Why I Killed Gandhi

http://www.sanskritimagazine.com/india/why-i-killed-gandhi/

By Sanskriti on February 2, 2014

Nathuram Godse’s Final Address to the Court

Nathuram Godse was arrested immediately after he assassinated Gandhiji, based on a F. I. R. filed by Nandlal Mehta at the Tughlak Road Police station at Delhi . The trial, which was held in camera, began on May 27, 1948 and concluded on February 10, 1949. He was sentenced to death. 

An appeal to the Punjab High Court, then in session at Simla, did not find favour and the sentence was upheld. The statement that you are about to read is the last made by Godse before the Court on the May 5, 1949.

Such was the power and eloquence of this statement that one of the judges, G. D. Khosla, later wrote, “I have, however, no doubt that had the audience of that day been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task of deciding Godse’s appeal, they would have brought a verdict of ‘not Guilty’ by an overwhelming majority”

WHY I KILLED GANDHI

Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revere Hindu religion, Hindu history and Hindu culture. I had, therefore, been intensely proud of Hinduism as a whole. As I grew up I developed a tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegiance to any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked actively for the eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birth alone. I openly joined RSS wing of anti-caste movements and maintained that all Hindus were of equal status as to rights, social and religious and should be considered high or low on merit alone and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste or profession.

I used publicly to take part in organized anti-caste dinners in which thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Chamars and Bhangis participated. We broke the caste rules and dined in the company of each other. I have read the speeches and writings of Ravana, Chanakiya, Dadabhai Naoroji, Vivekanand, Gokhale, Tilak, along with the books of ancient and modern history of India and some prominent countries like England , France , America and Russia . Moreover I studied the tenets of Socialism and Marxism. But above all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkar and Gandhiji had written and spoken, as to my mind these two ideologies have contributed more to the molding of the thought and action of the Indian people during the last thirty years or so, than any other single factor has done.

All this reading and thinking led me to believe it was my first duty to serve Hindudom and Hindus both as a patriot and as a world citizen. To secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests of some thirty crores (300 million) of Hindus would automatically constitute the freedom and the well-being of all India , one fifth of human race. This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the Hindu Sanghtanist ideology and programme, which alone, I came to believe, could win and preserve the national independence of Hindustan , my Motherland, and enable her to render true service to humanity as well.

Since the year 1920, that is, after the demise of Lokamanya Tilak, Gandhiji’s influence in the Congress first increased and then became supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their intensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violence which he paraded ostentatiously before the country. No sensible or enlightened person could object to those slogans. In fact there is nothing new or original in them.. They are implicit in every constitutional public movement. But it is nothing but a mere dream if you imagine that the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become, capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal life from day to day.

In fact, honour, duty and love of one’s own kith and kin and country might often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. I could never conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression is unjust. I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and, if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. [In the Ramayana] Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita.. [In the Mahabharata], Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends and relations including the revered Bhishma because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the Mahatma betrayed a total ignorance of the springs of human action.

In more recent history, it was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji that first checked and eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny in India . It was absolutely essentially for Shivaji to overpower and kill an aggressive Afzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. In condemning history’s towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit. He was, paradoxical as it may appear, a violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name of truth and non-violence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Guru will remain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen for ever for the freedom they brought to them.

The accumulating provocation of thirty-two years, culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately. Gandhi had done very good in South Africa to uphold the rights and well-being of the Indian community there. But when he finally returned to India he developed a subjective mentality under which he alone was to be the final judge of what was right or wrong. If the country wanted his leadership, it had to accept his infallibility; if it did not, he would stand aloof from the Congress and carry on his own way.

Against such an attitude there can be no halfway house. Either Congress had to surrender its will to his and had to be content with playing second fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics and primitive vision, or it had to carry on without him. He alone was the Judge of everyone and every thing; he was the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of that movement. He alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it. The movement might succeed or fail, it might bring untold disaster and political reverses but that could make no difference to the Mahatma’s infallibility. ‘A Satyagrahi can never fail’ was his formula for declaring his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what a Satyagrahi is. Thus, the Mahatma became the judge and jury in his own cause. These childish insanities and obstinacies, coupled with a most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character made Gandhi formidable and irresistible.

