I thought anger was considered bad in Spirituality. Why are smoking and violence allowed? Is this movie a must-watch for women and children?
If we go by these standards of Gandhian non-violence, then the Ramayana and the Mahabharata would be banned because all these things and more are there. In fact, if we go strictly by these criteria, then life itself would be banned, as some indeed say so. Life has everything in it. The question is about the proportion and the perspective. If one has to portray a dark character, say a modern Dushasana you can’t possibly portray him as someone real and living without tendencies of violence and drinking alcohol, etc. After all, it is a cinema and not a religious sermon class. Its purpose is education, realism and a slice from history pepped up with a lesson for the future. Any art must also bring out rasa, the delight expressing itself through art. Dhurandhar has plenty of Veer Rasa in it, touches of Karuna and Prem Rasa in it. Especially part 2 is a reasonably well-directed film.
Yes, there is a torture scene, but what comes out of it is the strength of Bhavani, the love for the motherland that makes human beings bear the most cruel sufferings. Why shouldn’t women watch it? Do we want them to be weak, unable to bear the sight of pain? That is a Christian and Islamic idea of women, not Indian. Indian women are and should be strong, like Draupadi, Sita, Tara, Durga, Kali trampling over the Asuras. Is Mother Kali un-Indian? Should we disown Maa Bhavani, Durga, the slayer of Mahishasura? Should we remove Sita, who slew Sahasraravana and could lift the Shiv Dhanusha as a child? Should we abandon Rani Laxmibai as our national pride because watching her film Manikarnika will have a negative effect upon women who must remain toys of pleasure, as the West preaches, or masked slaves of men, as Islam enjoins? Sri Aurobindo clearly wanted Mother India’s children to be strong. We fell because we stopped adoring the Mother of Strength. In fact, this is a movie focused on strength and patriotism, not on the usual romantic stories or sexual scenes and unnatural dances. Yes, there are some violent scenes, but then one whose heart is so weak that one shrinks from these aspects of life, can such a person do any good to oneself or the country, let alone humanity? As the Upanishad clearly says, nayamatma balheene, the Self is not won by the weak.
Here is the most balanced view, which we can accordingly apply appropriately.
‘Violence is necessary as long as men are ruled by their ego and its desires. But violence must be used only as a means of defense when you are attacked. The ideal towards which humanity is moving and which we want to realize is a state of luminous understanding in which each person’s needs as well as the harmony of the whole are taken into account.
The future will have no need of violence because it will be governed by the Divine Consciousness, in which all things are harmonized and complement each other.
For the moment, we are still in a stage where weapons are necessary. But it should be understood that this is a transitory stage, not a permanent one, and we must strive for the other one.
Peace… peace and harmony will be a natural outcome of the change of consciousness.
You see, in India there reigns the Gandhian concept of nonviolence which has replaced physical violence with moral violence, but it’s far worse!
But if you dare speak against Gandhi, everyone will immediately… oh!
You don’t need to mention his name, you can explain to the children that replacing physical violence with moral violence is no better. Lying down in front of a train to stop it running is a moral violence that can ultimately cause more disorder than physical violence.
There would be a lot to say…. It depends on each case. I myself very much encouraged the practice of fencing because it gives you skill, control over your movements and discipline in violence—I very much encouraged fencing at one time. I learned how to shoot; I used to shoot with a rifle, because it gives you steadiness and skill and a very good eye; and it forces you to remain calm in the midst of danger. All these things are…. I don’t see why one should be hopelessly nonviolent, it only makes a spineless character.
Turn it into an art! An art for cultivating calm, skill and self-control. There’s no need to cry out indignantly as Gandhi would. It’s useless, useless, absolutely useless—I am not at all in favor of it! One should master the means of self-defense, and one should cultivate them in order to do so.
Above all, make them understand that moral violence is just as bad as physical violence. It can even be worse, that is, at least physical violence forces you to become strong and control yourself, whereas moral violence is…. You may be like this [apparently quiet] and harbor the worst moral violence in yourself.’
-The Mother 🌷
(Ref. https://incarnateword.in/agenda/13/february-18-1973)
Affectionately,
Alok Da
