Thoughts on PK – Some Questions for Raju Hirani and Amir Khan

PK is a thought-provoking movie. It’s thought-provoking enough to lead me to write this post although I’ve watched several thought-provoking movies in the past without making an effort to write about them. But PK is special. The official trailers described PK, the character played by Amir Khan, as someone who was in the habit of “correcting flaws”—but it’s more than that. PK delves into science fiction, theology, the nature of god, atheism, geo-politics, terrorism—and in doing so—takes you on a meta-cognitive spin into the Platonic concept of representation of a representation and so on.

Now this guy, Plato, was a difficult man. In his book “The Republic”, Plato described the features and constituents of the ideal republic in which he claimed that “poets”—possibly meaning all creative artists—were to be banished from this ideal republic because all creative artists are liars. And no, Plato’s ire wasn’t limited to creative artists alone—he believed all creation as we see and feel is a lie, a poor substitute, a diluted representation of the concept of creation. So that makes creative artists double-liars; because they pick and choose their materials from one lie to create another version of a lie, a representation of a representation—thus misleading people. Plato would therefore have nothing to do with creative artists in his ideal republic. There are Islamic theologians who say similar things—I’m told—which is why many conservative Muslims consider the liberal arts as immoral and corrupting. Who can forget the incidents relating to the Danish journalist who drew cartoons of the Prophet?

But Plato’s theory is not explored in PK. It’s just my meta-cognitive mind working overtime, and I’ll establish the connection a few laborious paragraphs later; sorry. The point of the preceding paragraph is to shout out my almost complete opposition to that theory. I’ll defend Plato’s and others’ right to spin theories but I’ll have my own theory to believe in and practise, thank you very much. And I believe in the imagination. All that drivel about the “concept” of things cannot be “imagined”, leave alone created or represented, if there wasn’t an intelligent guy somewhere imagining it. I mean, there was a time on this planet when there were no chairs. People sat wherever they wanted. But I’m sure there was a “concept” of the chair, that perfect metaphysical chair, and the physical wooden, plastic, fibre-glass and other chairs that we know are poor copies of that. I think I’ve established how important imagination is—which is what creative artists have. A chair might or might not be a brilliant piece of imagination or creation, but nevertheless, it’s important to us and therefore we owe it to the guy who imagined it, and created that first chair as a copy of its concept. I’m willing to fight it out with Plato to have this guy in my republic. I’m a sucker for imagination and freedom of speech and expression.

However, freedom of speech and expression means little if there’s no freedom to offend. At least that’s what it means in the classical liberal sense. And the freedom to offend is the acid test of a society’s tolerance. If a society cannot accept criticism, ridicule and caricature—whether it’s done to offend or to correct flaws—it’s not a tolerant society. The intolerance in society is revealed when academic works or art, speeches, or any other expression that goes against the majoritarian morals is reviled, destroyed, and authors, artists, commenters are threatened, penalized and exiled for exercising this freedom. What’s curious is that an intolerant society accepts arson, violence, and the threat of violence to get what it wants but refuses to accept dialogue, argument, and perspective. An intolerant society fights the pen with the sword, fights the brush with the sword, and even fights off ideas with the sword. That is sad because ideas feed actions, and actions drive progress. As liberals, we must absorb perspectives into our thinking and learn from this process. The chair is a good example, having come a long way from being a stump of a tree to the modern ergonomic chairs and chairs with controls to help the physically challenged.

Now, this is as long an introduction as you’ll probably ever get to read for a film review. I told you, PK’s special. This movie is an attempt to contradict, expose and rationalise our often irrational ideas about god, religion, communities, and so on. It uses an alien as a prop to introduce this supposedly neutral perspective in medias res starting bang in the middle of a desert. However, what begins as a sort of pacifist-atheist take on religion evolves into something else as Rajkumar Hirani and Amir Khan shift the goalposts at regular intervals in the plot. Below is an attempt to summarize the plot and the method used to achieve the objective of the film.

PK is an alien who lands from a spaceship in the middle of a desert wearing nothing but a curious pendant. Curiously, he looks exactly like a very well-built, high maintenance, waxed and tanned Amir Khan err human. Almost immediately, PK sees two things: a fully clothed man and an approaching train. And before PK knows it, the man snatches his pendant, clambers on to the train and escapes. The pendant happens to be a remote control device that enables PK to communicate with his spaceship. Without the remote (remotwa in the movie), he’s unable to establish communication with his spaceship and therefore wanders in the desert for some time observing people. He takes some time to realise that clothes are not skin, and he perfects the art of finding cars in which people have sex with windows so ajar that he’s able to steal clothes and slink away. After getting clothed, PK goes around asking people where he could find his remotwa, and the most common answer he gets from irritated strangers is “god”. And thus PK’s quest for his remotwa evolves into his quest for god.

In another part of the world, a girl, Jaggu, played by Anushka Sharma, falls in love with a boy, Sarfraz, played by the very meaty, very sassy Sushant Singh Rajput. Girl and boy recite poetry, sing together, make out and seem to have pre-marital sex as well before girl announces to her family that she wants to marry this boy. The boy’s attempt at breaking this piece of news to his family is not shown, so we’ll ignore it. Anyway, all hell breaks loose in the girl’s family because they are from different communities. A religious teacher from the girl’s side predicts that the boy will ditch her because that community specialises in deception as a principle, and that’s exactly what happens, following which she comes home and starts working as a journalist.

*Meanwhile, PK has reached a big city. Here, PK finds an inordinate number of people dressed almost identically in white clothes. They are huddled in groups, waiting for a sentry to check their IDs and allow them to proceed to their god. Because PK is penniless and he needs money, he decides to make a purse lying around his own, thinking that it was meant to be taken. He’s immediately caught, searched, handcuffed after a few slaps and handed over to the guards. They carry on a swift trial in which they establish that PK is an alien and not even supposed to enter the place where he had stolen the purse from—and he readily accepts it, because he is, after all, an alien—and so, as a penalty for theft, they decree that his arm is to be sawed off. Scared out of his wits, PK steals another man’s white garb and slinks out undetected, and joins a crowd of people heading towards the holy place.

On reaching, PK notices that people are circumambulating a square piece of something that looked like a stone, and he joins them silently. After every round, PK searches his pockets to check if this god had returned his remotwa. But god and remotwa eludes him. Impatient, he asks someone loudly as to why they are circling on and on without any seeming benefit and when he could expect to get back his remotwa. As the stunned devotees stare at his insolence, a few guards come and arrest PK again. By this time, PK has had enough of human irrationality. He protests loudly that it must be a false god which leads people to believe that he is able to return his remotwa, whereas in reality, all sorts of unpleasant and undesirable things are happening to him without him getting anywhere near his remotwa. At this, the guards beat up PK and put him in a jail where additional charges of blasphemy are slapped on him.

