My thoughts that can range from extremist to liberal, and casting political correctness to the wind.
Why am I writing them down? I suppose I'll want to recount these someday – a written account would help repaint the memories morevividly.
I recently saw the movie "Rang De Basanti". It has a storyline about ayoung British lady, drawn to visit India by reading accounts of theIndian freedom struggle, namely the revolutionaries Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Rajguru, Sukhdeo, Ashfaqulla Khan from her dead grandfather's diary. She plans on traveling to India and making a film on the memoirs. On reaching India, she meets a group of college students/ drop-outs/students who have graduated but still hang around the campus, and there begins her tryst with the realities of modern India. She repeatedly attempts to cast her new found friends into the patriotic roles only to be rebuffed and told that 'patriotism' is now merely a fashionable word, and that the meaning has been long lost. Among these friends is an air force pilot, who stands up for being a patriot and is willing to lay his life for the country although the rest of his friends scoff at his ideas & thoughts. When the pilot is killed in an air crash and politicians attempt to blame the crash on pilot error rather than get embroiled in a scandal that could expose the extent of corruption in the state & defense forces, the friends are transformed into revolutionaries seeking revenge on the corrupt ministers. They plan & plot to assassinate the guilty minister and make the scandal public. The plot to kill him is successful, and they also succeed in taking over a radio station to broadcast their message. Of course, the rest of the politicians send in the SWAT team which mercilessly kills the defenseless, unarmed students.
Discussing this movie with friends later – I was intrigued to see the various points of view that were tossed around.
1. The solution to the problem – killing the corrupt minister was wrong. They should not have taken law into their hands. If everyonetakes the law into their hands, we would have anarchy.
2. We are citizens of a nation that has a policy of non-violence. An eye for an eye – is not the solution. Gandhi was a great man who achieved freedom for India using the doctrine of 'ahimsa'. (I don't quite know how Mr. M.K. Gandhi was dragged into this, but given that they are someone else's views – I've recorded them here.)
3. They did a wrong thing by killing the minister, but killing them using a SWAT team was wrong. After all, they (though murderers) also deserved the right to a fair trial.
4. Considering that theirs was a crime committed in retaliation against the corruption in the state machinery – they should not have been killed like they were terrorists.
Interesting as the views were – I couldn't help but have some of my own. Since they are my thoughts – they've rambled far beyond the scope of the current discussion – but here they are …
I think the students/ friends were right. Unless today's generation sends a clear message to the crusty old politicians that corruption will not be tolerated, the mess in our country will not ever improve. Leaving the country for greener pastures, like most of those privileged to do so – is not going to help. It is like attempting toignore a particularly offensive odor. Coming to the part where India being a staunch believer in non-violence, and followers of Gandhi. I think it is time we stopped applying one cure to all maladies.
There was a time when oppression had to be stood up to, injustice from foreign powers had to be retaliated against. Given the resources and the prevailing political situation, non-violence was the perfect solution. The doctrine of non-violence is revolutionizing and great. No doubt about it. The civil disobedience movement launched shook the core of the British regime in India. Yes, true. But times have changed. Circumstances have changed. We are no longer fighting against a foreign enemy. We are struggling to stay afloat in competition withour own countrymen, friends and neighbors. Some of these people are part of our immediate society – but they are far from the model citizens we read about in our text books. Everyone is intent ofextracting their pound (or tons – in some cases) of flesh from the resources of the country. Why? When did we change from a country of patriotism to a country of indifference?
At times, I can't help feeling that this inclination towards non-violence(which is often translated into non-confrontationalism) has perpetrated the indifferent attitude. Here is an example – you observe a situation to which you may retaliate with a violent angry/ sad emotion. But, you've been drilled to be non-violent. However, the situation is gnawing at you –triggering a reaction, but you are not allowed to retaliate violently.What do you do? You school yourself to ignore it – since you cannot cure it, you endure it – there in sowing the seeds of indifference.
Our neighboring countries encroach on our borders, send terrorists to blow up innocent citizens, but what does the state do? We exercise restraint, thereby prompting the average citizen to fine tune his indifference. I wonder if India would have been shaped differently had the revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh and Azad survived the freedom struggle. Would we have adopted a stricter policy against encroaching neighbors? Against illegal immigrants? Against corruption? I wonder …and the optimist in me, hopes that we will eventually come around to such a policy, someday in the near future. Optimism or merely wishful thinking? Only time will tell…
