Watched a documentary called Occupation:Dreamland. It was about American troops stationed in Fallujah—a hotbed of anti-occupation resistance. The film focused exclusively on the rank-and-file of the army—the people in the centre of the action.
. The documentary was firmly anti-war which is fine with me. I guess there is no such thing as an impartial film. The very fact that you were moved to make a movie on a particular subject shows that you have strong opinions about it. Fence-sitting is for mainstream media talk show hosts who cant afford to offend either side in lieu of TV ratings. The best you can do is make a balanced movie—give both viewpoints adequate space or else you end up with a movie.
This movie was n’t about the politics of the war which has been covered extensively. It was about the people on the ground. American troops are usually characterized as ruthless killing machines or selfless, patriotic youths ready to lay down their lives for the cause of freedom, depending on where you stand on the political spectrum. I think the USP of this movie is it shows them as just young men, no different from millions all over the world.
There were all shades of political opinion even though most soldier said they were n’t political. Some pro, some anti-war, some doubtful but still trusting of the higher-ups. Some telling themselves they were there for a reason to keep their heads from getting messed up—the sheer practicality of it. All of them agreeing they had to follow orders no matter what their personal opinions were. I suppose most armies condition soldiers to obey orders implicitly and discourage a culture of political consciousness. Which is perfect for the army. The lesser the guys doing the dirty work think the smoother things run. Almost none of the soldiers in the movie were keen on building a glorious career in the military. Infact one of them expressed mild contempt for the ambitious ones always volunteering for missions in which they would n’t be in harm’s way,just to rack up points. Most of them were kids who had no great ambitions, no great prospects for the future. The ones who did could n’t afford college. Some of them had ‘screwed up’-- got into a little trouble with the law. Easy prey for the sophisticated recruiting machinery. Most of them there because they did n’t have a place they’ rather be.
I believe the American Army has to try much harder to get people to enlist than ,say, the Indian Army does. The American troops are n’t really crazy about giving their lives up for their country. But why should they be when a lot of their countrymen are busy pursuing the much touted Great American Dream. In an aggressively materialistic society self-sacrifice is n’t valued. Which underscores my point that patriotism and similar lofty ideals are the luxury of people who are n’t inconvenienced by it. What really surprised me was how hard the army tries to get its soldiers to renew their contracts. They are required to sit in a slew of meetings regarding this. Apparently, there is a popular notion that the Army is the refuge for anti-social freaks who can’t cope with civil life and the guy conducting the meeting was quick to denounce this idea as untrue. Then he asked the soldiers if they had figured out what to do with their lives. ”You need to have a plan about where you want to be 5 years, 10 years from now.” Its amazing how people who tell you that you need to have a plan almost certainly have a plan for you. Its like—“look, you need to have a plan which you do n’t but I do. So go with my plan.” I can definitely identify with this experience. They are told that some of them are not responsible, not mature enough and still need the firm guiding hand of the military. Tap into the fears and insecurities of youth and you know you ‘ll have them eating out of your hands.

my first comment...infallible evidence that atleast someone has stumbled upon my blog.ofcourse some friends did"i did n't know u blog" but they did nt comment on the blog(maybe out of politeness which is highly out of character of them)The artless blogger has some valid points--"that micro actions(like singing the national anthem) do influence our nature in not very tangible ways.I agree and even admitted to getting that queasy feeling when it plays.Im not for or against it--- i just mentioned it as one of the ways in which we choose to express our patriotism and the incongruity of the situation.BUt my beef with patriotism is it is always invoked against an extenal adversary.Lets forget the inner evils and concentrate on the outer evils.It also suggests that all sections of society have an equal 'stake'in India and gain equally whenever India secures a victory on the international stage.So the billionaires in Malabar hill are Indians first and filthy rich later.A man in the Dharavi slums is Indian first and hungry,wretched,destitute,jobless later.Of course you dont need to be rich to be a 'patriotic' Indian.That's the beauty of it.You can be poor,hungry and homeless and still be patriotic if you are willing to ignore the fact that you are poor, hungry and homeless(and why you are poor,hungry and homeless) and get behind the government.

Enough of the cynism.I have a uncanny feeling that i'm beginning to sound like a bitter,old retired communist which i'm not.So i shall save these tirades for when i reach my father's age(his present age,i mean) i think the most patriotic thing to do is to increase one's social and political consciousness.To figure out how the economic machinery runs and 'for whom the bells toll'. To learn to look at things from other people's perspective. To question old and established beliefs and doctrines.And above all not to take anything for granted.