Maharaj-movie-review
Detailed Review of the Movie "Maharaj"
Author: Dhawal Patel
Acknowledgements: Aditya Shastri, Prakriti Goswami, Aakash Shah
The movie "Maharaj" attempts to dramatize the historical Maharaj Libel case of 1862, focusing on the accusations against a spiritual leader of the Pushtimarg sect. However, the portrayal is deeply flawed and historically inaccurate, leading to a misleading narrative about the sect and its practices.
Overview of the objections
Character Assassination of Jadunathji Maharaj
The movie graphically depicts explicit scenes involving a Pushtimarg guru engaging in illicit sexual activities, which misrepresents his character, and not based on facts, which misrepresents the teachings and principles of Pushtimarg. This portrayal is defamatory and has led to widespread misinformation about the sect.
Misrepresentation of Religious Practices
The film erroneously depicts "charan seva" as an illicit sexual act, grossly distorting its true meaning and significance within the Pushtimarg sect. This defamation tarnishes the image of a sacred practice and the community that reveres it.
Historical Inaccuracies
The movie inaccurately claims that such practices have been part of the Pushtimarg tradition for over 100 years, which is factually incorrect and misleading. It also wrongly portrays historical figures and events, especially the role and statements of Karsandas Mulji during the Maharaj Libel case proceedings.
Defamation and Stereotyping
By associating immoral acts with the slogan "Vallabhadhish Ki Jay" and the figure of Vallabhacharya, the film misleads the audience into believing that these actions are endorsed by the Pushtimarg sect. This is a serious misrepresentation and defamation of the sect's values.
Defamation in Literature
The book "Maharaj" written by Saurabh Shah also vilifies the Pushtimarg, its core principles, and the Gurus. It portrays Jadunathji Maharaj as immoral and licentious, misrepresenting the statements given by Jadunathji Maharaj during the proceedings of the Maharaj Libel case of 1862. This book, like the movie, spreads misinformation and defames the Pushtimarg sect, causing further harm to its reputation and misleading the public.
Biased Judgement in Maharaj Libel Case 1862
The judgement of the Maharaj Libel case of 1862 was also biased and prejudiced against Hindu Sanatana Dharma. The judgement made derogatory comments on Lord Krishna, describing Him as immoral and licentious, and indulging in sexual acts with 16,000 gopis. These comments were not only offensive but also reflected a colonial mindset aimed at undermining Hindu religious beliefs and practices.
Colonial Context and Misleading Narrative
The film fails to provide the broader context of British colonial strategies aimed at undermining Hinduism, and it misrepresents the true nature of Karsandas Mulji's actions and affiliations, leading to a biased and skewed narrative.
Details
Character assassination of Jadunathji
The film graphically depicts explicit scenes of a Pushtimarg guru engaging in illicit sexual activities with a female follower, while others watch through windows. This scene, which is supposed to illustrate a path to salvation through voyeurism, grossly misrepresents the teachings and principles of Pushtimarg. The movie suggests that such immoral behavior is endemic to the sect, portraying all its gurus as immoral, licentious, and deceitful. This overgeneralization is a significant flaw, as it misleads the audience into believing that these behaviors are foundational to Pushtimarg, which is not the case. Please read this to understand the core principles of Pushtimarg.
The filmmakers of the movie assassinated the character of Jadunathji by presenting non-factual, biased, and incomplete information. Additionally, it mythologizes the character of Karsandas mulji and overly heroified him without any factual grounds. The movie is shown idealizing or mythologizing Karsandas’s actions and character, glossing over his flaws and any controversial or negative aspects of his life to create a simplified, glorified version of them. Details is available in the following section of this article under the title of “Inaccuracies in the movie (as compared to Maharaj Libel case proceedings)”
It would be monstrous to draw the inference that Vallabhācārya and his sampradāya looked upon immoral practices as sanctioned by his teachings. Of course we are not in a position to deny that a certain section of the followers and some individuals of the priestly class had degenerated. Such degeneration comes, at one time or another, in all religions. But to say that the followers or priests were degenerated is one thing, and to conclude from their mischievous activities that Vallabhācārya or any of his learned followers preached or tolerated or sanctioned immoral practices is another thing. Vallabhācārya and his learned descendants have condemned immorality to this day in no uncertain terms.