As PK sat in the jail bewildered and heart-broken, he tells one of the guards that he’s from another planet and knows nothing about human beings or gods, and all he wants is his remotwa. The guard feels visibly uncomfortable at being forced to hear blasphemous words about the existence of other planets and creatures on them, so he reports this to his superior. The next day, a bearded man in flowing white robes comes to PK and asks him to become a follower of god. PK asks him if that will enable him to get his remotwa back. The bearded man in flowing white robes tells PK that if he is a true follower, god will not only give him whatever he asks for, but also grant him over 70 diaphanous, black-eyed virgins to fornicate with unendingly in gardens flowing with fruits, milk and honey. PK decides to focus on the remotwa and ignores the rest; and so he agrees to become a true follower. Soon, PK is released and sent to a special chamber where the true followers are gifted with a special stamp on their private part. Now this scares the sh*t out of PK and he manages to escape from this chamber.

By that time, night has fallen, and PK decides to try his luck with god one last time. He lurks amidst the darkness and approaches the place where he was arrested the previous day for asking questions. But before he reaches that place, he hears distant but menacing sounds of people shouting and stones grinding with terrific speed and ferocity. PK peers and watches people throwing stones at three pillars. Hundreds of people are gathered, their murmurs rising up like an ominous distant thunder with the unending crackle and grinding of stones hitting against stones. PK wonders if he should ask what’s happening but he doesn’t have the courage to risk another arrest. So he decides to slink away in the dark before the guards find him again.

As he travels, PK comes upon a land where people carry flowers and other items on plates to what they called their place of worship. But since PK is penniless and he doesn’t want to risk stealing someone’s purse again, he decides to take a camel with him to this place of worship. In the previous place of worship, PK had noticed that human beings killed camels by cutting their throats and asked god for forgiveness. And poor PK, not knowing that people here followed different customs, leads a grazing camel to a place where lots of people had queued up, flowers and plate in hand. When they ask him what he wanted to do with the camel, PK tells them that he wants to cut its throat and ask god to return his remotwa in barter. Suddenly, PK finds himself amidst a lynch mob with everyone trying to beat the living lights out of him. Confused, scared, irritated, PK decides to visit another place of worship. He just can’t make any sense of these gods, one which seems to like dead camels and another which seems to have a thing for flowers.*

After a few such disastrous incidents with different gods, PK reaches a point where he is on the brink of deciding that there is no god. However, he seems to think that there are some managers of god (but he’s not even sure if there is any god at all) who are making brisk money out of god. In short, PK is disgusted as much with god as with the business of making money from the business of god.

In the meantime, PK meets Jaggu, and Jaggu arranges for PK to meet her boss who had once been beaten up by the worshippers of the god that loved dead camels. And this boss arranges for PK to meet the religious teacher who had predicted to Jaggu that the boy she loved will ditch her because the community he came from specialises in deception as a principle. The idea was that because PK was so far exposed to different religious and cultural practices, and because of his vast intellect with which he could simplify complex theological matters into disarmingly simple, everyday questions, and also because PK was so used to getting beaten up that he would, by now, be able to beat anyone at anything—it was arranged that PK and Jaggu’s religious leader would have a live TV debate on god. The ultimate objective, apparently, was to have PK’s remotwa (which was with the religious leader) as the stake, which PK could claim when he defeated the religious leader in a religious argument about god.

But before the live TV argument on god happens, a number of curious but sort of unrelated things happen. I’ve already mentioned that PK knew about human sex and had perfected the art of stealing clothes from cars where people were having sex with open windows. Next, PK discovered condoms. And then PK discovered that he loved Jaggu after some dancing in the rain. But he also discovered that Jaggu was in love with another guy, who was from a different community—the one which her religious preacher said were masters of deception—and PK, heartbroken, right after this discovery finds himself in a railway station supposedly to receive a friend, when a terrorist strikes; a blast rips apart the train and most people die except for PK.

So when PK returns to Jaggu and her TV debate, he’s so overcome with emotion and pregnant with philosophical juices, that Rajkumar Hirani decides to make him ignore the dead bodies in the station and come back with a single shoe of his deceased friend. This emotion and philosophy catalyses into a fission so thunderous that PK demolishes the argument of the religious leader by saying that there are only two types of gods: the “true god” who created the universe and everything in it, and the “false gods” which religious leaders create in their own image to make money from. (There’s a cute experiment with a phoney shiv ling in a college campus which PK uses as a control to corroborate this theorem, but I’ll ignore it here.) And when PK announces this true god/false god binary, all hell breaks loose, again, and the argument comes to rest on a single point: whether or not Sarfraz had really really cheated Jaggu, as the religious leader had predicted. The logic is something like this:

1) If Sarfraz cheated Jaggu ~ then her religious teacher is CORRECT ~ not much is known about his religious views except that he lies about god

2) If Sarfraz didn’t cheat Jaggu ~ then her religious teacher is WRONG ~ because there can only be a “true god” or “false gods”

How an argument on god can be boiled down to whether or not an individual cheated another individual is beyond my intellect—but then I’m neither an alien nor the script writer of this film—but then, PK is proved right in the end. Jaggu and Sarfraz are united; Jaggu’s family accepts him with open arms because all their faith in the religious leader and his teachings—especially about Sarfraz’s community—evaporates after his one prediction about Sarfraz is proved wrong. And with tears in his eyes, PK tells the world that Sarfraz is an example that proves that his community is needlessly and wrongly maligned by people of being deceptive, while he decides to ignores the terrorist attack in the station. So ends PK, with a positive note, bringing communities together, chastising humans for irrational practices such as wasting milk in bathing deities, proving the rational principle of true god/false god, and finally, going back to his spaceship.

It’s been a rather exhaustive description. But take heart, dear reader, if you haven’t watched the film yet, you have nothing to lose. For I have not given you the true story of the movie. The section in italics is entirely the product of my imagination. Such things are not shown in the movie at all, but I wish Raju Hirani and the Mr. Perfectionist had taken the trouble to explore the rationality of the desert cult with as much finesse and vigour as they’ve displayed in exploring Hindu rituals.

I’m not sure what critique of god or religious theology is possible without getting into textual details of that particular religion’s philosophy. I may be too dim for PK, but in my limited capacity, I think one cannot critique Hindu dharmic principles without discussing the Veds, Upanishads, the Smritis, and the Geeta. Similarly, one can’t reasonably critique Islam without discussing the Koran and the Hadiths. Again, it beats me how the dharmic principle of the plurality of divinity is battered with a sledgehammer to somehow boost a rag tag argument in favour of a true god/false god binary which is distinctly Abrahamic in principle.

To me, the supposedly rationalist objective of PK seems more like an attempt to treat a pimple with medications for the small pox, having completed the diagnoses using topical symptoms only. To be more specific, saying that a particular community is deceptive or culturally violent citing the lone example of Mohammed Ghazni is as rational as saying that another community is stupid because they waste milk in bathing idols. And if this is the sample of perfection expected from Mr. Perfectionist Amir Khan and the (why I don’t know) much celebrated Raju Hirani, then this industry is in serious need of divine intervention.

