Jnana - pure knowledge

When I watched Guru, I was completely carried away by its narration style. This was so different from the earlier movies of Mani Ratnam. I quite liked the character Gurukant Desai till one stage. The villager becoming visionary was good; but visionary wanting to become winner at any cost was not. Then I began to take sides with Shyam Saxena and Manikdas Gupta. I somehow felt letdown by Guru and soon Shyam was my hero.

The much famed climax irritated me a lot. I could not make sense of the argument Guru put forward before the commission. Though it could be appreciated for its cinematic values, I completely reject it. For me the better ending would have been a transformed Guru accepting his mistakes instead of trying to defend his awful business tactics.

Equating his act of bending rules to Gandhi’s fight against British was stupid. I do not know how one can accept this. Gandhi broke law for larger social good. But what Guru did was only to meet his ends. If breaking law for one’s good is accepted then we will witness a completely anarchic state.

Guru says it is not only he who made money. He proudly says that he benefited his shareholders. So he is making them as partners in crime. This is to say that a thief should not be prosecuted if he shares his booty with poor people. Every bad man wants to project himself as Robin Hood!

I read someone saying that Guru personifies new, global, confident India’s attitude. I do have problems projecting Guru as role model for wannabe entrepreneurs. I do not teach entrepreneurship but I talk about some issues regarding this in my class. I am not comfortable telling my students to follow Guru’s way.

Guru, in his final argument, asks the commission why he is punished. He wants to know whether making first quality polyester is a crime. Certainly not; but from what I understood from the movie, Guru seemed to evade taxes and overrode certain licenses granted to him. Should he go unpunished for breaking laws?

Though there was a sense of balancing in story by announcing fines on Guru, the larger picture was that he emerged victorious. By asking commission to mouth lines such as - “What else can we do? We can’t hang him, can we?” the director signals that they concede defeat before Guru. By later projecting Guru as speaking to his shareholders and filling them with new dreams, the director further glorifies the character.

It is precisely this part that was not acceptable for me. I did not like Guru being celebrated despite everyone knowing that he did evil. That showed people do not feel guilty by following any route to make more money. Guru says India is moving forward with him. If this is progress, I do not want India to part of this.