Any person lives on three levels: personal, social and global.
Life runs by decisions taken at all these levels. Decisions at all these levels influence other levels.
At personal level, he takes decisions for what/when/where/how to eat/drink/sleep/wear. Personal decisions affect the person the most.
At social level, which involves his/her family, friends, relatives, colleagues etc. who are directly influence each other by their MUTUAL decisions like where to live, when/to whom get marry? etc. social decisions affect person at significant level.
Now at global level, person interacts with so many persons directly or indirectly, like to the people of his/her society, city, district, state, country etc. so the decision at global level affects globally like where to build new commercial building?, How to to build the drainage system, to maintain the city electricity system, How to establish new railway line between two cities, How to bridge two sides of the river etc. All these decisions are affected globally. so these global decisions can not be taken by individuals. People are so involved in their personal life, they can not take care of global decisions. so there has to be some governing authority which takes decisions on behalf of people. Obviously, that authority is made of group of key persons, chosen by the people.
How to choose the key persons for governing authority?
Elections...
Elections allow to elect the proper candidates for the key positions in the governing authority.
But everybody can not be elected for the governing authority. So they have to compete.Compete in sense, beat others and prove your self better and more legitimate than others for that key position. Earlier, candidates were judged on the basis of their capability, dignity, honesty and vision. But eventually, the importance of holding the key position is so increased that, people started planning/executing activities (which may be right/wrong ethically/socially) to gain victory over other candidates to hold that position, called, .....POLITICS.
This process of electing people is not newer. Earlier, there were kings, emperors chosen by people. That thing is different that, in that system, key position is eventually became born-right. But initially, first king must have been elected from common people, then later on it became generation-driven.
In any system, consider country, company, college, society, school: anything at global level, there is always competition for the key position like: Prime minister elections, elections for promotion/appraisal in corporate, Electing mayor of the city, election for principal of the college, now even, to become class monitor in 5th standard involves set of certain activities, called politics.
"Effect and importance of political decisions is directly proportional to the level and importance of the key position."
It is obvious that, politics would be much worst and complex for the prime minister election than the election for president of the local society.
Actually, There are two kinds of politicians:
1. Who play politics with the motive to establish successful, legitimate and effective system by removing inappropriate/dishonest/non-effective persons from the key positions.
2. Who play politics just to gain[and to hold] the key position which eventually degrades motive of politics.
I believe, in last 5000 years, India have seen 3 greatest politicians in 3 different eras.
Shree Krishna, Chanakya and Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel.
In the ancient era, Shree Krishna had played politics against kauravas to remove "Adharma" from society and to re-establish the kingdom of "Dharma".
In the middle era, Chanakya had played politics against all the kings who were not devoted to their duty and did not have respect for their country.
In the modern era, Sardar had played politics against the kings/nizams to reunite India.
*****
Prakash Jha took strong base of The Mahabharat as well as The Godfather and made shattered, weak execution, called "RAJNEETI".
Sorry Mr. Prakash Jha, you disappointed me this time, In a well-appreciated vision of imaging The Mahabharat in today's politics, you could not hold the either side. In order to make a commercial "masala" movie, your magical soul touch of "Gangajal" and "Apaharan" was missing in this film.
Movie starts with completely wasted character of Naseeruddin Shah and shows a bit of good mind game of politics till the interval. In the first of half of the movie, it can be called typical prakash jha film. But in the second half, movie falls down. There are so many flaws which can not be overseen like:
1. Characters are not built properly like initially, Sooraj kumar [modern karna, played by Ajay Devgn, one of the outstanding actors till date...] looks appropriate fighting for "Dalit leader has to be elected from the local community". But after that,inappropriately, gets involved into series of [unwanted] murders. [which was completely unrealistic. Who kills the big-headed opposite politicians serially in a day-time, politics has to involve mind-games, It seemed like they know only one solution: Kill them all, whoever comes in the way]. Virendra Pratap Singh [modern duryodhana, played by brilliant artist from quality cinema, Manoj bajpeyi] only roars in whole movie "KARARA JAWAB MILEGA", is completely dependant on Sooraj kumar, eventually does nothing on his own and falls down against the politics of Samar[Modern Arjuna, played by Ranbir kapoor]. character of samar[loosely inspired from Godfather], who artificially and unrealistically gets involved into politics, just to see his brother victorious. In whole movie, all the characters you have to take for granted for what they are. they are not justified.