What emerges as a recurrent motif in our cinema is this propensity of our film makers to churn out shallow, facile plots to sell a nihilist, Marxist dystopia, with a generous effort to show that Hindu items of worship, rituals, practices and beliefs are irrational, not befitting a poor country, and fails to measure up to the true/false, rich/poor, good/bad binaries. Going back to Plato, what appears to me is this cosmic anti-Hindu bogey, that concept of the perfect argument against Hinduism—and movies like Water, Oh My God, and PK are little bites off that concept, polished and diluted into acceptable potions to be injected into the collective consciousness of the people with a certain regularity. It’s the same plot, same issues and same solutions packaged ad nauseam in the same shrill and messy Hindi-movie metaphors with a barely disguised condescension at the limited intelligence of people who find it possible to laugh at its jokes and agree with its message.

Why do we see the same thing rehashed and dished out to us time and again, as if once wasn’t good enough? It’s this representation of a representation I had been alluding to in my introduction. How would PK fare in the box office if the plot were to be what I described in italics? When Vishwaroopam released, there were nation-wide protests against it by certain people who claimed to have been shown in a negative light. Many theatres were forced to close as a result of violent protests. Is this the reason that our film makers avoid critiquing the desert cult? Or is criticising Hindu beliefs easy, conversely, because Hindus are relatively tolerant and have no problems with criticism as an intellectual activity? Why would Raju Hirani make a case for rationalism by critiquing Hindu belief systems for 90% of his movie? And if that’s his directorial discretion, given the obvious flaws in his script and representation of plot, the gaping question is, does he speak for himself or is this part of a bigger, grander pseudo intellectual design—the likes of which is predisposed to think of the entire human history as a materialistic binary between the haves and have-nots, making the way for legitimising other binaries perhaps? Or perhaps I’m reading too much into a film that only seeks to make money out of the business of gods while taking pot shots at the praying and paying audience? Is it a ploy to mislead the audience or to simply insult and get away with it?

My questions are genuine and not meant to be rhetorical. I wish someone could tell me how PK can pass off as an intellectual exercise in “correcting flaws” in a particular religion or group of religions. If this is not an intellectual exercise, then who will explain if it’s legally, morally and ethically correct to put together a supposed entertainment package that maligns a particular religion on false grounds? Why this discrimination in the propensity to offend a particular religion and spare the others?

What if I say—a la PK—that Mr. Raju Hirani, I’m not entertained by this movie which was supposed to entertain me, so kindly refund my money?


Hi, I'm Sampurna and I'm from India. I love to write, paint, and play with my dogs. Catch up with me at Halfastory's Blog. Happy reading!

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Questions
46 comments on “Thoughts on PK – Some Questions for Raju Hirani and Amir Khan
  1. Radhika says:

    Bollywood is funded by underworld money from Pakistan so it is very natural for the actor & director to bash the religion of the same people who go and spend there hard earned money and take the abuse of there own faith.
    Just imagine if it was a Indian hindu boy and a Pakistani girl how the sickularist would had been up in arms against this movie…..
    You don’t have to see any movie to see what other religion has done to its people just look at Pakistan and Iraq and its clear.

  2. ihaiva says:

    wow! subtle and strong- even though I have not see the movie, what you have written is very perceptive – because there is a lot of wool pulled over a lot of eyes! some great lines ….”What emerges as a recurrent motif in our cinema is this propensity of our film makers to churn out shallow, facile plots to sell a nihilist, Marxist dystopia, with a generous effort to show that Hindu items of worship, rituals, practices and beliefs are irrational, not befitting a poor country, and fails to measure up to the true/false, rich/poor, good/bad binaries.”

  3. ihaiva says:

    Reblogged this on write spirit and commented:
    ”What emerges as a recurrent motif in our cinema is this propensity of our film makers to churn out shallow, facile plots to sell a nihilist, Marxist dystopia”

  4. Rama Rao says:

    Hi Sampurna you are spot on . I appreciate the way you unfolded the could be hidden agenda. But unfortunately how can your message go to common man?

  5. jino george says:

    it connected with the people innit?? its a movie for schmucks(us). Its like a secondary skool puppet show with stupid jokes n creeemed with morals. its stupid n boring as hell but its what india needs right now as vr being complete fuckin idiots every fuckin day !! @jino

    • Sampurna says:

      Haha okay, so you’re very angry, and according to you, this movie *might* do us some good? So be it. My point is less about whether or not this might do good; it’s more about the intellectual dishonesty pandered here as “entertainment” (which you correctly pointed out is stupid).

  6. Smalan says:

    Well written!!! You juggled quite perfectly with your words and I must admit that like you found flaws in this movie which many “hindus” termed as the best movie of the year,I too have plucked from flaws from your whole beating around the bush comprehension! If literate people like you place religion above humanity,I have full faith that we are bound to kiss legions of the so called refuge and staff of god! Your rational approach according to you is nothing but a blot on the moral education provided by various people and institutions during your yesteryears! One first and last question. You referred to 3 movies like Water,Oh my God and PK where spotlight -bashing was concentrated more on Hinduism. So hypothetically if Muslims were in Majority and hindus in minority in terms of Population,you would still go with the same vague so called rational approach? Or would it have been an issue then with minority being targetted! P.S: not taking the side of a minority,not at all..nor am I a hindu nor a muslim…nor do I believe in forced conversions,but as an indian,do you think in 21st century,your statements are no less depressing and provoking than those who preach fundamentalism and bull crap on religion grounds! Do ponder on how you are trying to sell yourself(metaphorically) using this issue.

    • Sampurna says:

      First, thank you for the comment. Very insightful and very angry.

      Second, I’m a Hindu, studied in a Catholic missionary school, where I was given moral education for fourteen continuous years, and unlike you, I don’t think the Sisters in my school did a bad job.

      Third, coming to your first question: “So hypothetically if Muslims were in Majority and hindus in minority in terms of Population,you would still go with the same vague so called rational approach?”

      I think this train of thinking in terms of “majority-minority” is flawed and completely irrelevant in the context of this movie. Buddhists are a minority in India; so are Parsis, Jains, Jehovas Witnesses and Communists amongst many others, but they are not explored/exposed in this movie. So your majority-minority argument doesn’t hold ground. The only communities represented in this movie are Hindus, Muslims and Christians. I would’ve appreciated it if Hirani had explored and exposed all the three in equal measure. But if you’ve watched the movie, that’s not the case. I don’t see any logic in saying that since Hindus are roughly 80% of the population therefore Hindus should be the subject of ridicule for 90% of the movie. Maybe it suits you. Doesn’t suit me.

