From: malhotra@duke.cs.duke.edu (Manish Malhotra)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: My comments on the film "In the name of God"
Date: 12 Dec 92 04:20:06 GMT
Organization: Duke University Computer Science Dept.; Durham, N.C.

Anand Patwardhan is the maker of this film. Many have    
liked this film and are promoting it. I just wanted to
present my views on this film. Judge the film yourself after
you have seen it. I do not wish to begin a discussion.     

-------------

Dear Mr. Patwardhan,

I had a chance to see your film ``In the name of God" last night. Here are
my unsolicited comments.  

In your interviews with Hindu--extremists, you ask them questions 
about the birth date of Rama and about proof of Rama's birthplace.   
You know that they do not have the answer and we know it too. You think
you have successfully discredited Hindu--extremism. Your audience think so too
(Last night, some of them were laughing at the answers 
you received to those questions). Congratulations are in order!
Are you so naive as to believe
that every Hindu--extremist is out there because he firmly believes    
that Rama was born there? Do you really believe that Hindu--extremism
would not be on rise if Babri--Masjid did not exist? If not, then why ask
meaningless questions? Why not probe deeper into the psyche of an
Hindu--extremist? Your film conveys a message that it is the
power-hungry leaders who are solely responsible for Hindu--extremism.     
Wrong! It is a mix of politicians' hunger for power and the frustration
of Hindus accumulated over several years. Some of the extremists could have
been manipulated, but then to many others, perhaps the Hindu religious leaders 
simply provided an organization, a leadership, and a symbolic front 
(Ayodhya--dispute) to vent their anger and frustration. 
Hindu--extremism is on rise for several 
other factors including the persecution of Hindus in Punjab and Kashmir
and the Indian government's pandering to
minority interests (for votes) while completely ignoring the plight of 
unfortunate Hindus 
(because they do not constitute a significant voting block, 
most of them are dead you know). 
But then why should you address these problems? You have your own motives 
that have little to do with the actual problem. 

One of the messages that gets conveyed (whether it was intentionally 
desired by you or not)  through your film, it appears to me, 
is that ``lower--caste" Hindus are opposed
to religious extremism while many ``upper--caste" Hindus favor 
religious extremism. Did you not find a single ``lower-caste"
Hindu who favored religious extremism? (Or perhaps you decided
not to show any such interview). How about the BJP MLAs who won elections 
from constituencies reserved for ``lower--castes''? Technically, they
do represent the people who voted for them.  
Instead you chose to interview the white-saree-clad-lady belonging to
``lower--caste" twice. Perhaps because she spoke what you wanted to 
hear and what you wanted your audience to hear. 
Did you not find a single ``upper--caste"
Hindu who was opposed the religious extremism? 
(Or perhaps you decided not to show any such interview).
What about that income-tax
officer who was suspended? Is he an ``upper--caste" Hindu? 
I think he is because you chose not to ask him his caste. Why?
Whenever you interviewed a ``lower--caste" Hindu, you made sure that you
asked him/her their caste. However, you forgot to 
(or chose not to) ask the caste  
whenever you interviewed an ``upper--caste" Hindu unless (s)he was
an extremist. Perhaps you assumed
that the viewer should  know that priests (e.g., the ``communist priest")
belong to ``upper--caste'' Hindus. But then what about a working middle--class
``upper--caste'' Hindu? Did you not try to find one or could you 
not find one? By sharply dividing the
people (especially the Hindus) among the lower and upper castes, don't you
think that you have further perpetuated the feelings of divide along
these lines?        

Your film almost assumes the role of a propaganda film of pseudo--communists 
(``Religion is the opium of masses" -- heard that line before?)
who wish to respect the religions practised in India (that is why the use of
prefix ``pseudo''). This psuedo-communism embraces secularism and 
pseudo--communists proudly proclaim it. 
Years ago, when Hinduism was threatened by the
extreme popularity of Buddhism, the Hindu priests announced that 
Buddha was an Avatar of Vishnu and thereby Hinduism embraced
Buddhism. In a country where people have strong religious beliefs, 
secularism threatens communism. To survive, 
communism in India has embraced secularism. Bravo!    
A brilliant coup indeed! 
               
In a poor country like India, such communism is bound to be welcomed 
by many. However, in spite of your full awareness that communism has 
not worked in practice and previous attempts at it have failed miserably,
you decide to perpetuate the dangerous message. By juxtaposing communist
sentiment alongside the Ayodhya dispute, you aim to gain sympathy for
communism that you favor. So your goal is not to show the truth to the people
about what goes on in Ayodhya, but to preach some other ideals
riding the wave of extremism--bashing. 
Agreed that religious extremism is not the solution, but neither
is communism. However, you tried your best to subtly manipulate 
the people by bringing together the Ayodhya dispute with ideals of
psuedo--communism (almost hinting that psuedo--communism is a solution to this
problem). So what is the difference between the religious leaders 
in India and yourself? Both try to perpetuate dangerous ideas 
through manipulation of people. They manipulate through speeches, you
manipulate through visual images. They manipulate for their
political gain, you manipulate for yours.
Religious extremism (religious states)
and communism (communist states) are both political ideologies. If you
can accuse the Hindu religious leaders of doing something wrong, 
then I can accuse you of doing something wrong as well. 

For this psuedo--communism to succeed, perhaps a revolution is needed.
Your film identifies two distinct groups: ``upper--caste'' Hindus and
the Police on one side and ``lower--caste'' Hindus and minority groups   
on the other. Soushmita chatterjee (??) says that a new consciousness is 
spreading among the ``lower--caste'' Hindus. The seeds have been sown !
Could this have been the reason
why you tried hard to establish a rift among the 
``lower--caste'' and ``upper--caste'' Hindus by biased interviewing? 
May I be bold enough to say QED to my analysis of your ulterior motives? 
I do not deny that a gap exists but I also know that this gap 
has grown narrower and shall grow narrower despite attempts such as this film. 
Perhaps the pseudo--communists should hurry to get their act 
together before caste--distinction in India becomes extinct. 

Your film has won you many admirers. Several of them have crawled out of
their comfortable quarters and jumped on the band--wagon criticizing
the unfortunate incident of Ayodhya. It is almost glamorous for many of them
to criticize, extremism--bashing is in vogue alright. 
Most of them will soon creep back
into their comfortable quarters after they have formed committees
and sent off letters to newspapers. Most of them did nothing to
prevent this in the first place and most of them would not do anything
to prevent such unfortunate incidents from happening again in future. 
They shall never do anything all their lives to change anything in 
India for any good. 
The next time something unfortunate happens, they shall again crawl 
out of their comfortable quarters and then retreat again.  
If I were you, I shall not be proud of such admirers. 


Manish Malhotra 
Xref: sparky soc.culture.indian:41087 soc.culture.pakistan:18296 soc.culture.bangladesh:6792