Many people thought that his politics were irrational but they had either to withdraw from the Congress or place their intelligence at his feet to do with as he liked. In a position of such absolute irresponsibility Gandhi was guilty of blunder after blunder, failure after failure, disaster after disaster. Gandhi’s pro-Muslim policy is blatantly in his perverse attitude on the question of the national language of India . It is quite obvious that Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the premier language. In the beginning of his career in India , Gandhi gave a great impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a champion of what is called Hindustani.. Everybody in India knows that there is no language called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary. It is a mere dialect, it is spoken, but not written. It is a bastard tongue and cross-breed between Hindi and Urdu, and not even the Mahatma’s sophistry could make it popular. But in his desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani alone should be the national language of India . His blind followers, of course, supported him and the so-called hybrid language began to be used. The charm and purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted to please the Muslims. All his experiments were at the expense of the Hindus.

From August 1946 onwards the private armies of the Muslim League began a massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy, Lord Wavell, though distressed at what was happening, would not use his powers under the Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murder and arson. The Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi with some retaliation by the Hindus. The Interim Government formed in September was sabotaged by its Muslim League members right from its inception, but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to the government of which they were a part, the greater was Gandhi’s infatuation for them. Lord Wavell had to resign as he could not bring about a settlement and he was succeeded by Lord Mountbatten. King Log was followed by King Stork. The Congress which had boasted of its nationalism and socialism secretly accepted Pakistan literally at the point of the bayonet and abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India was vivisected and one-third of the Indian territory became foreign land to us from August 15, 1947.

Lord Mountbatten came to be described in Congress circles as the greatest Viceroy and Governor-General this country ever had. The official date for handing over power was fixed for June 30, 1948, but Mountbatten with his ruthless surgery gave us a gift of vivisected India ten months in advance. This is what Gandhi had achieved after thirty years of undisputed dictatorship and this is what Congress party calls ‘freedom’ and ‘peaceful transfer of power’. The Hindu-Muslim unity bubble was finally burst and a theocratic state was established with the consent of Nehru and his crowd and they have called ‘freedom won by them with sacrifice’ – whose sacrifice? When top leaders of Congress, with the consent of Gandhi, divided and tore the country – which we consider a deity of worship – my mind was filled with direful anger.

One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fast unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Hindu refugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violent attacks he did not so much as utter a single word to protest and censure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. Gandhi was shrewd enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had he imposed for its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan , there would have been found hardly any Muslims who could have shown some grief if the fast had ended in his death. It was for this reason that he purposely avoided imposing any condition on the Muslims. He was fully aware of from the experience that Jinnah was not at all perturbed or influenced by his fast and the Muslim League hardly attached any value to the inner voice of Gandhi.

Gandhi is being referred to as the Father of the Nation. But if that is so, he had failed his paternal duty inasmuch as he has acted very treacherously to the nation by his consenting to the partitioning of it. I stoutly maintain that Gandhi has failed in his duty. He has proved to be the Father of Pakistan. His inner-voice, his spiritual power and his doctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all crumbled before Jinnah’s iron will and proved to be powerless. Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing but hatred and that I shall have lost all my honour, even more valuable than my life, if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time I felt that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be proved practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with armed forces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan . People may even call me and dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nation would be free to follow the course founded on the reason which I consider to be necessary for sound nation-building.

After having fully considered the question, I took the final decision in the matter, but I did not speak about it to anyone whatsoever. I took courage in both my hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, on the prayer-grounds of Birla House. I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus. There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be brought to book and for this reason I fired those fatal shots. I bear no ill will towards anyone individually but I do say that I had no respect for the present government owing to their policy which was unfairly favourable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi.