Monstrous attempts of associating Illicit sexual acts with Pushtimarg in the Movie
Based on the explicit mention of "Vallabhacharya" as the acharya of this sect in the first part of the movie, it is evident that the sect depicted is Pushtimarg. Moreover, the repeated chanting of the slogan "Vallabhadhish Ki Jay" associated with all the acts of Jadunathji Maharaj by the following community further reinforces this. This portrayal can stereotype the audience, leading them to erroneously believe that the slogan signifies Pushtimarg's and Vallabhacharya's approval of Jadunathji's actions, thus misrepresenting the teachings and values of the sect.
“Charan seva” in the movie
In the movie, "charan seva" is depicted as an illicit sexual act between the Goswami and a follower, which is a gross misrepresentation of the term and its significance within the Pushtimarg sect. The film erroneously portrays "charan seva" as a practice that has been part of the sect's traditions for over 100 years, implying that such immoral behavior is an established and accepted practice within the community. This portrayal is not only factually incorrect but also defamatory, as it falsely attributes immoral activities to a revered religious practice.
Misrepresentation of "Charan Seva”
Definition in Pushtimarg: In the Pushtimarg tradition, "charan seva" refers to the devotional practice of serving the feet of the guru or deity, symbolizing humility, reverence, and devotion. It is a sacred act performed with utmost respect and spiritual intent.
Depiction in the Movie: The movie falsely depicts "charan seva" as an illicit sexual act, which is a blatant distortion of its true meaning and significance. This misrepresentation tarnishes the image of the practice and the sect as a whole.
Historical Inaccuracy
Claim of 100+ Years Tradition:** The movie inaccurately claims that "charan seva," as depicted in the film, has been a tradition of the Pushtimarg sect for over 100 years. This is historically incorrect and misleading.
Actual Tradition: In reality, the true form of "charan seva" has been a revered practice within the sect, focusing on spiritual service and devotion, and not on any immoral or illicit activities. The erroneous depiction in the movie undermines the historical and spiritual integrity of the tradition.
Defamation of the Sect
Impact on Perception: By showing "charan seva" in a defamatory light, the movie misleads the audience into believing that such immoral practices are endorsed by the sect. This not only harms the reputation of Pushtimarg but also disrespects the followers who practice it with genuine devotion.
Legal and Ethical Concerns: The defamatory portrayal can lead to legal consequences for spreading false information and damaging the sect's reputation. It is an ethical violation to misrepresent religious practices for sensationalism or dramatic effect.
Lack of Context and Nuance
Simplistic View: The movie provides a simplistic and erroneous view of a complex religious practice, failing to present the full context and depth of "charan seva" within Pushtimarg.
Need for Accurate Representation: It is crucial for films depicting religious practices to do so with accuracy and sensitivity, ensuring that the true essence and significance are conveyed to the audience.
Historical Inaccuracies and monstrous characterizations
The film focuses extensively on falsehoods about Karsandas Mulji, presenting him as a devout follower of Lord Krishna and a believer in Puranic deities, which contradicts historical records and his own statements in Maharaj Libel case. In reality, Karsandas Mulji was a critic of Puranic deities and did not believe in the stories of Lord Krishna's Ras Leela, which he described as false and amorous. His statements during the Maharaj Libel case, documented in his Gujarati newspaper "Satya Prakash" on October 21, 1860, reflect his disbelief in the Puranic texts and his systematic attack on Hinduism as part of a broader British colonial conspiracy.
