Jul
9
Manoj Kumar Upkaar
Those were the days when socialism was the call of whole nation. In the strategic compliance with USSR, India was slowly changing towards full-fledged socialism with major purpose to reduce and remove poverty and bring economic equality along with equality of rights. It was the era of leaders like Lal Bahadur Shastri and Indira Gandhi. Those were the times when the word “socialistic” was added in the preamble of Indian constitution. Central theme of his movies used to revolve round the proud and honest hard working labour or farmer, or student struggling for his righteous living against the odds, which obviously were presented as capitalists. His movies were not only praised but were given accolades and financial support too. The movie UPKAAR was properly designed to express the then famous quote “Jai Jawaan Jai Kisaan” by former Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri. Stories used to depict how the honest government and leaders want to help the individuals by bringing socialism while the corrupt industrialists and capitalists are trying to dislodge the government “by the help of some mysterious foreign forces”.
roti-kapada-aur-makaan1
In the movie “Roti Kapada aur Makaan” the major villain (obviously a corrupt capitalist) clearly says that their main motive is to dislodge the socialistic government which has exploited the businessmen of India. That movie also exposed the cause of inflation as the result of black-marketing and “lawless businessmen” who opposes government and government laws. His movies used to depict the government as the only force to safeguard individuals and remove corruption and crime.
Such wrong and misleading ideas about capitalism and anarchic thoughts were being induced in the society via media which obviously was under the governmental hands, that such themes used to get an instant hit rank.
Capitalism was always presented as a curse on society. Those typical “Sahukar” and Baniya’s of those types of movies, including “Mother India” presented the case of capitalists as corrupt unjustified and money-hungry people who, for their own profits will go to any lows. That is how although the slogan of “jai jawan, jai kisaan” favoured Indian youth and farmers, but the entrepreneurs and businessmen were posed as wrong. Anyone looking for his own profits and progress was posed as a danger for the nation and society. Through media and movies, socialism was taught; it was taught that if inflation is there, the reason is blackmarketeers and capitalism. The governmental plot, to keep Indian public under economic slavery was well integrated by these movies with a emotional touch towards poverty and nation, while Capitalism and demand for Individual freedom was typically discriminated and prohibited. The major theme used to be, you save my back. Nobody ever thought that privatization, and the “right” drift towards Capitalism only will save the weak nation and poor individuals from the socialistic political dishevel.
If poverty is there, it is because someone is looting the public, and that looter is anyone who is not living for the public but trying to live for his own.
Anarchism wasn’t criticized even than. Many movies depicted the anarchist as looters and dacoits fighting against businessmen, in main roles as in case of Sunil Dutt’s Mother India, there remained an emotional facet behind that. It was suggested that a person becomes anarchist and extremist because of bad governance and middlemen and the corrupt capitalists, but if provided proper chances and better situations, even anarchists will get back in social archaic realms. It was almost impossible to even think of the fact that even the new form of government is just a fraud and corruption.
I wonder what difference it makes if farmers sales their crops to the private dealers, or to government unless they are getting right price for their hard work? What difference does it make if agricultural products remain in private owned cells or government owned go-downs? But to keep agriculture in its hands, government always fooled public by suggesting that private owners are meant to exploit farmers and the consumers. To keep agriculture, the biggest economic sector of India in its hands, government did its best and always denied agriculture an Industrial status and hence forcing subsidies and taxations on food articles. Farmers themselves never got any chance to improve their financial status, because even after removal of those “Sahukars” and “Baniyas”, things never changed, although the government itself started playing the same corrupt role.
A farmer cannot decide the price of his own products, government decides the price. Obviously, government assumes that farmers are not intelligent enough to ask for right and profitable price and will be cheated and exploited if government allows them to deal for their own hard work and products, or the farmers will hide the daily use food grains for making more profits. As a matter of fact, until force is not applied, no one will think of making a deal of no-profits, and who can be bigger coercive force than the government itself?
