Religion

A Disciple of Hanuman Tells the Story of India’s Syncretic Traditions

Bajrangi Bhaijaan taps into the desire of ordinary Indians and Pakistanis for closer relations

A poster of the film ‘Bajrangi Bhaijaan’.

I went to see Bajrangi Bhaijaan with no expectations, because the friends I went with warned me that Salman Khan films (of which I had seen only HAHK) were just meaningless fun. I emerged, however, deeply moved.

The film’s protagonist, Pavan (a reference to Hanuman, son of the wind god) is known as Bajrangi (another name for Hanuman, meaning “iron-limbed”). He is a true devotee, seeing only good in everyone until they are manifestly proven wicked. Just as Hanuman in the Ramayana travels to Lanka to help bring Sita home, Bajrangi travels to Pakistan to bring a mute little Pakistani girl (Shahida aka Munni) home.

Like Hanuman, Bajrangi selflessly risks life and limb to do the right thing. Unlike Hanuman, he does not have miraculous powers, so he suffers torture and nearly dies in the process. For me the most moving moments in the film occur when the Hanuman Chalisa is evoked. Attributed to Tulsidas, this is one of the two most popular prayers in north India, chanted by millions every day. Hanuman, as mediator and wish-fulfiller, has also garnered some devotion across religious lines. In the late eighteenth century, a queen, Begum Janab-e-Alia, second wife of Nawab Shuja ud Daula (reigned 1753-75) built a Hanuman temple (where the festival of Bada Mangal is celebrated as a symbol of Lucknow’s famous Hindu-Muslim harmony); she is said to have done this after dreaming of Hanuman telling her to do so.

The first evocation of the Chalisa is when Bajrangi, having used all his and his girlfriend’s savings to pay a tout to send the six-year-old Munni home, discovers that the tout is selling her to a brothel. He stands still for a moment, as if unable to believe the depth of this nightmarish wickedness. A tear slowly wells out of his eye as lines from the Chalisa swell in the background, including the line: Sukshma rup dhari Siyahi dikhaava/Vikat rup dhari lank jaraava (He took a subtle form to show Sita, and a terrible form to burn Lanka). The line suggests the ability of the divine/human/animal manifestation that is Hanuman to adjust his being to the requirements of the moment.

Tender moments

Likewise, Bajrangi, who is always tender in a parental way to Munni (he gently covers her sleeping face with a veil when sitting amidst a crowd of men at the dargah), explodes into action, pulverizing the modern-day demons, the pimps, and sending the tout flying through the window, while the neighborhood watches, stunned. He then carries Munni away on his back.

The second moment is when Bajrangi’s girlfriend begs him not to go to Pakistan without passport or visa, because this will most likely result in his death or lifelong incarceration. He replies, Sankat katey mitey sab peera/Jo sumire Hanumat balbira (Difficulties are demolished, suffering wiped out, for one who remembers Hanuman the powerful), and adds that one who has Ram in his heart needs neither passport nor visa.

Bajrangi, who is reluctant to step into mosques, visits a dargah in Pakistan to pray for Munni’s safe return. This reflects the experience of most Hindus, who do not visit mosques but do visit dargahs in large numbers. The Sufi song at the dargah, Bhar le jholi meri ya Mohammad, expresses the sentiment of approaching God to get a wish fulfilled, a sentiment with which millions also go to Hanuman temples on Tuesdays.

Dargah Ashmuqam, the 14^th century shrine in Kashmir of Sufi Zainuddin Wali, where the sequence was shot, was attacked by Lashkar in 2005. Islamists have attacked many dargahs both in India and Pakistan for being centres of syncretic devotion, where women also participate along with men, which hardliners see as “shirk”.

The film thus asserts popular devotion, true dharma and mazhab, both Muslim and Hindu, against the rigid versions of religion propagated by Islamists and Hindutva proponents. It provides a balanced view of modern-day Hinduism, with the pure-souled Bajrangi contrasted to his fanatical father and a group of saffron-clad men who violently attack the Pakistani embassy.

The film is not quite as balanced in its presentation of Pakistan, though, which emerges as a paradise of sorts. Every ordinary individual Bajrangi encounters helps and supports him, risking their own safety, including a maulvi who happily says “Jai Shri Ram” when Bajrangi cannot bring himself to say “Khuda Hafiz.”

