Film conversations: The Kerala Story

Why I saw this film...

Usually, I never venture into the multiplexes due to prior bad experiences, preferring instead, to catch a new release when it arrives on OTT platforms.  Even as I was watching this film, there was a group of people continuously chattering throughout the movie just behind us.  But I put up with all this only because of one thing: to make a statement.  When the filmmakers are sticking their necks out to show the truth as it is, and others are out to ban the film for the exact opposite reason, I thought I should express my solidarity with the former.  

About the A rating...

This film has been rated A by the censors.  Although understandable, this is unfortunate because adolescent girls, who are one of the gullible and vulnerable target groups, would be deprived of the opportunity to see radical evangelization in action in this film.  

While the ticket sellers were thoroughly checking the IDs of young people at the counters, I couldn't help wondering about the futility of this exercise, because in just a few weeks, this film will make its way to the OTTs where even five-year-olds will have access to it!  When it does, though, I hope adolescent girls do watch it.  

Be that as it may, even as I was walking within the theatre, I saw a family with a woman holding a young sleeping child - either they had given a written undertaking to the ticket sellers that they will keep their child sleeping throughout the film, or, more likely, they snuck in the child by hiding it while buying the tickets! 

Contents of the film...

I am not going to go into the technical aspects, or indeed, the performances in this film, all of which are very good.  I will leave that to the cine critics of which you will find plenty on the Internet.  I shall, instead, focus on the story on which the film is based.  I am also assuming that given the evidence presented towards the end of the film, these stories actually happened and the reasons behind them occurred as shown in the film.

It's also important to remember, as we go into this, that one should challenge the radical ideology per se, and not hate the person with such an idea.  Since Hinduism is the primary target of radical thoughts expressed in this film, I shall focus on this, and attempt to pass on the wisdom gained to the groups involved in or affected by the story of faith-based conversions and persecution. 

To the radicals...

One of your kind, a 'snake-in-the-grass' female recruiter in the film talks about Hindu Gods' powerlessness to defend Hindus, while her Almighty never lets them down.  Here's my counter: 

Why did a crane collapse, killing hundred of 'believers' in the holiest of holy places a few years ago?  Why do 'believers' suffer from hardships such as natural disasters, poverty, and diseases across the globe?  You may defend and deny as much as you want, but one just needs to take a peek in our neighbouring country's yard to understand the dangers stemming from the nexus between a theocratic government, a subversive military, and nonstate extremists.

Further, a woman's clothing does not afford her any protection against a determined sexual predator as has been reported in several crime news reports.  Admit it; the tent-like garb is an expression of extreme patriarchy and intended to keep the woman subdued, something that is harrowingly depicted in this film.  

To the pseudoseculars...

Are you okay with the reductive division of 'believers' and 'non-believers/kafir/heathen' of the entire human population?  How can these prescriptive religions proclaim that their's is the only correct path and that all others are false?  As it is, these book-based religions are yet to figure out if they should interpret their scriptures literally or figuratively.  

Indeed, this very confusion has resulted in the divergent, radical ideologies that the story of this film is based on.  This comes to the fore during several scenes, one such being the discussion whether the use of mobile phones is blasphemous or not.  

How is it that you, the paragons of scientific rigour and logic, are unable to see the stupidity inherent in such misogynistic customs as keeping women under tent-like body/head covers, female genital mutilations, and coerced marriages contingent on conversions of non-believers?

Why is it that you apply the law of free speech differentially?  A case in point: you were okay when the BBC documentary on Gujarat riots was shown in the streets, but silent when the governments of two states banned this film.  One loses count of the number of slurs that Bollywood has inflicted on Hinduism and its adherents over the years.  You ignored all of that, but you are up in arms over this film that has dared to call a spade a spade.

If these issues and the terrorist activities that stem from their misinterpretation do not open your eyes to the clear and present danger they pose to the world and to the future of humanity, I don't know what could be afflicting you.  Instead of calling out this radical ideology for what it is, you are intellectualizing and rationalizing the problem to the extent that one fine day, it will come back to bite you.  

To the parents of girls...

Watch the film and wake up!  As one of the characters asks her hypocrite communist father why he did not teach her about Hinduism, I ask you if you have done enough to educate your children about the beauty of Sanatana Dharma?  Have you told them why it is called so - the Eternal Religion? 