      Moreover, if the point of the movie is to expose false practices, then the end should not have been the patronising moralising that PK does with the “true god/false god” binary. That binary suits the minds of people from Abrahamic faiths. It sounds stupid to a Hindu. To me, as a Hindu, all gods are deserving of respect but all men are not. There’s a difference between the concept of god and what godmen/gurus/pastors/mullahs (or man in general) make of it. There have been numerous authors and directors who have locked horns with social and religious norms and questioned them in books and movies, and many of them Indian—but the point is—an attack on society or men does not NEED to be an attack on the religious philosophy.

      What this movie does is an attack on a particular religion, Hinduism. It doesn’t stop at attacking false godmen selling Shiv’s accessories. When you ridicule the simple faith of people worshipping an idol of Shiv or when you show Shiv (the deity itself) in a cowardly, stupid manner, you’re not attacking men; you’re attacking religion.

      In fact, it’s not your fault that you missed the point. It’s Hirani’s fault that he failed to (or intentionally refused to) draw that line between religion and men.

      I don’t know your religion, but I’ll use a simple equation. Just as Shiv is depicted as a ridiculously painted man, (for which I take offence), did the movie show Mohammed, Buddha, Mahavir, Jesus, Moses, Guru Govind Singh in a similar manner. If not, why?

      And therefore, my assertion that this kind of hit-and-run idiocy in the name of film-making is done precisely because film-makers know that there will be no repercussions for it in this country and it’ll make money alright. And I’m glad for that. Don’t get me wrong. However, the question still remains. What if Mohammed were shown as a painted fool?

      And no, this has got nothing to do with the “majority-minority” question. But if you really want to see it that way, go and find out what Iranian film-makers (one of the finest in the world) have to put up with even when making films on the most ordinary, secular subjects. Or try your luck with a (majority) society-shaming movie in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

    • Sampurna says:

      Another thing, I have got nothing to do with conversions and I believe this movie has got nothing to do with it either. So let that be.
      As for my post being as “fundamentalist” and “bull crap” as people preaching “fundamentalism”, I’d appreciate it if you elaborated. Who are these people and what “fundamentals” are they harking back to? Isn’t it funny that you get provoked by my blog and not by the movie? 🙂

  7. ihaiva says:

    Sampurna – that your blog post has hit a raw nerve -judging by some of the reactions. It looks like many people are comfortable with their narrow views of Hinduism, which you have challenged.

    • This has clearly exposed the blatant hypocrisy of the marxist pseudosecularists and those of the Abrahamic faith and their not so covert agenda to destroy Hinduism via subversive tactics. We need more intellectual kshatriyas to counter these one-sided dialogue and simplistic argument targeting one group of people to constantly and systematically undermine them. Their use of deception this time around instead of sheer force to execute the intellectuals is relatively new and understandable because they do not yet have the upper hand (majority) to get away with mass genocide. This is all very familiar and vividly reminiscent of the Delhi Sultanate going after the Brahmins (intellectuals of their day) as they were the repository of culture and the only ones that could, by the use of logic and reason, defend the Indic religions against this swarm of locusts (Communists and Muslims). We are in dire need of a counter-culture and I suppose it has started now as movement in the alternate media (beginning to impact mainstream media enough to get their otherwise scattered attention).

  8. Abbas Beguwala says:

    Hi Sampoorna, your observations are spot-on. Filmmakers are able to take digs at customs and traditions of certain religions because its followers are more tolerant. But it is this very tolerance that helps these religions evolve into modern societies that are governed by sensible laws, where individual rights and personal freedoms are respected, and where the air is breathable. On the other hand, religions that are intolerant towards criticism remain rooted in the dark ages, where common sense, justice, and equality are alien concepts, and where societies are governed by religious diktats. So, while I agree with you that filmmakers take greater liberties with religions that are open to criticism, it is also an indication of a healthier mindset on the part of those religions.

    • Sampurna says:

      Agree with you on that, Abbas. Like I said, a tolerant society creates space for criticism, argument and dialogue. It fights the pen with the pen, the brush with the brush, and so on. Unlike intolerant societies that seek to muffle voices and exterminate perspectives.

      To use another example, I think neither Salman Rushdie nor M.F. Hussain should’ve been intimidated and exiled under the threat of various groups. People who have a problem with their works should write and paint to refute them, instead of using physical violence. And therefore, my argument (in text) against PK should be made into a movie if people are serious about refuting it. Otherwise all this criticism and hashtag activism is just hot air.

  9. devil xyz says:

    yes well said if people are saying India is a Hindu majority country so the movie against Hinduism,they just need to allow us to make pk sequel against Islam and releasing it in Saudi Arabia(may be after constructing threaters, the religion where it is born dont have freedom to even expess but loves movies like pk in india and asks us what wrong in pk, if that religion is liberal iam sure thousands of films would have been done on islam), now Hinduism is only religion where you can become atheist, atheism is allowed in Hinduism so many Hindu scholars call it our religion as followers of Vedic Literatures and principles so it is more than a Religion because there is Spirutuality , Ayurveda,Yoga ,promoting veg associated with it , can you find any of them in other religion so i say again Hinduism as people named our religion as they named Hindustan is more than a religion, Hirani should have made the film after Learning atleast half Hindusim may be coming from sindhi ethinic family he doesnt posses any knowledge about hinduism as we know sindhi people are of pakistan origin where hindus and muslims lived together for years following sufi principles not vedic principles , as a hindu atheist i find little bit harder to digest the film as only our religion is targeted but to me the major problem is love angle between anushka and sushant singh rajput now i want to question Hirani whether he is promoting inter religious marriages there or just want to promote muslim guys as a sweet and lovable persons who will marry hindus and lead a happy life , we all know in india all hindu girls are allowed to ,marry muslim men and then they are convereted to Islam and muslim women are not allowed to marry hindu, then what is the moral in showing that love angle is there any use with that other than demoting our own values losing our hindu sisters to islam and in return receiving nothing why didn’t Sushant singh rajput father wasn’t show as leaving islam and allowed to marry Anushka (plot was a masterpiece avoiding that track as that particular minority always get upperhand over majority in india )

  10. Amazing post… I was a little concerned after seeing your intro – i thought you are just another wannabe “cool dude” sort of person who typically have a low self-esteem and hence goes for the next “cool” thing (in this case Hindu Bashing) – but you proved otherwise…

    I am sharing a link to your article on my Facebook wall..

    That said, When Da Vinci Code, Satanic Verses, Lajja, Cartoon – all were banned – why is PK becoming a super hit ??? Censor board is now headed by a devout Christian “Leela Samson” who has a record of destroying “Hinduness” at Kalakshetra… She was thrown out of Kalakshetra by a court order… Now she heads the censor board.. She was handpicked by Sonia Gandhi and she is out to spread christianity…

    But she is not the one to blame… It is Hindus themselves. – who ridicule other hindus (protesters)… We dont have unity and we are bound to be ridiculed… We have made this movie a SUPERHIT!

  11. Sampurna says:

    Haha thank you for the share. 🙂

    I’m only beginning to read about Leela Samson, but the censor board has been a joke for a long time even before Leela Samson entered the scene. Not that I appreciate her manipulations.

