Are Indians truly Secular?

Having just brushed past the election season, one of the most common words one must have heard recently is "secular" or "secularism". It's the favorite word of the politicians in India, especially the ones that do not belong to the BJP. They all claim to be truly "secular" while insinuating BJP to be not.

So, what does "secular" mean? According to the Oxford Dictionary, "secular" means "not connected with religious or spiritual matters". Then, the dictionary also explains the meaning of the word when used in the context of Christianity, Astronomy and Economics. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/secular)

Too bad that it does not explain the meaning of the word as used in the Indian context; to be more precise, in the context of Indian politics. For in this context, it does not mean "not connected with religious or spiritual matters" but rather it means "embracing, practicing and loving Muslims".

Ideally, when a person, organization or nation is secular, he/she/it should have no particular religious affinities. A secular person should not judge people or form impressions about them because of the religion practiced by them. He/she should treat all persons equally even if they practice a religion different from them. Similarly, a secular organization or a secular nation should not discriminate any of its people based on their religious or spiritual choices. It should provide equal opportunities, services and benefits to all and should allow them to pursue any religion they choose without interfering in their choices.

But, that doesn't happen in India. In India, a person to appear secular should actually leave behind his or her own religion and start embracing the other religion, read Islam, to appear secular. If he doesn't do that, he is classified as a Hindu nationalist or worse a Hindu fascist / Hindu hardliner. And the irony is that all this is only targeted towards people who are religiously inclined to Hinduism.

So, if a Narendra Modi chooses to do a "Ganga aarti" instead of, say, putting a "chaadar" on any "mazaar", the entire media goes berserk and he is termed as a Hindu nationalist and an nonsecular person. But, if a Hamid Ansari refuses to take the "aarti thaal" in his hand and participate in the official "aarti" and "puja" at the Rashtrapati Bhawan, no one questions it. Because only Hindus are expected to be secular in India and not Muslims. And to be clear, I am a very secular person and I personally wouldn't expect Mr. Ansari to do the "puja" just as much as I wouldn't expect Mr. Modi to offer a "namaaz".

According to me, being truly secular means letting each person practice whatever religion, belief and school of thought he/she believes in. So, if as a person, Mr. Modi believes in Hinduism, he has the right to perform as many "aartis", visit as many temples, and observe as many religious rituals of Hindus as he wants as long as his government does not discriminate against non-Hindus; as long as his governance policies do not promote Hindus over non-Hindus in providing the fruits and benefits of any schemes they launch or any policies they draft for the betterment of the citizens of the country. Similarly, Hamid Ansari is free to offer his "namaaz" as long as he is fulfilling his duties diligently. Neither Mr. Modi should be forced to don a skull cap, nor Mr. Ansari should be made to perform any "puja" to prove that they are secular in their thoughts and actions. If Congress (Mr. Ansari's ex-Party) is a secular party, they shouldn't provide quotas to Muslims or any other religious sect for that matter. Secular people should be anti-religious-quota all together. And yet, every party talks about quotas, with Congress going a step ahead in its desperation and promise to introduce quotas in the private sector jobs too. Quotas for Muslims, quotas for Jains, quotas for backward classes, whatever. And they try to justify these vote bank politics as secularism. A truly secular nation can't have notion of special perks for anyone because then it defies the spirit of "equality for all." (Image courtesy: Dr. Subramanian Swamy on Facebook)

Today, when Mr. Modi announced his cabinet, I could see a number of Muslims on Facebook questioning why Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi and Shahnawaz Hussain were not included in the cabinet to have representation from Muslims in the cabinet. Now, I want to ask all of them, why is representation from any particular religion needed over there. Is the cabinet's only task to draft religious laws for which you need people from all religions to kind of give a perspective to the laws? On the contrary, the Cabinet will work for India and irrespective of whatever religion the Indians follow, the laws should be equally applicable to all.

When France declared that no religious symbols are allowed in schools and all Muslim, Christian and Sikh students were forced to abandon their "hijaabs", "crosses" and "turbans", it was true practice of secularism - they can practice whatever religion they want but they need not wear it on their sleeve. Can anyone imagine that happening in India? The day that does happen, I would say India has become truly secular. Indians should learn tolerance and accept a person's beliefs as merely a part of his/her personality. To each his own. Equality for all.

Movie Metaphors: Did you even understand these?

We all love Hindi movies! Call it Bollywood or call it Indian Cinema, but it has reigned our hearts ever since we remember. We have laughed with it and we have cried with it. We have seen it senseless (say, David Dhawan's movies) and we have learned philosophy of life from it (say, Raju Hirani's movies). Sometimes we have dismissed it as too heavy (say, Sanjay Leela Bhansali's epics) and at times we have carried them on in our dreams (say, Yash Chopra's romantic sagas). But, more often than not, people use them only to escape from reality. Finding bloopers is passe and fun (like when someone notices the mobile towers behind a dancing Sonam Kapoor in Bhaag Milkha Bhaag and questions how they sprung up in the bygone era depicted in the movie), but normal people do not analyse the finer nuances and dialogues which may have a deeper meaning.

