HyperNormalisation (2016)

Director: Adam Curtis
Writer: Adam Curtis

HyperNormalisation is the latest documentary from counter-historian Adam Curtis and it was released last month on BBC iPlayer. In the film, Curtis argues that since the 1970s, governments, financiers, and technological utopians have given up on the complex 'real world' and built a simple 'fake world' that is run by corporations and kept stable by politicians.

Out of all Curtis documentaries, this one I think would be the hardest to explain in rather simple terms. In the aftermath of Trump's presidential election win, we had articles pointing out that Facebook helped him in winning the election because those who rely on Facebook for news tend to be in an echo-chamber where their ideas are not challenged and they kept on being fed what they want to hear because of its algorithm. The basic point about the documentary is that we are living in a times where everyone is searching for a simple narrative and the politicians also follow that. He cites the example of West's relationship with Gaddafi where both of them cynically played the role that the other wanted them to play for the larger audience. The tendency to put blame on supervillains in search of simple narratives. The whole brooha about Saddam Hussein and WMDs after 2001 was just a repeat of how Gaddafi was portrayed in the 80s when the US really knew that it was senior Assad's Syria who were doing it in the 80s. They didn't want to take on Assad then because Reagan's forces were already driven out from Lebanon by Assad's unleashment of Shiite suicide bombers. Of course, everything came back to bite both US and West back because the concept of suicide bombers have mutated now to become more of a Sunni thing. Senior Assad wanted to unite Arab world and now the suicide bombers are tearing it apart.

The catharsis of the documentary comes up with Trump's presidential campaign and how he draws up parallel with Putin's shape shifting reality. It also focuses on Putin's chief enforcer Vladislav Surkov who sees Russia as one big reality show and the same thing is happening in Trump's USA. Last thirty or so years has greatly eroded people's trust in politicians and what it has resulted is that truth of reality is not much important anymore.

The other main strand in the documentary is about how the major movements that started with the help of social media, occupy Wall Street and Arab Spring mainly, have spectacularly failed. You can get people assembled with social media's simple narrative but they don't have an answer to the present system. Liberal left is failing and far right is filling the vacuum all over the World.

Rating: 4.5/5

The Look of Silence (2014)

Director: Joshua Oppenheimer
Language: Indonesian

A family that survived the 1965-66 genocide in Indonesia, where communists were targeted by the military dictatorship, confronts the men who killed one of their brothers.

This one is a companion piece to Joshua Oppenheimer's Oscar nominated documentary 'The Act of Killing', which had him encouraging the perpetrators to describe and re-enact the killings so that he could film it. Many of the killers didn't feel any remorse and, in fact, they were actually proud of the anti-communist purge that they executed with tacit support from the likes of US which was paranoid due to 'Red-Scare'. It is estimated that around 500,000 people were killed and most of them were ethnic-Chinese people. In 'The Look of Silence', Joshua has the brother of one of the victims interview some of the perpetrators and like 'The Act of Killing', it is a surreal and shocking watch. It is cinematic in its structure as well because of the progression in nature of people that he is interviewing. These are the kind of subjects which can never be told in the feature film format: as the old adage goes 'Facts can be stranger than Fiction'. 

The documentary also features, along with all the interviews, reactions of the brother as he is watching some unused footage from 'The Act of Killing'. There is no extra back ground music or narration and the director let the interviews and the intermittent silences tell the story. I suspect this one was filmed before the release of the original documentary because there is no way they would have granted these interviews after that. In fact, some people even accuse that the very act of Joshua making the documentary and asking questions have opened up the old wounds. I would like to see their reactions now after seeing he finished product. I suspect that these documentaries  are banned in Indonesia but I wonder whether any of them have seen it from the Internet. The identity of the interviewing brother is kept secret and I hope he and his family is out of that country for their own safety.

It is a must watch for those who have already seen the first one. For others, I would advise them to watch 'The Act of Killing' first because you won't be able to appreciate the former fully, for what it, if you watch it after seeing 'The Look of Silence' first. TLoS will still work as a stand-alone documentary but I suspect people will wonder from where the original footage came. I don't know how the academy managed to not give TAoK an Oscar last time around and I suspect they will correct that mistake by giving it to 'TLoS' this time.  

Rating: 5/5

Junun (2015)

Director: Paul Thomas Anderson
Features: Jonny Greenwood, Shye Ben Tzur, Rajasthan Express

Its a 54 minute documentary, directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, which documents the making of an album of the same name in Mehrangarh Fort in Rajasthan, India, by the Israeli composer Shye Ben Tzur, English composer and Radiohead guitarist Jonny Greenwood, Indian ensemble Rajasthan Express, and Radiohead producer Nigel Godrich.

Jonny Greenwood's collaboration with Paul Thomas Anderson started with 'There Will Be Blood' and it continued with him composing soundtrack for the next two PT Anderson films, The Master and Inherent Vice. This time the relation is other way round with Anderson documenting a music project involving Jonny Greenwood. We know the Beatles coming to India story and their use of Sitar in 'Norwegian Wood'. But it was more famous for them buying into the spiritual bullshit. Thankfully, there is not any of that in Junun and the collaboration is strictly musical. It is not a case of Radiohead music getting a tinge of Indian and Israeli flavors as level of involvement is equal across the board and the documentary conveys that with all the artists sitting in a circle and recording. I am a bit musically challenged and I really don't differentiate the sounds coming from different instruments when I hear music. Since this video captures each and every little instrument that they are using when its actually playing, you really can appreciate the complexity in composing involving such different musical instruments into a whole. 

Anderson also uses drones to get some breathtaking aerial footage of touristy parts in and around the fort. Also you get some idiosyncratic things that you will get if you are depending on Indian state electricity boards for power to record music out from a studio environment. The contortions that Indian musicians make is also fascinating to watch as they are not much bothered about their appearance while playing. It is a delightful watch and I managed to deduce that some of the lyrics were in Hebrew even though I didn't know that an Israeli musician was involved with the project prior to watching this film. That is some achievement from my part since I haven't seen many Israeli films to familiarize myself with the way that language sounds and was going purely by eliminating other languages and partly going by the way Shye Ben Tzur looks. He has been involved with Indian music for a long time and composes Qawwalis (a form of ecstatic Muslim devotional music), instrumental and devotional music in Hebrew, Hindi and Urdu. He has also started composing Sufi Qawwali music in Hebrew as well. The album that they made, 'Junun', has not yet been released and the only preview that you can get is out of the footage from this documentary film. It is a very good watch on the whole.

Rating: 3.5/5  

Best of Enemies (2015)

Directors: Robert Gordon, Morgan Neville
Writers:    Robert Gordon, Morgan Neville
Features:  Gore Vidal, William F. Buckley, Christopher Hitchens

A documentary on the series of televised debates in 1968 between the liberal Gore Vidal and the conservative William F. Buckley Jr. They were broadcast by ABC to coincide with the Republican and Democratic national conventions ahead of the elections. 