Have you told them about the innumerable Saints that have graced this beautiful land of ours and left behind a rich legacy of love and wisdom?  Have you taught them the meaning behind our customs and rituals, which often have a logical and/or a health-related basis for their existence?  

Have you taught them the basic tenets of Sanatana Dharma: sarvatmabhava (oneness of all souls), satya (truth), dharma (righteousness or right duty), karma (action and fruit of such action), and vasudhaiva kutumbakam (the world is one family)?  Have you pointed out that these values are more important than superficial rituals and a narrow, divisive worldview? 

To girls and young women...

Do not believe in 'love at first sight'.  It only signifies the psychological phenomenon of collapse of ego-boundaries - that is, you are only temporarily identifying with your lover.  When you regain your ego-boundary, the lover's shortcomings become painfully visible, or, in this case, his true colours.  

Instead, place high value on character assessment before you commit to any kind of relationship.  Looks are important initially, but in the long run, the harsh reality is that marriages are hard work, and require a high degree of commitment, trust and adjustment from both parties for them to work. 

Understand that love, in its truest sense, is unconditional.  The moment somebody says 'I shall marry you if you convert to my religion', run from such a person as fast and as far as you can.  You are perfect as you are, and if someone really loves you, he/she will accept you for what you are - your entire personality with its strengths and weaknesses, as well as your faith, language and culture. 

Beware that they will throw the caste brick at you.  Even though the concept of caste/varna/jati is only an indication of the professional groups that traditional Indian society was divided into, no doubt, casteism is a bane in todays' world.  But then, you should ask them, 'why is your own religion divided into so many sects and denominations?'  If there is only one formless Almighty, why then are adherents of these groups fighting amongst themselves for supremacy of their own ideology?

Remember that not all followers of prescriptive religions are radicals, but some are - telling them apart is the problem!  Be friendly with people of all faiths, but do not get so overinvolved that you fall for the indoctrination attempts of those with a proselytizing, bigoted mindset.  

Finally...

The message, one hopes, the followers of book-based religions get is that they live and let live: keep your religious practices, but make sure you are not harming others by disowning radical thoughts and respecting others' faiths.  As I have already said, our battle is with the ideology, not the person - it's the mind and the body that could be corrupted, not the Atman which is pure in all beings.  

Evangelism and conversions are reflective of the underlying insecurity of book-based religions and exposes their patronizing efforts at homogenizing the entire world according to their own restrictive worldview.  

For the reasons cited above, The Kerala Story is highly recommended viewing! 

May truth prevail and justice be done in the cases covered in this film, as well as in all cases of religious conversions and persecution.

Picture source: 
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt24268454/?ref_=tt_mv_close

God's own country? Not for this Hindu God

Swami Ayyappa, Swami Ayyappa...

Neene gatiyappa, nanage neene gatiyappa...

[O Lord Ayyappa... You are my only refuge...]

Thus sings Kerala's living legend Yesudas in an old Kannada film.  (It would be very interesting to know the legend's views on the chaos unleashed by the Supreme Court's recent verdict on Sabarimala.)

First of all, let's cast a glance on the mytho-history of the place.  Lord Ayyappa, born of the union of Shiva and Vishnu (as Mohini), is also called Hari-Hara Putra for this reason.  He was borne specifically to bring an end to the demoness Mahishi.  After her annihilation at the hands of the Lord, Mahishi was released from her curse and was transformed into a beautiful maiden.  She proposed marriage to the Lord.  The Lord refused, but relented later by stating that he will marry her if and when His devotees stop appearing at his doorstep.  

Malikapurathamma, as Mahishi is called today, is said to be waiting in a separate temple in the Sabarimala complex for such an eventuality to occur.  As a mark of respect for her patience and sacrifice, women in the childbearing age voluntarily refrain from entering the sanctum of Lord Ayyappa. 

Besides, the bhaktas of Lord Ayyappa are required to observe brahmacharya - complete celibacy for a period of 41 days before the Makara Sankranti (in mid-January every year) when they congregate at Sabarimala for the ensuing worship and festivities.  The male bhaktas are required to wear the mala and black dress throughout the period of abstinence.  They are to follow strict rituals and changes in lifestyle: not smoking/drinking, not consuming non-vegetarian diet, and crucially, abstaining from sex.  (I have seen several patients, severe alcohol-dependents who have turned teetotalers during this period.)    