How am I reminded of this? Well, we were discussing 'Queen' that day (I loved it and have already written my review of the movie in an earlier post) when my friend recalled the scene where Kangana Ranaut who plays Rani is asked by her new friends in Amsterdam where she comes from and she answers "Rajouri" as against "India" or "Delhi". To my friend, it was a simple funny scene with a funny dialogue since how is the world supposed to know about "Rajouri Garden", but she didn't realize that this one word answer tells us something about the character.

So, today I want to list down a few metaphors used in some of the films, which were never understood by some of my friends:

1. Queen: Obviously, I would first explain what I mentioned above. So, when Rani answers that she comes from "Rajouri" as against "India" or "Delhi", it highlights the small world she has lived in so far. She has never gone, in person as well as in thought, beyond "Rajouri Garden". It is her world, her personal comfort cocoon or a shell. It was only during her trip that she has stepped out, both out of her world as well as out of her comfort zone. She is now learning to survive in the open and must first realize that for most people her world does not even exist.

2. Queen / English Vinglish: Another such instance in 'Queen' is where she makes a "French Toast" and the French guy tells her that there's nothing really French about it. There's a similar scene in 'English Vinglish' where Sridevi or Shashi tells her French friend to eat "French Fries" and he tells her that they don't originate from France. This highlights how little we people know about the things we often take for granted. Everybody in India refers to "French Toast", "French Fries", "Chinese Noodles", and so on and we continue to believe that they originated there. Similarly, we don't challenge anything that has been carried on for generations, be it political dynasties ruling over us or our impressions about the education system in India.

3. Mission Kashmir: When this movie was released, I could often hear people commenting why Preity Zinta, who plays Sufiya Parvez therein, did that movie. Now Preity at that time was competing for the top slot in the film industry and was known to undertake really meaty roles, so maybe that prompted people to ask that question. But, to be fair to Preity and Vidhu Vinod Chopra (the director of the film), I do not think that it was a non-consequential role despite the small screen time. Now, if we refer to Kareena Kapoor's role in Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham (K3G), that was inconsequential and only existed to provide some eye candy and provide a song and dance opportunity to Hrithik Roshan in an era where you couldn't dare to take Hrithik in a movie and not include a few dance numbers. But, Preity in Mission Kashmir signified the kind of life and opportunities that Altaf (played superbly by Hrithik again) would have had, had he not ventured into the darkness of terrorism. Surprisingly, no-one ever questioned Kareena taking up K3G, but everyone seemed to mind Preity taking up Mission Kashmir.

4. Black / Guzaarish / Saawariya: Colour references in Sanjay Leela Bhansali's movies are his trademark style. So, if he uses the bright radiance of reds, greens, gold in 'Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam', 'Devdas' and 'Ram Leela', people love it; but when he sticks to shades of Black, Grey and Blue in 'Black', 'Guzaarish', and 'Saawariya', respectively, he is severely criticized for being too dull. But, I like his idea of sticking to a colour to signify the theme of the movie. While the reds, greens, gold in 'Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam', 'Devdas' and 'Ram Leela' signify the flamboyance and rich cultural heritage of Gujarat and Bengal which served as the backdrop of the respective films; there are deeper meanings in the colours used in 'Black', 'Guzaarish', and 'Saawariya'. Black (both the name and the colour backdrop) signified the darkness and the deep hole in the world of a blind, deaf and mute girl. Grey's in Guzaarish signified the dullness and the mundaneness in the life of the quadriplegic Ethan Mascarenhas and his helper and caretaker for years Sophia. If you remember, Sophia did wear Reds as part of her clothes, the lip colour and the rose in her hair; which again signified that she is the only one in Ethan's life who brought him hope or motivation to carry on. Lastly, the blue shades of 'Saawariya' not only added to the fact that the entire film moved in moonlit nights, but also the character's state of mind where both the protagonists were going through heartbreaks.

5. Hum saath saath hain: There was nothing modern about this modern day Ramayan except that it was set in a traditional typical household and not in the medieval era. The thought process of the characters and their grooming (ask Karisma who wears lehengas in daily wear in a fairly modern household) was definitely traditional, bordering on orthodox. But, the names of the six protagonists were very symbolic of the characters they played. Mohnish Bahl was called Vivek which means 'wisdom' and he was supposed to be the eldest and the wisest son. Tabu, the eldest daughter-in-law, played Sadhana which means 'to practice something as a discipline' and she was continuously practicing being a traditional dutiful wife, daughter-in-law and sister-in-law. Next son in line and his ladylove were Salman Khan and Sonali Bendre who played Prem and Preeti respectively, both names meaning 'love' and they both loved each other and the brothers and the sister-in-laws and big Indian family endlessly and selflessly. Saif Ali Khan played Vinod which means 'happy' or 'joyful' and he was the happy-go-lucky youngest son who kept the atmosphere alive with his goofing around irrespective of the tensions gripping the family. Finally, Karisma Kapoor played Sapna, Vinod's ladylove, meaning 'dream' and her only task in the film was to keep Vinod amused and help in his goofing around and Vinod obviously dreamt a lot about her. Oh yes! How can I forget the mother played by Reema Lagoo who was called Mamta, meaning 'motherly love'.

I am sure there would be many more and these are just the ones that immediately came to my mind. But my point is that often people tend to overlook them.