- Karsandas Mooljee’s allegation that all the Hindū Sanātana sects arisen in KaliYug are false
“…the sect of the Maharajas has arisen in the KaliYug, therefore, according to the doctrines of the Shastras, it must be false ...” – “Satyaprakash” Gujarati Newspaper of 21st Oct, 1860 by Karsandas Mooljee
- Karsandas Mooljee’s allegation that the stories of Lord Krishna, Gopees, Raas lila are false and amorous.
“…The story of the "gopees" and the incarnations of Vishnoo are believed in by several sects, but are opposed to the ancient religion. The Shaivites believe in the
incarnations of Vishnoo equally with the Vaishnayas. As far as I have reacl, all the sacred books do not contain amorous passages. I am not aware whether Sir William Jones has said that "Krishna is to this day the darling god of Hindū women." I have
heard the story of Brahma coming out of an egg after remaining three millions and millions of years. I do not believe in the modern stories in books which are written after the Veds, which 1 have not read. The stories are considered by most
Vaishnavas are literally true…” - Karsandas Mooljee, cross-examination by Mr. Bayley as part of Maharaj libel case proceedings (Maharaj libel case proceedings, pg. 249)
- Karsandas Mooljee accepting that he has not read the Hindū Sanātana texts and does not believe in any texts apart from Veds. Hindū Sanātana believes in multiple texts as its foundational and core texts including Ved, Puranas, Smriti, Tantra agama, Itihaas, and Vedant.
“…I do not believe in the modern stories in books which are written after the Vedas, which 1 have not read…” - (Maharaj libel case proceedings, pg. 249)
Inaccuracies in the movie (as compared to Maharaj Libel case proceedings)
The movie contains several inaccuracies regarding the beliefs and practices of the Pushtimarg sect. During the trial, the movie shows Karsandas explaining the correct meaning of Brahma Sambandh to the court, which was that all things are to be offered only to Lord Krishna and not to the Maharaja. However, this stand was actually taken by Jadunathji Maharaj in the real-life proceedings of the Maharaj Libel case. In fact, Karsandas Mulji maliciously and scandalously tried to prove to the court, by mistranslating the commentary verses of the Brahma Sambandh mantra by Gokulnathji (one of the Acharyas of Pushtimarg), and twisting the translation to mean that everything should be offered to the Maharaja and not to Krishna. This portrayal presents views that are far from the reality about Karsandas. The dialogues delivered on Brahma Sambandh by Karsandas in the movie were actually said by Jadunathji Maharaj as per the Maharaj Libel case proceedings.
In the film "Maharaj," the facts of the historical Maharaj Libel case have been significantly distorted, especially in the pivotal trial scene. The movie inaccurately portrays the dialogue exchange between Karsandas Mulji and Jadunathji Maharaj concerning the Brahmasambandha mantra, thereby misleading the audience about the actual events and character representations.
Misrepresentation of Dialogues
In the movie, the dialogues between Karsandas Mulji and Jadunathji Maharaj during the trial are swapped, leading to a skewed portrayal of their respective positions. The film shows Jadunathji Maharaj accepting the Brahmasambandha mantra to mean that followers must offer their wives to the Maharajas. This is a gross mis-presentation of the historical records. In reality, it was Karsandas Mulji who presented this erroneous and defamatory interpretation in the court, not Jadunathji Maharaj.
Historical Facts
According to the actual case proceedings, it was Karsandas Mulji who twisted the meaning of the Brahmasambandha mantra to suggest that the entire sect, including its original Acharyas, endorsed heretical practices. This misrepresentation aimed to malign the Pushtimarg sect and its spiritual leaders. Karsandas's allegations were part of a broader attempt to depict the sect as morally corrupt and its practices as deviant.