    PK is indeed offensive, and if the “offensive” argument could hold water in the case of Vishwaroopam, and its makers could be forced to edit out certain parts from the movie, PK too should have been edited by the same logic. It’s this discriminatory application of laws that riles me. Let’s have complete freedom to express our opinions in art and everywhere else—and I would prefer it that way—or let’s follow the same standards of not offending anyone. It’s amazing how people can spend so much of money on a bad film.

  12. The very reason PK the film mocked Hinduism in the first place is due to the utter lack of understanding of TRUE and essential teachings of Hinduism (and they probably never will) which much more than a creed or a random set of conventional practices (of course that is what it has become sadly). The worst part of it is that 99.99% of Hindus DO NOT know those fundamental truths of Hinduism either. So what they are defending is really some conservative and customary practices that have been in vogue for the last couple of centuries. What is being preserved is a dying body and no earnest attempts have been made to revive (rather rediscover) the true spirit which gave birth to the Veda, early vigorous and vast Vedanta, true Tantra and Shakti worship, Gita and innumerable other teachings in every subject imaginable, material, occult or spiritual. Without reviving the spirit however, Hinduism has no real chance. Restoring outward customs and medieval practices will get us nowhere (which is what these so-called radical/ultra-conservative Hindus are doing) A Hindu version of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan is the last thing we need.

    But while admitting to a strong and desperate need to a spiritual renaissance and a replenishment or restructuring or recasting of the outward forms and customs of Hinduism, it does not give free license to these pseudo-secular, pseudo-liberal, partial-atheistic movie makers to dissect and make a mockery of Hinduism by taking things out of context or blowing certain customs out of proportion without having made any real attempt to understand the significance or origin of them. This sort of systematic undermining and subversion and discrediting of Hinduism has been subtly happening in bollywood for decades (and in the media discourse and portrayals). This conniving and deviant attitude cannot be denied. Why isn’t Christianity and Islam being dissected in the same way? They have just as many (if not more) superstitious and medieval practices and some customs that are absolutely ridiculous and senseless. While mockery of Christianity is rampant in the West, it is non-existent in India. when the ORIGINAL Christian community is dealing with it why are these converts in India refusing to do the same? There would have been an uproar if that had happened. And if it was anything directed against muslims (say their silly notion of ‘if I blow myself up in the name of Jihad I will have 72 virgins waiting for me to fornicate with in heaven’) then there would have been theatres burned, heads on spikes, civil war followed by the slaughtering of a few cows and perhaps some HIndus in Pakistan (which the Danish found out the hard way with their Prophet Mohammad cartoons). This blatant hypocrisy is what bugs me (that’s putting it mildly) and has bugged I suppose the other truly intelligent Hindus.

    The issue is also that by doing this mockery and undermining on a regular basis they are brainwashing an entire new generation of youth to further despise or dissociate with the true India which is in fact the Hindu India. Instead of encouraging them to delve deeper into the true significance of our customers which would inevitably lead them the spiritual roots and the lasting inner strength and the soul of this nation, they are making it seem like there is NOTHING to Hinduism besides these ludicrous customs and vague or incoherent traditions and legends, strange gods. This is just a furthering of the Marxist-Leftist cause. But again in India (just like our secularism) this is a partial Marxism that denounces Hinduism and finds fault with it at every turn and not with other religions. Communists are supposed to be against ALL religions equally and not show partial support to Islam. And portraying Aamir Khan in this film and in shows like Satyameva Jayate reiterate this Red Jihad further. This further makes it ‘OK’ to continue the utter destruction, distortion, blurring and discrediting of Hinduism until all shreds of its existence are wiped out except in libraries and museums (maybe not even that in an Islamic-Communist Indian state balkanised by Pakistan and China). Then we will go the way Egypt, Greece, Persiam, Anatolia and Babylon have gone.

    • Sampurna says:

      Agree 100% with the first part of what you wrote. Having studied in a Catholic missionary school, I was more aware about the Bible than the Geeta or other Hindu texts. But it’s equally bad for others, especially in urban areas.

      But the fault is in ourselves. Why is it so difficult for us to obtain Hindu spiritual texts in our own vernacular languages?

      Why are there no facilities in temples or schools to teach the Upanishads and the Geeta?

      Why is it so difficult to find a teacher who can read, write and speak Sanskrit? Most pandits learn by rote and are not really aware of the meaning of the words they utter.

      Why do we still hold on to customs that certain people (lower castes) cannot enter temples, and others (women) cannot listen to certain mantras like the Chandi puja mantra—even when the Geeta doesn’t make any difference between high and low, men and women?

      If we’re in a situation where some influential people—who know nothing about the deep spiritual and philosophical knowledge about the Veds and Upanishads—are passing judgement on Hinduism, then it’s our fault. And we have to correct it instead of pointing fingers at others.

      • ihaiva says:

        Sampurna – what can be done is to share and network information that answers the questions you have raised. Let us share blogs/websites where these questions have been addressed and examples where positive activities are taking place related to the questions you have raised.

      • The tireless onslaught of Islam and then of Christian missionaries under the Europeans made it quite hard for deep intellectual activity in India to flourish and made everything focused on conventionalism and outward shows of customs. Also, as I mentioned in my previous comment, the mass killing of intellectuals under the sultanate regime and mass destruction of centres of learning (Nalanda, takshashila etc) and mass burning of books did not help either. Of course, the great fault is that the intellectual brahmins did not make an attempt to raise the masses to their level by teaching them the scriptures because of some conservative, puritanical beliefs that they were superior and they suffered most for it. Buddhism had made this early attempt with its missionary like preaching in local (prakrit, pali) languages instead of sanskrit. And this caused the overall decline of Sanskrit which slowly died in India over 2000 years. Now to restore Vedic or even classical Sanskrit is not easy just like restoring Latin in Europe or ancient or classical Greek in Greece. Besides, if the soul of the nation is dead, then no amount of linguistic restorations will do. But as you say, we do not need to only teach it in sanskrit. Vernacular languages will do. For the urban city dwellers like myself, yourself and others perhaps on this blog, there are English versions just as good! It is the essence of the teaching that matters and any language written well can get the message across. I agree with Ihaiva having personally read the entire works of Sri Aurobindo, none better to explain the true fundamental spiritual concepts of the great Vedas, Vedanta, Gita, Tantra and so on like Sri Aurobindo. His Essays on the Gita will serve as a great text book and guide for those willing to pursue a deep and serious study in earnest of true Hinduism. Yes we have been at fault for not raising up the masses and a certain section of society has kept another down. But which nation has not done that? Every strong or great nation today is built on a bloody civil war.

