HJS’ stand on anti-Dharma film Elizabeth Ekadashi

This article will bring forth before readers ridiculous criticism by so-called ‘Hindutva-vadis’ against Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) when they neither have the background or knowledge of Dharma nor do they undertake any kind of spiritual practice !

Many Hindutva-vadis along with HJS and Warkari Sampradaya have opposed recently released Marathi film Elizabeth Ekadashi. The film was opposed following democratic path within the brackets of law by meeting and giving representations to theatre owners/ managers, corresponding with the concerned authorities for this purpose, explaining the subject in meetings, staging demonstrations etc. As a result, many theatre-owners, understanding the subject, have taken commendable decision against screening of this film. Even then, director of the film, few intellectuals and thinkers are voicing their views against HJS and Warkaris; criticizing that the opposition to the film was unnecessary. Their objections and HJS standpoint is given below.

1. How rejected posters can get published by social media?

Objection : HJS had raised objection against few posters of this film; but some newspapers have published that Director Paresh Mokashi had claimed that the posters were rejected by them; therefore, HJS objection was wrong.

HJS standpoint: If those posters were rejected, why were they published and how were they advertisedon social media ? Why Mokashi has no control over them ? It needs to be explained; else it can be construed that Mokashi purposely released them for publicity and now, he is just trying to wriggle out of the situation to save his skin. If he says that posters were not official, why he does not accept that they were improper ? Is it not his duty to find out reasons for objection ?    

2. Objection : Why did HJS not discuss the issue with Director before unnecessarily opposing ?

HJS standpoint :

A. The Government machinery that grants permission for release of a film is more responsible than a director making film; therefore, HJS communicated with Film Censor Board registering their objections. It is not the responsibility of HJS to write to director of every film or have discussions with him; but is it not the responsibility of producers and director of a film to try to know the contentions of other side when they know that the film is opposed ? We lodge complaint with police when there is theft rather than discussing about theft with the thief. Similarly, the authority that grants certification for release of a film is equally responsible if not more, as a producer and director and therefore, the matter was communicated to Censor Board by HJS.

B. The film was to be released on 21st November in IFFI in Goa; therefore, our contention was conveyed even to the organizers of IFFI along with Censor Board after which the concerned authorities are expected to call HJS for discussions.

C. In case of the film ‘Singham Returns’ released few months back, HJS had not met director of the film but wrote to Censor Board as also phoned them. Later Ajay Devgan and Rohit Shetty called HJS to find out about objections raised, discussed and even rectified the issues.

3. Where is the need to watch the film when its title and posters are improper ?

Objection : How can film be opposed without watching ?

HJS standpoint

A. HJS opposition is always based on principles. If points of contention are removed, the need for raising objection does not arise. HJS always presents its side in lawful manner and is ready for discussions.

B. Where is the need for every member of an organization to watch the film ? Every member of HJS need not see a film. As per the working method followed in HJS, a separate group is formed to study matters related to these issues. The group watches a film and gives opinion. Action to be taken is decided only after studying the matter and it is the official standpoint of HJS. It is therefore, ridiculous to say that person is raising objection without watching film. Even in Censor Board, only a group of 4 to 6 officers watches film out of so many officers; but the responsibility is taken by the Board.   

C. Before release of a film: Even before release of the film, HJS was against the film’s title and posters denigrating Deity Vitthal. How can they oppose without watching the film ? The above question is wrong because the objection was mainly for its title and posters so where was the need to see the film ?

D: After watching film : After watching this film, HJS found few more objectionable points in the film and it was published that the opposition was also for the incidents shown in the film.

Objections raised by few thinkers

4. Opposition was exhibited in completely within the brackets of law by burning effigy of director when unnecessary comparison was made with Muslims who take law in their hands

4. A. Objection: While rendering service to Hindu Dharma, we are making mistake of making our Dharma appear like Islam due to our over enthusiasm and ignorance.