Jadunathji Maharaj's Defense
Contrary to the film's portrayal, Jadunathji Maharaj defended the true meaning of the Brahmasambandha mantra in court. He clarified that the mantra meant all offerings should be made to Lord Krishna, not to the Maharajas. Furthermore, Jadunathji Maharaj acknowledged in the court that he was not a deity but a guru, emphasizing his role as a spiritual guide rather than a divine figure. This critical defense by Jadunathji Maharaj was aimed at correcting the false narratives presented by Karsandas Mulji and maintaining the integrity of the Pushtimarg sect's teachings.
Character Assassination
The film's portrayal of Jadunathji Maharaj as a manipulative and heretical figure is a severe mischaracterization that strays far from the documented reality. By depicting him as someone who endorses immoral practices, the film unjustly vilifies him and misrepresents the true nature of his statements during the trial. This distortion not only damages his reputation but also misleads the audience about the fundamental principles of the Pushtimarg sect.
Below are the evidences
The most important difference is that Jadunathji is shown in the movie to accept that he has the right to interpret the mantra the way he wants as a spiritual guru because his "bhaktas" give him that right. This is exactly opposite to what he stood for in the court. He disagreed with allegations of gross inequities and said he is only a guru and not God. That was the whole point of filing a libel case in the first place. So if you are going to show exactly opposite arguments, then it is not dramatization but fictionalization.
Reality: Karsandas mis-interpreting the meaning of Brahma Sambandha Mantra to mean the wives should be offered to Maharajas
Below were the statements written by Karsandas in his magazine “Satya Prakash '' misinterpreting the Brahmsambandha mantra.
The sect of the Maharajas is heretical and one delusive to simple people ; that is proved by the genuine books of the Veds, the Purans according to what is intimated above. Not only this, but also from the works composed by the Maharajas, it is proved that the Maharajas have raised up nothing but a new heresy and disorder. Behold with regard to the subject of Brahma how Gokulnathjihas amplified the original stanza - what a commentary he has made. Gokulnathji, having composed the commentary above mentioned, has attached to your Vaishnava persuasion a great blot of ink. Let that be first removed.
Shown In the Movie: Karsandas explaining the correct meaning of Brahma Sambandha Mantra.
Reality: Jadunathji Maharaj explains the correct meaning of Brahma Sambandha Mantra which means everything should be offered to Lord Krishna and NOT to Maharajas.
The Vaishnavas worship me and other Maharajas as Gurus, those who cause happiness through God and are guides to him. I have not heard anyone say that we are worshiped as gods. (Jadunathji Maharaj in the court statement)
The Purushottam referred to therein is the God of all gods,. the Supreme Being. What is therein stated to be offered to God, is stated in the defendant's article to be offered to me and the Maharajas. The sense of the original is perverted by the defendant. "Tan, man, and dhan " are directed to be offered to GodIt is not inculcated in that commentary or in any other book of the sect, that one should offer his Wife and daughter to the Maharaj.
I have taught my devotees that they should regard us as Gurus, not as Gods.
I "am forbidden to repeat here the "mantra" pronounced at the "kanthee" ceremony. The translation you give of it is correct. The dedication referred to in this ''mantra" is caused to be made at the feet of Krishna not to the Maharaj. The Guru at the ceremony is only the guide to Krishna.
I believe the Maharajas to be innocent of adultery ; if they are guilty thereof , they don't deserve the rank of Gurus.
Shown In the Movie: Jadunathji Maharaj is shown saying wives should be offered to Maharajas
Reality: Karsandas Mulji was a non-believer of Pushtimarg, and considered the entire sect of Maharajas (a.k.a. Pushtimarg) as heretic and never had any respect for it.
Below are the verbatim statements published by Karsandas in his magazine “Satya Prakash” -
Sect of Maharajas (a.k.a Pushtimarg is heretical)
The sect of the Maharajas is heretical and one delusive to simple people ; that is proved by the genuine books of the Veds, the Purans, &c., according to what is intimated above. Not only this, but also from the works composed by the Maharajas, it is proved that the Maharajas have raised up nothing but a new heresy and disorder. Behold with regard to the subject of Brahma how Gokulnathjihas amplified the original stanza - what a commentary he has made -
Gokulnathji, having composed the commentary above mentioned, has attached to your Vaishnava persuasion a great blot of ink. Let that be first removed.
