Do personal beliefs influence
your professional work? Example: A Court judge believes in superstition. Would
his belief affect his judgement on a god-man or god-woman accused of
some wrongdoing? Or if a celebrity is accused of some wrongdoing. Would the celebrity's track record in public life bear an influence on decision-making of the judge. How
much role does prejudice play in delivering a judgement.
Imagine your Boss is a
god-fearing person, and a faithful believer in god. You on the other hand,
aren’t an atheist but sort of an agnostic. Would your difference in belief be a
criterion to be judged by your Boss?
Imagine your leader is okay with
finding the gap between legality and ethics. Like, using a loophole in the
rules to gain- personally or professionally. You on the other hand, have
unwavering belief in ethics. You have shown your displeasure about it. Would
you be considered a threat? As someone who might rock the boat in future or be
a whistle-blower? Would you be able to be your leader’s confidant? Or would you
be respected for your belief in ethics? Or would you be sidelined from
important decision-making and be given mundane tasks. Consider the situation
vice versa. Your leader is ethical whereas you don’t mind finding that gap
between legality and ethics. The above questions still apply.
This begs the question, how
objective is objective.
The central theme of the story asks
us to take matters in your own hand. Not to depend on others. This is summed up
well at the end of the movie. When asked how he feels about finally walking down
the road through the Mountain, he replies “Don’t depend on god. Who knows, god
might be depending on you”.
The movie shows people
celebrating the abolition of untouchability, around 8 years after independence.
I think the Director wished to draw attention to the fact that 68 years after
independence, some of our villages still struggle for water and electricity. Untouchability
isn’t an issue in the movie. It is used as a metaphor to talk about the current
environment.
Manjhi’s quest to make a road for
his villagers and believing in his task irrespective of people calling him fool
and an idiot shows the focus we need to have towards work. There will always be
naysayers. Single-minded approach always bears fruit. More important is the
process rather than the end result. Because process makes fundamental changes
in thinking or perspective. End result can be different from what one
visualizes when set out towards achieving it.
Two issues the director touches
upon though subtly. One, dwindling reserves of water and the Naxalite issue. Drought
was a concern in 1960s and is a concern in 2015 as well. We have failed to
provide this basic necessity to our people. Technology has improved healthcare and
education and overall standard of living but hasn’t been able to address
effective utilisation of our water resources. Unfortunately, companies providing
water facilities will not get high valuation on stock exchanges. Same applied
for the Naxalite issue. A concern in 1960s and in 2015 too. Capitalism has
failed to uplift the masses especially in far-flung areas of India. Naxalites
will not come into the mainstream unless they see an opportunity that this is
addressed.
There is a disclaimer at the
start of the movie which says that even thought the story is based on a real
event, some creative liberties have been taken. A snake biting Manjhi, and him
having to cut off his toe so that the poison doesn’t spread could be one of the
fictionalised account. The director must have wanted to show that in a
single-minded pursuit of a task, tough decisions should be taken. And if it
means physical pain, so be it.
The movie, I suppose, takes a
jibe at our democracy. When a make-shift stage during a political rally
crumbles under its weight, a few people rush and hold it aloft with their
shoulder. And the politician nonchalantly continues with her speech. A police
inspector releases Manjhi because people outside the police station shout
slogans for his release. And he is released under public pressure. I don’t mean
that Manjhi was a criminal and should not be released, it shows that our laws
have so many perforations, that arresting someone and releasing them is a
subjective issue than objective.
The movie end with the road being
built bearing Manjhi’s name. As the end credits roll, you feel sad that the
government could only help Manjhi by naming the road after him. Countless
un-named people are toiling in India and hope the government reaches them
before they give up.
The central theme of the story is
to make one believe in himself/herself. To take that leap of faith into the
unknown. A new house is that metaphor. How a young, newly wed couple along with
their family takes that leap of faith.
Straddling through fear and an
ambitious dream, the young couple take that leap of faith only to be pulled
back by an insolvency of a local pathpedhi (a Non-banking financial
corporation- like a credit society) in the process losing all their savings. The
director wishes to draw attention towards these sorts of institutions. Though
they are under the RBI rules, lack of desirable financial reporting make them
vulnerable to non-transparency and frauds. A case in point being the CKP
Co-operative bank in Mumbai & Thane or the Pen Co-operative bank in Khopoli
(Maharashtra).