2. Till the interval, appropriately there was no song. Then after interval, my belief [and relief] ends with the ITEM NUMBER [Oh, My god...].
3. Inappropriate dialogues:
the scene of meeting of [sooraj-his mother] is completely taken from [karna-Kunti] Conversation.
Sooraj's mother tells to sooraj, "TUM MERE 'JAYESTHA PUTRA' HO" [WHAT THE HELL!!!!!, couldn't she say, "tum mere bade bete ho"].
4. Katrina kaif's in-step into politics does not show the background and convincing conversation by samar and brijgopal to join politics. there does not seem any motive behind to join her politics.
5. One more unconvincing point: bharti [modern kunti] who is initially so politically active and so concerned to values and leftist ideology. In the rest of the film, she becomes completely passive like [we minimize the window] and suggests sooraj to join their party [oh crap, all her values and ideology were washed out after marriage.]
6. Movie is very weak in the last half hour where in the climax, there was no fight between "Dharma" and "Adharma" but samar unnecessarily kills sooraj and virendra to take revenge by the guidance of mentor uncle, brijgopal [what happened to you, Mr. Jha???, Have you forgotten the proper and brilliant climax of Gangajal, where hero persists not to kill the villains to protect the bounds of society.]
7. At last, movie is said to be inspired from "Mahabharata". In Mahabharata, there was politics to gain victory over "Adharma" by "Dharma". Here, there is politics, just to gain victory. none of the side fights for good and values.
DESSERT:
Life runs by decisions taken at all these levels. Decisions at all these levels influence other levels.
At personal level, he takes decisions for what/when/where/how to eat/drink/sleep/wear. Personal decisions affect the person the most.
At social level, which involves his/her family, friends, relatives, colleagues etc. who are directly influence each other by their MUTUAL decisions like where to live, when/to whom get marry? etc. social decisions affect person at significant level.
Now at global level, person interacts with so many persons directly or indirectly, like to the people of his/her society, city, district, state, country etc. so the decision at global level affects globally like where to build new commercial building?, How to to build the drainage system, to maintain the city electricity system, How to establish new railway line between two cities, How to bridge two sides of the river etc. All these decisions are affected globally. so these global decisions can not be taken by individuals. People are so involved in their personal life, they can not take care of global decisions. so there has to be some governing authority which takes decisions on behalf of people. Obviously, that authority is made of group of key persons, chosen by the people.
How to choose the key persons for governing authority?
Elections...
Elections allow to elect the proper candidates for the key positions in the governing authority.
But everybody can not be elected for the governing authority. So they have to compete.Compete in sense, beat others and prove your self better and more legitimate than others for that key position. Earlier, candidates were judged on the basis of their capability, dignity, honesty and vision. But eventually, the importance of holding the key position is so increased that, people started planning/executing activities (which may be right/wrong ethically/socially) to gain victory over other candidates to hold that position, called, .....POLITICS.
This process of electing people is not newer. Earlier, there were kings, emperors chosen by people. That thing is different that, in that system, key position is eventually became born-right. But initially, first king must have been elected from common people, then later on it became generation-driven.
In any system, consider country, company, college, society, school: anything at global level, there is always competition for the key position like: Prime minister elections, elections for promotion/appraisal in corporate, Electing mayor of the city, election for principal of the college, now even, to become class monitor in 5th standard involves set of certain activities, called politics.
"Effect and importance of political decisions is directly proportional to the level and importance of the key position."
It is obvious that, politics would be much worst and complex for the prime minister election than the election for president of the local society.
Actually, There are two kinds of politicians:
1. Who play politics with the motive to establish successful, legitimate and effective system by removing inappropriate/dishonest/non-effective persons from the key positions.
2. Who play politics just to gain[and to hold] the key position which eventually degrades motive of politics.
I believe, in last 5000 years, India have seen 3 greatest politicians in 3 different eras.
