Kadhal- Kalaindha kanavugal, Kadharum ullangal, Oru kaneer kaviyam....

Why do we make fully conscious efforts to subject ourselves to depression, sorrow and tragedy? Why do we seek sadness and grief? Why do we of our own accord, watch movies like Sethu,Devdas, Moondram Pirai and Kadhal and end up liking them? What is it about pathos that draws us to it? Movies were meant to be entertainment. Movies like other art forms became a vehicle for thoughts, ideas, and opinions; became a tool to highlight social issues; became intellectual stimulants; became thought provoking. But I can’t see what is entertaining or thought provoking about unrequited love, unfulfilled love, death, separation, madness. And that is precisely why I can’t explain why we see and like movies about all of these…

Kadhal is about love, the enduring theme of all arts which lends itself to infinite perspectives and interpretations. Kadhal is about the highs and lows of love, its intense strength, its capacity to scar lives, its submission to the overpowering trivialities of life, and yet its resilience in being not merely lyrically, but truly eternal. Kadhal is the story of a small town mechanic falling in love with the daughter of a rich, powerful, influential and violent(adjectives that always go together, at least in the movies) man. An impending arranged marriage for the girl forces the young lovers to elope to the city to get married with the help of a friend in the hope that, that sacred bond would protect them from all worldly forces. They are found on the very day they get married and brought back to their small town with reassurances of acceptance and forgiveness only for their world to be shattered cruelly.

There is nothing refreshing or novel about Kadhal- an oft repeated theme of love beyond financial, social and caste barriers, a too good to be true uncle who according to expectations, reveals his darker side at the opportune moment and friends and strangers who would do anything for love. What makes it different is that it explores the innocence of first love, the doubts, the hesitations, the vacillations, the impulsive decisions, the tendency to think with the heart and not with the mind. There is not a single discordant note or an incongruent piece in the portrayal of this love- a love that is simple and true, a love that has such trivial beginnings and transforms into a deep rooted and overwhelming feeling between two souls. Kadhal is just one among millions of untold, unknown lost tales, tales that are set in towns far removed from the city, tales of old fashioned love, love that is so very different from the coffee pub wooing, sms coochy cooing city love. The characters barring the young lovers in Kadhal are loud and violent, but definitely not unnatural. There is heartwarming intensity in the freshness of young love and there is heart wrenching agony in the way the movie ends.

Balaji Sakthivel makes a giant leap forward from his amateurish Samurai with a sensitive and realistic handling of this theme. And the songs are seamlessly inserted into the flow, enhancing the movie every bit. Joshua Sridhar makes a spectacular debut- Unakenna and Thottu Thottu are masterpieces. The background score also shows flashes of brilliance-the vocals in the scenes where Murugan follows Aiswarya, and the fading theme at the moment of the lover’s separation stand out. Bharath impresses with a splendid performance. The Bharaths and Dhanushes are an indication of the attitude of the tamil film watching public, who have traditionally gauged an actor more by his talents than by his looks.

Kadhal is a grim reminder to the fact that religion and the caste system have become so ingrained in our society that they continue to exert a major influence on people’s thoughts and opinions. “What society will think or say?” is a question that affects everyday decisions, especially those that involve love. Though segments of society have moved ahead and become more receptive to change, a considerable majority continues to stagnate in an obsolete, antiquated attitude. It is a pity that the very devices we created, control us to such a great extent. How much ever we attempt to deny facts by saying that we need not care about what other people think, it becomes extremely difficult to put that into practice. Man is not merely a social animal, but partially a social slave, moulding his thoughts and actions according to how they will be accepted by society.

That brings me back to my original question. What is it about pathos that draws us to it? Do we sympathise, or to be more precise, empathise with the characters on screen? Do we put ourselves in their shoes, relive our scarred memories, find solace in learning that others have been through what we have been through? Or do we find ourselves unburdened of our troubles and worries, in seeing them as insignificant, when compared to those portrayed on screen? Or maybe it is because amidst all the misery, sadness and despair, all that we see is the power of the love that caused it all, the love that lives on........

The Mahatma and the Martyr- II

A chance meeting between the Mahatma and the Martyr in heaven:

Gandhiji looks up with uncertainty and hesitation, “ I am sorry that I did not fight for your release. I could have….and I should have”

Bhagat Singh watches him with a mischievous smile and says, “ It is a little too late to be sorry. Isn’t it, Bapu?”

