Under-Currents Affair · For Gen Z
You Didn't Get an Answer.
The Film Didn't Have One.
On Kartavya, moral nihilism dressed as wisdom, and what a 5000-year-old tradition actually says about the thing you're already doing.
Trust that feeling. It's sharper than the film deserves credit for.
Because what the protagonist does at the end — concluding that morality is personal, that Kartavya is bigger than any universal right or wrong — is not the Gita's answer. It's the Gita's question. It's Arjuna's crisis, unresolved, wrapped in a confident voice-over.
That's not depth. That's a production design decision that looks like depth.
What the film actually did
It used real problems — honour killings, caste violence, institutional rot — as backdrop for a story with no philosophical spine. The faultlines are real. Anyone who tells you otherwise is being dishonest. These things happen and have caused genuine, documented suffering across generations.
But here's the move the film makes that should bother you: it shows you the wound and then tells you there's no medicine. Just: it's complicated, do what you must, morality is personal.
That is not complexity. That is a 90-minute shrug.
What the Gita actually said to Arjuna
Arjuna's breakdown at Kurukshetra was real. He looked at the battlefield and saw his teachers, his cousins, people he loved — and froze. He said: I cannot do this. Nothing is worth this.
Krishna did not say: relax, right and wrong are subjective anyway.
He spent eighteen chapters saying the opposite. He said: there is Dharma — cosmic rightness, the structural logic of existence — and Kartavya must be oriented by it. Your duty is not whatever feels justified in the moment. Your duty is what Dharma requires, even when it costs you everything.
The film's protagonist finds relief in subjectivity. Arjuna found clarity through something harder — the recognition that some things are real regardless of how you feel about them in that moment.
One is a therapy session. The other is a philosophy.
The part nobody tells you
The tradition has always known its faultlines. Caste discrimination is real and has caused centuries of harm. No honest engagement with Sanatan thought can pretend otherwise.
But here's what the film doesn't show you: the tradition's harshest critics came from within the tradition itself.
Kabir was a weaver — low caste, no Sanskrit education — who wrote poetry so philosophically grounded it dismantled caste hierarchy more effectively than any legislation. His dohas are still everywhere: in music, in memes, on walls.
Ravidas was a cobbler. His bhajans are in the Guru Granth Sahib — the Sikh holy scripture — because the tradition recognised that where he was coming from was more real than where his critics were born.
Vivekananda called untouchability a direct betrayal of Vedanta. Not a side note. A betrayal. He said a religion that cannot feed a poor man is worthless. This was 1893. No activist Twitter required.
These weren't people working against the tradition. They were drawing on its deepest core — Tat Tvam Asi, that thou art — the same divine ground in every consciousness — to condemn what the tradition itself condemns at its foundation.
A tradition that produces its own most powerful critics from within itself doesn't need to be discarded. It needs to be read.
The part that's actually about you
If you've ever refused to take a job just for the money when it felt wrong — that's Dharma over convenience.
If you've ever held a boundary that cost you something real — a relationship, an opportunity — that's Kartavya oriented by something larger than self-interest.
If you've ever chosen the honest answer when the comfortable answer was right there — that's Satya. The tradition's central value, lived without knowing its name.
The person who sits with private futures and rationed hope — who refuses cheap versions of life even when cheap versions would be easier — is already doing it. Already Nachiketa refusing Yama's offers. Just without the vocabulary for it.
The tradition is not asking you to be ancient. It's asking you to notice what you already are.
The film left you with moral nihilism. The tradition it borrowed from is the opposite of nihilism.
Dharma is the idea that some things are real regardless of your feelings about them. Satya is existence itself — not your version of truth, existence. Tat Tvam Asi is the recognition that the same thing animating you is animating the person in front of you.
That's not a religious claim. It's a philosophical position. And it makes the film's ending look like what it is: a writer who ran out of road.
Honest caveat: the tradition has been misused. Badly. For a long time. That's not a reason to throw it out. It's a reason to know it well enough to tell the difference between the thing and its misuse.
One thing — not a syllabus
Not: read the Upanishads. Not: take a philosophy course.
Just this: find one Kabir doha that lands for you and sit with it for a week. Not for meaning. For company. Kabir was writing for people exactly like you — young, uncertain, navigating a world that kept changing the rules, surrounded by institutions that had lost the plot.
He had no patience for pretension. No time for spiritual performance. He wrote like someone who had actually found the ground and was mildly annoyed that everyone else was still performing confusion.
That voice is five hundred years old and sounds like it was written this morning.
That's not mythology. That's a living culture.
Find one Kabir doha this week. Just the lines — no five-paragraph explanation. Sit with them. Notice if they're describing something you already knew.
No comments:
Post a Comment