Late 60s was a crucial time for United States of America and both these intellectual heavyweights (bit of a stretch to call someone from the right that) recognized it to be so. Battle lines were drawn to determine which way the country was going to go and looking from the perspective of now it seems Vidal is finally winning in the US. But the 1968 election was won by Nixon and the Republicans. Event though the film doesn't try to show in some length what exactly they were debating, the little glimpses that we get is enough to conclude that the Democrats and Republicans haven't changed very much since then. 

Besides being a look at the careers of both Vidal and Buckley from the prism of their TV debates, the film also gives us the context in which ABC conceived it as an idea for convention coverage. They were the least popular of the three network TV channels and had to do something unconventional to get some foothold. The debates that they conducted with Buckley's meltdown on the 9th one ensured them enough eye-balls and ushered in the era of punditry that pass as news. I am not disparaging it but more often than not you get really shit people doing it. People who are really good doesn't choose to face each other like Vidal and Buckley did. So what you end up with is farces like Arnab Goswami's 'Newshour' here in India. 

India is also going through a decisive phase with liberals having their work cut out with a cultural fascist outfit ruling with a dude having dictatorial tendencies at the helm. 2019 elections could possibly seal the fate of 'Idea of India' once and for all. Both Buckley and Vidal were people with electoral aims but couldn't succeed. Both of them recognized that intellectual strength doesn't count for much in winning elections. That is the same for India as well and the sad part is that it is also lacking in the wider mainstream discourse. 

The documentary is a great watch and since I didn't knew much about the two people involved as well as their history, it was a very illuminating watch. I had in fact heard about both of them in passing. Gore Vidal died quite recently, in 2012, and I remember reading an obituary piece on him. Buckley's name gets frequently mentioned in articles covering the poor state of affairs in the Republican party and the current Republican presidential race kind of sums it up. The film took five years to complete because of struggles to secure funding, get interviews, and uncover archival footage. I presume the footage we see of Christopher Hitchens was exclusively shot for this film prior to his death.

Rating: 4/5

Merchants of Doubt (2014)

Director: Robert Kenner
Writers:  Erik M, Conway, Robert Kenner, Naomi Oreskes

A documentary that looks at pundits-for-hire who present themselves as scientific authorities as they speak about topics like toxic chemicals, pharmaceuticals and climate change. It begins with a look at the tactics employed by the big tobacco companies to generate doubts among the general public and policy makers about the accuracy of scientific studies on harmful effects of cigarettes. Same tactics and players are being used now to do the same regarding the consensus on human made climate change by the corporations involved in Oil, Power and Automobile industries.

It is not such a revealing documentary if you are already familiar with the lengths American corporates and their lobbyists go in pursuing their profit-motive. They have a version of capitalism in which regulation plays no role and you can always count on the bogey threat of 'Attack on our Freedom' to counter call for actions on environment. As far as I go, your freedom should be unlimited as long as you are not causing direct harm to others, but in case of things like Cigarette smoking, toxic chemicals and CO2 emissions;  you are causing direct harm and you cannot play the freedom card. The film delves into the nature of debate that is conducted over climate change and concludes that it is not a scientific argument, since there is almost 100% scientific consensus on the issue, but rather a political argument which pits a convoluted and naive form of libertarian-ism against all others. One could argue that it is not even ideological and is just about money. 

You have a very surreal 1984 like doublespeak involved in American political discourse, with the voice of climate change deniers coming from lobbyist assholes and cranky scientists who works for think-tanks, with interesting names, and are all conveniently funded by industries that stand to lose if proper action is taken to combat climate change. In 2008, during the Presidential debates, there was almost near consensus among all the republican candidates regarding climate change but within a year, they all flip-flopped and became climate change skeptics or deniers. I guess the money from Koch cunts helped to bring about that transformation. Now  you have a situation where some loony republican is bringing snowballs into senate-floor to claim that climate change is a hoax. 

The film is a great watch overall and if you are somehow on the other side of the fence, my heartfelt condolences to you, then it should be conclusive enough for you to change sides. I really don't see many non-American people having this doubt at all regards to human made climate change and only in USA you have this false debate going on. The media's habit of giving false equivalence under the garb of giving time for both sides in the debate, when there is a significant credibility gap between the two sides, also helps to manufacture this doubt. Well, they are funded by the big business and maybe they are also part of the propaganda. The film is produced by Omidyar Network, from Pierre Omidyar (e-Bay founder), and this is part of his experiments with news media which also includes Glenn Greenwald run 'The Intercept' news organization. 

Rating: 4/5

                                                                          

The Bridge (2006)

Director: Eric Steel
Writer:   Tad Friend

This is a documentary exploration about the mythic beauty of the Golden Gate Bridge, the most popular suicide destination in the world, and those drawn by its call. Steel and his crew filmed the bridge from two separate locations during daylight hours for all of 2004 and thereby recording most of the two dozen deaths in that year (and preventing several others). They also taped interviews with friends, families and witnesses, who recounts stories of struggles with depression, substance abuse and mental illness. 

Before watching this, the thing that I remember foremost about Golden Gate Bridge in San Fransisco would be that scene from the film 'Vertigo'. The bridge was opened in 1937 and recorded approximately 1200 deaths by 2003. Apparently its death toll has since been surpassed by Nanjing Yangtze river bridge with more than 2000 deaths by 2006. For Golden Gate Bridge, the fall is around four seconds long and you will reach 120 miles per hour by the time you hit water after the 245 feet fall and is equivalent to the force of a speeding truck hitting a concrete wall. It holds a fatality rate of 98% which makes it attractive for those want to commit suicide. 

Some of the people, who were filmed jumping by the makers and died, were with mental problems and others were dealing with things like depression, alienation and just plain desire to die. There is one guy whose life is recounted by a family friend. His single-mother had contemplated abortion when she had him but decides against it since she thought that the kid will tide her over her own depression. When the mother died after suffering from cancer, this guy saw it pointless to continue with his life and communicates the same to their family friend who is recounting this. This is the only instance in the film where there is matter-of-factness about the whole thing and rest of the stories are the typical ones you hear. There is stigma attached to suicide in the society and a sense of bitterness by surviving acquaintances as if it is a crime against them. It is an extremely predictable reaction because all these feelings come up because you tend to empathize, sympathize, get angry, guilty etc from a selfish point of view. You feel pain when you see someone suffering because you put yourself in that position. Most things happen from a selfish point of view. 