Gandhiji replies “It is just that I was foolish enough to think that any act that would help you in anyway would be a digression from my path of Ahimsa. But in being passive I had effectively sided with the British in their judgment against you, a fellow Indian. I had to make a choice, selfishly stick to my principles of Ahimsa or aid you-a perpetrator of violence for the cause of Indian freedom,the very same cause I started this Ahimsa for. I chose the means and ignored the end. A poor choice, an unforgivable failing…”

“I cannot expect you to get me out when you were in no way responsible for getting me in. Can I? I made my own destiny. It would be a shame if I wasn’t willing to face it. But you ensured that I did not die in vain. You were there to ensure that my Des, my Jaan was free. We were fighters for the same cause after all…”

“We were fighters for the same cause albeit in wholly different ways”

“How true! How true! My way demanded that I alone make sacrifices. Your way demanded that everyone else make sacrifices too”

“Bhagat, Life is a cycle of sacrifices, some that you make on your own, some that you are forced to make. Didn’t your way expect your kith and kin to sacrifice you? Didn’t your way demand the sacrifice of British lives? Didn’t your way involve the sacrifice of a wrong life? Did you not kill the wrong policeman?”

“They were all the same. Each was as guilty as the other. Whether we killed him by choice or circumstance makes no difference”

“Then why did you not plan to kill him originally? Killing is not right. Killing the wrong man can never be right, Bhagat”

“Maybe, Bapu. But Bapu, are you not hurt that the very people you sacrificed everything for, speak low of you, accuse you and malign you”

“Bhagat, the ignorant mean no malice. And those who do bear malice feign ignorance. The former, I forget. The latter I forgive. But you tell me. What do you think of these accusations?”

“Bapu, our countrymen today create and live in sewers, and then complain that the streets they walked through are dirty. The streets that you and I and so many others painstakingly built….You and I sailed on different rivers to reach the same sea. But the people of today are hell-bent on splitting the sea back into the rivers that make it. Why would I even stop and listen to their accusations? Your actions made you a Mahatma, their words can do nothing to undo that.”

“Hmmmm….I am but an ordinary man. Hey Ram! When is another Bhagat Singh going to be born to purge this nation? Bhagat, Have I told you how the Bhagavad Gita embeds the message of non-violence in a fabric of violence? Coming to think of it, violence and non-voilence need each other to co-exist, to themselves be complete…just like you and I. Haha…Come, let us walk this way”

“That would make an interesting discussion. Hold my hand Bapu”

“Hope you do not lead me astray from my path of Ahimsa, Bhagat”

“If only I could, Bapu, If only I could……”

The Mahatma and the Martyr- I

I begin writing this blog with the complete awareness that I am grossly unqualified, too small statured, and insignificant in comparison, to be commenting or judging or making interpretative observations about two great souls because of whom I enjoy my freedom today. In spite of this, I write because I want to. My sincere apologies, unabashed admiration and utmost respect are due to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Shahid Bhagat Singh.

I have seen the most contrasting of emotions when it comes to these two freedom fighters. I have seen a friend of mine, usually stoic and callous, weep when we were watching the climax of ‘The Legend of Bhagat Singh’-the scene where Bhagat Singh goes to the gallows, bidding farewell to his mother, bidding her to be strong so that he may also be that way. I have seen the same friend seethe with rage at the sight of the Mahatma, a few scenes before. I have also heard and read nasty, disrespectful, unbearable things about the Mahatma, which could make any insult a Britisher would have given him, seem a compliment. “The fact that our History books have brain washed us to respect this man does not imply that it is sacrilegious to find faults with him, form opinions contrary to the popular, or hate and disrespect him” is an argument I can clearly recall. Sounds good, but I would like to hear the same things being said after experiencing- one lathi charge where a stick half the thickness of your wrist comes thrashing into your bones shattering them, one shooting order where you see the person next to you having his brains blown out, one day in jail, separated from all comforts, denied the most basic of human rights. I know it is stupid to say that you have to have experienced something yourself, to comment on it. But then, the right to freedom of thought, speech and expression is grossly misunderstood and ridiculously misused by most people today, so much so that they make atrocious judgments and form unreasonable opinions.

Bhagat Singh was and is the quintessential hero among freedom fighters. There can be no questioning his popularity, nor will it be easy to find an Indian who does not respect or admire this martyr, and rightfully so. Being ready to give up your life for a struggle whose fruits you are not going to enjoy is nothing but a supreme sacrifice. And to do that at 23 years! I don’t really know if I would have had the courage to do the same as Bhagat Singh had I been in his position. He epitomizes what patriotism stands for.

