top of page

By:

Rajeev Puri

24 October 2024 at 5:11:37 am

Before Sholay, there was Mera Gaon Mera Desh

When the comedian and television host Kapil Sharma recently welcomed the veteran screenwriter Salim Khan onto his show, he made a striking claim. India, he joked, has a national bird and a national animal; it ought also to have a national film. That film, he suggested, would surely be Sholay. Few would quarrel with the sentiment. Released in 1975 and directed by Ramesh Sippy,  Sholay  has long been treated as the Everest of Hindi popular cinema -quoted endlessly, revisited by generations and...

Before Sholay, there was Mera Gaon Mera Desh

When the comedian and television host Kapil Sharma recently welcomed the veteran screenwriter Salim Khan onto his show, he made a striking claim. India, he joked, has a national bird and a national animal; it ought also to have a national film. That film, he suggested, would surely be Sholay. Few would quarrel with the sentiment. Released in 1975 and directed by Ramesh Sippy,  Sholay  has long been treated as the Everest of Hindi popular cinema -quoted endlessly, revisited by generations and dissected by critics. In 2025, the film marked its 50th anniversary, and the release of a digitally restored, uncut version introduced the classic to a new generation of viewers who discovered that its mixture of revenge drama, western pastiche and buddy comedy remains curiously durable. The film’s influences have been debated almost as much as its dialogues – from scenes taken by the Spaghetti westerns of Sergio Leone, particularly ‘Once Upon a Time in the West’ (1968) or to the narrative architecture of ‘Seven Samurai’ (1954) by Akira Kurosawa. Others note echoes of earlier Hindi films about bandits and frontier justice, such as ‘Khotey Sikke’ (1973) starring Feroz Khan. Yet, rewatching ‘Mera Gaon Mera Desh,’ directed by Raj Khosla, one cannot help noticing how many of the narrative bones of  Sholay  appear to have been assembled there first. Released in 1971,  Mera Gaon Mera Desh  was a major hit at the box office, notable for holding its own in a year dominated by the near-hysterical popularity of Rajesh Khanna. The thematic framework of the two films is strikingly similar. In  Sholay , the retired policeman Thakur Baldev Singh recruits two petty criminals - Jai and Veeru - to help him avenge the terror inflicted upon his village by the bandit Gabbar Singh. In  Mera Gaon Mera Desh , the set-up is not very different. A retired soldier, Jaswant Singh, seeks to protect his village from a ruthless dacoit and enlists the help of a small-time crook named Ajit. Even the villain’s name seems to echo across the two films. In Khosla’s drama, the marauding bandit played by Vinod Khanna is scene-stealing performance is called Jabbar Singh. In  Sholay , the outlaw who would become one of Indian cinema’s most memorable antagonists was Gabbar Singh. There is an additional irony in the casting. In  Mera Gaon Mera Desh , the retired soldier Jaswant Singh is played by Jayant - the real-life father of Amjad Khan, who would later immortalise Gabbar Singh in  Sholay . The connective tissue between the two films becomes even clearer in the presence of Dharmendra. In Khosla’s film he plays Ajit, a charming rogue who gradually redeems himself while defending the village. Four years later, Dharmendra returned in  Sholay  as Veeru, a similarly exuberant petty criminal whose courage and irrepressible humour make him one half of Hindi cinema’s most beloved buddy duo alongside Amitabh Bachchan as Jai. Certain visual motifs also appear to have travelled intact. In Khosla’s film, Ajit finds himself bound in ropes in the bandit’s den during a dramatic musical sequence. A similar image appears in  Sholay , where Veeru is tied up before Gabbar Singh while Basanti performs the now famous song ‘Jab Tak Hai Jaan.’ Other echoes are subtler but just as suggestive. Ajit’s pursuit of the village belle Anju, played by Asha Parekh, anticipates Veeru’s boisterous attempts to woo Basanti, portrayed by Hema Malini. Scenes in which Ajit teaches Anju to shoot recall the flirtatious gun-training sequence between Veeru and Basanti that became one of  Sholay ’s most cherished moments. Even the famous coin motif has a precedent. Ajit frequently tosses a coin to make decisions - a flourish that would later appear in  Sholay , where Jai’s coin toss becomes a running gag. Perhaps most intriguingly, the endings of the two films converge in their original form. In  Mera Gaon Mera Desh , the villain is ultimately killed by the hero. The uncut version of  Sholay  reportedly ended in a similar fashion, with Gabbar Singh meeting his death at the hands of Thakur Baldev Singh. However, censors altered the climax before the film’s 1975 release, requiring that Gabbar be handed over to the police instead. All this does not diminish  Sholay . Rather, it highlights the alchemy through which cinema evolves. The scriptwriting duo Salim–Javed took familiar ingredients and expanded them into a grander narrative populated by unforgettable characters and stylised action. On the 55 th  anniversary of  Mera Gaon Mera Desh , Raj Khosla’s rugged western deserves a renewed glance as the sturdy foundation on which a legend called  Sholay  was built. (The author is a political commentator and a global affairs observer. Views personal.)