        Japan had to settle a millennium-long dispute between the Mikado and the Shogunate. The Mikado agreed to adopt modern technology from the americans, train his army, upgrade weapons as he felt that Japan needed to come out of its shell in order to survive in the next century. He was right. But then he saw the last of the Samurai die on the battlefield and realised that he mustn’t forget his roots and netiehr should the country forget the bravery displayed by these warriors of old. So Japan modern in organisation and industry, ancient in its chivalry became a great nation, always resilient, facing all odds, surviving natural disasters and atomic bombs with a straight face.

        The so-called democracy that our pseudo-liberal semi-intellectual media like to cherish so much was won on the back of two civil wars. First was in France, where the Lower class and the Bourgeois mercilessly chopped off the heads of the entire nobility and many others who resisted in the reign of terror for more than a year. Americans fought their own country in a civil war that took 750000 lives to end slavery. Shivaji fought Aurangzeb and the entire might of the Mughals to question their injustices against the Hindus. Swadeshis in India rose in the same spirit and had we won this country through the strength of arms instead of passive begging by Gandhi and Co, we may have had a stronger and better nation today. Future generations take their example from their leaders. With Gandhi and Nehru as leaders and Communist/Leftists controlling the media and education system and authorship and public discourse, the only outcome can be the country disintegrated and divided between China and Pakistan. We have to teach our youth the true leaders of our nation, the true visionaries and their visions, the true spirit and soul of India that still survives somewhere inside. A renaissance and a spiritual resurgence and reawakening is the only way out of this mass confusion and exponential falsehood.

    • ihaiva says:

      ‘What is being preserved is a dying body and no earnest attempts have been made to revive (rather rediscover) the true spirit which gave birth to the Veda, early vigorous and vast Vedanta, true Tantra and Shakti worship, Gita and innumerable other teachings in every subject imaginable,’ – is indeed the case. Sri Aurobindo’s writings need to be more widely read as they address these issues.

  13. sanjayprasad says:

    you may be interested in reading my thoughts on PK here

    • Sampurna says:

      Very well argued until you came to question no. 3. Your answer to that nullifies your previous arguments. Here’s how:

      Does arguing in favour of Vedanta and in opposition to Poorva Mimansa requires one to do a comparative study in Hindu, Islamic and Christian tenets? No. That’s not required, as many filmmakers before have done this. Just watch Satyajit Ray’s Mahapurush, Debi, Parash Pathor, etc. and you’ll see how radical things are espoused, which range from atheist, Communist to Anarchist perspectives, and yet Hinduism is not compared to other faiths. And therefore there’s no compulsion to play up or downplay anything and whatever the point the director wants to make can be made honestly. And because Ray’s efforts are honest, his materials and characters are honest, people do not outrage.

      The problem with PK is that it exposes Hindu tenets by putting them through an acid test—while the test is not used to expose the Islamic and Christian tenets. No one is saying that Shiv can’t be shown in a particular avatar—in a toilet or scampering outside a masjid. I’m only humbly suggesting that since Hirani had so bravely decided to show Islamic and Christian rituals as well, it would have been only fair to show Mohammed and Jesus scampering along with Shiv. That would’ve been good entertainment.

      Otherwise, no matter how much you quibble, what PK does is not an exposition in Vedanta but a clever and dishonest attempt to enforce an Abrahamic true god/false god paradigm over the Vedantic divinity in all paradigm.

      Mind, I believe in absolute freedom of speech. I don’t mind PK ridiculing my religion. What I mind is PK not ridiculing other religions in the same way that it ridicules my religion.

      And the only reason Amir Khan features in my blog is not because he’s a Muslim, but because he declared that he does projects which he believes in and which carries some message. If the message Mr. Khan is attempting to send is “Jo mandir jaatey hai woh dartey hain” (Cowards pray in temples), then obviously, he should be in the line of some questions. Like for example, “Jo masjid jaatey hai woh dartey hai ya daraatey hai?” (Those who prays in masjids—are they cowards or terrorists?)

      And when I do question Amir Khan’s integrity, I’m not confusing between the character PK and the man—if this was going to be your defence. Amir Khan himself has blurred the lines between self and character by marketing himself as one who does films with a message.

      • sanjayprasad says:

        I get your point, being tolerant doesn’t give any one license to ridicule us.
        That’s fair when every thing is good with us. If my face is beautiful I would be happy if some one shows me the mirror, but if it’s distorted, I am going to see a ridiculous image. Would you then say, the person is ridiculing me or you would advice me to fix the distortion?
        If we keep our doors shut just because every one else, who is suffering with distortion like us, has kept their doors shut, we should be content with our sufferings in a same way others are suffering within their closed door.
        Somewhere there has to be a compromise if we need to see a change. There is no better way or a softer way. The change would hurt and If it doesn’t hurt it wont work.
        I reiterate “No Pain No Gain”

        The guys decided to make a movie on a issue and it is a prevailing issue in our society, fake Godmans and their business network is real, powerful, well organized and influential. They are not only hijacking our resources, they have crippled out thought process and they are successful because we haven’t done enough about it.
        Why not? Because when ever someone has tried to do anything about it, even the educated ones have felt, it ridicules our religion. It’s an almost similar situation when the terrorist hides among the civilians and the army cannot bomb them as that would hurt the civilians.
        There is no end to conspiracy theory, for you may be the movie was designed to enforce an Abrahamic True-God vis False-God paradigm for me its still pro Vedanta and I wish every educated Hindu see it that way. Even if its not easy to do so with a preconditioned mindset, atleast learn Vedanta to find some similarities here.

        PK, the alien say’s in their “GOLA” they communicate through telepathy. He holds palm of another person to download information. These had been common Hindu Yogi’s power since time immemorial and very practical even now to those who do Meditation, Yoga and Energy work. This is absolutely non Abrahamic, they believe only their God has such power, humans cannot posses such power and if some one claims to have such power they call it demonic.

        PK when appears first was nude, he explains how dress codes has programed human minds on this planet. This is non Abrahamic where as many ancient Hindu Yogis have been depicted as meditating nude in Himalays. Naga Yogi’s live nude even now.

        PK is flexible to learn and follow any religious GOD that can help him reach his goal. It’s a pretty much Hindu character and absolutely non Abrahamic.

        If I do not mix AK’s personal attribute with PK, I fail to see if PK was representing anyone but ancient Hindu Yogi, except what he does in the movie, that he was suppose to do, by exposing the fake Godman and advocating for the Muslim character in love with Hindu character to prove Godman wrong, as anti Hindu episode in the movie.
        In the backdrop of current political environment where love Jihad is a national issue this angle is definitely difficult to digest. But the filmmakers have to expand their viewership territory and Pakistan is not a small territory for a Bollywood cinema to ignore, hence the character.
        Those who pump millions in making a commercial movie knows the pain and have to be calculative in achieving their creative and business goal. You cannot compare it with the Satyajit Ray’s era of film making and business pressure,

        Lastly don’t want to miss this.
        That Shiva character from Ramlila, doesn’t it represents the desperate situation of few poor and under privileged who is forced to sell the God story for his survival on the behest of bigger design of ritualistic culture.
        And that God pictures on PK’s cheek for self protection and other recommended place to stop public from misuse and abuse, are only reflection of our hypocrite and paralyzed mindset. Unfortunately it’s real and it works in our society, let’s not blame Hirani for this.

