Students and movements

History has seen a lot of student movements all over the world. Most of them met with a bloody end. The worst being the Tiananmen Square massacre in China giving, perhaps, the best reason to throw communism out of the window. The protests in France in 1968 were perhaps the most influential which propelled protests in various countries which were ruthlessly suppressed.

Why have students been at the forefront of such movements is a question seldom asked. They are idealistic, study in an academic environment that teaches them to think for themselves, analyse and criticize the world around them, and they are passionate in their beliefs and naive enough to believe that they can change the world (and they do!). When faced with authority that tries to suppress their thoughts and control their actions, they rebel and their rebellion is much feared by their governments.

Are they right or wrong?

In their beliefs? Quite often, there are legitimate grievances behind those protests, which are not addressed by the powers that be for a variety of reasons. You cannot get a mass protest out of huge, disparate group of people (as evidenced by the French and the Chinese ones) without a reason or a collection of reasons.

In their actions? Well, that is a tricky one. Quite a few of the rebellions have been violent. Can we accept violence in any form? The violence is usually a manifestation of the frustration and sense of powerlessness and the impatience associated with youth. Violence always snuffs out a lot of lives, lives that would have contributed to the world and their countries if they had continued to live on. And that is the tragedy of it all. Violence is understandable and serves as a precursor to the socio-political change but it would have been better if it hadnt been a violent one. Of course, the repressive governments could very well get away with mass murder without getting punished like in the case of the Tiananmen square massacre.

Students with their passion and energy are the most valuable assets to a country much like oil or gold. Their energy could be used for good or bad, for constructive or destructive purposes, for social reasons or for vested reasons. And their minds are the most malleable and the leanings they inculcate usually stay with them for life. Which is why they are the most sought after by political parties. Which is why the role of the teacher is so powerful and important! Which is why they should, ideally, be left alone to explore the world on their own, with, maybe, a little guidance and mentorship.

Are they really powerless? Can they really be silenced so easily? NO.

we can still change the world without violent rebellions and bloody fights. With patience and determination, and with immense courage. Which is why I deplore messages that tend to legitimise the frustration and powerlessness that lead to violence and tragedy. Which is why I would ask my fellow youth to never lose sight of their goals and work towards it in their own ways and to work together to bring about changes in the world around them and in people they know.

, , , , ,

Lage raho Munnabhai

So, I watched Munnabhai yesterday. I went there because I had liked the first movie (mainly the jokes and the characters) and I thought that they might just continue with the formula that they had created of a lovable bhai.

Warning: Spoilers ahead

The major theme about the movie is its Gandhianism. This can be considered a major attempt to re-create and instill the Gandhian simplistic philosophy in the youth. I do not know whether to call it naive or to call it exceedingly true to Gandhiji...

But one thing I had to compare it with was RDB. RDB ended with a seige in the radio station where the band of "heros" took over a broadcast and talked directly to the people, taking calls and explaining their actions. The reactionary message of RDB was something that I could not accept. The movie almost seemed to say that resorting to violent means to solve a problem would make the problem go away or would get a revolution up and running. It makes a lame attempt to justify the violence and also a more lame attempt at making the "heros" into martyrs!

In a way, LRM looks like a response to RDB's misguided message. It does invoke the memories of RDB by creating a radio show where Munnabhai solves people's problems using "Gandhigiri" aka Gandhian advice. People phone in with their problems and instead of advising them to take the easy way out, he advises them to take the harder path, the more fruitful path in the long run. And if you are faced with a corrupt official, do not shoot him but protest in a way that shames him and gets the work done without the bribe.

Truth and non-violence has always been the hallmarks of the Gandhian philosophy and the movie makes a valiant attempt at highlighting both of them. Some very interesting bits where Munnabhai tells us how to judge people by looking at the way they behave with people whom they consider beneath their social standings and talks about non-violent means to get someone to stop using their door as a spittoon.

With the radio station, there is again the direct correlation with RDB when Munna and Circuit take over the station by force near the end of the movie but "to have a private chat with Jhanvi".

Where RDB was a movie about the youth, its helplessness in the face of bureaucracy and its impatient idea of change, LRM is about wisdom that comes with age.

The humour of the movie is one of its big plus points. I thought Bomman Irani did a great job as Lucky Singh. Circuit was brilliant as usual. Munna was just bareable. I really think he should reconsider playing comic roles. The jokes were mostly clean, no sexist/sexual ones as that seems to the current idea of humour in Bollywood.

There are some really nice song sequences. Particularly the one where Munna tells Circuit about his first date was interesting because it seemed to adopt the strategies of a Hollywood musical (I am thinking primarily of Chicago). Though, the songs are not so great as RDB's were, they have a more earthy and simplistic quality that is hard to ignore.

So, would this movie's message be taken up by the youth? I highly doubt it. Mainly because the youth have gained the cynical quality that was reflected in RDB and I highly suspect such a naive idealism, as depicted by the movie, was aimed at the children rather than the adult youth. But somehow the naive idealistic preachings seems to be characteristic of Gandhi. So, in that sense, it is very true to the Gandhian vision...

But, do I think this is a really a reply to RDB. Yes, I think it is. The parallels are unmistakable and it is way too obviously scripted.

Stars? Maybe three.


, , , ,