The Open Society’s Suicide Pact

It is nearly ten years since former German Chancellor Angela Merkel opened Europe’s borders in September 2015 in a gesture of boundless openness that now marks the unravelling of liberal society. This two-part series examines Islam, multiculturalism and migration in Europe and the forces reshaping the continent’s future.


Part 2:


Eighty years after Karl Popper sketched his vision of an open society, Europe risks collapsing under the weight of growing Islamisation and its own contradictions.


It will soon be a decade since former German Chancellor Angela Merkel opened the borders. The date marks the triumph of boundless openness over reason and common sense. At the same time, it marks the overture to the finale of liberal society, sealing Europe’s downfall by rolling out the red carpet for the Islamisation of the continent. Since September 2015, we have been witnessing how Popper’s project is rapidly failing because of its own internal contradictions.


Viennese thinker Karl Popper, who fled to New Zealand to escape the Nazis, wrote The Open Society and Its Enemies in Christchurch during the Second World War. In it, Popper settled scores with historicism and the totalitarian approaches of Plato, Hegel and Marx. He developed a model of society that was egalitarian, secular and largely free of ideology, based on individual achievement and as little state intervention as possible. For Popper, communism, collectivism, fascism and utopianism were all forms of the “closed society” that had to be overcome.


The decades before his book was published had produced an unprecedented series of man-made disasters: world wars and civil wars, bloody dictatorships, expulsions and famines. In this context, it was understandable that the elites wanted to exorcise the ghosts they held responsible for the previous atrocities. They adapted Popper’s ideas and created communities that they sought to purge of national and religious resentments, dogmas and particularistic identities. The approach was honourable. Unfortunately, they threw the baby out with the bathwater.


In their eagerness to banish the demons of the past, they promoted an increasingly aggressive cultural relativism that denied all civilisational differences and attacked the West exclusively. Intellectuals pounced on Europe’s sins. While the barbarism of Islam enjoyed protection, they deconstructed Christianity and the Enlightenment.


Their flagellation required only courage in the face of the dead and the weak, not genuine introspection or even active repentance. In this respect, it remained a narcissistic charade.


Western Europe has been the destination of more and more religious Muslims for a good 60 years. When an open society collides with a closed one, conflict is inevitable. The intensity of these conflicts depends on whether and how easily the differences between the ‘open’ and ‘closed’ mentalities can be resolved.


If they are fundamentally incompatible, as is the case between secularised Christianity and Islam, the numerical ratios play a key role because they reflect the power potential of the respective population groups. The United Kingdom, for example, will be predominantly Islamic by 2063. By then, immigrants will have turned the Christian European indigenous population into a minority. I do not know what the forecasts for Spain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands or Germany look like. But long before that, Muslims are likely to have far more young men of fighting age, which will be decisive in any civil war scenarios.


Even without headscarves, Salafists and marches for the caliphate, the atmosphere of Islamisation is palpable. Germany has become more ethnically diverse and significantly more religious, but by no means more relaxed and easy-going. The light-heartedness I remember from the pre-Merkel era has largely evaporated. When it comes to sensitive issues, the terrain is now mined, even in private circles. At the same time, more and more topics are becoming taboo. While freedom of expression is dying a slow death, imported hatred of Jews is becoming the new normal throughout Western Europe.


