Movies can be provocative when they are made well and have a point to convey. A typical bollywood movie does nothing of that sort. One movie that does is “Lage Raho Munna Bhai”.
The plot goes something like this. Munna Bhai is your average gangster. He falls for a radio jockey and in an attempt to get a meeting with her he rounds up a bunch of professors who help him win the contest that gets him the meeting. He ends up visiting an unused library doesn’t stop reading for days. This leaves him with visions of Gandhi-ji who guides him in successfully putting Gandhian methods into practice in numerous situations. At some point in the plot, a good doctor ends up demonstrating to him that his visions of Gandhi-ji are not real by showing him that the Gandhi-ji in his vision can answer only questions that Munna already knows the answers to. Munna accepts the diagnosis, is laughed at and ridiculed by the audience who were his fans a few minutes ago. Munna continues to be a good guy, does more good deeds and gets the girl in the end. Everyone is happy. Millions have watched the movie. Millions have loved the movie. I’m quite certain it will be remembered years from now.
Some points to ponder.
Let’s perform a thought experiment. Change the hero’s name to Munu-swamy. Replace the character Gandhi-ji with say Rama. The plot suddenly becomes impossible. The doctor would be in all likely hood be given a proper trashing by the adoring masses. It would be a miracle if he could get out of that room alive. Munu-swamy and the mass of people that adore him would never accept the diagnosis. Why?
No director dare make such a movie with YouKnowWho in Gandhi-ji’s role. If he did, he would need to take great pains to not show the character on screen. A mistake of that nature could cost the director his life. Why?
There will be protests on the streets across the world in either case. Governments would respond by banning the films. The same fate awaits such content on the internet as well. Why?
Are we making a virtue of tolerating intolerance?
Art is the highest form of human expression. Artists can and do argue both side of a mobius strip. Have we not watched Mani Ratnam portray the human side of a terrorist in Roja?
Freedom of speech and expression are fundamental human rights. Restrictions on those are never reasonable and rarely serve the purpose the restrictions are justified as serving. I do think art and artists need to be exempt from these restrictions even when they appear reasonable to the rest of us.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
Should Kasab get the death sentence?
The lone surviving gunman from the 26/11 massacre of hundreds in mumbai has been sentenced to death.
It was just a regular day for me. I was rather busy with work. Infact most of my attention was on the song Aaromale that was playing from my iPod. I just happened to get off my seat when I heard that the court has decided that he should be hung till his death. The discussion that a few of us had following that was mostly people agreeing that he deserves no better. There are some real concerns about the possibility of other terrorists hijacking a plane load of people demanding Kasab's release while threatening to blow up innocent people. The judge has also apparently taken note of this in deciding his punishment.
A lot of us were also wondering how long it would take before the sentence is carried out. Apparently India has not carried out such sentences too often. The Hindu today points out that no such sentence was carried out between 1995 and 2004. One person was dealt with this way in August 2004 and none since then. Clearly we are a country that does not like hanging convicts. We are also a country that is debating if capital punishment itself should go. How then can there be a nearly unanimous view that Kasab should be given this sentence? It is entirely possible that the sentence is symbolic and will never be carried out. If that is indeed the case, what are we to make of the arguments the judge stated in delivering the punishment? Are we making a point to Kasab just to highlight our outrage at his act? Is this a case of moral grandstanding?
I think it is important to take the views of the victim's families in this case. They more than all others should be involved in any decision to reduce the sentence. I guess Kasab will get to file a mercy petition with the president. I imagine the president would consult a lot of people (victim's families included hopefully) and decide what to do. The process takes forever. That normally makes sense since it allows time for additional evidence that might indicate that the convict is innocent or does not deserve the sentence to emerge.
Personally, I don't buy the "threat of terrorists holding innocents hostage for his release" argument. Kasab is a silly foot soldier. There is no need to exaggerate his value to the terrorists who sent him on his way. I just do not see them bothering to get him released. As the judge has also noted, his age is a factor to be considered as well. I'm just uncomfortable with the idea of sentencing 20 year olds to death. Many 20 year olds will do silly things if promised 72 virgins with no notion of sin attached. Not many would be willing to kill others. I guess some do. The real criminals are the ones who indulged in the indoctrination that resulted in the beast that we know as Kasab. On hearing the sentence, Kasab apparently needed some water and all he could say was "Shukriya-saab". What the hell is that supposed to mean? No down with India! No Azad Kashmir! No outburst! Nothing! Just Thank you! I cannot imagine the worst sort of criminals reacting this way. I suspect that he has been indoctrinated into doing what he did. It is so thorough that all he can say on being condemned to die is "Thank You!". I sincerely hope we get the people who sent him here. What we need to put an end to is such indoctrination. Deal with Kasab in a manner that satisfies the victim's families. Use him for the remainder of his life to investigate how someone managed to create such a cold killing machine. I strongly suspect that "religion" and promises about "after life" were part of the tricks that were employed. It would serve our societies cause well to find out how someone got Kasab to do what he did.
Maybe he's just dumb. I don't know what to do with him then.
It was just a regular day for me. I was rather busy with work. Infact most of my attention was on the song Aaromale that was playing from my iPod. I just happened to get off my seat when I heard that the court has decided that he should be hung till his death. The discussion that a few of us had following that was mostly people agreeing that he deserves no better. There are some real concerns about the possibility of other terrorists hijacking a plane load of people demanding Kasab's release while threatening to blow up innocent people. The judge has also apparently taken note of this in deciding his punishment.
