Wholesome movies are rare these days in Indian cinema, making them feel like an oasis in a desert when they do appear. The demand for feel-good movies is higher than ever, as seen in the success of re-releases like Laila Majnu and Sanam Teri Kasam, which prove that Indian audiences are eager for romance and uplifting cinema. It is during such a time that The Mehta Boys has arrived on OTT (Amazon Prime).
The Mehta Boys is a poignant, understated father-son drama centered on their dysfunctional relationship. Open communication and emotional expression are not their strengths, often leaving them struggling for words. Boman Irani portrays a grieving husband learning to cope with his loss, while Avinash Tiwary plays his talented yet self-doubting son. The heart of the story lies in their journey toward accepting each other’s imperfections.
We often see such father-son dynamics play out in real life. In many Indian families, open displays of affection are rare, making the relationship feel more formal than familial. Conversations typically revolve around daily chores and future plans, with emotions deliberately left out. The Mehta Boys captures this dynamic perfectly, portraying characters who have much to say but choose to hide behind silence.
Boman Irani has done an exceptional job as a first-time director, leaving me eager to see what he creates next. Avinash Tiwary, as always, excels, effortlessly bringing out the angst, anxiety, and awkwardness of a character who gradually finds his voice. He shines, leaving you wondering why you don’t get to see him on-screen more frequently. Instead, audiences are repeatedly offered star kids given endless chances to prove themselves, while talented actors like Avinash, who have already showcased their brilliance in just a film or two, are left waiting. It’s unfair, but all one can do is wait for movies like The Mehta Boys to arrive, offering a well-deserved cinematic experience.
For the uninitiated, in February 2025, during the annual Uroos festival at a mosque in Thrithala, Palakkad district, Kerala, a procession featured banners displaying images of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders.
These banners were prominently displayed atop elephants. The event drew over 3,000 participants and sparked widespread controversy and discussions on social media. Critics questioned the organizers’ decision to include images of individuals associated with designated terrorist organizations. The participation of local political figures, including Congress leader VT Balram and Minister MB Rajesh, further intensified the debate. They maintained the status quo of excusing terror sympathizers by criticizing media outlets for allegedly using the incident to target the Muslim community and Kerala at a national level.
During a News18 Kerala debate, a Malayalee Muslim from Palakkad admitted that what happened at the Uroos was wrong. However, he dismissed concerns by saying, “The event was organized by kids who randomly picked images from the Internet. They had no idea who these people were, so we shouldn’t make a big deal out of it.”
This raises an important question: Why is it that when left to “randomly” select images, they chose figures linked to terror groups instead of respected Muslim leaders, scientists, or sports personalities? A former Indian Army officer who was stationed in Kashmir responded thoughtfully: “If they were simply Googling, why not Abdul Kalam, cricketers like Siraj or Shami, or Muslim soldiers who died protecting our nation? Why did they choose a group in cahoots with Pakistani militant groups like LeT and JeM? Instead of dismissing this, we should educate young people about who should be admired and who should not. Only then can our nation progress. We also cannot keep excusing such incidents as the actions of innocent children. Recently in Europe, a teenager attempted a suicide bombing, and in another case, four children from the same family were radicalized into extremism.”
The Malayalee panelist logged out before responding, but a Muslim League leader acknowledged the need for change. However, like many others accused of spreading hate, he quickly shifted the discussion, saying, “Yes, all of this is bad, BUT Israel is committing genocide.”
This pattern of deflection is becoming more common. When doctors in Australia were suspended for their hate speech, the response from left-leaning supporters and a major Australian Muslim group was, “They should not have been suspended because Israel is committing genocide.” When California faced wildfires, some even claimed, “Well deserved because the U.S. supplies arms to Israel.”
The Israel-Hamas war is being used to justify hate and extremism worldwide. While criticism of geopolitical events is valid, it cannot be a shield for promoting radicalism or excusing problematic behavior.
If we applied the same logic, we could say, “Islamophobia is wrong, BUT Islamist groups like ISIS have mass-murdered people.” That would be an absurd and dangerous argument, just as deflecting discussions on extremism with geopolitical grievances is.
Condemning violence and radicalization should not come with conditions. No ifs or buts—wrong is wrong, no matter who commits it.
Why don’t we see progressive Muslim nations like the UAE and Bahrain glorify Hamas on the streets, unlike India? Because they understand the consequences— supporting such groups could destabilize their own countries and invite extremism. They firmly recognize the Muslim Brotherhood, the group from which Hamas originated, as a terrorist organization and have banned it, seeing it as a source of extremism. In contrast, many Western countries have not taken similar action in their attempt to uphold secular values. This could also explain why leaders of many Muslim nations maintain ties with Modi, meeting him and discussing business, decorating him with awards and honors, instead of ostracizing him. They likely recognize where some of the propaganda against him stems from.