I have to say with great regret that Prime Minister Nehru quite forgets that his preachings and deeds are at times at variances with each other when he talks about India as a secular state in season and out of season, because it is significant to note that Nehru has played a leading role in the establishment of the theocratic state of Pakistan, and his job was made easier by Gandhi’s persistent policy of appeasement towards the Muslims. I now stand before the court to accept the full share of my responsibility for what I have done and the judge would, of course, pass against me such orders of sentence as may be considered proper. But I would like to add that I do not desire any mercy to be shown to me, nor do I wish that anyone else should beg for mercy on my behalf. My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism levelled against it on all sides. I have no doubt that honest writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof some day in future.

Under pressure?

Just heard from a podcast about the gripe put forward by a group of people on placing too much emphasis on SAT examinations results in students' placing in universities. They argue that the examination does not reflect the students' true potential but instead uses a college-based assessment for this purpose. Instead of depending on tests done within a short duration, a spread-out approach would be superior, they say.

Just the other day, members of the Sunday morning running group was discussing a similar topic. We discussed the necessity of selecting only the top-scoring students for specific age-old 'professional' jobs (medicine, law, accountancy, engineering, architecture and such). Just like how everything else has been dressed down over the years, nowadays, even professional courses have shortcuts and express lanes to bypass some apparently 'out-of-dates' passé requirements. No A-levels, no problem, do our foundation courses which would speed track your entrance. A-level too tricky, no problem, do our matriculation course, here is the brochure!

UN made it a human right issue to deny anyone education, but nowhere does it mention that it is their birthright to receive tertiary education.

After much deliberation, the group concluded that high achievers were accepted into professional courses because of the discipline one needs to excel and perform well under pressure in a controlled environment. A professional, making life saving or altering decisions, constantly work under pressure and deadlines. He cannot afford to cut corners and is expected to do it right all the time. There is no room for error. What better way to test the tenacity of an individual than to create an artificial pressure cooker to steam out delicacies than to churn out half baked cookies?

You do not want a mollycoddled Rottweiler to guard your Fort Knox, do you? 

A philosophical discourse of life!

Sunset Limited (2011)

This drama may not be appealing to all as the setting is uninspiring. The whole 1h 30m movie happens in the confines of an apartment room involving two men arguing about God! The two actors who happened to be favourites are the only characters in the show - White (Tommy Lee Jones) and Black (Samuel L. Jackson).
As the conversation progresses into high gear, the story unfolds. Sunset Limited is the subway train into which White had supposed to have jumped into to try to kill himself, only to have fallen into the arms of by Black who just happened to be there.
Black brought him to his apartment in the poor side of town to knock some sense into him and perhaps pass the divine word of the Lord. What ensued later was a philosophical argument about life, God, death and suicide!
Black is ex-convict who grew in the bad side of the town, was incarcerated and almost committed murder in prison just to find God and chose the path of the Divine. He is a pastor now finding peace in helping the downtrodden.
White is a college professor who seem pessimistic and nihilistic about everything around him. He feels that there is no meaning in life. He leads a lonely life. Everyone, he thinks, just go through life waiting for their time to die.
Black tries to persuade him to look at the brighter side of things with the promise of eternally blissful after life. White, an atheist and a thinking man, does not buy into his promises.
It appears that things are easier when one does not over analyse life and the purpose of life. The more you try to understand life and its intricacies, the higher the chance of one flipping over to side of the loonies.
Their discussion intensifies and both men put their side of belief. The dark pessimistic argument of White some how makes the Pastor rather unsure of his direction of life. He questions the silence of God to give him the wisdom to argue the bleak outlook of man's life.
The movie ends with White leaving the apartment unimpressed with Black's argument.
Beliefs and callings are from within, it cannot be forced upon. If you believe in something, you accept and rationalize everything which happens around that belief. It simplifies things and one can concentrate on doing other things in life, like enjoying life (maybe not to the fullest as you may be wary of the after life!).

Untold piece of Penang history!

