and many Indians to look at India and its history with a new lens, the one previously tinted by leftist historians of the yesteryears.

Goel and his publication house, Voice of India, have had complaints issues against them for his writings on comparative religious studies, specifically Hinduism against Christianity and Islam. His research on Hindu temples in India was hailed by Hindus but criticised by the mainstream. He asserted that many of the iconic religious buildings in India were initially Hindu temples, the famous one being the Ayodhya Ram Mandir.

Goel is vehemently opposed to the idea of evangelism.

I think it is essential that everyone indulges in other alien ideologies to open their minds. Just the other day, a very dear childhood friend, for who I have only high esteem, who happens to be an unapologetic Muslim, asked me a daft question. He had earlier introduced a book on high-level science to me and my circle of friends. The author compared what the scientific world knows now to what is written in the Old Testament, Bible and Quran. He showed a fantastic similarity between the two. The daft question was how many scientists had converted to Hinduism after reading the Hindu scriptures. Of course, everyone knows that no one converts to Hinduism. One can scrutinise, embrace or reject some or all of its scriptures. One does not need to pledge any allegiance to be a Hindu. One can check in, check out or leave anytime they like.

Forget that knowledge from the cradle of Islamic civilisation originated from the Indian subcontinent anyway.

Like most people in the Indian-Hindu diaspora, Sita Ram Goel, too, grew up confused. They were fed myths and fables about the Hindu religion that seemed detached from reality. They soon became ashamed to be associated with Hinduism. In keeping with their friends and to speak the same lingo as the elitist circle, they looked at Abrahamic religions as their saviours. Goel grew up at a time when India was in its march to Independence. Gandhism initially made a lot of sense. Dogmatic beliefs and stickling to ritualism made him explore the Arya Samaj movement, which rejected idolatry practices. He again felt awkward when everyone around looked down at the Harijans and shunned away from their worship. As a student, he explored Marxism, Communism and Socialism. In his assessment, Leninism and Stalinism swayed far away from Marx's teachings. They are merely rebranding of Western capitalism. The final endpoint is material gain. In capitalism, wealth is controlled by the wealthy few linked to the ruling class. In Communism, it boils down to the same at the end. In Goel's mind, the Abrahamic religions are no different from Communism, as indoctrination is the mainstay. Goel fell very sick once. A Reverend took him in and nursed him back to health. Goel got disillusioned when the holy man kept pestering him to accept Jesus as his Saviour.

Living through the age of Nehruism, he noticed that Hindus have evolved into apologists. They have resigned themselves to the fact that they can be a punching bag to everyone, and yet be careful not to offend others. The Hindus, when they are the majority, they have to keep Christians and Muslims happy. Conversely, Hindus as minorities in Muslim-majority nations have to endure so much discrimination. But no one is bothered. As Muslims have a propensity to do street demonstrations, Hindus have been conditioned not to offend but to maintain the peace.

People in his circle have described Sita Ram Goel as an 'intellectual Kshatriya'. His pet projects include researching the history of temples and mosques built on top of pre-existing ancient temples, including the Ayodhya debate. To answer the question of how he became a Hindu, after experimenting with all philosophies and religious teachings, he found the Abrahamic teachings quite dogmatic and restrictive. The Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists and Capitalists are one and the same, rebranded differently. Sanathana Dharma, despite its man-made rituals and divisions between people, is actually more inclusive. A Sanathani can pray to his God in whatever way he feels fit. His God may or may not have a form. He may even be a non-believer of Gods and still a Hindu.

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

Toxic miscarriage of justice?

Roe v Wade (2021)

This movie is often described as the worst film made in 2021 so far. It must surely be a showcase for lousy storytelling, novice acting, and horrible script all put together. Sometimes, we wonder which direction the movie is going, pro-life or pro-choice? 

This offering is made by the people who feel the country was hoodwinked by Planned Parenthood in believing that the decision to give women the right over the reproductive function was what the government wanted. The Planned Parenthood's link to Margaret Singer and her work in eugenics and the 'Negro project' (and even Klu Klax Klan as the film suggest) meant that the foundation's intentions are subversive. It is said to have enticed medical practitioners and social workers with fake statistics and media to influence public sentiments. The prime advocate of abortion on demand was a gynaecologist Bernard Nathanson, who allegedly changed the whole pro-abortion issue into a money-making endeavour, later apparently repented and started championing an anti-abortion stance.

The film, however, gives a good background of the events surrounding the Supreme Court and the thinking of the 1973 landmark case. A Texan lady, Norma McCorvey, referred to as Jane Roe in her trials to maintain anonymity, was advised to put up an injunction, through her lawyers, to terminate her pregnancy. Norma had a troubled childhood and had had frequent run-ins with the law, even at the age of ten. Married at 16, only to discover that her partner was left with a baby and a drinking problem, her mother adopted her baby. A second partner came around, and a second baby ensued but was given up for adoption. She had her third unplanned pregnancy when she was 21 in 1969. She allegedly made a false claim that she was raped by a black man to demand a termination as it seems it was permissible by Texan law. She lost on paperwork, but the lawyers decided to get the case heard in the US Supreme Court with the backing of Planned Parenthood.

The times were changing. The social fabric and the place of women were evolving. From a position of playing second fiddle to men, the two world wars had shown that the women's role in society was equally as important as that of men. Hence, it became logical to demand equal rights, and they viewed reproduction as something that held them back from exploring their full potentials. The thinking was that 'one who controls reproduction controls her future. 

With this background and the change of the Supreme Court judges (after Nixon's appointment), the law was passed. 

Interestingly, both Dr Nathanson and Norma McCovey later became devout Catholics and fought for anti-abortion lobbyists.

Week 3: Embryonic stage

By no means, the question of abortion on demand has been resolved by the Roe v Wade case. (Wade is the name of the Public Prosecutor assigned to McCorvey's case). Legal minds still argue about Roe v Wade. It brings on the question of patient privacy and the place of the unborn child as a living entity demanding rights itself.

Scholars have been debating when life actually starts for centuries and still not come to a definite conclusion. For example, is it at Day 14 of conception when differentiation to trigeminal layers occurs? Or is it at the commencement of heartbeat or fetal movements?

All these academic stuff are well and fine to determine the path for the human race to follow, but in reality, in the ground, the public Joe has to handle the day-to-day dealing with more mouths to feed than they actually can. The funny thing about nature is that the people who can ill afford to have children are bestowed (or cursed) with generous gifts from the Stork. So poverty and multiparity are directly linked. How about rape as a justification to terminate a pregnancy? Are we going to lose the next Steve Jobs or Albert Einstein here?

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