A male bhakta is to look upon others as his brothers and sisters, and address his fellow bhaktas as 'Swami'/'Sami'.  Basically, an average male follower transforms himself into something of a living saint during this period of purity and abstinence.  Therefore, for the male bhaktas, contact with women in the reproductive age-group is strictly prohibited.

These, as far as I am aware, are the only reasons why women in childbearing age are disallowed from entering the holy sanctum at Sabarimala.  And mind, the women in this age-group have been following this dictum voluntarily; they are not being oppressed or excluded from worship due to any patriarchal reasons.   

Having said all that, do we want the status quo to continue?  Do we want women to be excluded from the sanctum, even due to the reasons cited above?  Clearly not.  We want them to enter the sanctum... eventually.  We want the perception of purity to undergo a transformation that does not look at the act of menstruation as necessarily evil or impure.  But such a change takes time.  

All through the history of Indian society, there have been examples of arrival and settlement of alien cultures and traditions that went through the dual process of conflict, and adjustment and assimilation, before the syncretism that we see today became a reality.  This is true of foreign invasion and occupation of India and the sociocultural changes thereof, the bhakti movement that originated from the need to negate ritualism and varna/jati system, the abolition of sati, the prevention of child-marriage, the laws against dowry system, saving and educating the girl child, decriminalization of homosexuality, etc.  None of these occurred instantaneously: they came about only after several hundreds and thousands of years of conflict, adjustment, and finally, acceptance.  

In time, with gradual change in opinions, through well-intentioned laws and acts, and altered public perception, the bigger transformation will come about.  So the key word here is, eventually... eventually change will occur; it is not easy to change firmly entrenched cultural and religious notions by the single stroke of a tipsy judge's pen.  

I say tipsy because the Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court seem to have acted on a whim - the kind that occurs to you after downing a peg or two.  I further wonder if the Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court got out of the wrong side of the bed on the day, and said, "Yo dude!  Let's do something rad today!"  And then 4 of the 5 Judges decided to strike off the sacrosanct 800 year old religious custom at Sabarimala.  (It is interesting to note that the one Judge who dissented was a woman.)  I would like to call these four assenting Judges, the 'Rad 4'.   

The present Keralite government is of course, chuffed, considering its manifesto appears to be aligned only against Hindu practices, and not any other religion's.  The government, in all likelihood, arranged for the surreptitious entry of women in childbearing age-group into the sanctum.  They also brought out a human wall of women in support of the Supreme Court's verdict.  It was howlarious to watch interviews of burkha-clad women who hadn't a clue what they were doing there; one of them confessed her husband asked her to be there!  Sorry mate, Irony, that's another death for you...   

Apparently the Rad 4 were concerned about "equality, freedom of conscience and right to personal liberty" of [Hindu] women, and the fact that "to treat [Hindu] women as the children of a lesser God is to blink at the Constitution," and "placing the burden of men's celibacy on women stigmatizes them, stereotypes them."  Noble... noble thoughts indeed!

I have added [Hindu] to the above statements since the Rad 4 appear to be concerned only about the welfare of Hindu women.  Dear Honourable Rad 4, may I draw your attention to the following non-Sabarimala examples where women are so stigmatized and stereotyped that their plight blinks at the Constitution?

1. Girls/women are not allowed into the sanctum of the BAPS Swaminarayan Mandir.  Yes, even infant girls are not allowed - I have experienced this first-hand.

2. Women are disallowed from attending Friday prayers in mosques.  

3. Churches of many denominations do not have female priests/pastors because "only a baptised man validly receives sacred ordination".

4. Women of a certain religion are required to wear redundant head-cloths and dress up like walking bank vaults.  They are considered to be the 'personal property' of their husbands with hardly any rights to property/divorce.

5. In a certain religion, polygamy is allowed, but polyandry is disallowed.

5. Preachers of a certain religion exhort their male adherents into carrying out certain acts that will get them a place in paradise where they will be served upon by virgins.  Yes, nothing short of virgins would do for our intrepid heroes, when, after a hard day's bombing, they go to claim their just reward.  