Overall the documentary is a very good watch in the surreal sort of sense. I found the first half of it more interesting as I wasn't sure about the theme of the documentary. The second half features story of someone surviving the fall and also some garden variety suicidal stories which I didn't find that interesting. The last sequence of the film is the one they captured best on film and also the coolest jump out of the lot. This guy with long hair is featured through out the film with him walking on the bridge. Some have criticized the film for its snuff factor but I don't think it is a valid criticism. The crew had made their motivation for filming a secret from the officials and avoided any sort of publicity. You have the freedom to make art out of anything and the film is poetic and disturbing at the same time and makes for a very surreal watch. I have always felt that jumping out of heights is a good way to die as you do enjoy an exhilarating free-fall as a bonus feature.

“	Why he chose the bridge? I don't know… Maybe he just wanted to fly one time.	”
—Caroline Pressley, Gene's friend

Rating: 3.5/5 

                                                                              

Deep Web (2015)

Director: Alex Winter
Writer:   Alex Winter
Narrated By: Keanu Reeves

Deep Web is a feature documentary that explores the rise of this new form of Internet; decentralized, encrypted, dangerous and beyond the law. It is as much about the trial of Ross Ulbricht, accused as founder of Silk Road and as man who posed as its admin- Dread Pirate Roberts, as it is about the principles based on which many of these cyber-punks operate.

The film works like a arguments given by Ross' defense team and they make their case based on the circumstances under which things like deep web browser TOR and crypto-currencies like bitcoin propped up. Privacy and anonymity are their big selling point and Silk Road made use of these two features and operated as an online market place providing anonymity for its users. Ross Ulbricht during his defense admitted that he created Silk Road but that he was framed as its admin Dread Pirate Roberts. His thinking is based on the Austrian economics as proposed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and he saw Silk Road as a alternative market for drug trade that will help in reducing the violence associated with it. It is widely acknowledged theory that America's 'War on Drugs' has been on the whole counterproductive and it makes sense to legalize drugs and many states have started correcting themselves by legalizing marijuana. As long as there is demand for it and the government is pursuing this misguided war by making it illegal, plenty of money is to be made by going the illegal route and an online marketplace like Silk Road is a natural extension of the same. Even if you shut it down, dozens of other such mechanisms will take its place, like it has already, and it will be a case of dog chasing its own tail.

FBI's case is mainly built on their seizure of Silk Road server from Iceland and it has been iffy about how they found it and was presumably done without a warrant. This raises the big issue of digital privacy and fourth amendment but the judge during the trial allegedly took a very favorable stand towards the prosecution side and made a sham of the trial. As soon as Ross was arrested, a big thing was made about him hiring a hit-man to take out someone who was blackmailing him. The defense argues that this was done to prejudice the jury and no such official charge was made against him during the trial. 3500 pages of FBI investigation documents/evidence, which could have raised questions about their investigation methods, was given to the defense just a week ahead of the trial and it was't even allowed as evidence during the trail. Ross was convicted and has  been sentenced for life in prison without parole. You kind of suspect that this is not the end of this issue and there is a significant case to be made that it was a mistrial and probably Serial podcast will take up his case :) Under the existing laws, the creation of a market place where you can provide a platform for illegal drug trade should be enough for getting you a significant jail time but that doesn't make it fair, especially if the state has used questionable investigative methods. It is a question of piracy and as it stands, I think Police can seize your smartphones without any warrant for it. All they need to look for is Whatsapp application to arrest every fucker out there. In India, laws are made so complex that everyone is breaking them without knowledge and if the state want to target someone, they can easily do that. The slow judiciary just compounds the problem.

As for Silk Road, Bitcoin and Austrian economics, I am of the opinion that all of them are ultimately pipe-dreams. For any market, the major roadblock for them is to ensure the enforcement of contracts. Anonymity is a big hindrance to this and you are just relying on review mechanism to ensure that vendors stay true. I really doubt such a thing can sustain in this fashion without a centralized enforcement mechanism, which in case of normal markets is the state and in illegal markets would be the mafia and other such middlemen enforcers. As for bitcoin, I do reckon it is again misguided and will encounter significant problems when they scale up. It is not really anonymous and their  other big selling point of very low transaction costs, compared to other third party mechanisms like banks, will again won't remain so as they scale up.

Overall the film is a good watch giving a counter-argument to the state influenced mainstream media narrative regarding the case. The argument is one sided and works like propaganda and you can decide for yourself how much weight you need to give to their narrative. As we are in the post-Snowden era, the benefit of doubt goes largely to the defense here and the cloud over NSA scandal will remain over the state. Keanu Reeves doesn't add much through his narration but he was excellent in the Digital Vs Film documentary 'Side By Side. Deep Web was funded via crowd-sourcing. It is not wholly coherent as to what it wants to be but is very informative. I guess that is perfect since it is anyway about Deep Web in the first place which for most of us is deeply dark.

Rating: 3.5/5

                                                                                 

Four Horsemen (2012)

Director: Ross Ashcroft
Writer:    Ross Ashcroft
Features: Noam Chomsky, Joseph Stiglitz, Herman Daly

Documentary takes a look at the systemic issues concerned with the form of capitalism pursued by Western Democracies, mainly United States of America. It criticizes the system of fractional reserve banking, debt-based economy and political lobbying by banks and corporations and regards them as a threat to Western civilization.

I first encountered the Biblical concept of 'Four Men of the Apocalypse' when Liverpool fans made a banner on this theme during the fight against the American owners of the club, Tom Hicks & George Gillett. In the banner both of them were depicted along with the CEO, Christian Purslow, and Chairman, Sir Martin Broughton, with question marks over the last two.

In the end the latter two proved useful in ousting the owners but Purslow, who referred to himself as Fernando Torres of Finance, was culpable in getting rid of Rafa Benitez and bringing in Roy Hodgson as the manager of the club and playing Fifa Manager with the club playing squad. 

In this documentary the four horsemen of apocalypse are: Financial sector which is acting as a parasite, wars being fought in the name of War on Terror and democratic evangelism, poverty and resource crunch due to consumption driven economic growth model. Systemic issues that exist in US economy coupled with its political system, which is driven by campaign contribution and lobbying, is known to people who pays attention to these things and the documentary will be good watch for those who are not familiar with those problems. Many documentaries have been made with similar theme, like The Corporation, but a common problem with them is that they just end up as an outright attack on Capitalism without any solution. This documentary is aware about that and includes a statement that people will criticize it as an advocacy for Socialism. Capitalism have won the battle against socialism and documentary makers embraces it by advocating it, but wants a return to classical economics model, instead of the neo-classical model unleashed under Reagan and Thatcher, and a return to Gold Standard instead of the Fiat system. I don't personally agree with the latter proposal of a return to Gold standard. Fiat currency model is better and fractional reserve banking system can work with the right kind of regulations. Problem is that the elite are shoving down our throats the idea that capitalism means deregulation and always manage to implement a system of 'Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor', the best example of it being the bank bailout during the sub-prime crisis. It is moral hazard to bail out the poor by writing off debt but it is apparently not when you bail out big banks which failed in managing its risk or worse who knowingly made loans which they knew were never gonna get repaid but was fine with it since they were gonna get bailed out anyway during a financial crisis.

