It is a sign of the times we live in that after appearing to have moved to the backstage worldwide during the last half of the 20th century, religion has moved right back into public discourse. This is happening not just in India but all over the world. The latest example of this is the fuss over the film based on the novel The Da Vinci Code. Again, the protests are not confined to India. Several countries have been witness to them. The facts are as follows. Dan Brown, author of the novel, alleges in his book that Jesus Christ married one of his disciples, Mary Magdalene, and fathered a child. Furthermore, he says that this line of descendants exists even today. He then introduces a conspiracy by maintaining that the Catholic Church, aware of this lineage, wants to eliminate it altogether. He adds to the brew by saying that there are organisations committed to protecting the lineage, and the secret is passed on within these organisations by means of a seemingly indecipherable code. This code, he further says, was created by Leonardo Da Vinci, thus giving the book its name. Cracking this code and arriving at the secret within is, basically, the story in the novel. | |
| The unease amongst Catholics arises from two reasons. First, all the organisations and most of the historical events and individuals that Mr Brown refers to do exist, though the main protagonists are fictional. Even if one can argue that his description of their aims and methods are exaggerated, there is enough accuracy to leave the reader with the thought that what he is saying might just be plausible. Therefore, the crucial element lies in the new interpretation given by Mr Brown to facts. Without tampering too much with the evidence, as it were, Mr Brown has reached a conclusion that does not please the Catholic Church. The second""and more practical""reason for Catholic displeasure is that neither Mr Brown nor the film's producers are willing to add any disclaimer in the film or book saying that the work is one of fiction, preferring instead to leave the inference""either way""to the reader/viewer. In a way that is not easily explicable, the issue has boiled over on to the streets. One reason could be genuine public angst; another, less charitable, could be manipulation by commercial and other vested interests. We will probably never know. |
| |
| As far as the action, so to speak, in India is concerned, three aspects are noteworthy. First, unlike when Hindu or Muslim fringe groups get worked up, the protests have been peaceful and civilised. There has not been any violence and one hopes this will continue to be the case. Second, by and large, the clergy in India has been reasonable and has not taken extreme positions. Third, the government, in the form of the minister for information and broadcasting, who also has jurisdiction over films, became needlessly involved even after the Censor Board had passed it. The unkind say he was trying to curry favour with some important leaders in the Congress party. Another view is that such "statism" is typical of the Congress mindset. The truth is probably a mixture of both. Be that as it may, it looks as if the film will be shown in India, with some delay. If nothing else, the controversy will ensure packed halls. |
| |
|
| |