6. In certain religions, the inhuman and dangerous practice of female genital mutilation continues to date.   

One could go on, of course, but you get the point?  The legend of Sabarimala is a matter of faith - why target only Hindus' faith and not the faith of other religions?  Conversely, why not go hammer and tongs at the regressive religious practices of other religions as well?  In the absence of the latter, the question that begs to be asked is, does the Supreme Court possess the will, impartiality and courage to do so?

I am not holding my breath over it.  However, until the Supreme Court does so, we can seek succour from the song quoted above.  

Swamiye sharanam Ayyappa...!

Image sources:
https://www.hindugallery.com/lord-ayyappa-images/
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/india/unprecedented-security-in-sabarimala-trupti-desai-held-up-at-kochi-airport-due-to-protests-3187451.html

References:
https://www.speakingtree.in/allslides/do-you-know-the-story-of-ayyappa/272129
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/sabarimala-legend-women-lord-ayyappa-1351674-2018-09-28
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/sabarimala-verdict-live-updates-supreme-court-women-temples-kerala-5377598/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women_and_the_Catholic_Church. (Vatican Canon 1024: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3P.HTM)

This and that: religion

• As many as three rationalists; Narendra Dabholkar, Govind Phansare and M M Kalburgi, have been shot dead by alleged right-wing activists in the previous few months.  This is a disturbing trend, and does not augur well for the secular status of India, or indeed, for the egalitarian outlook of Hinduism.  As Amartya Sen states in his The Argumentative Indian, there has always been a place for dissent and debate in Hindu dharma and in the larger context of an inclusive society.  Whatever the motivations behind these acts, Sanatana Dharma does not sanction killing to silence dissent, and thus deny the victim the chance to work out his or her karma in his or her lifetime.  Therefore these killings have to be denounced by all.  The perpetrators should realize that wantonly silencing anybody who speaks against their thoughts and actions is a surefire sign of emasculation.  'If you are unable to come up with a suitable riposte, get rid of the source of the problem itself', is one of the symptoms of this condition.  Instead, why not try your hand at coming up with your own counter-opinion, or engaging in an open debate with the opinionist?  Do not malign the sanctity of Sanatana Dharma, and relegate it to a fundamentalist minimalist status.    

• Our heart goes out to the victims of the stampede at the Hajj pilgrimage.  To see the lifeless bodies of hundreds of pilgrims dressed in white, and heaped upon each other, fills one with a sense of foreboding.  Apparently this has happened several times in the past, and a few days before the stampede, a crane crashed in to the sanctum killing several people.  While our condolences should go out to the families of the victims, one also has to wonder as to why such a thing has to happen at all.  This is exactly the kind of thing that rationalists would spring upon; why did the followers of a religion that steadfastly holds that it is the only true path, die such an ignominious death; and that at the holiest of its sanctums?  These sort of incidents also occur at mass gatherings of followers of other faiths as well.  Therefore it can be assumed with some conviction that there is no such thing as a perfect religion, which provides immunity to its adherents against such untimely disasters.  Therefore, one can also conclude, that conversion from one religion to another is a redundant exercise.  

• The Pope is visiting the US.  Yesterday, it was heartening to see a multi-faith prayer meet at the site of the 9/11 attacks.  The priests of Islam, Jewism, Sikhism, and Hinduism, were all seen together with the head of the Roman Catholic Church on the same stage.  There must be some hope for humanity after all.  It seems that this Pope has brought about a different approach to his role, and is not averse to speaking the truth.  Certainly, praying with the followers of other faiths, some that are often considered to be heretical by evangelists, is a step in the right direction.  Now, if we can somehow get him to acknowledge that proselytization and conversion do not belong in today's world...I'll dream on.  

Image source: http://decorativeprayerflags.com/flags/F0046_SacredSymbols.jpg

Book conversations: No god but God

Reza Aslan does to the Prophet and Islam in this work, what he did to Jesus and Christianity in his Zealot.  He takes a measured approach to unraveling a rich and complex religious phenomenon, one that has the world passionately discussing its pros and cons, and comes up with a revealing account of the formation and dissemination of Islam.  