Even the Pakistani police are remarkably tolerant. They allow Bajrangi to cross the Rajasthan border without a visa, and later, though they naturally suspect him of being a spy, the officer-in-charge halts his beating when he gets to know the real story, and, at considerable risk to himself, engineers Bajrangi’s return to India.

Cinema is about desire, though, and the desire here is a Gandhian one. Gandhi had asked Hindus to see Muslims as younger brothers and treat them with indulgence and forgiveness; he also wanted independent India to view Pakistan as a younger brother. At the time, this metaphor annoyed many Hindus as well as Muslims.

Subtle metaphors

Salman Khan’s subtler version of the metaphor, tapping into deeper layers of desire for rapprochement in both countries, has succeeded in India and also appears to have gone across very well in Pakistan (it probably helps that Pakistan is shown winning both cricket matches with India that appear in the film!).

The term “Bhaijaan” is used only for an older brother, not a younger one. At the end of the film, the Pakistani crowd chants “Bajrangi Bhaijaan”, while little Munni, finding her voice, screams “Mama”. A woman’s brother is supposed to be a protector for her and her children. The chant is reinforced by the last image of Bajrangi holding up Munni in the no-man’s-land between the two countries while supportive spectators watch from both sides.

The only false note the film strikes is the chicken song. As a caring avuncular figure, Bajrangi rightly overcomes his revulsion in order to get Munni the food she wants to eat. But tolerating the eating practices of others is very different from celebrating the torture and slaughter of chickens.

Despite this misstep, the film answers Hindutva with Hindu devotion and Islamism with Muslim devotion, which, in my view, is the only effective answer. Salman, the son of a Hindu mother and a Muslim father, grew up in a home where puja coexisted with namaz, and he is a Muslim who has helped carry the Ganesh murti during Ganesh Chaturthi festivities. His family represents the syncretic traditions of Indian devotion that the film expresses so powerfully.

Ruth Vanita is a professor at Montana University.

Why Indian Godmen Should Read the Pope’s Green Message

Our godmen are rich beyond the dreams of avarice, but ask one of them to set out a position on climate change and he will tie himself in knots and call it yoga

An aerial view of the landscape near Uummannaq, Greenland, and the fastest moving glacier on the planet. Photo: United Nations, CC 2.0

Laudato Si’, the encyclical on climate change that Pope Francis issued in June, is an extraordinary document. Starting with a masterly summary of the enormous problems identified by science, which other denominations still refuse to accept, it argues that climate change is the work of man, which risks destroying the work of god, and therefore, from the perspective of faith, makes an eloquent, powerful plea on behalf of humanity, but particularly for the poorest, who will be the hardest hit, as the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change has warned in its Fifth Assessment Report. This is the second encyclical of Francis’s pontificate, but since the first, Lumen Fidei, promulgated in June, 2013, was the work of his predecessor, Benedict XVI, left unfinished when he stepped down, Laudato Si’ is the first that presents a world-view that is entirely his. One of the central messages of the last encyclical was “Unless you believe, you will not understand”; here, Francis almost seems to tell his flock that unless they understand they will not believe.

Back to liberation theology

Anyone who remembers the intellectual debates of the 1970s will read the encyclical with a sense of déjà vu, because many of the concerns it voices – on social justice, the special needs of the poor, the sin of rampant waste, the whoring after the false gods of technology – were first raised then in the Catholic Church in the tracts of liberation theology, which started in and took over Latin America as Francis began his priesthood there. That movement divided the Church, with conservatives fearing that the “preferential option for the poor”, the mantra that liberation theology espoused, as well as the practices it urged, were based on Marxist, rather than Christian, doctrine. The counter-attack on liberation theology, and on its leading ideologue, Father Gustavo Gutierrez, was launched in the 1980s by Cardinal Ratzinger, who later was to become Pope Benedict XVI.

It was believed Francis was ambivalent about liberation theology, but in 2013, soon after being anointed Pope, he invited Father Gutierrez to the Vatican for what was symbolically an embrace of the author, if not of the doctrine. The latest encyclical goes a step further. In echoing the concerns of liberation theology, it heals the rift his predecessor opened as Cardinal and widened as Pope. In a way, this encyclical is a rite of passage, from the last pontificate to this.