The version I saw was 99 minutes long and apparently there is an official 144 minutes long official version of it. Overall the version I saw was a very good watch even though I don't agree it with entirely, especially the solution that it offers. I wonder what the extra 45 minutes of it contains. Another part of solution that it offers is change in the taxation policy to reform the current form which helps in wealth preservation of elite. It proposes abolition of the concept of income tax and instead proposes that taxation should be based on consumption. Also the rentier economy things like land, natural resources etc should be taxed heavily so that inequality is reduced by preventing concentration of wealth. I broadly agree with this and find taxation of land based on its market value can also provide a solution for usage of land as a way of hiding black money in economies like India. Instead of trying to tax when transfer of ownership takes place, you tax the owner instead, every year, based on the value of land he owns. 

The documentary is not as compelling as the ones done by Adam Curtis since it largely features number of intellectuals explaining things for you. Adam Curtis have handled all these things but he did it over several different documentaries and you need to watch all of them to get a full picture. So this documentary has its place by providing a useful synopsis for people who have not seen anything similar prior to this. But I definitely recommend Adam Curtis documentaries for everyone, especially Pandora's Box, Century of the Self, The Power of Nightmares, The Trap and Bitter Lake. The Youtube video titled 'Money as Debt' is also a very good watch for people who are not familiar with fractional reserve banking.

Rating: 3.5/5

                                                                           

Cobain: Montage of Heck (2015)

Director: Brett Morgan
Writer:    Brett Morgan
Features: Kurt Cobain, Courtney Love, Krist Novoselic

An authorized documentary on the late musician Kurt Cobain, from his early days in Aberdeen, Washington to his success and downfall with the grunge band Nirvana. As everyone knows, he killed himself when he was 27, an age at which many famous musicians have perished. Coming into the documentary; I was aware about his death, his daughter and love their music, but didn't know much about his personal background and rest of the stuff in the documentary. It is not really a normal kind of rock documentary in the sense that focus is not much on the actual band or the music but on the lead man of the band, Cobain, itself. It features numerous home videos and several animation sequences to visualize what Cobain is describing and things like his diary notes, drawings etc. There is a very cinematic feel to the whole thing.

Kurt had a difficult childhood with divorced parents and faced rejection from various members of his family because of him being very difficult. From his journals it is conveyed that he contemplated suicide as a teenager and attempted it once by laying himself on a rail track. The train missed him as it was in another track. He also had a difficult time at school and had by then introduced himself into the world of drugs through marijuana. He kind of got over it by getting involved with the band and upon the release of their first album 'Nevermind' they became an overnight sensation with Cobain finding himself as the voice of disaffected youth . Kurt was not clearly ready for it and found love in Courtney Love, another pop artist, and their relationship was defined by both of them being heroin junkies. During the time of pregnancy, both of them were haunted by the US media, who were apparently concerned with the health of their child because of the parents' drug regimen. After the birth of their daughter, she was taken away by the Child services officials and placed under the custody of their relatives. They won the custodial battle even as Nirvana released their subsequent albums. Cobain had a brush with death in Rome, when he fell into a coma after an OD, reason for which is explained by Courtney as him being depressed about her admitting that she contemplated about having an affair. Back in US, he is admitted into a rehab from where he goes missing upon discharge. Seven days later he is found shot dead in a house and there was significant level of heroin in his blood. The details about his death is not there in the documentary which just states that he committed suicide one month after coming back from Europe. *Spoilers ahead which you should not read if planning to watch*

After watching the documentary, I went and read about him and the band in the usual forums that I go and other places in internet, and it turns out like many of the celebrity deaths in US there is a conspiracy theory surrounding Cobain's death. You can read about it here and apparently he wanted a divorce from Courtney and the page is the account from a private detective she had hired after he went missing from the rehab center. There was another artist Eldon Hoke, who claimed that he was approached by Courtney to kill Cobain and was found dead two days later after getting hit by a train at midnight with no witnesses. I really don't know whether this is another one of these kooky conspiracy theories that one normally associate with numerous celebrity deaths in US or it is anything more than that. The private detective who made the allegation was never sued by the family and that doesn't prove anything anyway.

I thought it was a very good watch before coming across this whole conspiracy theory aspect. On reflection, it does seem to be a propaganda piece which is overly trying to portray Cobain as a suicidal personality from his teenage years. His relationship with Courtney is portrayed in a 'too good to be true' manner without any problems between them and the only problem shown is used to explain away him falling into a coma. Cobain's daughter, Frances Cobain, served as co-executive producer of the film and it is due to be screened via HBO on May 4th, 2015. Overall, I guess, it is good watch if you don't know much about his life and death. 

Rating: 3/5

                                                                         

Napoleon (2000)

Four part PBS documentary series, part of their Empires series, about the rise and fall of one of the greatest military geniuses of modern times, from his Corsican childhood to final exile in St. Helena. 

I was curious about how Napoleon ended up being emperor of France since he came after the French revolution. I didn't have much knowledge about his story apart from his defeats against Russia and against England in Waterloo. So I ended up watching this documentary series as a learning process. He was actually a person from ordinary background who rose through the military ranks to become the emperor of France. He was born in 1769 and the French revolution lasted from 1789 till 1799. Napoleon was sympathetic towards the revolution's cause and he gained popularity through his military conquests which are explained in the documentary. In 1799, he staged a coup and declared: 'The revolution is over, I am the revolution'. He ruled like a dictator without much regard to liberty but he held the concept of equality close to his heart. The French Revolution was a watershed in Europe as all other monarchs in mainland Europe were threatened by it. Napoleon declared that he will support the cause of revolution if they were to arise in any other parts of Europe. The whole of  monarchy ruled Europe, facing an existential threat, united against him and declared war on France.

French Revolution also marked a big change in how military personnel were recruited. Before that, monarchs used to have a standing army of professionals whose numbers were quite limited because of the cost of maintaining them. French Revolution meant that it was left for the ordinary people to defend themselves against all the monarchs of Europe. This helped Napoleon to recruit in large numbers from ordinary folks, through mass conscription, and they had a higher cause to fight for. By 1803, Napoleon had declared himself to be emperor of France and the period of 1803-1815 was marked by a series of wars pitting Napoleon against an array of European powers formed into various coalitions. He declared and economic blockade against Britain which he tried to implement across whole Europe he conquered most of it. Britain was irritated by the reordering of international system by Napoleon in Europe and fearing being sidelined they declared war against him in 1803. Nothing much happened as French couldn't overcome British navy to conquer England. Meanwhile the Austrians were planning an attack against the Austrians with a pending support from the Russians. Napoleon preempted the attack and achieved a swift victory against Austrians through Italy.  This was followed up with victory against the Prussians and Napoleon entered into a treaty with Russian Czar after marching his army into the border with Russia. Russia agreed to participate in the economic blockade against Britain.