Penang's untold story: Hartal 1967

By Koay Su Lyn | The Edge Malaysia – Wed, Sep 11, 2013

TO SIMPLY begin with, the word 'hartal' refers to a cessation of work/businesses in protest against a political decision. Malaya, before her independence in 1957 once observed a one day hartal way back in October 1947, organised by the Pan-Malayan Council of Joint Action against the constitution of the Federation of Malaya.

While the 1947 hartal is widely quoted on paper today, there is little mention of a hartal that once swept across the island of Penang in 1967. Originally intended as a peaceful protest, this hartal escalated into a bloody atmosphere of heightened racial tension. Tan Sri Wong Pow Nee, the island's first Chief Minister even related the said protest as one of the incidences which might have possibly led to the 1969 racial riots.

However, a closer look at the mood and circumstances surrounding the 1967 Hartal explains the contrary. Allow me to first transport you back to the island of Penang in the 1960s.

The Prince of Wales Island in a crumbling state

Penang in the 1960s was no wonderland.

Towards the mid-1960s, both her economy and trading environment was in a depressing state. Per capita income declined as much as 12% under the national wage and the island's entreport trade (mostly with Indonesia) was also affected by the Indonesian Confrontation.

A 2% surtax imposed by the Malaysian government on Indonesian goods re-exported from Penang placed the island in yet another disadvantage as compared to other ports like Singapore.

Things crumbled in 1967 when Penang lost her free port status. Businesses were struggling to survive the recession and unemployment rate was soaringly high.

According to a Straits Echo report, in early months of 1968, the state government estimated it at about 20% of the work force, with a total of 10,000 school leavers requiring jobs.

Perhaps, your grandparents would recall how many young people were out of jobs (many made a living then by becoming parking attendants and other odd job workers) and how one is considered extremely lucky to land one's self in a teacher's college or sixth form.

The island's economic condition was so bleak that even the President of the International Chamber of Commerce predicted that Penang would end up as a fishing village (of course, his prediction was proven wrong!). Nevertheless, the sentiments of rage and dissatisfaction due to the various economic pressures in place were mounting among the masses.

Sterling devaluation and brewing rage

The decision of the Malaysian authorities to devalue the Malaysian dollar which was tied to the Sterling in November 1967 added fuel to the fire.

Malaysia then had two types of currencies in circulation – the old, based on Sterling and the new, based on gold. The new currency issued by the Malaysian government in June 1967, at par with the value of the old, was meant to replace the old in time to come without any 'phrasing out' period stipulated.

In the light of the British devaluation, the impromptu action to similarly devalue only the old currency, making it 15% less valuable than the new, resulted in confusion and not to mention, a heightened level of anger and annoyance among the people, typically the lower income group.

It was not the fashion then for farmers, fishermen and small-time traders to own bank accounts. Many lived in the outshirts and many kept their savings (in shilings especially) in their homes with the bulk of it in old currency. Thus, the devaluation burden, in which the government should accordingly have shouldered by itself, fell upon those who could least afford it and simply aggravated the plight of most Penangites.     

While the authorities maintained that they were faced with no choice but to devalue the old currency, immense public outcry inevitable and many questioned the validity of that stand . It was in such condition that Lim Kean Siew, the then Chairman of the Labour Party Penang division, decided on a hartal ala the style of Gandhi's civil disobedience protest.

A public statement urging the government to provide a grace period for the lower income groups to get rid off their old currencies was similarly issued. Neverthless, their demands were swept under the carpet.

The Hartal and its unanticipated violence

Contrary to common perception, the hartal was never meant as a racial riot. It was intended as a peaceful, democratic protest against the decision to devaluate the old dollar. Lim even made it clear that the move was in no manner communist-inspired as well. Calls were merely made for shops to cease from conducting their usual business routines by putting up their shutters as an act of protest.

In fact, there were neither any street demonstrations nor elements of violence and hostility during the wee hours of the launch of the hartal.

The hartal in its early stages, was perceived as a success by the Labour Party – they had the entire Penang City under their control. Overwhelming support also gave the party a ray of hope for the upcoming 1969 general elections.