What is remarkable, though, is that the intellectual arguments and the moral positions on climate change that Francis adopts were first presented by the Catholic bishops of the United States in two astonishing pastoral statements, “Renewing the Earth” in 1991 and “Global Climate Change: a plea for dialogue, prudence and the common good” in 2001. In 1991, the Bishops began with the following bold propositions:

“Humanity faces problems in five interrelated fields: environment, energy, economics, equity, and ethics. To ensure the survival of a healthy planet, then, we must not only establish a sustainable economy but must also labour for justice both within and among nations. We must seek a society where economic life and environmental commitment work together to protect and to enhance life on this planet.

The whole human race suffers as a result of environmental blight, and generations yet unborn will bear the cost for our failure to act today. But in most countries today, including our own, it is the poor and the powerless who most directly bear the burden of current environmental carelessness.

How can we recognise and confront the possible conflicts between environment and jobs, and work for the common good and solutions that value both people and the earth? How do we secure protection for all God’s creatures, including the poor and the unborn? How can the United States, as a nation, act responsibly about this ever more global problem? And how, in working for a sustainable global economy, do we fulfil our obligations in justice to the poor of the Third World?”

In 2001, they went further:

“At its core, global climate change is not about economic theory or political platforms, nor about partisan advantage or interest group pressures. It is about the future of God’s creation and the one human family. It is about protecting both “the human environment” and the natural environment. It is about our human stewardship of God’s creation and our responsibility to those who come after us.

The dialogue and our response to the challenge of climate change must be rooted in the virtue of prudence.

Because of the blessings God has bestowed on our nation and the power it possesses, the United States bears a special responsibility in its stewardship of God’s creation to shape responses that serve the entire human family…..

Therefore, we especially want to focus on the needs of the poor, the weak, and the vulnerable in a debate often dominated by more powerful interests. Inaction and inadequate or misguided responses to climate change will likely place even greater burdens on already desperately poor peoples. Action to mitigate global climate change must be built upon a foundation of social and economic justice that does not put the poor at greater risk or place disproportionate and unfair burdens on developing nations.”

The Pope’s dwindling divisions

Every argument made in the encyclical can be traced back to these two seminal documents. Insofar as an encyclical is first and foremost a pastoral letter, when he addresses the US bishops, Francis is preaching to the converters; they have baptised him. A liberal Pope has now brought the Church to a position that these bishops bravely staked out two decades back. But it is equally clear that the advocacy of the US bishops has not pushed the official US position forward. Will the encyclical help?

The authority of an encyclical far surpasses that of a statement adopted by bishops, but its impact on the US, and even on US Catholics, will be limited. A Pew study on the changing face of religion in America, issued in May 2015, shows that Catholics continue to shrink as a percentage of the US population, down from 23.9%, when its last survey was carried out in 2007, to 20.8%. Evangelical Protestants, whose leaders stridently oppose the science of climate change, are at 25.4%, Mainline Protestants 14.7%. The Catholic Church’s views are therefore in a minority within the Christian population, and strongly opposed by some of the other sects.

The composition of the Catholic population in the US has also changed dramatically. Racial and ethnic minorities now make up 41% of Catholics (up from 35% in 2007); most of them are Hispanics, at the bottom of the economic pile. The encyclical’s call to change lifestyles in the developed world, cutting back on consumption and industrialization, is a direct threat to those who have moved there to chase the American dream. (The encyclical’s solutions are almost Gandhian – smaller communities, small-scale industries.) What helps those they left behind in their mother countries will be opposed most stridently by the Hispanic Catholics of the US. Knowing this, with elections coming up in 2016, it is hard to see Presidential aspirants giving more than short shrift to the encyclical.

A message many can use

Barring Japan and Turkey, all the countries listed in Annexes 1 and 2 of the Framework Convention on Climate Change – those that have special responsibilities – are part of the Christian world, where a papal encyclical should carry weight. But though it will be read with interest in the Protestant and Orthodox ecumenical streams, with respect in the Catholic, its message is too inconvenient to influence policy in States where in any case the secular tradition is allergic to the religious. It may, however, have an impact on negotiating dynamics in international forums.

