Gandhi in Lage Raho Munna Bhai

https://www.facebook.com/robschmidt/posts/10151510610992749

I recently watched the Bollywood film Lage Raho Munna Bhai. To woo a woman, a scoundrel pretends to be a Gandhi professor. Then Gandhi's ghost appears and coaxes the rogue to live up to his principles of truth and nonviolence.

I approve this message!

It's a clever concept. And how often does Gandhi feature in a movie--even a Bollywood movie? Almost never.

P.S. Don't miss the previous movie, where Munna pretends to be a doctor!

Turn the other cheek

An example from Lage Raho Munna Bhai: Our scoundrel the "professor" is lecturing some old men on Gandhi. Someone asks what you should do if you see a boy throwing a stone at a statue of Gandhi.

Our man starts to say, "Grab the boy and beat him," but the ghost tells him to say tear the statue down. In fact, tear all the statues down. Remove his face from the walls. Erase his name from public places. If you must remember Gandhi, do so in your hearts.

The man is initially dumbfounded as he repeats these words. But eventually he starts to get it. India, its government, and its people (including him) have become corrupt, he says. It's not enough to venerate Gandhi in passing while your ignore him the rest of the time. People need to embody Gandhi's principles, not worship them from afar.

Wow. Imagine if we applied that to Jesus, Abraham Lincoln, or Martin Luther King--all of whom might agree with Gandhi. If someone told Americans to tear down their crosses and churches and live like Jesus instead, we'd have riots in the streets. People would tar and feather this "radical," or lock him up for terrorism. ("He wants to destroy our buildings just like Bin Laden!") Conservatives would label him the most dangerous demagogue since Hitler.

This also applies to American Indians. Americans worship the romanticized Indians in their movies and on their sports logos. But if you tell them real honor and respect means helping the people themselves, they look at you like you're crazy. They prefer to "honor" the fantasy, because it doesn't require work or sacrifice, while ignoring the reality.

P.S. In an American remake, the ghost probably would be Adam Sandler.

For more on nonviolence, see The Way of the "Orrior" and Happy 140th Birthday, Gandhi!

The way of the "Orrior"

We get e-mail:Hey, interesting site, yours, re: blue corn comics. Spent a bit of time exploring the last time i could, and noted that you apparently never saw some comix i put together on your topic (indigenous issues). Take a look at it:

Visionary Duel Challenge:  crucial arts orrior v. NYM warrior

There, you should see an "array" of art by me. It was originally made in response to a comic made by Zig Zag of the Native Youth Movement, specifically, his first issue of a comic that I thought ought to be questioned and challenged.

Of course, the easy response is to assume that I'm just another meddling outsider, but if you take the time to think through what I'm proposing....you might see the value of the grey areas I'm presenting (i.e. an alternative to glorifying/promoting violent self-defense as Zig Zag does, at least in his early issues of his zine).

I'm not merely coming from a superficial liberal or conservative background, either. I'm semi-seasoned in a few groups contending with ever-heightening oppression in this society (the mainline one), have "front line" experience, including experience with success in militant nonviolent offensive strategies.

That said, I realize that indigenous peoples the world over are often pushed into a no-win corner, and that violent self-defense can prove to be "the only possible" response in the such a face. Still, I maintain that there are strategies of nonviolent militance which have shown excellence in her/history.

For what it may be worth,
chaz hot-seat riderComment:  I've never heard of any of these people until now. But then I don't know much about the underground "comix" scene.

Naturally, I agree with the nonviolent way of the "Orrier" over the way of "Zig Zag, Warrior Comix." I don't even need to read the comics before making that determination. The nonviolent way is almost always best.

That's my position even if the warrior is Native and the "orrier" isn't. Readers know what I think of savage warriors who think violence is the best or only solution.

I also like the name "orrior" as an alternative to "warrior." As in someone who looks for nontraditional solutions--e.g., alternatives to violence and war. In other words, a fighter against fighting--a peacemaker.

In fact, I could almost see Orrior as the name of a superhero--star of a comic book with a multicultural perspective. The Orrior fights for truth, justice, and the American way--or whichever way provides the greatest good to the greatest number of people. If that means the Chinese or Native or Vulcan way, so be it.

I'm not that crazy about the Orrior Comix itself. It's too much of a wild collage of weird pictures and hand-written text for me. It makes me want to skim it quickly rather than read it. But if "Chaz" used Photoshopped images and computer fonts in a more standard layout, it might be decent.

For more on the subject, see Comic Books Featuring Indians.

Happy 140th birthday, Gandhi!