When the head of the house, their
father comes to know about the intent of the couple to buy a house, he feels
intimidated by the magnanimous thought leading him to not believe in the leap
of faith of his children. Relationships these days are based on material
possession and the director makes his point when the character Amit says that
he was rejected by 7 prospective girls after seeing his dilapidated house
whereas Manjiri, who is his wife now, saw the person in him.
Manjiri’s character is
well-etched out. Rooted in traditional upbringing, she adjusts to the city life
like a fish takes to water. Turning a snide remark by a neighbour (I don’t want
insurance policy) into an opportunity to make her sales pitch (as an insurance
agent), she shows perfect presence of mind. When they see their dream coming
apart, she takes the lead to pacify her husband and in-laws and gives them
confidence to try again. And that he should hold his head high for the efforts.
She sums it well when she says that if we have been forced to take two steps
back, it will help more in our efforts to catapult (like a high-jumper) into
our dream.
The director wishes to show the
life of an honest police-hawaldar (lowest in the police hierarchy) to manage in
Rs. 12000 (USD 200) monthly salary. When asked whether he indeed does not take
bribe, he feels pain to say that he has to justify that he is honest. This rubs
off on Amit who rejects a proposal to buy a shanty (hut) in an area which is proposed
for re-development by a builder. These two are much nuanced moments showing the
society a mirror.
Amit’s mother is a balanced lady
who understands her duties as a mother, wife and a mother-in-law. She gives the
young couple privacy, stands by her husband and shows confidence in his son’s
and daughter-in-law’s ability. Amit’s father acknowledges towards the end of
the movie that he did not change his perspective with time. A lesson to all of
us to find that balance between needs and wants.
Lastly, in this day and age of nuclear families,
having your father and mother together can be so much helpful to take a leap of
faith. Double-seat shows this well.
Saturday, August 15, 2015
Boeing and Airbus print ads in today's newspaper.. Both using birds.. similar beige background.. complete lack of creativity!!
Overlooking the Ganga, Arjuna
asked Krishna “Who is the biggest giver”? Krishna answered “Karna”. Arjuna
seemed offended. And gave a list of selfless acts done by him. Krishna
patiently heard him and thought it is better to let Arjuna judge for himself.
He took Arjuna to a far-off village. He produced a mountain of gold and asked
Arjuna to donate it among the villagers. Accordingly, Arjuna called all
villagers and asked them to form a queue so that Arjuna can give each one of
them a bag full of gold. The day ended without even an ounce of gold being
reduced despite all villagers getting the gold. Similar story occurred the next
day. Finally Arjuna gave up. Krishna then called Karna and told him to do the
same. Karna called all villagers and told them that this mountain belongs to
the village and that they can have it as they want. Moral of the story: If you
want something, even blessings, in return for a favour, it isn’t a selfless
act.
In the corporate world, largely driven
by capitalist philosophy, where we talk of competitive blood bath, guerrilla
marketing, carpet bombing, pink-slips, cut-throat competition among others, how
difficult it is to maintain altruistic nature. The answer squarely rests on your
thought-process. Going beyond the superficial nature of physical things we see
in this world, it is about your control over your senses. The need to go into
the depth of the whys, whats, hows, whens, wheres is essential. Newton’s third
law states “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”. Same
hold true in physics or philosophy. The difference is that, in physics, the
opposite reaction is logical. In philosophy, the opposite reaction is not necessarily
to oppose. All decisions taken by you have a reason and thus always ask the why
of it. This decision will have an impact or effect. Whether the timing of the
decision is correct. Once all the answers to these questions are in sync with
your though-process, you will not need to the worry about the fruits of your
labour.
There will always be a dichotomy
between the goal and the process. Each will have its place under the sun at
different times. The challenge is to be able to understand the difference. You
will have reached the stage of self-actualisation when this challenge ceases to
exist because fruit of labour isn’t your source of inspiration.
