West likely to differentiate more between Good and Bad terrorism.

To start with i am no expert on security matters. Following is just an understanding from common sense And may be far from truth, hence purely a work of fiction, any resemblance to reality is purely lucky coincidence!

In the Cold War era, many violent retributions could be avoided by clandestine deals between the 2 superpowers. And the soviet melt down happened, a century after it was born. 

The Cold War in that sense was a much cleaner and faster... A war that could be won with the disintegration of soviets. Compare it to the war against Islamic terror across the world today. 

1. There is no real centralization of power, and the war even involved lone wolf attacks motivated by cultural moorings and beliefs not even understood by the west. Part of it because west continues to study this phenomenon with the moral compass it builds for itself, and which helped them tide over the more agreeable soviet threat.

2. The Islamic concept of global conquest to form an Ummah has been around for nearly one and a half millennia and in that sense is a timeless struggle... A slow and dirty war, unable to be comprehended by the west.

I won't be surprised if the west will finally come down to the view that to counter Islamic terror a Cold War like structure is helpful. I expect to see therefore more such talk of good and bad terrorism in the days to come that can install a power structure with which deals can be cut.

Obviously this good and bad terrorism will be born out of self interests on the countries and India will feel slighted by the inability to influence this differentiation by its own interests. It thus becomes even more important for india to start doing the same, but with a view of its own self interest.

. I do expect that some slect terrorists groups may be given gratification by India to counter balance our friendly neighbour's machinations 

. India will try and gain some strategic depth in pok, west Punjab, Baluchistan and Sindh and maybe even FATA, etc by enhancing operational strength on the feild by enabling More feet on the ground.

. More and more Indian funded Islamist groups may likely find sanctuary in Afghanistan to counter the bad terrorists - Pakistan funded Taliban.

PK is Amir Khan's implicit Gharwapsi.

I watched PK. I do not know the intentions of Amir Khan or of Raju Hirani, who has a knack of romanticising goons as in "Munnabhai" , or of iconoclasts as in "PK". I don't believe that there is any evidence to prove that such tendencies flow from Hirani's alleged links with Dubai/Karachi based iconoclastic goons of real life.

I assume he was honestly trying to find answers to questions that have troubled our rishis since time immemorial,  but he may not have had the time or inclination to study the wisdom of these rishis in the vedas and upanishads, ... wisdom which would have quenched some of his quest for God.

Since the film boiled down to blasting gurus and sadhus,  I believe the fine gentlemen hold the same dismal view of the babas and prophets of yore.  Each one of each religions Godmen were all babas and sadhus of their time whose handouts continue to guide/misguide a majority of earthlings today. PKs renunciation of prophets, I would logically believe, is indiscriminate and I  believe his dislike for Holy Pilgrimages is equally for Amaranth (as portrayed in the film) as it is for the far more remote pilgrimahe stations which are not shown in film.

His dissing of faith in the stone god may be the same as that for all crucified or invisible Gods.  That "missing Gods" are not limited to the theiving Hindus but equally for the far richer Church and Saudi petro funded religious enterprises. I think we should credit Amir Khan for  renouncing his own faith and bravely becoming apostate.

Coming back to the native wisdom on the topic of discussion re-initiated by PK, let's take a quick look at the  4 mahavakya of Vedas for hint. That such discussion is already documented in a religion called Hinduism, it indeed points to how makers of PK agree to hinduism, knowingly or unknowingly. It's Amir's implicit Gharwapsi moment.

Anyway, so These 4 mahavakyas are the essence of the theme of the 4 vedas... a kind of executive summary of their deep philosophical discourse, interpreted in detail in the Upanishads. They say:

1. Prajnanam iti Brahmaan - wisdom is the soul/spirit. Knowledge itself is Brahmaan.

2. Ayam ātmā brahma - "I am this Self (Atman) that is Brahman"

3. Tat Tvam Asi - You are that Brahmaan

4. Aham Brahmāsmi - I am Brahmaan myself.

So where is God (or Brahmaan)? The last mavakya is the best. .. It says you yourself are brahma. It's a federated godliness ... and says each of the 1.25 crore population (then) of Bharat are all devetas. You find God within you.

And since atma is indestructible you can find god in all living beings. You find God in cows being fed grass (which was made fun of in the film) as much as you can find God in the cow being slaughtered for sacrifice (omitted from explicit ridicule in the film).

A critical analysis of this deep Vedic  philosophy is impossible in this limited post but it's very clear, had the makers of this film even went beyond the superficiality of wine and coconuts they would have done themselves a lot of favour in finding God in our own Hindu religious texts and culture.  For a beginning,  let's welcome Amir on his Gharwapasi :)

Why Rationalist Hindus have become right wing.