But what was it that stirred the trouble?

In an era where thugs ruled most of the streets in George Town, the hartal haphazardly went out of hand in the later stages and was amplified into an unexpected racial conflict when gangs and party extremists decided to take matters at their hands as well. To this, even the police force was not fully prepared.

Of course, folks who lived through that era might tell you different incidences of the hartal stirred up by these notorious assemblages along the many numerous parts of the island.

One of them dictates how a group of gangsters went into rows with a goreng pisang seller along the Malay dominated Dato Kramat area and had later killed a guard at the Standard Chartered Bank. The other, how a gang of Chinese youths attempted to block Malay passerbys in revenge of an earlier Malay group who did the same to the Chinese.

The Straits Times also reported chaos along the main streets of George Town – from Chulia Street to Penang Road, Prangin Road and Beach Street. The windows of the Cold Storage were smashed by stones and bricks and even the Jefferson Centre in Beach Street suffered the same fate upon being attacked by a group of youths, shouting and screaming anti-devaluation slogans.

The famous Violet Café along Magazine Road was not spared either – demonstrators forced their way in and about 100 people breakfasting inside ran out as the mob smashed the furniture and showcases.

At least two other restaurants along Penang Road and Campbell Street were attacked. Bus companies also withdrew their vehicles upon several attacks. A mob was reported to have stopped a bus along Penang Road and stones were thrown into the bus to chase out all its passengers before an attempt to overturn the said vehicle. Even two reporters from a local newspaper, the Warta Negara were assulted in their attempt to snap pictures of the incident.

Barricades were launched, curfews were implemented and the holiday island seemed like a deserted, old cowboy town.

A racial riot instigated by the Labour Party?

Towards the end of the hartal, the island was at its bloodiest – eight deaths and 137 people injured. Extra police personnel and members of the armed forces were also sent from Kuala Lumpur to guard the tension. Lim, together with other 23 leaders were arrested at the height of the protest. The code-launched 'Operation X' by the home affairs ministry witnessed the closure of the party's headquarters followed by its other eight branch offices around Penang.

Weapons were ceased and several hundred of youths (unfortunately, sources do not state whether these youths stemmed from the party itself or street gangs but it is believed that there is still the possibility of dual-affiliation) were rounded up for investigations on the grounds of suspected subversive activities.

Clearly, as someone deserved the blame, the Labour Party was held responsible for all the chaos, deaths and injuries caused.

Even the Tunku expressed his shock in the papers over the "outbreaks of violence in Penang over such a 'small thing' as the devaluation of the old dollar". Regarding the hartal, he noted that "All hell broke loose. Malays retaliated with violence and what originally was a communist resistance against the government and the people, turned into a Sino-Malay conflict".

However, in the light of the island's troubles during that period, it is res ipsa loquitur that the hartal was not a racial riot instigated by the Labour Party but a mere one-off accident. By stating this, I also beg to differ in relation to the claims that the hartal is one of the incidents which led to the 1969 racial riots.

While it is true that the hartal was inspired by Lim as Chairman of the Labour Party, there is, as highlighted earlier, no intention for the protest to be racially-tainted.

Taking into account the island's woes then, majority of the masses, regardless of race, did not favour the devaluation as their livelihoods would prove more onerous as a result of it. Such dilemma simply aroused the idea of a peaceful protest to demonstrate their non-acceptance of the decision which is a commonplace in growing democracies.

Moreover, as mentioned earlier, even Lim himself made it clear that the hartal was in no way a communist-inspired act to boycott the government's decision. Again, given the circumstances of which the said decision was made, the hartal was a protest against the particular decision made at that point of time and not part of a deliberate communist battle against the government.

Racial elements perpetuated the atmosphere of the hartal only when gangs, thugs and extremists decided to intervene at their cause and such intervention was unforeseeable by the organisers of the hartal in order to assert control over the situation.

In fact, Lim was arrested and detained at the height of the hartal even before the chaos took place in the hands of these groups.