On critical issues at international conferences in the past, as on women’s reproductive rights, children’s rights and HIV/AIDS, the Vatican has made common cause with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation to block liberal proposals, setting the Catholic world against the Protestant. (It is a blot on this encyclical that it uses a procrustean argument to justify a continued rejection of abortion.) In the upcoming conferences on climate change, including the Paris Summit, the Vatican may be expected to press for international commitments that address the problem without hurting the interests of the poorest. That will be a change from the divisive role it has played on other issues, but might not be helpful to India, whose needs and interests are sui generis.

The Pope’s apocalyptic vision of conflicts over water, of wars waged because “resources have been depleted”, can be used by Pakistan and the UK, which together brought climate change to the United Nations Security Council in 2013, to drag it back there. The UK, and other Annex 1 countries, wanted to use the Council to dilute the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, Pakistan to send more shivers down Western spines by hinting that this could be another trigger for conflict in South Asia. The encyclical’s message will appeal to many developing countries, weakening the unity of the Group of 77, which has so far opposed a role for the Security Council in climate change.

A report on climate change as ambitious as the encyclical, commissioned by Germany as the current chair of the G-7, has reinforced this message. Called “A New Climate for Peace”, it starts off with the claim that “Climate change is a global threat to security in the 21st century. We must act quickly to limit the future risks to the planet we share and to the peace we seek.” The action it recommends is on three fronts – adaptation, development and humanitarian aid, and peacebuilding, the last of which brings climate change squarely within the remit of the UNSC. New Zealand, which holds the presidency of the Council for July, has announced a special meeting to consider the security problems of small island states. Both the encyclical and the G-7 paper will get full play there.

Silence of our godmen

It is a pity that nothing comparable to this encyclical has so far come out in India, which is at the centre of the debate on climate change. The Pope quotes from statements issued by his bishops elsewhere, but has nothing from the Indian bishops, who clearly either had nothing to say, or nothing worthwhile. Their intellectual inertia seems to have been infectious, though the principle of transgenerational responsibility, which the Pope stresses, should be of unique concern to Hindus. Unlike Christians, asked to ponder the consequences of their actions on generations after their death, Hindus will suffer them in their next lives. The impact of climate change across the generations is not just a moral dilemma for the Hindu, it is of the greatest possible self-interest. Our godmen are rich beyond the dreams of avarice, but ask one of them to set out a position on climate change and he will tie himself in knots and call it yoga. Or intone “Vasudevam kutumbakam”, after which he has shot his bolt. From Rome, the Pope has thrown down a moral gauntlet. Someone in Nagpur should pick it up.

I Want Everyone to Know the Prophet’s Story, Says Author of First Marwari Biography

Rajeev Sharma has received hate mail too but believes those who sent him such messages ‘cannot belong to any religion, because no religion in the world is opposed to peace’

Rajeev Sharma, author of Paighambar ro Paigham, the first biography of the Prophet Muhammad in Marwari

Rajeev Sharma is a Marwari and Hindi writer from Rajasthan who has recently published his retelling of Prophet Muhammad’s story in Marwari. He has previously written several books but his choice of subject for his latest book has left some in Rajasthan, the state where the language is widely spoken, intrigued. The Wire caught up with the young author to ask him a few questions about him and the book.

Tell us something about your reasons for having written a book on the life of the Prophet Muhammad. Why were you interested in this subject?

It was about 15 years ago, when I was in 9th standard, that I started a library in my native village. While reading books is considered a major task in schools, I have always been very interested in reading. Because of my deep interest in reading I got an opportunity to read many books of a diverse nature, ranging from comics to mythological books. During that time I found a pocket book depicting the life of Prophet Muhammad. It was when I was reading that, that I realised he spent his whole life struggling against negativity, but despite all the sad events in his life, his belief in God was as strong as a rock.

Apart from finding the book, two other incidents shaped my interest in the Prophet. I am from a Hindu-Brahmin family, but have always tried to protest against bad rituals and the ways of these so-called godmen, which ultimately only benefit them. In my village there was a priest who also worked as a moneylender. He would give out loans to villagers on sky-high interest rates. At times, the interest would have risen to lakhs, when the principal was only a few thousand rupees. Seeing him ruin the lives of people in the village, I was reminded of how Prophet Muhammad was one person who had clearly said that taking interest was a sin. He said it was motivated by evil.

