Comments on: The "Right" Drift

By: gauarav

gauarav — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:27:29 +0000

The issue again retraces itself to the same position,as far as i can think i got the essence of your article which had tried to express it was more of a totalitarian form of govt. which forced Movie makers to make such movies,but the issue is do you think Manoj kumar’s movies scriptwriter use to be someone from congress party’s cabinet rank of ministers,Nope,the Movie makers voluntary made movie on themes like socialism,And yes the reason was sentiments of people of this nation at that time which were affected by two reasons
1)The peopel who enjoied luxury in preindependence era ,who were rich were all those who were a part and parcel of british’s autocratic rule
2)Further the earlier government also decided to rule this country on line of socialism
Now a widespread emotion against rich rooted in people’s heart as rich being Bad never erased and we continued,The result led to unemploymewnt and lagged development which again was ended through peopel’s effort and government’s visionary steps(maybe little late in the day) in 1991,and we move towards libseralization and movies in this decade are following the same trend

By: Valério

Valério — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:24:00 +0000

Nice blog!

By: Unpretentious Diva

Unpretentious Diva — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:40:13 +0000

As for example, a 1980 batch IAS officer and former secrfetary to governor of West Bengal, Neera Saagi took volluntary retirement from her IAS rankin West Bengal and opted to work as a business manager at L&T to follow her dreams.
She submitted her resignation as for volluntary retirement from government on 13th of july.
I will be writing an article over the issue soon!

By: Unpretentious Diva

Unpretentious Diva — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:36:15 +0000

Do you think the govt. is trying to promote capitalism?It’s more of the society India is livin right now and there popular sentiments.

Nope, You missed the essence of article, may be the essence of topic too.
In older times (era of congress dictatorship) government had totalitarian power even on entertainment. Now things are being liberalised. And to bring about this change, Media has played an important role.

and its not only about entertainment, Individuals are now more free to choose what to do and what not to. In socialism/communism, this freedom is impossible.
As India will progress towards further liberalisation, the Indian Individual will get further freedom and hence confidence and ability to follow his “pursuit of happiness” for his own!

As for

By: Unpretentious Diva

Unpretentious Diva — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:36:12 +0000

Do you think the govt. is trying to promote capitalism?It’s more of the society India is livin right now and there popular sentiments.

By: Unpretentious Diva

Unpretentious Diva — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:35:59 +0000

Do you think the govt. is trying to promote capitalism?It’s more of the society India is livin right now and there popular sentiments.

By: Gaurav

Gaurav — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 07:07:11 +0000

It was intresting reading the article ,but reading them i was reminded of bhartendu harishchandra’s words ” Sahitya Samaj ka Darpan hota hain” “literatute is the mirror of society”,i really feel with the advent of cinema as the most popular form of entertainment the word Sahitya was replaced by this Thing dispalyed on a 70 mm screen.So when all through this article when you were talking about the cinema trying to influence through the messages that they wre carrying,I feel it’s more of other way round they were just rekindling the popular sentiments of people of this nation,without any dout the sentiment were the effect of 200 years of autocratic rule and then the policy adopted by our early leaders,Yet it was more of a Profiteering scheme.Today dwhen our movies are lavishly shot with every yash chopra movie showing the hero-heroine as Business moghul,Do you think the govt. is trying to promote capitalism?It’s more of the society India is livin right now and there popular sentiments.

By: Karthik

Karthik — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:25:58 +0000

I’d say the older movies were part and parcel of the whole socialist movement… if you want to push something that most of the world is against, you have to bring your people up in a bubble where you’re thoughts are considered divinely correct.
It was like everything you saw was a massive propaganda machine, and thats the only reason India was SO reluctant to give up socialism officially (it still hasn’t done it… look at the complete lack of free markets whenever the government feels it needs to go back to socialism).
Nothings really wrong with the concept of socialism except for the part about motivation… if you’re going to get the same food and have the same job no matter what, there really isn’t any incentive for the more talented people to push themselves harder. The bigger problem, is you cant distribute poverty equally, when you aren’t rich naturally in resources (or have been plundered as some people claim), you cant develop that without people doing it for self interest.
Free market rules are not possible in the current scenario simply because our democratically elected government will have to pander to the people to stay in power, and the bulk of the people will be adversely affected, very much so (especially initially). Coming from a controlled mechanism to a free market one is a tough adjustment… and has to be forced upon us (just like 1991)… we have protests for a 3 rupee hike in petrol prices, imagine the situation if we have a 50 rupee hike, even if it is over a long time.

