'SPIRITUAL – SHOPKEEPERS'

 

The prominence of ' spiritual Gurus ' in to days times is no indication of the Nation's enlightenment. Contrary though is true. With the rise in 'spiritualism-religious-mysticism-occultism' related market the material hunger of the Nation is ever on increase. Truthfully 'spiritualism' today does not fall in the enlightenment/higher goals/Nirvana basket, but in the 'shopping basket'.

I have difficulty in communicating and understanding, in fact dealing with this trend brought up as I was in a very congenial religious atmosphere. My Paternal Grand father ( Dadaji) was a Sanskrit Acharya from Varanasi and believed in 'Vedanta' . Therefore he encouraged us to understand 'Upanishads' , 'Gita', 'Yog vashishta' etc, in fact his knowledge of other religions was profound, many of his contemporaries sought his regular advice on interpretations of texts . Whilst in Jail as a prominent freedom fighter of Garhwal he imparted lessons on 'Gita' to his inmates. He was indeed a Grand old man and purposefully utilized his spiritual insight in 'journalism' and the weekly newspaper he edited lifelong. My Maternal Grand father (Nanaji ), was 'Arya Samaj', Shastri , highly learned and proficient in ' Shastrarth' ( religious debate), he was a true 'Rishi' of our time. There was no material attachment in him and possessed a distinct streak of renunciation. His rendition of Sanskrit 'shloks' was so perfect that his subordinates and peers were very careful not to utter any incorrect pronunciation in his presence for fear of being checked. I am indeed grateful to my Grandfathers for the many blessings. The fact that i can read Sanskrit without any formal learning is credited to them. My close childhood association and having participated in numerous discussions and 'Havans' ( yaghya / yaghna) has been immensely beneficial in my outlook.

Spiritualism ( self realization) has always been a lofty ideal in society. What is essential to spiritualism is ' renunciation '. A sense of detachment from the worldly pleasures, lack of materialism. The offshoot of materialism such as marketing, glamour, follower ship, sycophancy ,flattery, Hero-worship do not fit-in the picture of 'spiritualism'. And, yet spiritualism today is all about Hero-worship,glamour, marketing,money, gold and glitter.

Spiritual leaders like politicians and film stars need constant attention and support of people for sustenance. The increase in dedicated channels on 'Religion-spiritualism' is one strong indicator. Unfortunately, even with much advancement in science the ties with commercial spiritualism have only strengthened. Media upsurge has significantly contributed to the rise of these leaders. Baba Ramdev, Murari Babu, Sudhanshu Maharaj, Asa Ram Bapu have also been exposed on media but it has made no dent to their popularity. The 'demand' of these spiritual gurus has only enhanced despite media tearing some of them apart goes to the credit of these 'spiritual shopkeepers' who have presented themselves so pleasingly and seduced the most rational ,prosperous wily and wicked in their fold.

 

Stories from our mythologies which are permeated in our subconscious however portray 'Gurus' and 'Rishis' as people much above the ordinary, simply clad with no attachments to worldly goodies. Vashist- Guru of Ram-Laxman, Vishvamitra- one who taught Ram and Laxman weaponary, Bharadwaj, Aatri are few names with which we are familiar. In adoption of spiritual path practices such as 'tapasya'( austerity),and 'tyaag'( sacrifice) are frequently referred to, and indeed are essential for its success.

'Dronacharya', the much revered Guru of 'Kaurava' and 'Pandava', princes, who taught the young princes the Art of weaponry was perhaps the earliest 'Guru' who formally asked for remunerations which though was accepted willingly was considered an act 'out of character', as 'Gurus' offered learning at their own residence as part of their 'Dharma',(Duty) without asking or expecting anything in exchange. Dronacharya, though was compelled by circumstances to seek economic compensation as he did not have resources even to feed his little son whom he loved dearly. A customary Guru Daksina ( offering to Guru) was given by the disciple at the end of the learning period which varied based on the status and station of the disciple ( shishya) and was not necessarily monetary. However disciples were never under constraint for payment.

The spiritual leaders of today live in the lap of luxury and though apparently no loud announcement is made for the remunerations but from their picture of wellness it can easily be discerned that only the rich and famous can afford such Gurus. I have no means to verify the depth of their knowledge of their subject, the intensity of their enlightenment but as 'actions speak louder than words', their deeds do undermine their intentions if not their authority. What was the need of Swami Agnivesh to visit the T V serial 'Big Boss 5' ? Was it for publicity or money? Why has Baba Ramdev entered politics? Why has he entered the business of medicine manufacturing? Could he not merely teach pranayam and prescribe medicines if the desire was to heal the people ? Why was Sudhanshu Maharaj caught on camera recommending means to bring in money to India through illegal route? Why has Sri Sri Ravi Shankar built a palace like structure in Bangalore ? Why was he so keen to broker a deal with Anna Hazare recently? Why have Bapu Asaram and Murari Babu been involved in land litigations? Why was so much Gold discovered from the Ashram of Sai Baba? Why was Sai Baba so fond of Gold? Why I oppose such spiritual leaders vehemently is that they are expected to stay away from limelight but their attraction to spotlight is similar to that of any 'page three' gentry . They are like any salesmen; the only difference is that some are mere hawkers, others have their shop by the road side while some sit pretty in malls!