Shown In the Movie: Karsandas is shown to be a staunch believer in Pushtimarg and Hindu
Colonial Context
The movie fails to provide the broader context of British colonial strategies aimed at undermining Hinduism. The British sought to dismantle Hindu Sanatan Dharma by discrediting the Puranic texts and promoting a false dichotomy between Vedic and Puranic Hinduism. They used pseudo-reformists like Karsandas Mulji to propagate misinformation and weaken the foundation of Hindu devotional practices. By promoting figures like Mulji and pseudo-propagandists such as Dr. H. H. Wilson, Max Müller, and Monier Williams, the British aimed to erode the credibility of the Puranic tradition, making it easier to promote Christianity. More facts available here.
Misrepresentation of Characters
Although it is true and appreciated that Karsandas was against the prohibition of widow remarriage, the movie portrays this aspect well and accurately. However, this is only one side of the story. The movie fails to show the other side of Karsandas Mulji's character, which is much more serious, important, and critical for the audience to know. This omission prevents the audience from forming a neutral, factual, unbiased, and unprejudiced opinion. The movie does not genuinely provide a balanced representation of Karsandas Mulji.
The film inaccurately portrays Karsandas Mulji as a hero and an ardent devotee of Krishna, which is a gross misrepresentation. In real life, Mulji was associated with a larger conspiracy involving British colonialists to dismantle Hinduism. His connections with British figures like Dr. John Wilson, who was a staunch advocate of dismantling Hinduism, are not explored in the movie. The film also fails to show Mulji's affiliations with other figures like Narmad, who admitted to moral failings in his autobiography "Mari Hakikat.". More information about Karsandas is available here.
Impact on Hindu Faith
The movie's depiction of the Pushtimarg sect and its leaders is not just misleading but harmful. It presents a distorted view that could damage the perception of Hindu devotional practices among the audience. The real-life Maharaj Libel case was manipulated by the British to serve their colonial agenda, which the movie fails to acknowledge adequately.
Omission of Key Context
The film fails to provide a factual and un-biased view of Karsandas Mulji's affiliations and the broader British colonial agenda. Mulji's connections with British figures like Dr. John Wilson, who aimed to dismantle Hinduism, are not explored. This omission skews the narrative, portraying Mulji as a lone reformer rather than part of a larger colonial conspiracy.
Portrayal of Vallabhacharya Sect
The movie overgeneralizes the behavior of one Maharaja to the entire Vallabhacharya sect, suggesting that immorality and deceit are widespread. This is an unfair and inaccurate depiction, as the sect's teachings emphasize moral conduct and devotion to Lord Krishna.
Additional objections in the movie
Association of the entire movie with Pushtimarg and Vallabhacharya
Jadunathji Maharaj engaging in an illicit sex with one of the Pushtimargiya follower is defamatory, inaccurate and non-factual
Jadunathji ordering the abortion of the child which is inaccurate and character assasination shown in the movie villyfing the Guru and the entire sect.
Jadunathji maharaj proclaiming himself as a God in the movie. However, in reality, Jadunathji goes on record in the court proceedings of Maharaj Libel case saying he is just a Guru and Not the God.
Conclusion
The movie "Maharaj" is a problematic and biased portrayal of a significant historical event. It misrepresents the core principles of the Pushtimarg sect, overgeneralizes the actions of a few to the entire community, and aligns with the colonial narrative that sought to discredit Hinduism. The film's focus on sensationalism over historical accuracy and context makes it a deeply flawed depiction of the Maharaj Libel case of 1862.Overall, "Maharaj" book and movie does a disservice to the complex historical realities of the time and the spiritual traditions it attempts to depict. A more balanced and factual representation is needed to truly understand the impact and significance of the Maharaj Libel case.