Certainly, it was most unfortunate that the entire party was held responsible for the anarchy incensed towards the later stages of the protest. It is equally interesting to note that even Tun Razak, the then home minister was later quoted in the Straits Times as "happy to say that there was no evidence to show that the clashes were racial".

Perhaps, despite all the disorders caused, the hartal served as a blessing in disguise for the island to be thoroughly prepared for the unanticipated in the future which led the island to be relatively calm in 1969 (thanks in part to the diligent leadership of the police force led by Albert Mah).

Today, 46 years have passed. The Hartal 1967 remains generally unknown and largely forgotten to most Penangites.

Yet however, to those who have lived, witnessed and struggled-through those painful times, the hartal is much alive as a constant reminder to all, not only to anticipate the unexpected but also to appreciate and treasure the peace and fortune we all often take for granted in modern times like today.   

Koay Su Lyn is a research analyst with the history and heritage department of the Penang Institute. A lawyer by training, she believes that one cannot truly comprehend the present without a proper reference to the past.

Taking creative licence to the limit...

Gunday (Goons, Hindi; 2014)

If you think that the story of two bosom buddies who would die for each other fall for the same girl is an overused formula which had been around since the days of Sangam (1964), you are wrong. It looks that this formula will be used again and again in different settings even into the next generation.

Two boys who grew through thick and thin as refugees after the 1971 Pakistani Civil War, grew up strong and rich just to be floored by a curvaceous member of the opposite gender. 

This leads to a showdown where the two buddies have to evaluate their friendship over perfunctory songs, melodrama, picturesque landscape, rainbow hued dresses and various stages of undressing!

Being set in Calcutta, the mandatory scenes of Howrah Bridge, fish market and Durga Pooja made their prominent appearances.

Bikram and Bala grew up stealing coal from the goods train to slowly build themselves an empire of wealth fro black market business. They become proud Indian citizens after their philantrophic work. 

Hey, the train coal robbing scene by refugees is reminiscent of Bhaag Milkha Bhaag (dejavu)!

The police is at wits end at their attempt to throw the book at these 2 outlaws. In come ACP Satyajit Sarkar (Irrfan Khan) of the Calcutta Police to the rescue. At about the same time, metamorphoses a vivacious cabaret dancer Nandita to blow the two heroes away. By then, almost everyone knew where the movie was heading! The two heroes try to woo our heroine admist a murder, betrayal and childish vows.

The bosom buddies became arch rivals out for each other's neck over the bosomy beau. After much singing, dancing, fighting and exhibition of sculptured torsos, the duo discover the deceit of the police. The Indian police must be a totally dedicated lot. Inspector Nandita Sengupta not only danced better than a Bollywood star, she had a body perfect with her government salary which would not make affordability to a personal trainer ala-movie stars possible and she is totally is perfect charmer who could pluck the strings of anyone's heart. If you close your eyes to these questionables and be not-so-critical like me when she was the only one in the temple without her headscarf when everyone appeared modest during the Durga Pooja, you would enjoy the movie.

Irrfan Khan without any much facial expression, left quite an impression with his delivery of lines with perfect intonation and wit. The heroes were bearable even though they excelled at the physical exhibitionism and choreographed fighting departments rather than the acting faculty.

In cyber space, news is rife that certain parties, particularly from Bangladesh, have felt slighted by the downplaying of the freedom fighters of the birth of the country of Bangladesh. In the movie, the 1971 Indo-Paki War is described as the third Indo-Paki War which gave rise to Bangladesh and a flood of refugees. From what I understand, West and East Pakistan had their ever first elections in 1970. Bangladesh's (East Pakistan, then) premier party won more seats than West Pakistan's PPP and logically show have the honour to the chair of Presidentship. Unfortunately, West Pakistan with their Pashtun and Punjabi ancestry and superior military force and finances thought they were superior than the lowly Bengalis to lead the helm. Bangladesh declared independence from Pakistan and that started Operation Searchlight where Bangladeshi civilians, intelligensia and students were massacred by the Pakistani Army and religious militiamen. Indian Army, after being provoked, were more than happy to be drawn to the war to aid feuding brothers. The superior Indian Army ended the battle in no time.