HJS standpoint

A: There are basic differences in teachings of Hindu Dharma and Islam; therefore, when there is just a rumour of tearing off a page from Quran, thousands of Muslims gather and take law in their hands without discussing the issue with anyone or without giving representation to the Government when most of them neither read or even see what is written. HJS, however, opposes a film based on matter of principles of Dharma and in lawful manner. (And people who know HJS activities are quite aware of it.)

B. ‘Satanic Verses’, a book by Salman Rushdie was banned in India even before it reached our country. This is the intimidation of Islam !  Moreover, Islamic organizations had openly declared award for bringing head of Salman Rushdie. HJS and Warkaris were writing to Film Censor Board and Government machineries with due respect to law. What are the similarities which those intellectuals observed in both ? If there is outbreak of sentiments of Warkaris due to Sri Vitthal shown on a cycle instead of traditional brick; when the film suggests flesh trade in Pandharpur pilgrimage, it is quite natural; but Warkaris did not go to thrash anyone; instead they exhibited their anger by burning effigy; so what is wrong with that ? In fact, burning of effigies during political agitations is quite common. There is no need to say that Warkari Sampradaya and HJS are going on the path of Islam. HJS and Warkari Sampradaya have adequate knowledge to follow the path of Hindu Dharma.   

4. B. Objection: There is need to create awareness in HJS

HJS standpoint: HJS is always in mode of learning. HJS takes initiative in taking guidance from senior and knowledgeable persons and introspect after every drive undertaken by them. Mistakes observed while undertaking any drive are put up openly; keeping away ego.

Nowadays, it has become practice to deride Hindu Saints and Seers in films and insult them; but the same film personalities never seem to open their mouth or show malpractices observed in Islam or Christianity; nor do they dare to make films on that topic. A small black stain on a white cloth draws attention; similarly, even if film is good, denigration in such film is also remembered by people and Hindus are taken for granted as it becomes a habit. HJS is therefore, trying to eradicate what is bad and spread what is good. HJS takes it upon itself as a duty towards Dharma when issues are related to Dharma. In fact, HJS is trying to create awareness amongst indifferent, apathetic Hindus through such opposition. These are the only points. HJS members will also learn from every incident and carry on their task.   

5. Those opposing should surrender to God for upliftment rather than opposing !

There is one more point in it and that is how superior is a director or his relative ! HJS believes in the princliple of ‘nobody is superior to Dharma’. Bheeshma- Drona- Karna were better at individual levels; but they had to face the consequences of joining the side of Adharma. Another example is of ideological differences between Gandhiji and Swatantryaveer Savarkar. Such things underline the dire need for activists who are principled. Establishment of Dharma will happen with the grace of Bhagavan Srikrushna and Saints despite facing obstacles because God is only getting it done. Activists have experienced God’s help on several occasions; therefore, people opposing should surrender to God for self upliftment as that is only in their hands.

HJS will not spare people from the show-biz like films and drama if they are going to cause harm to religious faith !

HJS has opposed many denigrating films and plays. As followed in Islam, HJS does not blindly oppose any art. It also withdraws its opposition whenever such denigrating part is removed from the respective film or play. Why don’t these people criticizing HJS take note of it ? The producers of any form of art do not consider others’ sentiments or faith and moreover, justify their improper acts in the name of freedom of expression; is it right ? Even media encourages such things due to their hunger for getting money through advertisements. Amongst all such opposition, HJS has been desperately fighting in lawful manner. It is very unfortunate that instead of strengthening HJS hands, people who are supposed to be pro-Hindu, are opposing HJS by branding it as fundamentalist and going on the path of Islamic principles. Present money-hungry reporters are busy publishing news about tiger entering residential colonies; but do not say anything on people encroaching territories of animals and forests by erecting unauthorized structures.  There is no need for HJS to enter the field of films and plays; but if they are bent upon causing harm to faith; HJS will not spare them but try to bring them to senses by showing its paws !