I was reading up the anti superstition bill of Maharashtra assembly, when a thought struck me. What is it that makes rationalists and agnostics become "Internet Hindus", or "Sanghis" as the left routinely derides the nationalist Hindu.

That anti superstitions bill outlaws the misuse of religion by crooks who mistreat,  cheat, murder or engage in other such  criminal activity.  That such criminality is already outlawed in indian penal code is a debate for another day.

But I want to be on the point of irrationality and superstition. And the spectacular rise of the so called "Hindu Right", who can routinely be seen outraging on one issue or other on social platforms nowdays.

A number of religions rever the moon when we know without doubt that man has walked on it. The blind faith in a book or a stone or an idol or a planet is all very much irrational. The competitive irrationality of its followers and criminality due to such irrationality  should ideally be outlawed too!!

On the other hand, Perhaps religion has its uses, in that, faith in a larger bigger power, by itself, could be self healing and give (rather irrationally) the resilience to man to live his life's journey.  The promise of the afterlife to motivate a person to share and care and generally become more altruistic, which by itself are irrational acts. To check us from becoming downright hedonists, or installing a self-check from behaving unjustly or unfairly. All of these virtues of humanity, it can be argued, are equally irrational as religion,  because rationality demands that if you have a lever, you'd use it.

Lets take my example. I am quite open to debate the premise of religions. I admit its irrationality. I do not believe in the exceptional holiness of Godmen whether Sai baba or other. But I am at peace with the concept of aham brahmasmi too, believing that godliness is federated in all living beings, and is the choice of the individual. I like such Hindu philosophical discourse but dislike the ritualis and pesky pandas who haven't read enough.

So what makes these western-educated people, who are wired as rationalists otherwise, to take offence to the portrayal of religious symbols in bad light in media or cinema or theater or even by the communists and atheists. Why do rstionalists (like us) mind the portrayal of bindi and mangalsutra and dhoti and sanskrit and other such symbols of Hinduism as backwardness, or of patriarchal order. Why does the IH instinctively take offence when realists mock the Godmen they may themselves despise?

I have realised that this defence of religion is driven by selfish motives. Gaining political power for one's community is a rational objective. And whether we like it or not we are bracketed at birth with a religious identity. And given the constraints of our identities,  it is but rational that the IH see to it that s/he is least unjustly treated.  It is but rational to analyse the portrayal of their identities in media and cinema and text books and other means - the brand of Hinduism.

It needs just a basic analysis to note that Hinduism has been at the receiving end of government sponsored proselytizing, first by invaders, then by theological sultanates and then by a secular government, which ironically protects the evangelist's cause to complete the missions of their previous political establishments. The Modi government is perhaps the only dispensation in Anno Dominni that is sympathetic to the Hindu cause.

The vast residual of governance apparatus (from the evangelical dispensations earlier), along with its propaganda machinery in the public and private space, however, remains to be sensitized to the fate of the natives. A quick study of the fate of natives in other continents and nations, when faced with the same global forces of proselytizing, can be a good pointer. It will provide with the very valid case for protection of a Hindu nation, under existential siege, on the lines of similar conservation of aborigines in Australia,  red Indians in USA, Jews in Israel,  or the sheduled tribes in India. It is indeed a miracle that Hinduism has actually survived through more than a millenia and a half of foriegn  onslaught.

The Hindu political fight therefore is a rational fight for self preservation, of existential anxiety, rather than one of expansionism or proselytizing. To compare it with Taliban and Christian groups, whose avowed aim of Ummat or other such expansionism is a direct threat to our preservation, is to run with the hound in pursuit of the hare.

The propaganda arms of proselytizing, like the English media and bollywood cinema of the Hirani and Haider variety, should do well to address this anxiety which was recently manifested in the political upheaval at the center and may well reach their ivory towers next.

Native-Bashing trends in Bollywood

I have noted a hugely divided opinion on PK. Some can't seem to get enough of it.

For some others, It seems to be a Pakistan loving endeavor of an iconoclastic mercenary without any real conviction or intellectual debate.

People do recognize that the film does seem to go the extra mile to reverentially and carefully ensure NOT trampling on the faith of other Religions of Peace and Love.

Some reviews:

http://www.bollywoodtrade.com/movie-reviews/pk-movie-review-hiranis-robbin-williams-obsession-continues-this-one-goes-after-hindu-god-men-omg-style/1255.htm

http://5forty3.in/2014/12/pk-why-is-hinduism-a-blot-on-the-idea-of-india/

It's undeniable that natives are asserting and realizing the light in which they have been portrayed by the missionaries and their urban aympathizers over years. And they are seeing through the sustained program they have been subjected, to the point that...they have been made to think in the way they were being subtly or overtly nudged by the popular media, information and cinema propaganda.

The way our public receives the film should be a good barometer to gauge the success of the Nehruvian project.