Napoleon's downfall started when he tried to conquer Spain, the only country in Europe who was participating in trade with Britain. He miscalculated that Spanish people will treat him and the French as liberators and as they rose up against him, he couldn't establish order in Spain the five years his army was there. By then Russians were struggling economically due to the blockade they were engaging in and declared war with Napoleon. Napoleon amassed an army of 600,000 men and marched to Russia. The decisive battle took place near Moscow which he won but the retreating Russians burned Moscow as they left. This made Napoleon's position untenable and he decided to go back with his army even as the Russian winter set in. Napoleon found out, as Hitler did later in second world war, that the vast Russian space is a big issue for any invading force. Only about 93,000 of his men survived out of his 600,000 men. By then a big coalition was set up against Napoleon and he abdicated his empire. He was exiled to the island of Elba, which he was allowed to rule. The coalition had appointed another king in France who was very weak and Napoleon managed to land in France in 1815 with a band of his followers and marched to France. The king ordered troops to intercept him and when one of those encountered his band, Napoleon proceeded to them and said: 'Soldiers, I am your emperor.  Know me!  If there is one of you who would kill his Emperor, here I am'. They abandoned their weapons and shouted:  ‘Vive l’Empereur!’ He got support from the army and the French people and ascended to his throne once again as the installed king fled. Again the whole of Europe and Britain united against him and the decisive battled took place in Waterloo, where he was defeated in what is described as a 'Close run thing'. He was exiled to the island of St. Helena where he was a prisoner. He lived there for five years before dying at the age of 51. Before his death he dictated his memoirs to his assistant which helped him in sealing his legendary status in the eyes of History.

The documentary is a good watch but it reminded me of why I don' generally prefer American produced documentaries with their over-enthusiastic narration and cringe-worthy reenactments. It doesn't go into details regarding the economic reasons behind the Napoleonic wars and works more like a Wikipedia page retelling of history. Arguably the greatest director of all time, Stanley Kubrick, had done research and worked on an ultimately futile Napoleon project. Napoleon is really a giant of History with av fascinating story and it is a shame that the project fell through.

Rating: 3/5

                                                                   

Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief (2015)

Director: Alex Gibney
Writers:  Alex Gibney, Lawrence Wright (Novel)
Features: Lawrence Wright, Mike Rinder, Marty Rathbun

Going Clear is an HBO documentary which takes an in-depth look at the inner-workings of the Church of Scientology. It is based on Lawrence Wright's book on the subject and features interviews with some former Scientologists including Hollywood director Paul Haggis who was a member for thirty years. 

Everyone was thinking that they were gonna get something similar with Paul Thomas Anderson's film 'The Master', in which Philip Seymour Hoffman's character was based on Scientology founder Ron L.Hubbard.  But 'The Master' was more of a look at a person who was kind of struggling with the things that he cooked up and was a look at his relationship, with the combustive character played by Joaquin Phoenix, which he might have seen as a release. The Master in it is very much aware that his books and propaganda are absolute bonkers. In Going Clear, one of the interviewee reckons that Hubbard really believed in the things that he was saying and he might have started off with those exercises as a tool to confront his own psychological problems. Documentary concentrates its initial time on Hubbard's life and how the Scientology thing got going. He was a very prolific Pulp Fiction writer and used to also write science fiction, some of which later turned up in his Scientology texts. He was in the US Navy during second world war and was discharged from it for fucking up things during duty. He later went on to claim to have done heroic things during the war to gullible audience.What comes across from the documentary is that Scientology is an elaborate tax evasion exercise. From the beginning itself, Hubbard was open about his disdain towards IRS and went on to inordinate lengths to avoid paying tax. At one point of time he had three ships with which he used to remain in open seas taking occasional breaks at various ports in the Mediterranean. After his death, a chap called David Miscavige took over the reins and they finally got the religion status for Scientology from the IRS in 1993 which made contribution towards it tax free along with many other benefits. The current wealth of its Church is estimated to be at least $3 billion.

It is interesting to compare the way Scientology works to other more traditional religions. The traditional ones have got scriptures that are accessible to everyone and their crackpot creation theories were acceptable in the ancient days because of the poor scientific knowledge during those times. Scientology attracts new members by positioning itself as a personal development mechanism and the whole processing/auditing thing has got elements of Freudian Psychoanalysis techniques. It is designed as a level based progression to extract money from its members and becomes really absurd with its own creation theory only quite late into the program. So the members will find the utterly ludicrous part only after throwing away so much of their money into it and by then they would have revealed their innermost thoughts through the audition process. These can be used as a black-mail tool especially against its celebrity members and the documentary speculates that it might have happened with John Travolta. Those who speaks out against it are considered fair game for malicious targeting, and if they are former members, then the other church members are supposed to disconnect from them. They are treated very much like heretics. So what I am saying is that there is not much difference between how they operate when compared with other more traditional religions like Christianity operated during their early years. Now that the latter have gained so many members through just by default it is just even ore hard to get rid off. You can easily make this kind of expose on all religions and make its members look utterly ridiculous when it comes to the religious beliefs that they hold. So it will be good if all people who laugh at Scientology to do some introspection when it comes to their own religion. They can especially take a look at the words of former Scientologists who talks about how difficult it was for them to get out and now that they have got out they feel really stupid about the years they wasted on it.

Overall the documentary is a great watch even if you are not at all interested in Scientology. All of us are interested in the phenomenon of organised religion and the documentary serves as a good expose on the ridiculousness of it. It really makes Tom Cruise look bad and I really hope it doesn't affect his films in any way because he has really been on a good run lately with Jack Reacher, MI4, Oblivion and Edge of Tomorrow. I don't give two shits about what is happening in his personal life and I judge his films based on their merit and not outside factors. His market is waning in US anyway and so the extend of damage that the documentary might do to him at box office should be minimal. 

Rating: 4/5

                                                                             

The War of the Century: When Hitler Fought Stalin (1999)

Written By:   Laurence Rees
Narrated By: Samuel West

'The War of the Century' is a four part BBC documentary series which examines the Eastern front during the second world war. Eastern front began with Adolf Hitler's invasion of Russia in 1941 and what followed was a no-holds barred approach from both sides. It not only examines the war but also the terror inside Soviet Union during the campaign through the witness accounts from all sides-the ultimate Victors (Red Army), the vanquished (German Army) and the eternally oppressed people of Soviet Union. Why the Eastern Front serves as a testament for what humans are capable of doing to each other in 20th century is explained through the policies followed by both Hitler and Stalin. 