Rayerbazar killing field photographed
immediately after the war, showing
dead bodies of intellectuals.
(Rashid Talukdar, 1971)

I overheard in the film an interesting dialogue in the course of the film. One of the heroes, a Bangladeshi refugee, said that he was always felt Indian at heart and man's follies made him a refugee. Just for the record, the arbitrary separation of the state of Bengal was the brain child of Lord Curzon, the Viceroy of India in 1905, along religious lines.

Sivaji-Saroja Devi (Puthiya Paravai)

The somewhat groundbreaking teaching that (at least in Indian films where poetic justice always prevails) the film seem to be imparting is that the wayward way of life that the protagonists led is actually the fault of man himself. They justify their life of crime as that of the result of  circumstantial interplay. No matter which way they turned to lead an honest life, society stopped them citing their refugee status.

The movie ends with both heroes escaping away in the trail of a moving train in the same way they started their life together. The audience are left wondering whether they escaped their captors. With the number of bullets and explosives that they have dodged in the movie, this would have been a piece of cake. Furthermore, the public may not be ready to have the demure Inspector Nandita shooting down her own beau. Maybe there are plans for a sequel?

By the way, the later scene where Nandita reveals her identity to Bikram reminds me of Saroja Devi and Sivaji in Puthiya Paravai (1964) where Saroja Devi is an undercover cop sent to seduce Sivaji to admit to his wife's killing!

N.B. I could swear that the cabaret number props were plagiarized off the 2004 Hollywood hit film 'Chicago' right down to the fonts of the neon lights which read 'Calcutta'!

No right, no wrong!

Don't know why, this week, two of the people just went on rattling about the problems they were having with their kids. Not to solve their problems but to ventilate, hoping to hear that they had not done it all wrong but they did all right. To hear that they did what was right in that particular frame of time, in that specific situation, with the resources that they had. It looks like everyone is in the same boat, expectations on the duties performed. The receiving party, however, feels that it is their birthright to be given on the platter. Through thick and thin, the providers provided, feeling that the responsibility was theirs to shoulder (ain't too heavy 'cause it is their flesh and bone).

What they expect in return is gratitude and respect that they had given their elders. But then, times change and values change. Gratitude in the medieval times is paid back with life, in the spanking new technology-driven 21st-century world, it would be a 'like' on your Facebook!

What the provider really want is for the recipient to be able to weather the storm which may strike at any time in their unpredictable lives and also to be a steadfast rock for future dependents! That's all.

Same story, different settings!

The Secret History of the Great Dictators
Real-Life Accounts of History's worst tyrants
Diane Low (2009)