The Love Queen of Malabar is a captivating exploration of the life of Kamala Das, also known as Kamala Surayya, one of India’s most celebrated poets. Written by Merrily Weisbord, the book is thought-provoking, highly controversial, poetic, melancholic, and at times, shocking.
Kamala Das shares her deepest emotions with Merrily, treating her as a confidante in revealing thoughts that range from lyrical to unexpected. While the book may not appeal to everyone, it left a lasting impression on me—an eye-opener that offered a rare glimpse into the intimate world of a literary icon.
I have carefully selected some non-controversial quotes from the book. Not everything Kamala says can be shared publicly due to its sensitive nature. However, the quotes listed here provide insight into Kamala’s thoughtful persona and capture the essence of Merrily’s book.
“A writer moves away from family, old relationships, very far with the speed of a falling star,” she says. “Otherwise the writer is destroyed, and only the member of the family remains: the mother, sister, daughter, wife. The writer at some point must ask, Do I want to be a well-loved member of the family? Or do I want to be a good writer? You can’t be both at the same time. The days when you are with the children and are being a very good mother, you cease to be the writer. You feel repelled by the pen and the paper, which are definitely going to come between you and your loved ones.”
“Because the writer can give all of herself only to that task of writing. She will have to write against her loved one, put him under the microscope, dissect him, analyze his thoughts, his words. After a while he is no longer the man you held in your arms at night. You have cut him into little slivers, everything is burst open, he is seeds and pulp and juice all spread out in little bits on your writer’s table. After that, you can’t go to his arms the same way.”
If I had not learned to write how would I have written away my loneliness or grief? Garnering them within my heart would have grown heavy as a vault, one that only death might open, a release then I would not be able to feel or sense.
“Ask the books that I read why I changed,” she says. “Ask the authors dead and alive who communicated with me and gave me the courage to be myself.”
“Make a woman laugh, then make her cry, that is the secret of a good film. Not make her cry, cry, cry. What message is that for women today?”
Her dislike of organized religion is so much more pronounced than on my last visit that I wonder if any beliefs remain to comfort her. “Yes,” she answers. “A concept of God. A presence in my room. I’m not alone. I visualize a shower of moonlight falling on someone in prayer. It is a soothing exercise. I feel bathed in light, and I know there is a God.”
She tells me that even in Kerala, which prides itself on religious coexistence, she is still being attacked from both sides. The Hindu Sangh Parivar, an association of Hindu nationalist organizations, protests her ownership of the snake shrine on her own ancestral property at Nalapat because she is a Muslim. The Muslims are “disgusted” with her because she speaks against their practices and clergy, refusing to support sectarian politics she finds unpalatable. “They feel they are losing their grip on me.”
Western countries often criticize India, accusing it of restricting the religious freedom of minorities. For a long time, I was puzzled by this, as I saw minorities freely attending their religious places without any problems. On the other hand, Hindus in Jammu require police protection to visit their religious sites due to the ongoing threat of terrorism. So, where is this accusation truly coming from?
One of the main reasons many Christians oppose the BJP is that the party has significantly restricted international funds meant for proselytization. These funds were often misused in India to attract economically disadvantaged citizens into converting, with promises of financial assistance tied to conversion. As a result, conversions were driven more by economic pressures and manipulation than genuine faith.
Countries like the USA actively fund missionary programs, with groups such as the evangelical World Vision and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) advocating for unrestricted proselytization as a form of religious freedom. They often cite Article 18 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR), which asserts that every individual “has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief…” This interpretation forms the basis for their criticism of India, accusing the country of limiting religious freedom and ranking it low in the religious freedom index. A 2012 article written by Dr Aseem Shukla explains this point brilliantly (hinduamerican.org/blog/proselytism-conversion-to-intolerance/).
This raises an important question: why offer monetary assistance only after conversion? Why not provide help based on humanitarian principles, without attaching religious conditions? When people are lured into faith through financial incentives, it undermines the integrity of the belief system itself. Shouldn’t conversions be driven by genuine faith and conviction, rather than economic manipulation or coercion?
Unfortunately, that’s not the reality for many. People are being lured into changing their religion through manipulation, whether through money or other means. I personally know several individuals who converted simply because they were promised financial support. What’s even more surprising is that younger generations are now making conversion a prerequisite for marriage. It’s hard to comprehend how, in today’s world, people still can’t accept different faiths and feel the need to demand conversion from their partner for the sake of marriage. Is this really secularism? Or love? I discussed this topic on this blog after watching a show, Nobody Wants This, on Netflix some time ago.
I’m currently reading a book about Kamala Das, The Love Queen of Malabar, written by a Canadian author, where it’s mentioned that Kamala was pressured to claim her conversion was out of faith, not love. The reasoning behind this was that saying she converted for love would diminish the strength of her faith. However, after her partner left her, she felt deeply depressed. The book suggests that the man she loved had been financially incentivized by foreign entities to convert Kamala. Later, Kamala wished to return to Hinduism but feared for her life and her family’s safety, including her grandchildren. Her sons even used to correct her whenever she, by habit, uttered the name of her former god, as they were afraid it might anger radicals and put their family at risk.