A lot of us were also wondering how long it would take before the sentence is carried out. Apparently India has not carried out such sentences too often. The Hindu today points out that no such sentence was carried out between 1995 and 2004. One person was dealt with this way in August 2004 and none since then. Clearly we are a country that does not like hanging convicts. We are also a country that is debating if capital punishment itself should go. How then can there be a nearly unanimous view that Kasab should be given this sentence? It is entirely possible that the sentence is symbolic and will never be carried out. If that is indeed the case, what are we to make of the arguments the judge stated in delivering the punishment? Are we making a point to Kasab just to highlight our outrage at his act? Is this a case of moral grandstanding?
I think it is important to take the views of the victim's families in this case. They more than all others should be involved in any decision to reduce the sentence. I guess Kasab will get to file a mercy petition with the president. I imagine the president would consult a lot of people (victim's families included hopefully) and decide what to do. The process takes forever. That normally makes sense since it allows time for additional evidence that might indicate that the convict is innocent or does not deserve the sentence to emerge.
Personally, I don't buy the "threat of terrorists holding innocents hostage for his release" argument. Kasab is a silly foot soldier. There is no need to exaggerate his value to the terrorists who sent him on his way. I just do not see them bothering to get him released. As the judge has also noted, his age is a factor to be considered as well. I'm just uncomfortable with the idea of sentencing 20 year olds to death. Many 20 year olds will do silly things if promised 72 virgins with no notion of sin attached. Not many would be willing to kill others. I guess some do. The real criminals are the ones who indulged in the indoctrination that resulted in the beast that we know as Kasab. On hearing the sentence, Kasab apparently needed some water and all he could say was "Shukriya-saab". What the hell is that supposed to mean? No down with India! No Azad Kashmir! No outburst! Nothing! Just Thank you! I cannot imagine the worst sort of criminals reacting this way. I suspect that he has been indoctrinated into doing what he did. It is so thorough that all he can say on being condemned to die is "Thank You!". I sincerely hope we get the people who sent him here. What we need to put an end to is such indoctrination. Deal with Kasab in a manner that satisfies the victim's families. Use him for the remainder of his life to investigate how someone managed to create such a cold killing machine. I strongly suspect that "religion" and promises about "after life" were part of the tricks that were employed. It would serve our societies cause well to find out how someone got Kasab to do what he did.
Maybe he's just dumb. I don't know what to do with him then.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Inconvenient truths.
Hello World!
After a few weeks hard at work, it is time to start typing again. The chosen topic is inconvenient truths. There are certain "truths" in the world that most of us do not want to accept.
I will start by asking a question. "Is religious fundamentalism is a threat to our society?" I'm guessing you will answer yes!
I will now ask a different question. "Some fundamentals of religion are a threat to our society?" Fewer people will answer yes to this one. The few that do say yes will do so with a little bit of apologetic tone. For some reason we are uncomfortable accepting that some religious doctrines are a threat to society. We are very wary of attributing the origin of any "evils" to religion. Most people are of the opinion that religion is beyond criticism and is exempt from picking up the blame for follies committed in god's name.
Accepting that truth in the second question is hard for many. Excuses come in the form of; Most of "us" do not subscribe such "doctrines". These are views held by "fringe elements". Most of us are peace loving. These people are mis-interpreting these doctrines etc.
I think there is some virtue in the general public admitting that certain religious doctrines have no place in modern society. Trying to attribute metaphorical interpretations to such doctrines is at best lame and exposes society to risks. I'd rather have my tax rupees pay for better roads, health-care etc. Counter terrorist operations are expensive. Many people die in accidents on poorly lit (for that matter laid) roads; Many people die due to lack of health care; India needs more schools. India needs more money to pay good teachers to teach in primary schools. The religious and their organizations can (and should) pay to clean up the mess they have created. How about a 10% counter-insurgency-tax on collections at religious places? There are a lot of bulging hundis in India.
Exogamy cannot be required by law (legal or scientific)! Science does not justify caste prejudices. Sub-castes represent large populations and are certainly not subject to risks of inbreeding.
Adding a tag of illegitimacy to a child is immoral.
Inconvenient and true.
After a few weeks hard at work, it is time to start typing again. The chosen topic is inconvenient truths. There are certain "truths" in the world that most of us do not want to accept.
I will start by asking a question. "Is religious fundamentalism is a threat to our society?" I'm guessing you will answer yes!
I will now ask a different question. "Some fundamentals of religion are a threat to our society?" Fewer people will answer yes to this one. The few that do say yes will do so with a little bit of apologetic tone. For some reason we are uncomfortable accepting that some religious doctrines are a threat to society. We are very wary of attributing the origin of any "evils" to religion. Most people are of the opinion that religion is beyond criticism and is exempt from picking up the blame for follies committed in god's name.
Accepting that truth in the second question is hard for many. Excuses come in the form of; Most of "us" do not subscribe such "doctrines". These are views held by "fringe elements". Most of us are peace loving. These people are mis-interpreting these doctrines etc.
I think there is some virtue in the general public admitting that certain religious doctrines have no place in modern society. Trying to attribute metaphorical interpretations to such doctrines is at best lame and exposes society to risks. I'd rather have my tax rupees pay for better roads, health-care etc. Counter terrorist operations are expensive. Many people die in accidents on poorly lit (for that matter laid) roads; Many people die due to lack of health care; India needs more schools. India needs more money to pay good teachers to teach in primary schools. The religious and their organizations can (and should) pay to clean up the mess they have created. How about a 10% counter-insurgency-tax on collections at religious places? There are a lot of bulging hundis in India.
Exogamy cannot be required by law (legal or scientific)! Science does not justify caste prejudices. Sub-castes represent large populations and are certainly not subject to risks of inbreeding.
Adding a tag of illegitimacy to a child is immoral.
Inconvenient and true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