If you ever wondered about the baffling practices of this religion and found nobody to seek answers from, grab hold of this work.  Everything from pre-Islamic Arabia (apparently called Jahiliyyah); to the revelation; to the Hijra (the Prophet's flight from Mecca to Yathrib, which later became Medina); to the law of Shariah; to the five essential rituals that Muslims have to do - called the Five Pillars of Islam; to the reasons behind the births of several sects of Islam - Sunni, Shi'ah, Khomeinism, Sufism, Wahhabism and yes, jihadism; and many more issues are covered in this work.  

The only pieces of information that I did not find in the work were: a) why circumcision is so important to Muslims, and b) why the pig is considered to be a 'dirty animal' in Islam.

As Aslan paints the picture of the birth of Islam in the deserts of Arabia, we find that the Prophet was an orphan who was brought up by his uncle who used to send him on business errands to other cities.  The Ka'ba, the desert sanctuary that is said to have housed several idols of different pagan gods such a Hubal, was under the control of a tribe called Quraysh.  It was the Prophet - after he had a series of revelations, which later became the contents of the Quran - who built up his community in Medina, and eventually freed the Ka'ba after several attempts at subduing the Quraysh.  

Aslan reveals that the Prophet had actually set up a very egalitarian system in Medina, in which he frequently consulted his wives in political matters, married Jewish and Christian women, did not compel women to be closed behind veils, and considered the three Abrahamic religions (Jewism and Christianity being the others) as followers of one Supreme Source of holy books.

Unfortunately, as with Jesus, it was the people who came after him who hijacked the entire philosophy, and according to the prevailing sociopolitical situation and their own whims and ulterior motives, converted what was essentially an inclusive and peaceful movement into a divisive and fundamental way of life.  And therein lies the tragedy.

Indeed, barring the revelations (for which Aslan does not, or probably cannot provide any convincing evidence), if one considers the evolution of the nascent religion - the fights that erupted each time a leader had to be anointed; the exclusion of Ali (the Prophet's son-in-law) and his family; the killing of his son, Husayn in Karbala; the way the Ulama usurped for itself the authority to lay down the laws and responsibilities of the believers; the expansion of the religion in the Middle East and beyond through imperial conquests and conversions; and the infighting that led to the birth of several offshoots of Islam that often competed with one another for religious legitimacy - one is hard-pressed to discern any evidence of divinity, peace and truth in any of these occurrences.

Aslan also rightly points out that the revelations themselves, and what was essentially a social-economic-political movement that was locally relevant to 6th Century Arabia, cannot be appropriated by a self-appointed group of law makers and enforcers such as the Ulama to apply to the other communities, societies and countries of the entire world.  

I must also consider the entire situation from my own point of view as an Indian, about which there is very little to glean from this work, as Aslan only makes passing references to the Indian situation and the Hindu-Muslim interaction.  After all, the Muslim invasion of India started as far back as in the early 8th Century, and continued till the end of the Mughal dynasty, leaving in its wake several frenzied and bloodthirsty assaults by invaders such as Ghazni and Ghori.  The bitter effects of Partition and the subsequent wars that India has waged with its Islamic neighbour, to the present day 26/11 type terrorist attacks, are ample testimony to the fact that inter-faith issues involving Islam is highly relevant even in India.  

Having said that, the fact that Indian Muslims are arguably the most integrated and peace-loving followers of Islam than any other in the world, is also worth noting, and is probably attributable to the acceptance of Islam into the diverse religious framework of India.  This in turn was made possible due to the inclusive and magnanimous philosophy of advaita, which forms the core of Sanatana Dharma.  

In fact, in what is surely a rare and happy overlap of spiritual principles, advaitic Hinduism and Sufism share the common goal: that of annihilation of the body and the lower self to merge with the Supreme Self. 

Back in the book, even the First War of Independence of 1857 is explained from the point of view of the Muslim soldiers and Bahadur Shah Zafar, the last Mughal emperor.  Aslan argues that it is not only Islam that has defined state policies in several Muslim countries in the present world.  Even England and America, he points out, still maintain a religious underpinning to their state policies.  In this context, Aslan has this to say about India:

'India was, until recently, governed by partisans of an elitist theology of Hindu Awakening (Hindutva) bent on applying an implausible but enormously successful vision of "true Hinduism" to the state'.