By: Ruchi Sharma

Ruchi Sharma — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:37:06 +0000

In 80’s, some better mvoies also became hits.
Socialism is a fact which starts from family. You cannot expect a family without social accords. A family cannot act on anarchy, otherwise it would be hard even to think of a family.
It is like salt in a soup. One need to know how much quantity is essential.
A new-borne totally dependent on his/her elders/parents, completely unable to think for his own cannot expect a no-responsibility behaviour from her mother/father. Obviously there occurs a reasonable duty, a self-chosen authority on the kid to give him a healthy upbringing. (Authority is opposite to anarchy)!
Now just to prove that anarchy is good, one cannot and should not throw away his child as an orphan. Why the hell he/she gave birth to that kid if they were so anarchic enough to leave the kid alone to live to perform his pursuit of happiness? there was a movie “Sharabi”. Pran never fullfilled his responsible duty towards his son(amitabh).

When government acquires a position to dictate parents how to grow their kids, it becomes excessive and in such cases revolt is presumable and necessary, and I am not talking about it.

But same parents feels it difficult to give up authority over their own kids after serving their responsibilities well. They forgets or just find themselves unable to judge about the right limit of authority. A family is bound to follow a Miniarchist setup because it is the best set-up.
A family cannot grow well without the responsible authority of parents. A family cannot sustain status of good fawmily if the authority is not limited. In cases where that authority is not limited, social ills like child-marriages, molestations, and above all “honor-killing” often occurs.
Indian Family system is more authoritative than is necessary, that is why Honor Killing and other ills are more here.
There have been made many movies to profess this idea.’Kabhi Kabhi’ ‘Ek Duje Ke Liye’, and many others were of same theme, they were made to make citizens realize the limit of the authority and its importance.
But how will anarchy help it?

Anarchy cannot help it, anarchy will become a bigger curse.

Anarcho-capitalism demands professional private security system, so if somehow one kills his daughter at his home for the reasons of some ilusive honor sense, the killing of daughter will never be checked because noone will report about it. (some friends of that girl may report if they are close enough to spend money for her findings).
Its a foolish idea to even to think of completely private security system.
Although I agree with Miniarchy system, and Volluntarism and anarchy based on natural rights.
People should realize that they should not make Idea of anarchy just like another blind religions.
If there are positives of anarchy, there are negatives too many. and to have a proper reasonable system to avoid those negatives is the proper way.
I don’t think that (no matters India or america or anywhere else) anarchy is possible. Although i have heard about some anarchy project going on in america which was started in 2006. It failed on major parts.
About Manoj Kumar,
He was/is one of the most talented person of bollywood.
In his movies, even though he supported socialistic values, he expressed that the socialistic values are not so practical on parallel lines.
As we talk about UPKAAR, I wonder if you remember “MALANG CHACHA” the character played by ‘Pran’ in tyhat movie, And the very famous song “Kasme Wade Pyar Wafa Sab, Baatein hain Baaton Ka Kya”
When ‘Bharat’(Manoj) asks ‘Pran’ that in day he says people should care for each other and should respect each others premises of happiness and freedom, why do he sings such a song at nights? Pran explains him that in daytime, he says that which should happen, at night he sings that which actually happens.
In a anarchic state, people generally tend to ruthfully override others individual rights because of which anarchy always fails and some form, of limited government becomes a necessity to protect the individual rights. But then again, the authority should remain in limits.
Although I agree to this fact that in old movies, capitalism was hugely criticised and yes major reason was Indira gandhi, congress and its socialistic roots. (Why didn’t you mentioned ‘Poorab Aur pashim’? It woiuld have covered ‘brain drain’ and mysticism and other related problems being faced by indians too.

By: drip

drip — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:48:01 +0000

yeah..well justified.

and yes, you are way too liberal with the word ‘anarchism’. infact, you yourself is too liberal.

