Tera kya hoga kaliya?

(Picture from rediff.com)


The year 1975 has been etched in the history manuals of Indian cinema. That year Ramesh Sippy’s ‘Sholay’ (Flame or Embers) was released and ever since the movie set and broke records in India and all over the world. It grossed in atleast 60 million U.S. dollars and ran for five years consecutively in the Minerva theatre in Mumbai. Truly it is a movie which has been unmatched in it’s public acceptance.

The movie as such is about hero’s and one specific villain, Gabbar, played by Amjad Khan. He is on the one hand a dacoit, a rule unto himself and feared by the nearby villagers. In the absence of a rule by law, he himself becomes the rule and the law. My aim here is to see the commonalities between Gabbar and the present mode of functioning of the government in India by highlighting four critical dialogues in the movie. In the event of a public outcry in our country in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks, it is noteworthy (in a satirical way ofcourse) how we can draw a similarity.

Gabbar’s henchmen get beaten up by two people (played by Dharmendra and Amitabh) and they come back to the dacoit's den with their heads hanging in shame. Gabbar questions them and is angry that they were beaten by two, whereas they were three in all. He points his gun at the main person in the three and tells him, ‘Tera kya hoga kaliya?’ (What will happen to you Kaliya?). Kaliya the dacoit answers, ‘Meine apka namak kaya.’ (I have eaten your (salt (literal)) food and remain loyal to you). Gabbar answers, ‘Ab goli ka.’ (Now, eat my bullet). After shooting all three men, Gabbar says, ‘Jo dar gaya, samjo mar gaya.’ (Those who are afraid (fear), will die. Death is imminent if fear overcomes you).

The Mumbai attacks have opened a can of worms. Everyone is blaming everyone else. But who thinks of the common person? The one who can’t even complain because of fear and lack of resources. The common person who is used in every election for votes and to stand in big crowds and clap for the leaders. The silent ones who listen to every bid of their so called masters. After a life long following and unrelenting loyalty, there comes the time when they need help from the ones that have used them so much. In true Gabbar style, the politician/leader will say, ‘Tera kya hoga kaliya?’, followed by the frantic cry by the commoner, ‘Meine apka namak kaya.’ After an eerie silence the leader says in total disrespect, ‘Ab goli ka.’ And then the electioneering will continue and people will be galvanised and ghettoised with the war like slogan, ‘Jo dar gaya, samjo mar gaya.’

The church as a public sphere

The word church has been troubling and testing my thinking faculties for quite some time now. Why? The reasons are two. One, how can the church be discriminatory against the poor, the one's without power (Money and political), women, youth, children and the differently abled? Two, did Jesus practise a discriminatory ministry in which he favoured a few and if he did, who did he favour? Can the church, the congregation of believers, be unified in this huge diversity of existence?
My thoughts go in the direction of Jurgen Habermas who wrote of the public sphere. The public sphere is a space of dialogue between the people in society. The dialogue takes place in coffee houses and pubs, basically places frequented by people. I am also reminded of my colleague Johnson Peter Kunnampally's Master of Theology thesis, "Tea shop communication", in which he describes how ordinary people in Kerala come together in tea shops to discuss the day's news over a small glass or two of tea. This has been almost been wiped out now of the Kerala scene save for a few villages.
The criticism of the public sphere has been that women and the lesser privileged were kept out of the dialogue process. I cant help but think of the church as a public sphere. A place where people get together to get into dialogue about God, the society and what can be done about the injustices that happen. The church unfortunately reflects a gross misunderstanding of the sphere of the church. Women are largely kept out of the decision making process and the young and differently abled are conveniently ignored. Thus the place which should be above all injustice and discrimination itself becomes a place holding both.
Jesus appeared to be in constant dialogue with those at the lower strata of society. Every landscape became a church, every problem became a discussion. Jesus then may have taken sides, but it was definitely for the down trodden, the women, children and the sick.
What could be an ideal church, however utopian it may sound? The priest/pastor should initiate the dialogue but should not prevent others from entering the dialogue. He/she should help the process of dialogue to thrive among different age groups but not based on different socio-economic levels. Discrimination based on sex, caste and class should be done away with and people should enjoy the process of free and uninhibited communication. The global way of life is doing away with a sense of community and dialogue. Lets hope that the church and other places of worship bring this back.