Is the present Indian cinema instrumental to the West?

by Dr. Edward Perera

[email protected]

It was midnight on the 1st of April 2008. I returned home very late and before going to bed, thought of watching TV the Sinhalese Channel telecast from Italy, for a few minutes.

A modern age Hindi film was on. To my surprise, the main actor carried the name Siddhartha in the film and that made me inquisitive to see what would happen to this “Siddhartha” at the end.

Before I make any comments on the film, I would like to give a brief narration of the story (I was unable to notice the title of the film as I had started watching it only half way) to the readers.

Under the supervision of an elderly professor in Biochemistry, two university students are experimenting in a laboratory to clone human beings. As “Siddhartha” is very keen on having the first clone after his own physical and mental constitution, he finally gets the consent of his co-researcher to proceed with his plan.

Contrary to the expectations of the researcher, the clone decided to kill the professor, who had initiated the idea of cloning human beings.

The police could trace the murderer as one surveillance camera had recorded the presence of “Siddhartha” at the professor’s room. Without knowing that a genetically identical copy of “Siddhartha” exists in the meantime, the police interrogate the real “Siddhartha” applying extremely brutal methods.

For the authorities, the suspect was a liar.

“Siddhartha’s” girlfriend had a misconception that her brother was a victim of this mysterious experiment conducted by “Siddhartha” and her intention was to take revenge from “Siddhartha”.

She extends her love to this clone and set this atrocious creature to torture her former lover. The film director has gone to the extent of showing semi-nude erotic scenes to depict the randiness of this young couple.

The authorities had no clues to prove that “Siddhartha” committed the crime. The courts designated “Siddhartha” as a person with mental disorders and sent him to a psychiatric hospital for treatment. Everyone including the daughter of the slain professor did firmly believe that “Siddhartha” got away with committing the murder.

In the meantime, the police become suspicious of the activities of a person,who is identical with “Siddhartha” and kept him under surveillance. The consequent events were full of extremely violent scenes. Bashing of heads,acts of revenge, shooting and killing in a most brutal way were portrayed.

Finally, “Siddhartha” kills the “monster” by firing a few shots. Prior to this shooting, he pierced the body of his clone with a pointed metal rod several times. After winning the fierce battle “Siddhartha” says “it was my idea to give birth to a clone similar to me in order to serve mankind. But now I know that it was a big mistake. Therefore, I decided to destroy him”

Unfortunately, there is no interactive process in the print media to get an immediate response from the readers before I continue writing this article.

Otherwise, I would have got a response from the readers similar to my feelings. Whatever the reader thinks, I do feel here that the whole episode, not only the contents of the film but also the people who made this film, the people behind the scenes and also those keen on telecasting such films are organically combined as a single body.

I cannot exclude my usual “conspiracy theory” from the idea of this film. Film producers are globally encouraged by a famous American company which sells a controversial beverage to capture shots in the forefront of the signboards displaying their trade mark, there is a growing trend to produce films to insult the Buddha (This Company steals massive air time for commercially by this trickery).

I brought this example to light as I find a lot of similarities in the act of anti-Buddhist media and what this US Company does with their immoral conduct in advertising their product. Both groups are motivated to practise something unethical.

Let us take our concrete example with the above mentioned film. The Buddha was born in India and the name Siddhartha has a great meaning not only to the people living in this sub continent but also to everybody who respects Gautama Buddha.

Siddhartha did not need any experiment for his renunciation and he justified his decision to abandon worldly life by achieving enlightenment. If the name Siddhartha is commonly used in Indian society, anyone would respect the freedom of the producer to use this name for his main actor.

This is ultimately a question of ethics than the freedom of expression. Not even one in a million in India is called Siddhartha. Even if we ignore the moral aspect of selecting this particular name for the main actor; there should be a kind of representation depending on the commonness of the name.

It is my personal observation that the producer has the intention of using this sacred name to convey a hidden message to the audience. I do respect the freedom of diversity in interpretations and I do hope the others would understand my stand point.