Since agriculture is no business, it has got no industrial status, and it is assumed as a national-social work, farmers remain in realm of poverty. Not the market forces, but government decides what to produce and what to sell and at what price. Result is the numerous suicidal cases by farmers because of poverty and hungry.
In his article, Subhramanyam Aiyer clearly explains how the water policy of socialistic government failed and caused havoc to the water resources of India, similar is the case of agriculture. The poor and weak state of Indian farmers is government and its coercive interference in agriculture and market.
With time the scenes are changing. Now the public is not innocent enough to be fooled by government for its ill and corrupt ideologies and policies.
Lagaan was totally different movie from those movies of Manoj Kumar.
Lagaan
Lagaan properly raised the question, why to pay tax? It actually doesn’t matter if the tax grabbing authority is foreigners or Indian government. If it is government, and it is taking non-voluntary taxes, than it is corrupt and the public under such realm is slave community. There is no wrong in democracy if people want to have a common consent for a cause, but to force it economically irrespective of Individual’s choice is just coercion and is typically wrong. There must remain freedom for the Individual, the smallest minority of any public domain, to deny or reject the majority ruled democratic government or similar system, and there must not be any force on anybody to follow that. What can be forced is reasonable objective law based on Individual rights, obviously property rights are the most sound and only reasonable way to express Individual rights, and any system which denies property rights, is actually exploitative and coercive against the individuals.
“Guru” was another movie in same realms where an individual just denies letting the authority to exploit his rights to earn profits freely. Individuals do invent ways to live free and uninterrupted by any archaic dogmatic government or authority because anarchy is the proper way of living “if Individual rights being respected for each and every person”. If one is not infringing any others Individual rights and domain, he is just and honest. It is a need to have security system for Individual rights of the people of the community. That security system can be democratically accepted and assigned system which will work voluntarily to protect the individual rights and will earn its expense by means of voluntary taxations or other financial programs (there can be allot ways to earn the expenses and profits) or the security system can be private security systems. There cannot be and should not be any force against any individual if he wants to have democratic security system or privately owned security services. It is individual choice. But the law should remain proper, objective and unambiguous.
Indian media and movies kept showing of the changing tracks of ideas, and from the start of government and socialism praising movies like “Mother India” “Roti Kapada aur Makaan” and “Upkaar” there came a trend in Bollywood which courageously explained and show-cased the ills of government and started demanding for freedom against the so-called democratic government itself and showed how police and politicians acts against the individuals on the name of common good and exploits them, or how police just becomes a toy under corrupt politicians.
Arjun
Nobody wants lawlessness, nobody demands for anarchist naxalism and anti-nation terrorism, but that doesn’t mean that government is a necessity as many depicts it as a “necessary evil”. 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”). With his latest movie “Tare Zameen Par” Amir Khan properly exposed how we turn our children in slaves, and takes the freedom out of their life even before they can think and start demanding for liberty.
I must say that Indian media and movies are slowly but strongly traversing towards the “right” way.
Related Posts
88 viewsWP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck requires Flash Player 9 or better.
14 Responses to “The “Right” Drift”
Leave a Reply
renegade_division Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 1:51 amWhat 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
Gubbi Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 2:23 amRefreshing 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.
renegade_division Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 3:14 amYou 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
Karma Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 8:50 pmBasically 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.
drip Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 9:18 pmyeah..well justified.
and yes, you are way too liberal with the word ‘anarchism’. infact, you yourself is too liberal.
Ruchi Sharma Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 9:07 pmIn 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.
Karthik Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 9:55 pmI’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.
Gaurav Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 12:37 pmIt 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.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 9:05 pmDo 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!
Unpretentious Diva Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 9:06 pmDo 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
Unpretentious Diva Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 9:06 pmDo 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
Unpretentious Diva Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 9:10 pmAs 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!
Valério Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 6:54 amNice blog!
gauarav Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 5:57 pmThe 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