The underlying story somehow sounds almost the same. The will be a crisis, some one will come to the rescue, his policies will be praised, he will overstay his welcome and then things will only spiral downwards and would go down in history for all the wrong reasons.
Most leaders try to create an enemy for them to stay as long as they can. Unfortunately the truth of these can only be ascertained in hindsight.
Save for a few leaders who are genuinely sick in the head, most of the dictators are generally people who never really shined in their early part of their careers.
This book gives a good review of some of the leaders that we have heard of but never really had the chance to learn in depth.
Emperor Caligula was rated as the most heinous dictator  of all time in 'History Channel'. His unconventional childhood compounded by an episode of 'brain fever' seem to explain the extreme bloodshed, deviant sexual debauchery and grandeur that reigned during the time of his power.
Genghiz Khan who is often praised for his conquering prowess is also infamous for his inhumane treatment of his subjects and foes. He not only killed his enemies but their descendants too. As he and his men treat water as something very divine, they make it a point not to waste it on something as meaningless as bathing. Hence, their extreme body odour is another of their secret weapon to defeat their enemies! Towards the end of his life, he tried to become religious but it may be more towards achieving immortality!
Ivan the terrible, the person who established the Romanov dynasty was the first Czar of Russia. Even though he was brought up as an orthodox Christian, he still believed in his pagan beliefs. While the rest of Europe was embracing Renaissance, he kept Russia in dark ages with killing, witch hunt and savagery.
Josef Stalin, a cobbler's son dropped out of seminary school after being captivated by Darwin and Marx writings. Starting as an average party worker who never really shined, he steamrolled himself to great heights to establish the Gulag and kill over 40 million people.
We all know about Adolf Hitler and his antics that brought the whole world to its knees. What most people do not know is his perverted sexual preferences, his syphilitic infection from a Jewish sex worker and his affair with his niece who died a mysterious death.
Mao Zedong is another master planner and a perfectionist poet who brought short lived prosperity to a crumbling nation. His reign was, however, marred by widespread famine which killed over 30 million and indoctrination of generation to become non-thinking zombies. Many valuable ancient history was lost in his book burning exercise of Cultural Revolution.
In the Central African Republic, there was a mad dictator in the 1970s with had a fetish with Napoleon Bonaparte and everything French. The country which started as a slave nation in a fabled kingdom became sought after when diamonds were found there. The dictator, declared himself as Emperor Bokassa I spent a third of the country's national budget for his coronation. During his reign he amassed diamond profits, blurred the demarcation between his bank account and that of the country's. He is said to have dined on human flesh, had 17 wives and 50 children. He was exiled but later lived on his earnings like a king.
Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania started life as a stammering communist who played an important role in the post WW2 Soviet controlled Romania. He gain limelight for standing against the Russian intervention. The Western bloc played devils' advocate to create disharmony in Romania. As he became the President, he and his wife also developed a sense of grandeur and paranoia. While the whole country was immersed in poverty, he and his family were drowning in luxury and megalomania!
Idi Amin was literally a mad man on a cocktail of anti psychotic medication. His gung ho way of 'overkilling' in a situation earned him a reputation as an effective problem solver. This trait eventually earned him the post of President. This 'Last King of Scotland' (due to his fetish with everything Scottish) was sort of an international joke. He made preposterous anti Jewish and anti Western statements. He embraced Islam after a meeting with his good friend, Moammar Gaddafi of Libya. Whilst the economy was going down the drain, he continued with his obscenely lavish lifestyle. His harem of ladies, the fleet of wives, his indulgence in cannibalism and outlandish behaviours were the reason for his downfall.
The poorest nation on the planet, the voodoo land, Haiti, has always been unlucky with its leaders. Francois 'Papa Doc' Duvalier, a soft spoken doctor, hold the reputation of being able to siphon off millions from US when the threat of communism was looming in Central America. He rigged the election and used US money for him own coffers whilst the whole country were drowning in poverty.
The American have their hands dirty in the history of Chile. In their zest to crumple a socialist government in Chile, they created a monster by the name of General Augusto Jose Ramon Pinochet Ugarte. As we are aware, the Chilean outlook at Pinochet can be said as divided. Some look at him as saviour of democracy while others look at him as despot.
Over in Indo China, Pol Pot is listed as a dictator. This situation is again messed up by the intervention of superpowers, making fellow citizens with different ideologies fight against their fellow brothers thinking what they believed to be right.
We all know about Saddam Hussein and his ability to control the various ethnicities within his country through sheer intimidation and scare tactics. Whatever said and done, his removal by US had unleashed wave over wave of upheavals and civil war.
Robert Mugabe, in spite of all the negative publicity about him in the world  arena, goes on with life even after forceful seizure of white man property in Zimbabwe.
At the end of the book, I realise that the longer a leader stays in power, the greater the desire is for him to cling on to power. To satisfy one fragment of the society, the other would retaliate and mayhem will ensue. It is impossible to satisfy everybody every time. And there is always a group of people who would benefit when we fight. After reading this book, one would not see their leaders in the same light again. Over the ages, it is always the same story. All in the name power, ideology and self interests, man indulge in atrocities.