Shree Krishna, Chanakya and Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel.
In the ancient era, Shree Krishna had played politics against kauravas to remove "Adharma" from society and to re-establish the kingdom of "Dharma".
In the middle era, Chanakya had played politics against all the kings who were not devoted to their duty and did not have respect for their country.
In the modern era, Sardar had played politics against the kings/nizams to reunite India.
*****
Prakash Jha took strong base of The Mahabharat as well as The Godfather and made shattered, weak execution, called "RAJNEETI".
Sorry Mr. Prakash Jha, you disappointed me this time, In a well-appreciated vision of imaging The Mahabharat in today's politics, you could not hold the either side. In order to make a commercial "masala" movie, your magical soul touch of "Gangajal" and "Apaharan" was missing in this film.
Movie starts with completely wasted character of Naseeruddin Shah and shows a bit of good mind game of politics till the interval. In the first of half of the movie, it can be called typical prakash jha film. But in the second half, movie falls down. There are so many flaws which can not be overseen like:
1. Characters are not built properly like initially, Sooraj kumar [modern karna, played by Ajay Devgn, one of the outstanding actors till date...] looks appropriate fighting for "Dalit leader has to be elected from the local community". But after that,inappropriately, gets involved into series of [unwanted] murders. [which was completely unrealistic. Who kills the big-headed opposite politicians serially in a day-time, politics has to involve mind-games, It seemed like they know only one solution: Kill them all, whoever comes in the way]. Virendra Pratap Singh [modern duryodhana, played by brilliant artist from quality cinema, Manoj bajpeyi] only roars in whole movie "KARARA JAWAB MILEGA", is completely dependant on Sooraj kumar, eventually does nothing on his own and falls down against the politics of Samar[Modern Arjuna, played by Ranbir kapoor]. character of samar[loosely inspired from Godfather], who artificially and unrealistically gets involved into politics, just to see his brother victorious. In whole movie, all the characters you have to take for granted for what they are. they are not justified.
2. Till the interval, appropriately there was no song. Then after interval, my belief [and relief] ends with the ITEM NUMBER [Oh, My god...].
3. Inappropriate dialogues:
the scene of meeting of [sooraj-his mother] is completely taken from [karna-Kunti] Conversation.
Sooraj's mother tells to sooraj, "TUM MERE 'JAYESTHA PUTRA' HO" [WHAT THE HELL!!!!!, couldn't she say, "tum mere bade bete ho"].
4. Katrina kaif's in-step into politics does not show the background and convincing conversation by samar and brijgopal to join politics. there does not seem any motive behind to join her politics.
5. One more unconvincing point: bharti [modern kunti] who is initially so politically active and so concerned to values and leftist ideology. In the rest of the film, she becomes completely passive like [we minimize the window] and suggests sooraj to join their party [oh crap, all her values and ideology were washed out after marriage.]
6. Movie is very weak in the last half hour where in the climax, there was no fight between "Dharma" and "Adharma" but samar unnecessarily kills sooraj and virendra to take revenge by the guidance of mentor uncle, brijgopal [what happened to you, Mr. Jha???, Have you forgotten the proper and brilliant climax of Gangajal, where hero persists not to kill the villains to protect the bounds of society.]
7. At last, movie is said to be inspired from "Mahabharata". In Mahabharata, there was politics to gain victory over "Adharma" by "Dharma". Here, there is politics, just to gain victory. none of the side fights for good and values.
DESSERT:
"Politics defines the way to a duty, not just to a victory."
2 comments:
Nice one,
Firstly, Really like pure definition of Politics, normally we think Politics as a negative word but its not.
Then, I have seen Rajniti but couldn't find the relation with Mahabharat, but as now you have described its looking like so. Though I have seen this movie in completely different angel, Its like what you said there are 2 kind of people who play Poitics this movie was describing the second one I guess.
Though I rarely appreciate Bollywood movies...I though this movie was just to show the present reality. Yes I completely agree with you that a movie should reflect values and ethics of human nature.
Over all great analysis I would say. keep writing
Thanks :)
I guess movie completely missed the track to the cost of getting commercial success.
Post a Comment