Mohandas Karamchand GandhiMohandas Karamchand Gandhi (2 October 1869–30 January 1948) was the pre-eminent political and spiritual leader of India during the Indian independence movement. He was the pioneer of satyagraha—resistance to tyranny through mass civil disobedience, firmly founded upon ahimsa or total non-violence—which led India to independence and inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world.

Nonviolence

Although Mahatama Gandhi was not the originator of the principle of non-violence, he was the first to apply it in the political field on a huge scale. The concept of nonviolence (ahimsa) and nonresistance has a long history in Indian religious thought and has had many revivals in Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Jewish and Christian contexts. Gandhi explains his philosophy and way of life in his autobiography The Story of My Experiments with Truth. He was quoted as saying:

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall—think of it, always."

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

"There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for."Comment:  Would you believe Gandhi counts because he's an Indian too? <g>

No, Gandhi is relevant here because his values stand in contrast to the dominant Western values the colonialist powers imposed on the world.

Although America called its indigenous population "savages," "killers," and "scalpers," many Indians sought nonviolent means of accommodation. They sued for peace, signed treaties, resisted passively, fled, or stayed in place and did nothing.

It would've been interesting if the Ghost Dance movement of the late 19th century turned into a full-fledged campaign of civil disobedience. It might not have worked, but violent reprisals didn't work either. Geronimo and his guerrilla band ended up in the same prison camp as the Apaches who settled into farming on reservations.

For more on the subject, see Winning Through Nonviolence.

Should Natives kill to save trees?

In the Conventions Pollute the Air thread, we've been debating violence vs. nonviolence. Commenter KF got the ball rolling when he said Natives should kill to defend trees:[I]f you are being raped (like the great forests in the world)...would you want me to:

1) call the police
2) meditate and send loving thoughts to your rapist
3) hit the rapist with a crowbar

Myself, I would choose #3.Read the comments if you want to familiarize yourself with the debate. Otherwise, let's plunge in with my latest response:

Ends justify the means?

Re what I should've asked about supporting the Iraqis against imperialism: Go ahead and answer the question I actually asked. Do the ends ever justify the means? Do they justify the means in the case of Bush's invasion of Iraq?

You ask if it's legitimate for the Iraqis to fight back? Well, at first it was understandable and predictable. When the US was acting as an occupying force, was taking sides in the internecine warfare, and didn't have the approval of a legitimate Iraqi government, the reprisals even may have been "legitimate."

But things have changed. Now there is a legitimate Iraqi government asking for the troops to stay (for another 16 months, at least). And the US is (more) clearly keeping the peace rather than taking sides. If it was ever "legitimate" to kill Americans in self-defense, that rationale has disappeared or is disappearing quickly.

And again, we're not talking about defending yourself or your land. We're talking about defending trees that don't belong to you, as you've admitted. Since there's no self-defense in this case, there's no legitimate excuse for violence. Not until you've explored all other options, anyway.

Gandhi, King, and the pope

Re my quoting the pope: Pope John Paul II didn't countenance the slave trade, collaborate with the Nazis, or molest children. The fact that his predecessors did bad things doesn't implicate him personally. Therefore, your comment is irrelevant.

I've already told you what the rational solution to your problem is. Here, read it again: nonviolent protests, boycotts, and other concerted actions. These techniques worked for Gandhi and King, so they should work for tree-huggers. If they don't, then we can consider hitting the "rapists" with crowbars.

Re "you have no idea what it means to love something with so much passion": Spare me the amateur psychoanalysis. You love your self-justifications for committing violence. I love peace. I suspect I'd defend seeking peaceful solutions as passionately as you'd defend beating and killing people for the sake of someone's trees.

Re my debunking of the frat-kid e-mail: Are you a tree, bright boy? Unless you are, you have no excuse for committing violence against people who "rape forests." Again, self-defense means defending yourself, not defending someone else's property. The sooner you learn that, the better.

Bin Laden, Bush, and you

Everyone who commits violence first thinks they have a legitimate reason to do so. Hitler, Bin Laden, and Bush did and you do too. In terms of stupidly rationalizing your thuggery, you're just like them.

Nonviolent protests--including words, letters, and blog postings--have had an effect in countless causes. They've succeeded many times when violence wasn't necessary and probably would've been counterproductive. For instance, they've convinced people to start taking global warming seriously. They've coaxed courts to legalize gay marriage in some states. They've eliminated Indian mascots at hundreds of schools.

Clearly you need an education in nonviolent methods of protest. Give me a situation where you think violence is necessary--a situation not involving legitimate self-defense--and I'll explain why it isn't.

For more on the subject, see Winning Through Nonviolence.