The late 90s and early 2000s were like last chance saloon for documentary makers to capture accounts of people who actually participated in the war and by then almost all the war documents that could be declassified were declassified. I had seen the 1974 documentary 'World At War' which is like a definitive account of the second world war. One drawback with it was that they couldn't use some of the documents that were declassified later which kind of made some of it inaccurate. Still it is very powerful and a must watch. By the time 'The War of the Century' came, there were numerous documentaries made on almost all the aspects of war. How WotC differentiates itself is by telling the story of Eastern Front primarily using witness accounts and providing substantiation through recently declassified war documents from Russia. 

The four episodes are:

1) High Hopes: This episode deals with Hitler's invasion of Russia in 1941 till the siege of Moscow where they were thwarted by the Russian winter as well as the Red Army counterattack using reinforcements from Siberia, who were adept at battles during winter. It also looks at the attitude of German army regarding the occupied people and the culpability of it in implementing the Nazi agenda. They looked at the Soviet people as an uncivilized bunch and Hitler's tactic was to oppress them so that they will serve the German masters.

2) Spiral of Terror: Attitudes of both Hitler and Stalin was to meet terror with terror. This is why the Eastern Front turned out to be the most brutal as the orders were duly followed and things were taken to their logical conclusion. Stalin ordered for resistance against Germans in the occupied land and partisans became a feature in the occupied territories as they mount attacks against German occupiers and people who were suspected  to have co-operated with the Germans. Captured Germans soldiers were brutalized and mutilated which further escalated the violence due to German reprisals. Ukrainians suffered most as there were three groups doing the fighting-German Army, Soviet Partisans and Ukraine nationalist partisans who preferred independence. The Ukrainians had initially treated the Germans as liberators only to find their situation even more worse under them. 

3) Learning to Win: This episode describes the battle of Stalingrad at the end of which Russians began their ascendancy in war. Hitler had seen Volga river as the natural border for his German empire and he sent two army groups: one to the South towards the Caucasus to capture Russian oil sources and another one to north-east towards the city of Stalingrad which bordered with the Western banks of Volga. Stalingrad was the last of the Russian resistance against Germans in their quest of forming their lines along Volga and Stalin ordered the Red Army to defend the city. What followed was a brutal resistance characterized by close combat between the two armies. The distance between the two were a mere hundred meters but the Germans found it impossible to break through since things like their tanks were not useful in such a kind of battle. By this time, after several setbacks prior  to it when Stalin overrode his generals' advise, Stalin started to follow his generals's advise and a decision was taken to encircle the German sixth army who were laying siege to Stalingrad. Strategy was successful and the field marshal of the sixth army surrendered against Hitler's orders. 110,000 Germans surrendered and 95% of them died during their time under the Soviets.

4) Vengeance: The final episode documents what happened leading up to the Red Army occupation of Berlin. The German occupying force in Soviet Russia followed a 'Scorched Earth' policy during their retreat which meant that the suffering of the occupied people continued. To compound matters Stalin began deportation of his own people, who belonged to ethnic minorities like Chechens, Tartars, Kalmyks etc, to Gulags in Siberia. He targeted all those groups who were suspected to have misgivings with the idea of Soviet Union. When the Red Army reached Eastern Prussia and Germany, it marched ahead pillaging and raping its way through. Even the Russian prisoners of war were not spared as Stalin didn't believe in the idea of it. Russians were not supposed to surrender and he treated PoWs as traitors and they were sent to gulags. As the war ended Stalin began manufacturing his legacy as the commanding figure who won the war. Within a year after the end of war, he took actions against all three of the Army, Navy and Air-force generals to seal his legacy. In effect half of Europe exchanged one tyrant for another.

Overall the documentary is a great watch and I quite liked the dispassionate way in which it was presented, especially when it comes to the narration. I do recommend Dan Carlin's podcast 'Ghosts of the Ostfront' as the best account of the Eastern Front- for information as well as for the passionate delivery. All these ideologically pure movements, be it the Nazis, Islamic State or Hindutva movement in India, seeds of their own destruction are contained within them. The only question is how much damage they can inflict upon people before they destroy themselves. As for the the Eastern Front-everything ran into millions-tens of million dead, millions captured & deported, million raped etc.

Rating: 4/5

                                                                              

Partition: The Day India Burned (2007)

Director: Ricardo Pollack
Narrator: Chiwetel Ejiofor

It is a BBC documentary about the effects of British withdrawal from India in 1947 after splitting the country into two- Independent India and a Muslim state called Pakistan. It triggered one of the biggest migrations in history with around fifteen million people displaced and more than a million losing their lives in the ethnic cleansing that ensued based on religious lines. The story is told through the accounts given by people who were living their entire life in what became the other side all pf a sudden, and were forced out of their homes as one of the largest and most ethnically diverse nations in the World was divided. 

The documentary serves as a recounting of what happened during the year leading up to the partition and its aftermath. The focus is more on the witness account rather than the politics behind the partition and this is understandable since it is a BBC production. In 1946, a British cabinet commission came to India to discuss its independence with Congress party and the Muslim league led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah. At that point, Jinnah was ready to compromise on his demand of independent Pakistan provided that the provinces under independent India would be given more autonomy and power in the federalist equation. This was not acceptable for the Congress under Nehru, who had a socialist vision for independent India which according to him would need a strong central government. Any further hopes of non-partition was dashed with the Calcutta riots in August 1946 which began with Muslims killing Hindus. The violence escalated with Hindu reprisals and lasted for three days leaving around four thousand people dead, around equal body count from both sides. The communal violence spread to Bihar, to Noakhali in Bengal, in Garhmukteshwar in the United Provinces and on to Rawalpindi in March 1947.

Late in 1946, the Labour Governement in power decided to end British rule in India after finding themselves to be almost in a bankrupt state because of the second world war. In early 1947, they announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. To oversee the same, Lord Mountbatten was appointed as the Viceroy of India in February 1947. He met with Nehru and Jinnah and formed a cordial relation with the former but found the latter to be very cold and adamant on his demands for an independent Pakistan. Seeing the situation on ground with all the communal tensions, Mountbatten advanced the date of independence to August 1947 which left them with only three months to prepare for the event. He didn't want anything to do with the highly probable civil war and left law and order to be handled by the emerging nations independently. The British army was withdrawn from India leading up to the independence and Sir Cyril Radcliffe was appointed to demarcate the boundaries between the two states. The main area of contention with great uncertainty was the province of Punjab where three communities of Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus lived together. The demarcation were made based on the population of communities in a particular area with several other infrastructural realities also taken into consideration, and since the boundary was only known to Mountbatten and Radcliffe, it led to ethnic cleansing in several places anticipating the demarcation. The two countries became independent in August 1947 without really having fixed their borders. This actually exacerbated the situation as people acted with impunity leading up to the independence and fixing of boundaries. 