Sorry?  Until recently?  Enormously successful?  Let's take a closer look: India was, for the major part of the time from Independence to now (a period of 68 years), governed by the Congress and its affiliates.  The very same parties which are considered to be pseudo-secular, minority appeasing, and prone to caste based 'vote bank' politics.  It was also during the Congress regime that India experimented with the Emergency of 1975, during which civil liberties were suspended for nearly two years.  

Even under the so called 'right wing' governments - most notably the BJP-led ones - it is not as though civil and religious liberties were snuffed out of ordinary people's lives.  And Hindutva certainly has not been made into a state policy.  

Coming back to the book, Aslan provides a wholesome take on the intricacies of the religion of Islam and its adherents, thanks to the painstaking scholarly research work that he has come to be associated with.  

In the end, Aslan paints a hopeful picture about the future of this religion, pointing out that the new generation of forward looking Muslims - especially those born into the second or third generation of immigrants to non-Islamic countries - would make use of the technological innovations at their disposal to rethink, debate, re-fashion and disseminate the tenets of Islam to make it more congruent with the needs of a changing and inter-dependent society.  In other words, he tells that we are already in the midst of the Islamic Reformation.  

Let's hope he is right.

Image source: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51zTB-R%2BcNL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Book conversations: Imaginary Homelands

The name is enough: Salman Rushdie.  I picked this one up just because of this, and also because I had not read any of his books earlier.  Not even Midnight's Children, which apparently was adjudged the 'Best of Booker'.  

And certainly not that one, which we all think of when we hear his name. 

This is a scathing, no-holds-barred, literary criticism of some of the best works by some of the best known authors world-wide.  Rushdie finds, in between praise for worthy contenders, errors in form, content and characterisation in just about every work that he peruses - and he does read a lot, it seems.

His ability to read between the lines and get behind the story to determine what the author was trying to say, has said, or did not say, is extraordinary.  His language, of course, is first-rate and exemplary, as you would imagine. 

He considers a long series of literary works - mostly fiction, and mostly from his contemporaries during the period of a decade - 1981 to 1991.  If you are not into South American or mainland European authors - like I am not - you can safely bypass a large segment of the book, and concentrate instead on the bits that matter - at least to me, which occur in the beginning and the end of the book.

These are to do with his take on religion, literature, English language, politics, and films.  There is a delightful essay about Indian words appropriated into English during the Raj, and later published as Hobson Jobson, which, believe it or not, is said to be a corruption of the 'Ya Hussain, Ali Hussain' cries heard during Moharram!  

He saves the best for the last.  The last major chapter of the book is about the controversy surrounding his banned book, The Satanic Verses.  I always wondered if he was affected by this controversy.  Hell, yes, it seems he was!  And you get to know just how much in this last segment of the book.  I was struck by the strangeness of the whole situation: he was a born Muslim, but he openly declared, at the age of 15 that he was not a Muslim; on the other hand he decided he was an atheist.  He demonstrated this by consuming a pork sandwich, after which, he discovered to his joy and relief, that he was not struck down by thunder or lightning.

However he had a soft corner for this born-into religion, especially towards that aspect of his faith which allowed for a liberated world-view and free speech, which he sadly realised later was never going to be a part of Already Existing Islam, as he puts it.  Finally, he was hounded by the followers of that very faith, and imprisoned in a cocoon of non-existence for several years.

There is a touching description of how he went through hell during the mass demonstrations and fatwas that called for his killing the world over, especially in the UK, where he lived in his 'bubble', as he puts it.  Here he puts forth his view, his justification for the contents of the book, and the fact that a metaphorical and fictional re-interpretation of Islam was vilified by those who never understood it, or even so much as read the book.

There is a terrific piece about how 'literalism' in interpreting the religious books is contributing to fundamentalist thought and action, and about the tussle between the mundane and the magnificent, the good and the bad, and religion and literature.

He also describes certain passages from the book, which were considered to be blasphemous at the time - this is the closest that we could get to actually reading the book as it is still banned in India.

Go for it for the language, critical views, and opinions of a master thinker and writer.


Image source: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61kMA2RbYNL.jpg