Another time I had heard the story of a girl who was born in our family. When she was barely 5 years old, the family fixed her marriage because in the eyes of priests, marrying a girl before 12 years of age was a dharma vivaah! As luck would have it, at the time of the marriage itself her groom died. The priest then decided that the girl would live her life as the man’s widow. This incident always made me sad, and again I found resonance in the life of Prophet Muhammad, who had married a widow.

Do you feel that Muslims and Hindus in India do not read enough about each other’s cultures and beliefs?

Yes, that is true. Some people consider each other’s holy books as untouchable and most do not bother knowing about each other. Studying or knowing about some other religion or prophet and following their goodness doesn’t mean that you are going to change your own religion. I firmly believe in Prophet Muhammad, and I accept that he was a prophet of God. While I try to follow his teachings, I am as Hindu today as on the first day of my life. Youngsters should be motivated to study more about different religions, their teachings, and their beliefs. My younger brother read about Islamic banking in a finance journal and motivated me to write a book on the life of Prophet Muhammad.

Cover of Rajeev Sharma’s e-book

How did you come across information regarding the Prophet? What is the source of the information in your book?

I studied lot of books to research his life. Some are them were authored by writers from Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and even India. The Internet is also a good source of information.

Have you always been interested in the history of Islam and the life of the Prophet, or was there any incident that pushed you towards reading about this subject?

No, I was not always interested in Islam and the life of Prophet Muhammad. Like many others, my knowledge was limited to the basics. There wasn’t a single Muslim home in my village, and so exposure to the religion and its practices was limited. When I started my library and read a book on the Prophet, I decided to read more, and realized that my thoughts resonated with his writings. I wanted everyone to know his story then.

What do you think about the incidents of violence that take place between Hindus and Muslims in the country?

The reason for violence between Hindus and Muslims is simply misconceptions about each other and a sense of superiority regarding our own beliefs. All of us read religious books but rarely do we implement their messages in our life. The reading is akin to reading for examinations – for marks and not for knowledge. If you read the Quran, you will find words of peace and kindness. Hindu books clearly say preach that the world is our family and we know Jesus was praying for even the forgiveness of those who were crucifying him. These religious messages are what people should preach and practice in today’s world.

Have you faced any problems because of the subject of your book? What were the sort of objections that you faced in writing the book?

As I completed this book and was preparing to publish it on my blog, I was not scared or confused because I knew I was writing the truth. There is no need to be scared of saying the truth. My family members were fully supportive of the idea and people liked the book more than I had expected.

While I received messages praising the book from all over the world, I did receive some hate mail. People are calling for me to be shot or hanged, and some have even suggested I join the ISIS! Those e-mails really disappointed me. Was this the reward for writing about the Prophet? While interestingly none of the hate mail came from Muslims, I believe that those who post these messages are against the idea of peace, and cannot belong to any religion, because no religion in the world is opposed to peace.

The book is available online for free currently. Are there any plans to publish the book? How has the response been so far?

The response so far has been overwhelming in the e-format, but I think the book should get published in print too. I haven’t yet looked for a publisher but if a good publisher is ready then I would like to get it published.

Have you previously written other books in Marwari or translated works to Marwari? What were the subjects of these books?

Yes, Marwari is my mother-tongue. My first composition in Marwari was the translation of the Hanuman Chalisa. I have translated the stories of Tolstoy, letters written by Abraham Lincoln and teachings of Jainism among other things. I have also written several books in Hindi, all of which are available on my website.

What is the state of the Marwari publishing industry?

The situation is quite bad. It is difficult to even find bookstores that sell Marwari books in the entire state of Rajasthan. Marwari books are generally unavailable, and the younger crowd assumes they are for people of past generations. This can be corrected though, if books were more easily available.

From starting it to finally publishing it online, what was the most difficult aspect of writing such a unique book?

Writing and publishing the book have surprisingly been the easier parts. The problems for me started after the book was online. While some relatives assumed I had converted to Islam, others suggested avoiding topics that were related to other religions. A lot of people talk about this behind my back, but after a while you learn to laugh about it.

Are there any plans to write another book? Will the subject of the next book also be related to Islam?

Yes, I would definitely like to write more books. I want to write about the teachings of the Quran, which I think would be useful for everyone. I am also planning to write a book on Prophet Muhammad’s associates and people close to him. I want these books to be available in English and Hindi, too, along with Marwari.