I am quite used to watching people recount communal violence related atrocities, either being inflicted on them or by them, after recently watching documentaries on 2002 Gujarat communal riots, 1984 anti-Sikh violence and Babri Masjid demolition. So that part of the documentary didn't really strike that much for me even though there was this one Sikh person boasting about the kills he did during those days wielding his curved sword. One major drawback of the documentary is that it doesn't talk about the politics involving the demand for Pakistan which began in early part of 20th century. An early catalyst for it was the 1871 Census of British India which classified the people based primarily on their religion and made accessible the estimation of populations in regions of Muslim majority. The numbers were used by both communities for identity politics. The Muslim leaders pointing out that Hindus will always be in a majority in independent India and the condition of Muslims won't be tenable without adequate representation. As for Hindu leaders, they would point out the growth rate of Muslim population and ludicrously claim that in some number of years they would overtake the number of Hindus in the country. This is still being done in independent India. I really don't buy the claim that British followed a divide and rule policy in India and only because of that communal divisions became stark leading to partition. The people behave fundamentally in an idiotic fashion when it comes to religion and you don't really need to blame British for that. The communal faction of Hindus have never come to terms with the fact that Muslims are also Indians and part of this is to do with the inferiority complex borne out of Muslims ruling over India before the British came to power. It is as is if they regret the fact that they never got a chance to pay back for that humiliation since India became a secular democracy after gaining independence. 

Rating: 3/5

                                                                           

The Story of India (2007)

Presented By: Michael Wood

The Story of India is a BBC documentary series, written and presented by historian Michel Wood, about the history of India. He explains historical events by travelling to the places where they took place, examining archaeological and historical evidence at first and interviewing historians and archaeologists, as well as talking with local people.

As far as I remember from my school days, we were taught India's Independence movement and 20th century world events including the world wars as part of history course during tenth standard. In eighth/ninth standards, we were taught the events from 1500 AD including the Mughal rule in India based on how I remember me mugging up dates and events from those times. I am quite sure that all history pre-1500 were taught before ninth standard which means when we were less than 14 years old. What I mean to say is that these interesting parts of history were taught in a drab manner at an age when we were patently not capable of appreciating it or be interested by it. Most of us don't take up history courses after tenth standard as we have a fixation on becoming engineers or doctors and this means that plenty of us don't have much of a clue about history, which is very sad. In my opinion, a knowledge of history is a must and as they say: 'History might not repeat itself, but it does rhyme'. These days I am busy catching up with whatever I can learn about world history and I have found Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast to be very useful tool while being quite engrossing at the same time. I had seen BBC's 'The Story of India' some three or so years ago and decided to watch it again yesterday, just like that. It consists of six episodes covering the entire history of Indian subcontinent.

Episode-1: Beginnings

It begins with footage from Alapuzha- Kerala, capturing a ceremony by Brahmins involving chants which have been transmitted orally through generations over thousands of years and it resembles bird sounds. It must have been from a time before languages were invented and the ceremony is a twelve day Yaga dedicated to the fire God. Before watching this documentary, I had no idea that such a thing occurred just hundred or so kilometers from where I lived. 

Michael Wood proceeds to visit places in what is Pakistan these days, where ruins of Indus valley civilization of Harappa and Mohenjo Daro were discovered in early twentieth century. They existed from around 2500 BC to 1900 BC and at that time they were the most advanced in the World. Michael Wood looks at the data from scientists to speculate that the civilization ended due to climate change which caused the Eastward drift movement of rivers.

Then he takes a look at the origin of Sanskrit as a  language through Sanskrit text of Rig Veda which is from around 1500 BC. Based on studies, the current theory is that Sanskrit, Latin and Persian languages came from a common source and Wood examines it by citing the similarity in words used for father, mother and horse in all the three languages. This is tied in with the Indo-Aryan migration theory and Aryans were supposed to have come from central Asia. Rig Veda is supposed to be about these Aryans and there is a theory that after they invaded and occupied most parts of India, Caste system originated in India as a method to maintain societal hierarchy and community purity. Aryans are supposed to be the ancestors of Brahmins and they had a monopoly on education and thus the usage of Sanskrit. Michael Wood visits a recent archaeological discovery in Turkmenistan, which is supposed to be a city that developed during the Aryan migration. They stayed there for some time and had to move again due to another climate change event that affected the associated river. Some of them went Westward to Persia and the rest went East reaching India. The Sankrit epic, Mahabharatha, is supposed to be an historical text with fantasy elements depicting post Aryan invasion of India and is supposed to have originated between 900-800 BC. Wood visits Kurukshetra and Hastinapur, where some discoveries have been made giving credibility to the depiction of events in Mahabharata.

The foreign origin theory of Sanskrit is contested by the figures from the Hindu Nationalist Movement and they are not generally fans of the scientific method. They claim that it originated with Indus Valley civilization sometime around 4000 BC and this revisionism increased in intensity post 1990. They fantasize about India's Vedic past, by taking things very literally, and claim that thing like airplanes, cosmetic surgery, knowledge about nuclear physics etc existed during the Vedic times.

Episode 2: The Power of Ideas

This episode moves on to the revolutionary years after 500 BC-the age of Buddha and Mahavira, leading to Buddhism and Jainism respectively. Michael Wood takes a look at the teachings of Buddha, who advocates against any sort of attachments if you want to remain happy. His teachings were so revolutionary that he even advocated against the idea of God, as it also represents a sort of clinging. 

In 331 BC, Alexander the Great had reached the planes of Indian sub-continent and a boy is said to have looked admiringly at his multinational army. The boy, Chandragupta Maurya, went on to establish Mauryan empire which during his time occupied the entire sub-continent except for the state of Orissa and regions of Tamil Nadu. His chief adviser, Chanakya, passed a series of major economic and political reforms. A strong central administration was established patterned after Chanakya's text, 'Arthashastra' (Economics & Political Science). It was a time of great social and religious reform in India and Buddhism and Jainism became increasingly prominent. Chandragupta went on to become a Jain after renouncing his throne and proceeded to starve himself to death.

'Ashoka the Great' was the grandson of Chandragupta who ruled almost all of the Indian subcontinent circa 269 BC to 232 BC. The empire's capital was Pataliputra in present day Bihar with provincial capitals at Taxila and Ujjain. In about 260 BC, he waged a bitterly destructive war against the state of Kalinga (modern day Odisha), after which he had an epiphany leading to him embracing Buddhism and a path of non-violence. He is now remembered as a philanthropic administrator who addressed his people as children and mentions that as a father he desires their good. He was maybe the first ruler in the world who had advocated human and animal rights along with secularism. Ashoka Chakra, the wheel of righteousness, has been included in the Indian national flag. Sanghis (Hindu nationalist thugs), who thinks secularism to be a Western idea imposed on India by Nehru, should maybe take a look at the history of Ashoka and the Maurya dynasty.