By: Karma

Karma — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:20:17 +0000

Basically there is no difference between Market Anarchism and philosophical anarchism. Anarchy is more communistic thought and is often avoided by capitalist who supports Laissez-Faire free market system.
What was/is being presented in Indian movies is Radical anarchism often postulated by marxists and communists and the very common form very vibrant in India is Naxalism.
To avoid misinterpretations, Ayn rand, Ludwig Von Mises, William Godwin, Milton friedman and others used the term Free-Market Laissez-faire priniciple to denote philosophical-natural anarchism. Voluntarism, Mutualism are all its parts.

It is foolish to argue or fight about the issue of differences between philosophical anarchism and anarcho-capitalism becasuse basically, anarcho-capitalism is a further step which cannot be achieved without achieving miniarchy first.
Philosophical anarchists believed that government was a “necessary evil” but that it will become increasingly unnecessary and powerless by the gradual spread of knowledge. And that is truth which is visible in all modern societies. But most of the societies are yet not ready for anarho-capitalism, because most of the societies haven’t yet achieved the status of miniarchy and are still following or reigning under statist governance and moral-political obligations.
In India, Anarcho-capitalism is completely non-viable at prersent, although It will be a natural choice in near future.

Indian cinema often presented the cases of radical anarchism in emotional ways, trying to gather emotional support of public towards the issues. Even till late 80’s such trends were common and not only Manoj Kumar but other super-stars like Dilip Kumar, Rajesh Khanna, Amitabh Bachchan were seriously involved in postulating socialism, and luring radical anarchists. Congress and indira Gandhi factor was very high on all forms of life in India.
Some other important movies in that league were Namak Haram (Rajesh Khanna, Amitabh Bachchan starrer), Coolie, Deewar and many others(all were blockbusters).
The trend of presenting radical anarchist as emotional issue was because of the socialistic influence of Jai Prakash Narayan and Chowdhary Charan Singh.
As a matter of fact, Socialism is not so bad as being presented by various capitalists, But socialism is surely impossible idea and cannot be implemented. but same can be said in case of anarcho-capitalism too. But Capitalism being based upon the ideals of natural rights and libneral philosophy is most viable in a situation where the Individuals of the society are strong anmd reasonably knowledgable. At present, even america is not viable for anarcho-capitalism, that is why socialists and communists and protectionists are gaining more support there rather than liberalist. It signifies ignorant society.

By: renegade_division

renegade_division — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 21:44:24 +0000

The boundaries and definitions for “self-defense” are rather blur, ambiguous and not cut in ice.

You cannot hard code the definition of self-defense, it must be seen on case to case basis whenever such a case is brought in.

In Texas after 9/11 there has been a castle doctrine according to which if there are unauthorized personal on your property you have a right to kill them, the famous case of Joe Horn a retiree who killed two burglar on his neighbor’s property from his own house:

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/07/02/joe-horn-the-fourth-of-july-and-forgotten-duties.php

The complete 911 call(you can hear the shooting too)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc

By: Gubbi

Gubbi — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 20:53:14 +0000

Refreshing read.

However a little bit of nitpicking:

In “Rang de Basanti”, while Amir Khan tried to put up the anarchist case against the government and the ills government causes, the mode and method wasn’t right and proper, it was more like naxalite way of terrorism and violence, which is strictly wrong and prohibited and should be condemned in any case (except in case of self-defence”).

The boundaries and definitions for “self-defense” are rather blur, ambiguous and not cut in ice.

By: renegade_division

renegade_division — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 20:21:21 +0000

What do you mean by Anarchism in all your posts?

There are two broadly defined categories of Anarchism:
1) Individualist Anarchism - Anarcho-capitalist, mutualist, voluntarist, Agorism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

2) Collectivist Anarchism - Anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-feminism, etc etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

In addition to these there are anarcho-christians, green-anarchists, crypto-anarchists, but basically the two broadly defined categories which contradict each other are given up there.

Both the categories refuse to acknowledge each other, left-anarchists refuse to acknowledge that anarcho-capitalism is possible on the grounds that govt is necessary to define property, where as individualist anarchists refuse to acknowledge anarcho-communism is possible on the grounds that govt is necessary for collectivism.

Take for example when you talk about anarcho-capitalists, there are two major approaches of such ideology:
1) Utility based approach - where Anarchism is suggested on the grounds of its utility to maximum people(David Friedman, Milton Friedman are utilitarians)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarian

2) Natural Rights based approach - where anarchism is suggested on the grounds of natural rights of man(Rand, Rothbard, are natural rights based Libertarians)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_right