Islam-friendly language and dietary regulations are spreading. They are still packaged as ‘woke,’ but behind them the alliance of the post-colonial left and immigrant ‘holy warriors’ is already shining through. The muezzin’s call is heard more and more often in German cities, while the Greens in Berlin are calling for Ramadan lighting.


Popper once pointed out that tolerant communities remain tolerant only as long as they do not tolerate too much intolerance. Presumably, he could not have imagined what is happening in Europe. I, too, would never have dreamed that politics, the media, the judiciary and state-funded NGOs would form a repressive cartel of silence to cover up, trivialise and fail to punish the notorious misconduct and intolerance of Islamic colonisers.


It never occurred to me that left-wing party officials, many of whom call themselves ‘anti-fascists’ could be so blind as to senselessly trivialise and court a violent, death-loving ideology, even though this ideology deeply despises and wants to destroy their culture. Perhaps they court Islam precisely because it promises to eliminate their culture. Others, such as those in the offices of the EU Commission or public media organisations, do so because they fear losing their source of income and raison d’être.


Far beyond all pain thresholds, Western societies are committing themselves to tolerance, trimming their language, justice and bureaucracy to accommodate invaders, without any consideration for the local population, to the detriment of quality of life, internal security and the future of their own culture. British courts approve Sharia mediators. Schools allow little girls to wear headscarves. Universities stand by and watch as men and women are seated separately in lecture halls. In view of this, it should come as no surprise that gay people demonstrate in support of Gaza, even though Hamas describes their homosexuality as a ‘satanic perversion’ and punishes it with lynching.


This reveals the deep misery of a hopelessly insecure and inwardly gutted society that either no longer knows its own values or no longer dares to name them for fear of being immediately labelled ‘racist’ or ‘Islamophobic.’


As a result, blasphemy laws that were abolished long ago and believed to have been overcome are now experiencing a revival under the heading of ‘hate speech.’ The new heresy is no longer criticism of Christianity or any other religion, but of Islam. Those who mock the Pope and ridicule Jesus are met with shrugs or approving applause. Anyone who caricatures Mohammed must expect to be shot or publicly beheaded.


Israel can be called a ‘Zionist criminal state’ and Jews can once again be publicly wished dead with impunity, but anyone who points out that and how many Christians worldwide are being slaughtered by activists of the Prophet is considered Islamophobic and socially untouchable.


The double standard to one’s own detriment is breathtaking. Popper could not have foreseen that Antonio Gramsci’s disciples would turn it into a project for the self-destruction of the West and the demolition of Europe. But this is precisely where the ‘Open Society’ has arrived eighty years after the publication of his book – from Brussels to Berlin.


In his essay ‘The Crescent and the Guillotine – How Tolerance Became a Suicide Pact,’ Paul Friesen notes that the driving force behind this premature submission is fear. Fear of fatwas, shitstorms, riots and cancelled funding. ‘Islamophobia’ is the blasphemy club of secular societies, but it does not serve to protect believers; rather, it is intended to intimidate sceptics and silence critics.


For Friesen, the greatest achievement of the West is the separation of truth from tribal thinking, the idea that people should not be judged by their origin, skin colour or beliefs, but by their behaviour. That women enjoy the same rights as men and are not their property. Because words are not violence, and doubt is not a crime against gods and violence-loving religions, but a sacred right.


The vast majority of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Shintoists probably see it this way too. Only strict Muslims see it differently. They are convinced that only their God exists and that it is the duty of all their fellow believers to submit to him. Anyone who refuses to do so is the devil.


Therefore, Muslims must eliminate all doubters, apostates and infidels from the world. This is the will of Allah, the commandment of jihad, and if they die in the process, they die as martyrs and go straight to heavenly paradise.


This is how the ‘Open Society’ is currently burying itself. The question is whether we want that. Just as crucial, however, is whether this is what the freedom-loving Muslims want, who once went to Europe because they were fed up with stupidity, poverty and arbitrariness and wanted to live in a world where they could choose their tribe and change clans in order to live in a little more knowledge and prosperity.


(The author is an historian and novelist. He is currently working on a book on Germany’s migration crisis. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page