Episode 3: Spice Routes & Silk Road

The discovery of monsoon by the West and the subsequent exploitation of the Monsoon winds led to the trading of spices and gold with ancient Romans and Greeks, thus putting the Indian sub-continent at the heart of Global Commerce during the time of great Roman empire. The trading (for Pepper, rice and silk in exchange for Gold) was done through the Western coast ports of India, and particularly through the lost port of Muziris. Some recent discoveries have been made regarding the location of Muziris near Kochi (North Paravur, Kodungalloor). The Kochi biennial which started in 2012 is named as Kochi-Muziris Biennale. It was the trade with the West during those times that led to the first Jewish settlement in Kerala along with the origin of Syrian Christians here. There is even a theory about Doubting Thomas visiting India having landed in Muziris with the travelling Jews.

This episode also take a peek at Tamil Nadu, which boasts the last surviving classical civilization and language. One can understand why Tamilians were so riled up when there was a campaign to adopt Hindi as the sole official language of India. After independence the plan was to have Hindi as official language with English continuing as associate official language for a period of fifteen years. Many of the states in South India and East India can't/don't use Hindi and the protests were led primarily by DMK of Tamil Nadu. To allay fears, Nehru enacted the Official Languages Act in 1963 to ensure continuing use of English as official language beyond 1965. It did not satisfy DMK as they feared subsequent administrations might not honor the assurances and continued with the protests. It played a major role in it coming to power after winning the assembly elections in 1967 after which Congress have never regained power in Tamil Nadu.

The last half of this episode takes a look at the Kushan empire, whose rulers originated from northern part of China during first century AD. They established Silk route through their Westward expansion and finally reached India through Afghanistan and Khyber pass by second century. They were the middle kingdom of the World with diplomatic contacts with Roman Empire in the West and Han China of the East. Their north Indian presence stretched at least till Varanasi.

Kanishka was the emperor of Kushan Dynasty in 127-151 and was famous for his military, political and spiritual achievements. The capitals of the empire was in Peshawar with one of the other major capital being Mathura in India. His conquests led to the development of Silk Road. He was a devout follower of Buddhism and played an important role in the transmission of Buddhism to China. He let his subjects in India to follow the religions they like but there was still unease about him as he was ultimately a foreigner. The Kushan empire fragmented into semi-independent kingdoms by third century AD. 

Episode-4: Ages of Gold

The Kushan rule in India was displaced by the Gupta Empire which was founded by Maharaja Sri Gupta. They ruled from approximately 320 to 550 AD and covered much of the subcontinent. According to many historians, it is a Vaishya dynasty and appeared as a reaction against oppressive rulers. The peace and prosperity created under the leadership of Gupta empire enabled the pursuit of scientific and artistic endeavors. This period is called the Golden age of India and the period produced scholars like Kalisdasa, Aryabhata, Varahamihira, Vishnu Sharma and Vatsyayana. This era marked the invention of zero and Aryabhata excelled in both Mathematics and Astronomy. The idea of Earth revolving around the sun was already known in India and Arybhata had correctly calculated the circumference of Earth. Vatsyayana is of course famous as the author of Kamasutra, which is a very prominent Indian export to the World. The Gupta empire collapsed in the sixth century.

This episode also covers the Chola kingdom in of Tamil Nadu, in South India. The height of the Chola empire was during the reign of Raja Raja Chola 1, who ruled between 985 and 1014. The capital was located at Tanjore and Raja Raja expanded his empire as far as Srilanka in the south and Kalinga in the north-east. They also established trade links with Indonesia and China.  

Episode 5: The Meeting of Two Oceans

The fifth episode examines the coming of Islam to the subcontinent. It began with the expedition Mahmud of Ghazni to Somnath where he plundered the temple. Even though Islam reached India through trade links, it spread rapidly in India after Islamic conquests. There were forced conversions and thus began the uneasy relationship between Hindus and Muslims. Wood jumps over to 16th century to explain the establishment of Mughal empire when Babur defeated Ibrahim Lodhi, the Muslim ruler of Delhi, in the battle of Panipat. The Mughals were originally from central Asia and had Mongol origin, but oriented more towards Persian rather than Turko-Mongol culture. Babur was a descendant of Genghis Khan from his mother's side.

Babur's grandson, Akbar, was the greatest of the Mughal emperors who established his capital in Agra. To unify the vast Mughal state, he adopted a centralized system of administration and adopted a policy of conciliating conquered rulers through marriage and diplomacy. He adopted policies that won him support of non-Muslim subjects and decreed that no one religion could hold the ultimate truth. But his dream of unity ended with civil war between his great grandsons-Darah and Aurangzeb. Darah had modeled his thinking based on Akbar's ideals but Aurangazeb wanted a return to Muslim orthodoxy. It all ended with a war in which the latter emerged as winner. Aurangazeb cut-off his brother's head and sent it to his imprisoned father, Shajahan, who had built the world-famous Taj Mahal. Taj Mahal also symbolically represent the reason for the decline of Mughal empire, a nobility steeped in opulence while the rural populace suffered from extreme poverty.

Episode 6: Freedom

Unlike other foreign rulers of India who came through Khyber pass, the British East India company came through Oceans establishing their first base in Eastern coast port city of Madras. Their influence grew over the entire east coast, finally reaching Calcutta. European traders in India coalesced as one led by British and the other by French. Their disputes and wars in Europe was replicated in South India. The British East India Company acted as a multinational corporation backed by the state and driven by profits. All came to a head in 1857, in what we call now as first war for independence, which the British described as Indian mutiny. It was the biggest rebellion against any European colonial rule and marked the end of both British East India Company as well as Mughal dynasty, with the British government taking direct control over the Raj.

Indian National Congress was established with the help of a British rebel, A.O. Hume, had the remit of obtaining freedom. The British had the habit of classifying Indians based on religion and this identity politics partly led to the stark division of people along communal lines. Muslim league leader, Jinnah, demanded a separate state for Muslims which led to the formation of Pakistan. The ambivalence and carelessness of the British, with all other parties involved also being culpable, led to the partition being a bloody affair with an estimated deaths of one million people. Consequences of the same is still reverberating but India as a democracy have survived somehow.

Post Script

Overall the documentary is a great watch giving a macro overview of the Indian history. It is impossible to cover everything in six hours but it is a very worthy effort backed  by big budget from BBC and great presentation by Michael Wood. The Indian historians will of course criticize the same just for being a foreign production. Well, they can do one. In India we don't have a documentary culture regarding these things and the academia is not in the habit of making their work accessible to ordinary people. It is only fitting that the British, who contributed very much to the discovery of our own History, is making this kind of documentary.

Rating: 5/5