Why manipulate people into conversion? Let them choose to convert out of genuine faith – that is true religious freedom, not a process driven by external incentives.
The new government has largely restricted predatory conversion tactics by limiting international funds and addressing radical elements within society. This is one of the primary reasons the Indian government is widely criticized globally.
The propaganda against India has a broader base compared to the narratives propagated by BJP supporters. It’s easier for these narratives to spread, as the Christian and Muslim communities form larger global groups compared to the Hindu community. With such a widespread network, sensational news spreads quickly and easily. Adding to this challenge is the Hindu community’s general reluctance to actively counter exaggerated news, making it even harder to protect India’s image.
Many who believe in proselytization through unfair means seek the removal of the current government to restore previous practices. This is probably why they complain about every small issue and often manipulate facts to present one-sided stories. By focusing on selective narratives, they aim to undermine the current administration and bring back the old ways.
The narratives about India are often more complex than they appear in the media or through agenda-driven sources. They tend to present only one side of the story, exaggerating it to evoke emotional reactions. This is why it’s crucial to consult both left and right-wing media to gain a more balanced perspective. Otherwise, you risk forming judgments based on incomplete or biased information.
Khalistanis demand a separate Sikh country called Khalistan which includes the Punjab region of India. However, they do not talk about including Pakistan’s Punjab as part of this homeland. Why?
Pakistan’s Punjab is four times larger than Indian Punjab in terms of land area.
Pakistan is also home to several important Sikh sites, such as Nankana Sahib, the birthplace of Guru Nanak (founder of Sikhism), and Kartarpur, where Guru Nanak spent his later years.
So why don’t Khalistanis demand a separate state that includes Pakistan’s Punjab if having a separate homeland for Sikhs is important?
The same reason why separatists in Kashmir and global leftists think only Indian Kashmir should be “freed,” not Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
Also, as mentioned in a previous post, The Most Intriguing Fact in “Kashmir Narratives” by Colonel Ajay Raina, the first step toward a plebiscite in Kashmir requires Pakistani militants to fully disengage from the region. According to the UN resolution, once they leave, the Indian military must also withdraw, ensuring a fair plebiscite. Yet, no one is calling on Pakistani militants to step back.
This glaring omission of Pakistani elements raises questions about whether Pakistani influences are shaping the narrative.
Some Indian Muslims like Arfa, Rana, Zubair, and Naseeruddin Shah feel India is intolerant and unsafe for Muslims.
Yet, Muslims like Taslima Nasreen and Sheikh Hasina feel safer in India than in their own Muslim-majority countries. They have escaped their countries to avoid getting persecuted and can openly criticize extremists in India.
Souce: x.com/taslimanasreen
In India, you can criticize any religion freely, like PC George in Kerala targeting Islam, or Stalin in Tamil Nadu attacking Sanatana Dharma.
Source: livelaw.in
But at the same time, mocking/disrespecting Hinduism or Islam can also lead to lynching or beheading.
This shows the complicated nature of India’s religious tolerance. It’s not fully black or white; there are many layers of grey.
A country, accused of religious intolerance, is also a country where seers like Swamy Premanand Ji openly advocate for LGBTQ issues. He advises young members of the LGBTQ community not to succumb to parental pressure to marry according to societal norms, as it could harm both their own life and that of their partner.
From these examples, it is quite clear that India is a nation with diverse perspectives. Yet international media often portrays it as a regressive and intolerant society, probably because they rely heavily on left-leaning biased sources for their information. This depiction is unfair to the country’s social fabric, which embraces various ideologies.
It is important to note that much of the left-leaning media in India tends to present only one side of the story, resulting in incomplete or biased information. In an era where media bias is prevalent, it is strongly recommended to read news from both left- and right-leaning sources to gain a comprehensive understanding of the issue. Without this balanced approach, people may remain unaware of where genuine reforms are needed and could be misled by those with specific agendas.
The downside of one-sided stories is that they can foster an extreme victim mentality, making people believe that any violence or attack is justified due to past suffering. For instance, some celebrated the LA fires, posting that the USA deserved it for funding weapons for Israel, without considering that pro-Palestinians could have lost their homes too. If a tragedy strikes India, similar comments might surface. This is partly due to media narratives that fuel such sentiments and intensify hatred.
In an increasingly polarized world, it is crucial to report news with accountability. Both extremes are harmful—religious extremism that forces others to conform through coercion and an extreme victim mentality that blinds individuals to any positive aspects, making them focus solely on negative narratives. Currently, in India, I am seeing more of the latter than the former. Media is partly responsible for this.
The Monkey Dilemma 
You must be logged in to post a comment.