The name “Siddhartha” denotes a symbolic meaning to mankind. Without Siddhartha, there would not have been a Buddha, the Enlightened One. Christianity identifies dualism of God and Satan. What would be the reaction of a Christian believer if someone from another religious denomination depicts Jesus as Satan in a drama or film? Buddha is not Siddhartha but Siddhartha became Gautama, the One who became enlightened.

Siddhartha too led a pious and generous kind of living and strong enough to give up every comfort given to him in order to achieve his other worldly goals. I hardly see any reason for the producer of this film to relate brutality and to the name Siddhartha.

This is not the first Indian film, which carried a hidden message by using the Buddha’s name.

Another channel stationed in UK telecast a film a few months ago to insult the Buddha. There is a police officer playing the main role in that film called “Gautama”. He was continuously harassed by a criminal gang throughout his career. Being a responsible law enforcer, he desperately concludes that his rivals must be annihilated physically.

This film could be identified as a repetition of a similar presentation with extensive violence from India for the international audience. Gautama preached a doctrine of non-violence and he professed that hatred cannot be overcome by hatred.

I became suspicious on such undisclosed acts after the watching a number of films produced by Westerners based on dishonouring Buddha. In one US made film, the location for gun fights were chosen in the premises of a Buddhist temple in Thailand.

The “Hero” naturally an American gamester like in many typical US films goes amok in the temple ground. Ironically, he is unable to shoot at his rival but without any effort each bullet penetrates the head of a Buddha statue.

The thrill of destroying the Buddha statues are clearly manifested in this scene and the vulgarity of the inferior objectives of the producer is also conveyed strongly in this film. Pointing the gun to the Buddha statues in a living complex is not uncommon in Western films.

The true intention is clear. A conspiracy has been waged to curb the popularity of Buddhism among Westerners. The philosophy of Buddhism has become the nutrition for intellectuals in the occident and also plays a role of therapy for ailing minds of the people living in many parts of the world.

Anti-Buddhist extremists can hardly endure this development and encourage international media to propagate ideas of insulting nature against Buddhist philosophy

.A few years ago, the late Pope John Paul II uttered that Buddhism is a pessimistic religion. Unfortunately, he had forgotten that the Buddhism is not a religion but a deep philosophic teaching.

This so-called pessimism is attributed to the way of thinking of the Westerners but not the conviction of people in the Orient. Even an illiterate person in a Buddhist country knows that only the realization of what suffering is would help them to endure the hardships of life and it will finally help them to accept life as it is. Many Hindus share the same doctrine like many Buddhists do.

Buddhism does not perceive things in black and white but it elaborates the rule of Karma in identifying birth, life and death and the whole process of transmigration. Anyone who is keen on learning or insulting Buddhism should respect the fundamentals of Buddhist teaching and observe the events in a cognitive manner.

When Vijey Bhatt directed the film Angulimala in 1960 to cinematize a famous Buddhist legend, he or his associates did not draw a “black & white” picture to depict the Buddha’s life and that of Angulimala. In this story, Ahinsaka (the innocent) gets wild because of his jealous master and with the help of the compassionate one (the Buddha) he becomes a saint.

The film was made in a most dramatic way to convey the message that any individual can become a criminal or a saint depending on his or her social environment. Positive conditions could bring the person to normalcy. The original story is conveyed to the masses in a very effective manner through cinema.

World famous Indian film director Sathyajith Ray in his “Apu trilogy” (Pather Panchali/Aparajito/Apur clearly indicated that suffering is life. People who adorned his work did recognize not only his talent in cinematography but also his philosophical flair. That ultimately made him an internationally respected film director. Truth means the reality and no one has the right to twist it.

I am not worried about the distortion of truth because the truth needs no survival but if the Indian cinema deviates from its great traditions, films carrying such stories insulting the Buddha or other religious teachers will find its position in the dustbin of history.