The Mahatma, on the other hand has been thoroughly misunderstood by a sizeable number of people today. People accuse him of being single handedly responsible for the partition of India, of delaying the achievement of freedom by advocating Ahimsa, of using the “convenience” of being a leader to achieve things by endangering other people’s lives, and of doing nothing to prevent Bhagat Singh and his comrades executions. My unbiased opinions as well as a partial defense of one of the greatest souls to have walked this earth:

Ahimsa: Non violence was Gandhiji’s greatest success and his biggest failure too. Diseases are contagious, but, it is a pity that cures are not. The same analogy applies to the disease called violence and non-violence, which Gandhiji saw as a cure to it. Unfortunately a single violent person is enough to disrupt the fabric of peace whereas it requires every one to be non-violent to maintain it. And Gandhiji saw that impossible dream, a dream which he believed in so much, that he was willing to abandon all reason, all logic in his quest to achieve that dream.

Single handed responsibility?: Of all the baseless accusations that can be thrown at the Mahatma, this definitely takes the cake. Gandhiji was not a despot, not a military leader, not a tyrant, not a dictator. He had no physical control over the people of India, nor was he solely responsible for charting the course of India’s freedom struggle. It is nothing but stupidity to hold the Mahatma single handedly responsible for anything. The people of India were under no compulsion to follow him and yet they did, not in fear but in respect, love and awe. If you would call Gandhiji’s actions foolish, then what would you call the actions of the thousands and lakhs of Indians, many of whom might be your ancestors, who followed him out of their own free will?

Delayed freedom: Would freedom have been achieved faster if everyone had gone the Bhagat Singh way? Was Gandhiji the factor that delayed the achievement of freedom? You and I are in no position to pass judgment on that. Is it not reasonable to believe that if, the people involved in the freedom struggle had thought that a path of violence was quicker to attain freedom, they would have chosen it wholeheartedly? Gandhiji was not a democratically elected leader who holds office for 5 years irrespective of whether people like him or not. Whether people had freedom from the British or not, they definitely had the freedom to choose the leader they wanted to follow. It would not be wrong to say that the British feared Gandhiji’s nonviolent ways more than Bhagat Singh’s violent ways. The latter was their cup of tea; they knew how to handle it. But what could you do to a bunch of people who passively and unflinchingly took all you gave them and yet stood their ground without retaliation? Most importantly, a path of violence absolutely demanded the sacrifice of life one day or the other. It does not imply that the followers of Gandhi were not prepared to lay their lives down, but there was always the possibility that it would not come to that.

A shield called leadership: Gandhiji’s devotion to the cause of non-violence was so overpowering that like it happens in life, the means gained more importance than the end itself. Not only did he want freedom, he was obsessed to achieve it by non violent means at whatever cost. To an extent, Gandhiji took a certain liberty with other people’s lives, assuming that they would and should make the sacrifices he was ready to make. To say that beyond a point, Gandhiji was out of harm’s way, and that emboldened him to endanger and put at risk other people would be highly irresponsible. Gandhiji was ever willing to sacrifice his life for the causes he believed in. Even when he was not facing the lathi charges, he subjected himself to the most tortuous of fasts putting himself in equal or more danger of losing his life than his followers. There was a point when it was thought that Gandhiji would die fasting. To say that such a selfless soul would hide behind the shield of leadership would be nothing but an injustice. Of course, as said above, putting other people at risk for his blind belief in the principles of Ahimsa can be considered one little imperfection.

The martyr: The main reason that made me write this piece was the accusation that Gandhiji did nothing to prevent the execution of Bhagat Singh and his comrades, the only accusation that I feel is wholly justified. It appears as though Gandhiji considered using his fasting as a means to buy them pardon as an aberration to his Ahimsa. No amount of justification or explanation can possibly undo this great wrong that Gandhiji committed. He was the only man with the power to do the needful and he did not try to.

Gandhiji had his failings and faults, for after all he was human. Though it is reasonable to expect people to accept the Mahatma’s imperfections, to make baseless accusations would be stretching things too far. And whatever be his imperfections, Gandhiji possessed a dynamic charisma that earned him the awe and respect of the most disparate of people. Any judgment on him would be a judgment on all the Indians who believed and trusted that he would guide them to their freedom, our freedom.