      • Sampurna says:

        Unfortunately, you didn’t get my point despite repeating it several times in my blog and my comments.

        I believe in complete freedom of expression. Anyone can ridicule me and I can ridicule anyone, without getting into physical violence.

        However, the point I’m making is about the film PK which—and you will agree with this—shows three religions but offends only one, Hinduism. Therefore I think that the motive of the filmmaker is suspect, the script lacks balance, and the movie is offensive because it fails to do an honest comparison.

        On the other hand, hypothetically speaking, if PK had dealt with ONLY Hindu godmen who are fake, I would not be making these allegations at all. And that’s why I referred to the Ray movies. Ray is a great filmmaker but no holy grail to me. So there’s no point is saying that one can’t or shouldn’t compare PK with Ray movies.

        I can criticise a film for what it is as a whole and not by ignoring certain parts and focusing on certain other parts—which you are doing.

        If PK has satisfied you as espousing Vedanta, you’re free to think so, and I’m free to point out the fallacy in which you’ve mired yourself and have not yet been able to refute—as to why a supposedly Vedanta-espousing movie ends up espousing the Abrahamic true god-false god paradigm over the Vedantic divinity in all paradigm.

        All that details you’ve pointed out about PK’s power of telepathy and Naga sanyasi-like attire is ridiculous and completely irrelevant, I’m sorry to say. Next is what? Are you going to make a similar pro-Hindu conclusion about PK’s love for paan?

  14. sanjayprasad says:

    Oh Dear! I did get your point but you refuse to read into my line. Please re-examine what I mentioned on my blog.

    Q03. Why did not PK target Islam or Christianity the way it targets Hinduism?

    First PK does not targets real Hinduism rather it targets the blind faith, blind rituals and the cons disguised as Hindu Gurus. It aims to investigate and connect humanity with core spirituality that is the ultimate goal of Hinduism.

    I agree, If PK had targeted Islam in a similar manner, Amir khan would have definitely been issued Fatwa. I believe he knows the intolerance level of Islamic managers and would have never attempted to play such character questioning Islamic practices. If thats hypocrisy then its for him to explain.

    No actor would want to die to prove a point nor do we want this to happen. I guess Amir Khan estimated the tolerance level of Hinduism and hence dared to play the character of PK so that majority Hindu gets the message across and grow spiritually. Probably he sees better hopes here 😉

    Personally I would be more concerned about what is happening within Hinduism than what is happening in another religion. As Mahatma Gandhi says. “Be the change to bring the change.”

    These days there is a large awareness among westerners who are studying and exploring Vedanta & Yoga and achieving Enlightment. A true knowledge or religion needs no propaganda and it should be open to criticism and investigation.

    I think I answer that question which is haunting you, to the best of my understanding.
    I may be wrong even from the film makers perspective.

    Unfortunately you are too touchy with being rediculed and what is ridiculous to you.
    The examples I gave on PK characterization is to prove to you that there is no Abrahamic intention behind designing the character of the film, that is one of your agenda to prove.
    What happens in rest of the film is for every one to judge with the best of their intellect.

    In a 2:30hr commercial feature film that is also suppose to entertain, I cannot expect a documentary coverage. Would be curious to see what they do in PK part02.

    Till then, be comfortable in your closed door.

    • Sampurna says:

      //The examples I gave on PK characterization is to prove to you that there is no Abrahamic intention behind designing the character of the film, that is one of your agenda to prove.//

      The Abrahamic bias of PK’s character was never my agenda to prove. Unfortunately, you are probably writing with an agenda of your own and therefore imputing imaginary motives on me despite my having repeated my point several times.

      And I repeat again: If PK has satisfied you as espousing Vedanta, you’re free to think so, and I’m free to point out the fallacy in which you’ve mired yourself and have not yet been able to refute—as to why a supposedly Vedanta-espousing movie ends up espousing the Abrahamic true god-false god paradigm over the Vedantic divinity in all paradigm.

      It’s the message and not the messenger that I’m questioning. And I didn’t know asking questions is liable to get one called “touchy” and “Comfortable in your closed door”. I suppose it’s fashionable for those associated with the Indian media **industry** to make such enlightened and imaginary imputations.

  15. sanjayprasad says:

    If there was a True God from one religion compared with a False God from another religion, as an essence of the movie, I would have been bothered. That is not the case here, hence the remaining argument of yours on Abrahamic paradigm holds no ground for me.

    Please get it right, I am only keen on masses especially the educated ones, take positive out of this brave movie. No commercial movie with a sensitive topic can be made perfect tp satisfy every segment of the audience. It would definitely upset some one.

    If we discourage such attempts, then lets be happy with SRK-KJo-SLB brand of formula films that has become typical Bollywood identity, because thats the best recipe majority can digest.


    • Sampurna says:

      What do you mean by “If there was a True God from one religion compared with a False God from another religion, as an essence of the movie…”? There’s no question of “If” because that’s exactly what’s being pandered here—a true/false binary which is nowhere close to what you are desperately trying to (unsuccessfully) prove as Vedanta.

      By the way my question to you remains unanswered except for your impatient “I told you therefore it is so” line of argument. But if you don’t want to continue with this discussion, no issues 😀

      But let’s not give up on our critical faculties or the paying audiences’ right to view good quality cinema at the altar of the difficult-to-please “commercial” movie devta. But then, I have scanty arguments against audiences that would like to laugh at public peeing scenes and then try to justify such scenes with excuses like “commercial” compulsions. Sorry, doesn’t work with me. And if this is supposed to me meaningful cinema, god save us. Let’s have more of Salman Khan’s Dabangg and Kick; at least he doesn’t have “intellectual” excuses for baring his torso.

  16. sanjayprasad says:

    Sampurna, This discussion was merely extended to introspect differed view and not to score a point.
    I am sorry if my entire debate did not answer the true/false binary premise of the film as interpreted by you and unswallowable by you.
    Once again I reiterate, that’s your perception, for me there was no true/false paradigm in the movie but a definite struggle to expose fake Godmanship (yes, they choose just the one representing Hinduism and not the Islam and Christianity.. but a fake guy right, not a real Guru?) and the various blind practices (Thanks God they also touched upon other religious blind practices) Vs Good people or true people like the girl Jaggu, Sarfraz, Bhairo Singh…

    If according to you their method was wrong then please enlighten, how else you can call a Fake Guru as fake and a blind religious practice as a blind act without escaping from true/false paradigm that you are desperate to establish with an Abrahamic tag.

    Excuse me for my Vedantic interpretation but I am certainly not as desperate as you are, to prove a point.

    Please confess, like the majourity you are simply hurt by the movie primarily questioning illogical Hindu practices and rituals that you term as depicting them in bad light and escaping from depicting Islamic and Christian practices in bad light. I completely understand this emotion and have conveyed my person thought on that.