Should a sacred path such as spiritualism be left to such tricksters? In reputed University's abroad it is given much primacy and professors such as Dr Radhakrishnan ( the second President of India) taught regularly on Indian religion at Oxford. It is therefore the duty of the state to enlighten people and to open learning of our heritage. The 'Patanjali Sutra' and other texts on Yog and related matters should be formally imparted in our University if we intend to restrict the emergence of such Showmen. Self learning should also be encouraged. Publication houses such as Gita Press , publications of Ramkrishna mission specially on Upanishads are good, so are the publications of Chinmaya mission. Responding to the ever increasing interests of readers in spiritualism-mysticism-religion-occultism, the leading newspapers regularly carry out columns by scholars and Swamis on the subject. The Times Of India brings out a Sunday supplement- ' The Speaking Tree' which seems quite popular.

However the impact of the 'spiritual corporates' and soothsayers seems not to ebb. We can only reduce it by providing citizens with alternate avenues of learning and enlightenment.

Lenin's words still resound even though he is buried far away for long—-

' Religion is the opiate of the masses'.

CORPORATE POWER AND THE FUTURE OF SMALL CINEMA

CORPORATE POWER AND FUTURE OF SMALL CINEMA

Those who celebrated the demise of Soviet Union, crumbling of Berlin Wall and diminishing of left ideology since last 15 years or so, are perhaps confused and surprised to witness the fall of capitalism in the west, the demonstration in wall street, Madrid,Paris and London. The 95% are asking the 1% to return the wealth accumulated at their cost and downtrodden of the world at large. Is it pay back time?

The root of the issue is not related to the type of Government, but with the people, power and justice. People have thrown out the powerful who have for long ignored their cause.

We got a glimpse of the people's power in the recent Anna's agitation. What has emerged sufficiently is that the 'corporate' culture which is the offshoot of capitalism has cheated the society. In the name of efficiency, competition, market it has extended its reach to the various areas which it perceives would provide them with wealth- education, health, land, entertainment etc.

Since the adoption of 'corporate culture' by the film industry there has been some improvement in work culture. The 'scripts' are now worked in advance and are less frequently written on the sets, the payment to crew and technical staff has improved and some order in the 'unorganised' industry is in place. The release dates are announced in advance, sufficient marketing in carried out, a separate marketing Budget ( in some cases it matches the budget of the film itself) is earmarked. There is much 'management', something which the American/Hollywood cinema adopted much earlier. However; one cannot think of any movie in recent times which has been of significance and contributed to cinema; only efficient products of corporate culture, gloss, glitter, loud, slick without soul. In essence the 'corporate culture' has multiplied the greed of the people associated with cinema. From crude financiers to crass distributors the cinema has moved to sophisticated, cold and cunning corporates.

Along with the extreme commercialism has arrived the superior technology which has made mass release achievable in that the Big film makers who have borrowed the corporate ideology smother 'small films' by occupying all available 'screens' across the country. This is done through satellite ( U F O )technology and through prints which are mass produced. The result is that most mediocre films muster sufficient money during the first weekend itself and are declared 'hit' which in older times they would have not. Therefore, the 'corporates' and the Big film makers not only survive by producing bad films but edge out smaller films from the theatre in order to hog all screen space. The recent case is of 'Sahib Bivi aur Gangster' which was doing good business but was removed from all cinema halls of Mumbai to make room for 'Ra One'.

Therefore in real terms films such as 'Ra One', 'Tees mar Khan' would never be hits if the norms were what were followed for 'Sholay' or any of the films of that era. During that time a film had to run for months to muster returns and be declared a hit and so survived on 'merit' rather than 'marketing'. This trend of mopping up money in the first week itself has given rise to a particular brand of films which appear attractive but lack depth because much attention is applied to amass money quickly. These films are therefore much like 'one night stand' lacking emotion. A 'quickie' perhaps rather than a long 'love affair'. The quality of films such as 'bodyguard','Rascals', 'Ready', reflect 'quickie culture'. That is why we have not seen a 'Sangam','Waqt', 'Deewar', 'Guide' etc. The rural themes are dead, because the urban ceteres make money.

What is therefore required is protection of 'small' and 'medium' film makers from the onslaught of Big film makers and in this a 'regulatory' body is required to be set up consisting of film makers, distributors, exhibitors, journalists and Government representative. The release of films should be regulated to allow for space for small films and control of 'monopoly' of Big banners. In the name of market and competition smaller films should not be edged out. Unions of the film industry should also look into the matter and allow space for small film makers. There should therefore be'cut-off' number beyond which a new film should not be screened.