    That should be a fair concluding point otherwise love it or hate it, PK-Part01 is done. Am sure PK-part02 would have similar commercial compulsions that may not work for you but might just trigger few funny bones… you got it right “Commercial Compulsion is always blended with Intellectual Excuse”
    Some use condom some don’t (sorry for my language, that’s coming from PK again)…ironically they all try to deliver a 300Cr. baby.

    • Sampurna says:

      Alright then. I’m desperate to prove a point, according to you, and you’re not. I don’t take commercial compulsions as an excuse to pass a badly made movie, you’re okay with that. I think the premise on which a “fake guru” has been exposed, the premise on which people’s devotion to a Shiv Ling is ridiculed, and the premise on which Shiv is shown as a ridiculous character is typically of Abrahamic character. That’s the superficial reason with which Abrahamic faiths attack the “ills” of “idol worship”—and you think it’s Vedanta. The only thing you and I agree upon is the fact that Christianity and Islam hasn’t been attacked in the same manner as Hinduism has been—and you’re okay about that; I’m not.

      And there is no reason to be okay about that, according to me, after you see what happened in the Charlie Hebdo incident. But I’m aware you’ve already justified Hirani’s refusal to criticise Islam (and Christianity) in your blog saying no one deserves to die for making a film. And I say no one deserves to die for making cartoons.

      But then I suppose I’m desperate to prove a point and you’re not. So be it.

  17. sanjayprasad says:

    Check out this quote:
    “You have cried to all Gods in the world. Has misery ceased?
    The masses in India cry to sixty million Gods, and still die like dogs,
    Where are these Gods?
    The Gods come to help you when you have succeeded. So what is the use?
    This bending the knee to superstitions, this selling yourself to your mind does not befit you, my soul.
    You are infinite, deathless, birth less.

    Because you are infinite spirit, it does not befit you to be a slave….

    Arise! Awake!

    ~Swami Vivekananda”,d.d24&psig=AFQjCNEhT4bFnO3dJCfRsH3GdR2oi_SAeQ&ust=1421750569365574

    Are you okay with this?

    • Sampurna says:

      LOL. I didn’t check your link, my friend, but I’m okay with all shades of opinion—remember I said I’m for absolute free speech?

      What I’m not okay with is your desperate attempt to ignore certain parts of the movie and to focus on certain other parts of the movie to sell your Vedanta argument. That’s chicanery. But I suppose chicanery also deserves its place in the pantheon of free speech 😀

      However to me, what you say is akin to the guy who bungee jumps without tether and parachute and thinks—till the last second before cracking his skull—that he is flying without wings. Happy flying.

  18. sanjayprasad says:

    That did not answer my question.
    I wanted your qualified-intellectual and biased (yes, thats fine) view on the above quote from Swami Vivekananda.
    And before you proceed let me correct you, they are not my free speech but real thought of a great Hindu Saint of this country who revolutionized Hinduism and its image across the world. His quotes are more than a thought that he practiced and lived for.

    Get the tether, a parachute and all the kits in your disctionary but answer to me what that quote means to you. This is your well protected bungee jumping exercise. Lets see how you perform 🙂

    Incase you still crack your skull for being on public forum let me assure you..your soul will be intact…”my friend”!!!

    • Sampurna says:

      Clever way to deflect attention from your (and I repeat) desperate attempt to ignore certain parts of the movie PK and to focus on certain other parts of the movie to sell your Vedanta argument.

      As for Vivekananda, I totally admire him for his intellect, oratory and charitable work (not quite for his views about women though). But Vivekananda can be the subject of discussion for another blog. What I see in your invoking Vivekananda is your another desperate attempt to seek some helping hand from a big brother in heaven because your own arguments are leading you nowhere. 😀 But in case you’ve forgotten, let me remind you that this is a blog about a movie, and not about Vivekananda. Interesting that without answering any of my questions about the movie, you’re insisting that I answer your completely irrelevant question on Vivekananda.

  19. sanjayprasad says:

    The message in the quotes is just the same as conveyed in PK, anyone with an average IQ would understand why I brought that quote into this discussion.

    Anyways, I gave enough attention to this PK debate and to your wishful thinking.
    Wish you great luck and happy blogging.

    • Sampurna says:

      Too bad that I, with my limited intellect, could only manage to ask questions—which you with your massive intellect tried very hard to not answer and then justified why questions must not be answered but obfuscated with other questions 🙂

      Happy blogging. I’ve enjoyed the conversation.

  20. sanjayprasad says:

    Hey dear. I too enjoyed the conversation and sorry if I gave any wrong impression.
    We may have disagreements but let me confess you write really well.
    Best Wishes!

  21. You have hit the spot right on with your critique about the movie.
    Raj Kumar Hirani has a tendency to make movies confronting major issues involving groups, organisations and institutions.
    Munnabhai highlighted the ruthlessness of the medical field and depicted doctors as evil beings; but few outsiders realize that the discipline does demand an impersonal approach; both while treating and also while being in a state of constant competition with fellow peers.
    In 3 Idiots, he painted the rigorous life in the IITs. Rote learning is something we Indians tend to get shackled with but portraying suicide in a positive light and the headmaster as villainous was totally wrong. And though no cause-effect relationship has been established, there were reports of an increased number of suicides in the country in the six months following the release of the movie. Not only that, not everyone who enjoys photography gets selected for a foreign job straight from school. Getting a degree is a way of insuring that we always have a job to go back to.
    And in P.K.he again sermonizes and creates feel good cinema where the masses feel they are being virtuous and repenting for their ‘Kicks’ by paying ridiculous ticket prices for P.K. Considering that Bollywood yields massive influence the world over, the least he could have done is have an honest portrayal as pointed by you so eloquently and spot on. But, as usual; because every Indian movie has to have a happy ending, he totally upturned the second half and clumsily merged a love story into a religious debate.
    Commenting on all these issues as an outsider in almost all his movies, he paints a very black and white picture whereas our own heritage depicts the world as grey where even Gods can commit mistakes and be exiled down to earth. He could have easily taken a leaf from the depiction of religious debates in historic texts as recently as during Mughal rule and set up the scene to show a panel of heads of different religions against p.k. and ended the movie with a question mark and food for thought for the viewers. Besides, of course, forgoing other dramatic plot devices such as a bomb blast which add nothing to the though processes in the movie other than Bollywood being at its dramatic best.

    • Sampurna says:

      Hirani has this problem of over-simplification, as you rightly pointed out. If Hirani made a film on the digestive system, he’d show the food going straight from the oesophagus to the large intestine—because that’s essentially Hirani’s world view 😀

Have something to say?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Filed Under
Top Rated
Blog Stats
  • 14,796 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 142 other followers

Proud Indian
Please Note

Creative Commons License
Halfastory's Blog by Sampurna is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

%d bloggers like this: