Dear liberals, if you think what happened with Bhansali was wrong, then you have to see ‘Kaabil’ for what it is, not what you want it to be.
It’s somewhat pointless to write something on free speech in a country where the right comes with an “if and only if” clause, but I’m going to give this a shot. First, the Padmavati fracas, where right wingers mauled director Sanjay Leela Bhansali for allegedly distorting history. Reports that came later hinted at the reason for the outrage: a dream sequence that shows Rani Padmini romancing Alauddin Khilji. How did they know this sequence exists in the screenplay? That’s not the point, which is that they thought it existed. Just like they thought Deepa Mehta’s Water was an insult to India even as shooting began.
At least the protests against Water made sense in a right wing kind of way. Read this quote from The Week (Feb 13, 2000): “They come with foreign money to make a film which shows India in poor light because that is what sells in the west. The west refuses to acknowledge our achievements in any sphere, but is only interested in our snake charmers and child brides. And people like Deepa Mehta pander to them.” It’s ridiculous, but at least you see where the anger is coming from. The fact that the film was about Vrindavan’s widows was known before shooting began, as Mehta had to submit her script to the government to get permission to shoot.
But what about Padmavati? Who but the cast and crew read the script? How did they assume such a scene was there? It’s a scene right out of Minority Report, the dystopian Steven Spielberg film where cops, in the future, arrest criminals before they commit a crime. “Would you dare show these things if the film was about a Muslim or a Christian?” say those who defend what happened with Bhansali. It’s patently ridiculous. Bhansali and Mehta are Hindus. They are drawn to their milieu, their stories, just like a Catholic like Martin Scorsese is drawn to The Last Temptation of Christ, which reimages Jesus as a family man, consummating his marriage with Mary Magdalene. That film, too, faced protests prior to and after its release. It’s like Husain and his Saraswati paintings. Toy with the gods, and you can no longer take refuge under free speech.
Around the same time the Padmavati issue exploded, there was similar outrage about Kaabil, the Hrithik Roshan starrer – and this time, the dissenters were liberals. The film tells the story of a blind couple, Rohan and Supriya. They fall in love, get married, but the honeymoon is short-lived. Supriya is raped by a couple of neighbours. And the scene that’s become controversial is the one where she tells Rohan that she realises she’s not the woman she was earlier, and that if he wishes to leave her, she understands. Shockingly, he remains silent. The scene ends.
I winced. I really did. Because every atom of my liberal brain was screaming out that he should have said something, offered support and assurances that he would not leave her, say it was not her fault. But Rohan isn’t me. Perhaps Rohan was too shell-shocked to speak. Perhaps he wasn’t even listening. Perhaps he was undergoing his own kind of trauma, rising from utter helplessness, from the fact that even if he’d been at home, he may not have been able to prevent the rape. The question is this: Should we expect characters on screen to conform to our world view? The answer is this: No.
It’s, again, free speech. If we say it’s okay to imagine a romance between Rani Padmini and Alauddin Khilji, then we should be okay with the depiction of attitudes like those of Rohan and Supriya. People who have undergone trauma say and do strange things. The point is what the film does with it. Look, I hated Kaabil. I thought it was ridiculous – but not because the characters behaved this way. Which is not to say I am endorsing what Rohan did. I’m just saying I empathise with the fact that Supriya felt shamed at that point, and that perhaps years of conditioning led even this independent, modern woman to feel this way. I wish Kaabil had found a less insensitive trigger for the hero’s subsequent revenge mission, but it is what it is and free speech covers the story it chooses to say.
Strangely, there was little controversy around the excellent Nawazuddin Siddiqui-starrer Haraamkhor, which was released a couple of weeks before Kaabil. The film shows a consensual sexual relationship between a schoolteacher and a teenager, and the latter isn’t painted a victim. She comes off more like his wife – teasing, jealous, flirty – than someone he’s abusing. But we cannot say the film endorses this view. It’s just that these particular characters, these particular people, are this way.
Is this dangerous? Might Haraamkhor undo years of work by activists against child sexual abuse? Might Kaabil reinforce victim-shaming? Might the depictions of stalking in our cinema lead to more such behaviour on the streets? Perhaps. But that’s the thing with free speech. You are either for it or against it. There’s no “if and only if.” You can certainly talk about it, or against it. But if you’re a liberal, you have to let others tell stories you hate with every fibre of your being. Otherwise, you’re just a right winger with a vocabulary.
Copyright ©2017 Baradwaj Rangan. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
brangan
January 31, 2017
This is something I wanted to write more formally, as a column perhaps — but I’ve ended up discussing so many of these points in the comments section of ‘Kaabil’ that I thought I’d just put this out here.
LikeLiked by 4 people
sanjana
January 31, 2017
But it is not about right wingers wholly. You cant paint all of them with the same brush. There are liberals within rightwingers and they are not a homogeneous group.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
January 31, 2017
BR, a lot of what you said about Kaabil is something that I just wrote in the comments on that post. I still think that you cannot put stalking in films as something that ‘liberals’ protest against, or as free speech. Simply because, you do not have a plethora of rape-death-revenge films. Or a plethora of sexual abuse/paedophilia films.
What makes stalking in cinema problematic is that it normalises a behavioural pattern as something not only worthy of being emulated, but shown as being acceptable to women. Because, of course, they will say ‘yes’ in the end.
I thought, hoped that the stalking in cinema thread, and the Remo thread showed you where we were coming from. Apparently not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
January 31, 2017
What makes stalking in cinema problematic is that it normalises a behavioural pattern as something not only worthy of being emulated, but shown as being acceptable to women.
I wanted to add: this is also because every film, or at least every second film seems to show this path as a way of ‘winning’ the heroine. it is the sheer numbers and the repetition of the trope that exacerbates the situation and makes it seem ‘normal’.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Radhika
January 31, 2017
I didn’t understand the constant complaint of “how could they have known the script”, “but it’s not in the script” (no one has brought up the point that a dream sequence could be Alauddin’s fantasy anyway, so hardly tampering with history – but then this story is not a historical fact, explaining which is a waste of breath) – surely the point should be that even if it is in the script, it’s his right to depict a romance – audiences have the right to not watch the movie and ensure it flops.
LikeLiked by 4 people
brangan
January 31, 2017
Anu Warrier: As I said in the first comment, this isn’t a final draft. I started writing this — I wanted to add a para about the fact that it’s okay to depict a behaviour like stalking and that the problem comes when glorifying it. (Raanjhana depicts. Remo glorifies.)
But even its incomplete form, I just thought I’d put it out there as a blog post.
LikeLike
sanjana
January 31, 2017
There is a difference between free speech and freethinking supporters. The free speech supporters wont understand free thinkers because it is against their view. Sometimes freethinking is not politically correct or acceptable. In an ideal society all should have freedom to express, freedom to think without being moral policed.
LikeLike
Aditya (Gradwolf)
January 31, 2017
“Strangely, there was little controversy around the excellent Nawazuddin Siddiqui-starrer Haraamkhor, which was released a couple of weeks before Kaabil.”
Nothing strange. This is a small film, limited release, no biggie like Hrithik Roshan in it, probably out of theatres already. It wouldn’t have been surprising had there been a similar outrage about this. Heck, I’ve had the misfortune of reading reviews that said Udta Punjab was misogynistic because of the Alia Bhatt character arc. Tough times.
LikeLike
Rahul
January 31, 2017
The liberals can
1 ) Ask filmmakers not to make these kind of movies
2) They can boycott such movies
3) They can run campaigns on social media and offline against such movies.
4)They can confront actors \ filmmakers rudely or politely.
None of this violates freedom of speech of the film maker.
They can’t
1)beat him or her up
2) forcibly prevent people from watching such movies
3) Ask govt to step in
etc.
If they believe in free speech.
LikeLiked by 5 people
shaviswa
January 31, 2017
Was on a bus yesterday and I was forced to watch Remo. What a horrible movie!! Not just the stalking part. The film was not even worth dumping into the gutter.
LikeLike
shaviswa
January 31, 2017
I do not agree to absolute free speech. Nor do I agree to excessive censorship. But film makers need to be responsible in story telling.
A story like Rani Padmini is something we read about and hear from childhood. We are told how Indian women preferred death to being the concubine of a tyrant king. How the entire men folk fought in a brave war and died while the women jumped into the fire. The story and the legend surrounding that is something Indians are taught to take pride in India’s culture.
Why would film makers want to mess with that? What makes them think that they can do anything in the name of freedom of expression? Don’t they have a sense of responsibility towards society? In what they can touch and what they cannot?
PS1: When Mani Ratnam made Raavanan, I hated the fact that he was trying to mess with India’s greatest epic. I was horrified to see Aishwarya’s character actually sympathizing with Vikram’s character. That Prithviraj uses her to kill Vikram. It was character assassination of India’s greatest characters. I was happy to see the film flop and felt vindicated, that people in India do not like film makers messing with legends. High time our film makers realize this and become a lot more responsible.
PS2: I do not condone the violence however. People could reject the film and ensure that it ends in a dustbin, like how Ravanan ended up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NA NA
January 31, 2017
You are making a false equivalence between criticism of a choice that a filmmaker has made and the use of threats, physical violence, and intimidation to deny that choice to another. Surely, right to free speech doesn’t insulate you from criticism of said speech. It is another matter if you are denied the right to even say it. The difference is pretty clear cut to me. What am I missing?
LikeLike
sreedharpuliyakote
January 31, 2017
Then where is the line between depiction and glorifying. Besides, wouldn’t staying silent in the instance from Kaabil that is mentioned here condoning it? I have not seen the movie, but if he didn’t feel guilty about the way he behaved and then went on a revenge streak and emerge heroic, isn’t that reinforcing victim shaming/spoiled life?
LikeLike
brangan
January 31, 2017
Aditya: But it’s still a film that would have been seen by people who wrote opinion pieces and columns, no? That’s why I was surprised there was a peep about it.
shaviswa: In an ideal society, anyone should have the right to re-imagine anything, whether it’s an epic or history or whatever. People have the right to watch it, or reject it, or non-violently voice their protest, like writing about it, etc. But art should notbe constrained, else it’s not a free society.
NA NA: Yes. Right to free speech does not imply immunity from criticism.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thulasidasan Jeewaratinam
January 31, 2017
A comment by Shaviswa which I don’t particularly agree to: “I do not agree to absolute free speech. Nor do I agree to excessive censorship. But film makers need to be responsible in story telling.
A story like Rani Padmini is something we read about and hear from childhood. We are told how Indian women preferred death to being the concubine of a tyrant king. How the entire men folk fought in a brave war and died while the women jumped into the fire. The story and the legend surrounding that is something Indians are taught to take pride in India’s culture.
Why would film makers want to mess with that? What makes them think that they can do anything in the name of freedom of expression? Don’t they have a sense of responsibility towards society? In what they can touch and what they cannot?
PS1: When Mani Ratnam made Raavanan, I hated the fact that he was trying to mess with India’s greatest epic. I was horrified to see Aishwarya’s character actually sympathizing with Vikram’s character. That Prithviraj uses her to kill Vikram. It was character assassination of India’s greatest characters. I was happy to see the film flop and felt vindicated, that people in India do not like film makers messing with legends. High time our film makers realize this and become a lot more responsible.
PS2: I do not condone the violence however. People could reject the film and ensure that it ends in a dustbin, like how Ravanan ended up.”
One, historical distortion is commonplace in film, screenplay and whatsoever creative field. Unless you’re trying to present a film that exercises truth and honesty of history till it permeates through the fibers of the screen, it’s fine. I don’t think Mani Ratnam was wrong, neither was Bhansali. Both were filmmakers whom saw a dramatic arc, confined within literature and history, decided/deciding (in Bhansali’s case) to tweak it to enhance it for greatest emotional impact for the screenplay. I’m speaking on purely screenplay writing trajectory here, so if you’re on the other side of the argument after reading this, perhaps the prism onto which you view things are completely different from mine.
Two, character assassination of India’s greatest characters, you say? Look here. Take Nazis and Holocausts. It’s a tough topic right? A sensitive one, you would agree? Quentin Tarantion saw a gem of a revenge-escape-fantasy in it and built Inglorious Basterds. Given what the film aimed to do and understanding that the film actually accomplished what it wanted to do, there is ACTUALLY no issue regarding “smearing” the history or whatsoever. Steven Spielberg directed Schindler’s List which also deals with Holocaust, but in a different prism. That’s being truthful to history and excess historical manipulation in that film would have ruined it. Two different films, two different ideas, two different prisms, two different perspectives, one topic of interest. It okay to pick faults in films that are trying to depict history truthfully, but it’s abuse to nitpick one that doesn’t even try to be truthful.
Three, film isn’t representation of real life. For that, you tune to documentaries. Film is the imitation of life, thus the exaggeration and restraint of drama that comes along with it is justified entirely. Understand that notion.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Apu
January 31, 2017
About Kaabil: I think we need to make the distinction between “showing reality” and “making a deliberate choice”.
If a film depicts a protagonist as a “Hero” who is supposed to be doing nothing wrong, which most commercial, broad-brush-stroke films do, then the director/creative group chooses to build the character that way, and in that case, whatever the “hero” does becomes the “correct thing to do”.
However, if the protagonist is shown as a flawed, normal person who also admits to have been wrong on a couple occasions, then whatever he does is just his “character” and not endorsing a certain behavior as a correct one.
About Padmavati vs Kaabil reaction:
One is a protest against assumed depiction of “history” vs the other a criticism of what the movie actually is.
The director has complete authority over what he wants to show. However, he should not have immunity to criticism, except if it means stopping display of the movie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Prashila
January 31, 2017
I would like to mention just one point here. And I think this is very critical in the context of everything we are discussing here, stalking, Kaabil, Padmavati, et all. We need to remember that this free/ideal society that we righty long for, is hosted by an extremely complex entity called India which incidentally happens to be a democracy, and with so many languages and dialects that I think hardly a handful of its citizens would even know all these names, let alone relate them to anything more substantial like their underlying cultures(many of which very sadly are only languishing). Add to it we are one of the fastest growing economies in the world, and yet with one of the widest rich-poor divide. We need to remember the free-thinking amongst us do not make up the masses of this nation. Everytime I step on a crowded road, I am rudely reminded of my place, as sad as it may sound. The stage at which we are now, with the divide only deepening further, it seems impossible to expect that letting freedom of expression(or distortion of ‘popular recorded factual’ history as is alleged in Padmavati) will be this hugely populated country’s priority. And which is why something like all the stalker movies will never consider this an artistic device. These are portrayals of real men and real women. And in all the wonderful threads on this blog, people like Iswarya and Anu W. have aptly captured why the thriving of such movies is damaging to the collective psyche of this already troubled nation. Freedom of expression in this case only propagates more confusion and not at all in a good way as we have already noticed.
Padmavati on the other hand is the other extreme. We are talking about a hugely revered female historical figure here. Set her in the current context where women’s safety has become such a concern, and feel the shivers go down your spine. And now imagine SLB wanting to make a movie, with two top stars (with possibly a real life fling or two?). Whether he wanted to make a scene is not something anyone of us here probably know. And the liberal inside me strongly condones the manhandling the respected man was subjected to (this is just another version of the Mangalore pub attack that happened all those years ago) But given his portrayals of other ‘historical’ figures (Kashibai and Mastani dancing together! Really? My heart weeps at the memory of that song :), or showing Kashibai as some Aphrodite when in reality she was known to be a frail and bed-ridden woman who had possibly never even spoken to Mastani. I am sorry, but what are you really doing here, adding glorified/classy masala to your movies to draw in more crowds. And yet you are allowed to do that. But then why publicize this as Bajirao-Mastani-Kashibai. Why not go all out and re-imagine these characters in completely different form and with different names/different settings or whatever. You want to use the names, you want to use the aura around them, and then don’t want to respect even their basic personal traits. Sorry, I cannot bring myself to agree to this or consider this artistic freedom in its truest sense. That said, I do hope Padmavati is made and with at least some semblance to the legend around her. Otherwise this time around, we might end up with Khilji and Ratan Singh doing a duet dance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Prashila
January 31, 2017
Argh I meant liberal in me condemns the act, not condone.
LikeLike
Rahul Tyagi
January 31, 2017
Wanted to say something that I now note has been said by others before. will say it regardless 😛 . You seem to be making false equivalence between verbally criticizing something and violence/coercion. Free speech only means that everyone should be allowed to say anything without the threat of violence/coercion by anyone else (including, especially, the state). Not that people can’t say reasonable (or, equally, completely bonkers) things against it if they don’t like it. Someone saying “I hate Charlie Hebdo. I think they are completely irresponsible, distasteful and offensive. I won’t buy an issue and will talk about it in public so that others may not support them with their money either.” is perfectly fine. Even saying “Sanjay Bhansali is completely irresponsible and shouldn’t make a mockery of our history” should be fine regardless of whether I agree with that statement or not. Free speech comes in when someone slaps him and breaks his camera and forces him to stop shooting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
January 31, 2017
“4)They can confront actors \ filmmakers rudely or politely.” – Pardon, why rudely? Has the filmmaker or actor personally wronged them? What after all is being fought for is the cause and it’s not against a specific person. I would equally also object to attempts to shaming that person so that he ‘gets the message’ and never repeats the ‘offence’ again because while it is not physical harm, it does inflict a loss of reputation and/or possibly financial loss on him. We cannot run a kangaroo court that presumes guilt on his part that then gives us the ‘right’ to inflict injury, albeit non physical, on him.
For the rest, I agree, there is no comparison with the tactics of the conservatives. But the gist of it then is that neither liberals nor conservatives are really FOR freedom of expression; the liberals just use ‘soft’ tactics to get the filmmaker to not make such a film again (hard tactics can be pursued once there is adequate political support to pass necessary legislation). But if you are truly and unambiguously for freedom of expression, you should not oppose directly or indirectly the screening and viewing of the film irrespective of its content. We don’t see much of what I described above in India but that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening already.
Criticism is fair game. Assaults, whether verbal or physical, aren’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
January 31, 2017
shaviswa: Thalapathi and Raavanan are not ‘retellings’ of the epics. A stage play would suffice if ‘storytelling’ is your sole objective. One can always make films ‘based’ on a literature/event. As a matter of fact, we have multiple versions (of Ramayana and Mahabharata) that deviate significantly from the original versions. There’s a version of MB that narrates the story from the Kauravas’ POV. Would you object Kambaramayanam as well? I’m not a fan of Raavanan, but it hurts when I realise that Veerapandiya Kattabomman and Karnan are viewed as ‘landmark’ films.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul
January 31, 2017
Madan – ” Pardon, why rudely? Has the filmmaker or actor personally wronged them?”
I was not opining on whether one should behave one way or another. Just saying what does or doesn’t violate FOE.
“But the gist of it then is that neither liberals nor conservatives are really FOR freedom of expression;”
This may or may not be true but as per the example in this article I disagree. We should not conflate\confuse FOE with being made comfortable to express an opinion. The softness\hardness of the tactics is not a minor detail, its the critical differentiator.
LikeLike
Anuja Chandramouli
January 31, 2017
Freedom of expression should not come with ifs or buts. I genuinely believe that given the oral tradition India originally followed, our great works of literature, religious texts and whatever have you, have survived thanks to the efforts and liberties, romantic and otherwise taken by the creative and passionate souls out there. For all the freshly minted purists harping about historical accuracy and the need to uphold the honest truth (who the frick amongst us can claim to know whatever the hell that is?) all I can say is that scholars and historians both Indian and foreign have long struggled to establish the veracity of most things our textbooks TomTom as hard facts. That is the only hard fact. So those who think that there is only one version of the Ramayana, Mahabharata, Rani Padmavathi’s bio and it is set in stone you are mistaken.
It is only by reconstructing the fragments from the past (I am including the stories we have been told about Gods and Goddesses or even the historical figures we revere as such) with a lively imagination, genuine inspiration and an assimilation of fresh ideas that we can keep our vast, sprawling heritage intact.
Hence I simply cannot condone any attempt to curb free speech or artistic license. When it comes to art people must have absolutele freedom, even if it is to portray stalkers or a sensitive issue like rape however they see fit. And those who have issues with such portrayals are free to express their revulsion.
BR: “I wanted to add a para about the fact that it’s okay to depict a behaviour like stalking and that the problem comes when glorifying it. (Raanjhana depicts. Remo glorifies.)”
C’mon BR, I was nodding in agreement right till that point…. Who gets to decide what is an OK way to depict something? It’s a very slippery slope don’t you think? I second Rahini’s comment and will paraphrase Voltaire: I disagree with most of the crap out there be it print or films but I’ll defend to the death, the right of people to put their crap out there and my own right to deal with it as I see fit provided I am not infringing on anyone else’s rights.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Mukesh
January 31, 2017
It is quite amusing to see savarna writers go on and on about the need of free speech without ‘ifs and buts’. How convenient, as if the world exists in a vacuum, without there being any difference between some like Baradwaj Rangan and say a dalit Singer like Shetal Sathe. After all both are performing their ‘art’ with one in jail.
Also how beautifully it became a ‘right wing’ attack, and not one by a Rajput group.
LikeLike
selva
February 1, 2017
I don’t think you can distort facts in the name of free speech. Mani Ratnam made Iruvar and Guru, both biopics but I don’t think he ever publicly acknowledged the fact that they were biopics. People knew. But it wasn’t official because the concerned people could file a defamation case if they find something objectionable or at least I think they can. I don’t remember Iruvar much but I think he played it very safe with Guru. So that’s where your right to free speech ends 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
blurb
February 1, 2017
shaviswa: I know this is not a thread about Raavanan, but hey, who in this blog sticks to the topic of the article. 😀
I actually liked Raavanan. To me, the fact that it had the “Ramanaya” connection was very peripheral. What I find really intriguing is that Raavanan deals with “it’s all about whose perspective it is” idea. The prime content was about a change in perspective; to see where the so-called evil is coming from. So, if not for the Ramayanam they could have used some other construct to exercise this mind game of seeing things from the other perspective.
We all live in this warped sense of misplaced self-righteousness and we really tend to loose perspective sometimes (if one finds themselves saying “I am definitely not one of those”, then aren’t they the forefront runner of “those”?) . I find this happening to me a lot — many a times even as I read comments on this blog. I find myself vehemently disagreeing with many things and get totally riled up and emotional. Thank goodness to my inability to write all that coherently — especially when I am emotionally vulnerable — I refrain from making long, and frequent comments.
My point is — it takes a lot to get out of your skin and see truly where the other person is coming from. Something I immensely struggle with. And I liked that Raavanan deals with a dash of that.
What I didn’t like and was disappointed with is that — in the end, Dev is painted as the bad guy, and Veera, the good. That was unnecessary, and IMO went against the whole “it’s all about perspective” theme. It would have been interesting to show both of them as good. Because after all, in each of our own little bubbles, we are all saints who do no wrong.
I hope someone (like Karthik Subbaraj) will make a movie with more down-to-earth characters, in realistic scenarios to play around with those messy concepts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
February 1, 2017
“Just saying what does or doesn’t violate FOE.” – As I understand from BR’s article, he is discussing whether one is FOR or AGAINST freedom of expression. And you can be AGAINST FOE even if the tactics you use to achieve this are not violent or illegal.
“We should not conflate\confuse FOE with being made comfortable to express an opinion.” – And I don’t believe I have.
“The softness\hardness of the tactics is not a minor detail, its the critical differentiator.” – In terms of what YOU are arguing, yes. But in terms of what the article has argued about, what tactics you use have no bearing on whether you are for or against freedom of expression. If you would like to do everything in your power to stop the release of a particular film, you are not for freedom of expression. However, as far as contrasting Kaabil with Padamavathi goes, yes, I don’t see criticism of Kaabil on grounds of misogyny or insensitivity (only guessing as I have not seen the film and am not inclined to) as indicating that the liberal who does so is against freedom of expression. He would be if he started a twitter storm abusing the makers of the film or launching a wide media campaign to get it taken out of cinema halls. Again, though these are very much legal means to oppose a film, they ultimately obstruct freedom of expression whereas mere criticism, however harsh, does not do so. I think blasting a film because it is perceived as promoting misogynist attitudes is fair enough.
LikeLike
Bala
February 1, 2017
Here’s the thing, I’m usually all for artistic license to reimagine people, history etc. Or so I thought. When the last Jobs movie was released, I got thoroughly pissed when I saw the huge liberties the writer took (a fine Fassbender performance notwithstanding) Of course that could be because making a movie about people whose lives are relatively well documented and then changing their story just to suit the whims and fancies of the writer is a different thing. Or maybe not. Or it could be that I couldn’t see how the movie benefited from the reimagining. How’s this alternate story better than the actual mythology/history etc? Does it serve a purpose? Inglurious basterds does, for instance, I think. There’s a very real, cathartic reason to make that alternate story. What’s new about yet another love story I wonder though. (if that’s what this movie is going to be) I see it as less artistic vision as laziness and a refusal to write something better, nuanced. (Bajirao did have that to an extent so maybe there is still hope)
LikeLike
Filistine
February 1, 2017
Surely, you are missing the wood for the trees? Those who have had problems against Kaabil aren’t saying that the actor or director should be beaten up or that the film should be banned from the theatres. They are expressing an opinion about why the film (underlined, upper case and bold) did not work for them. I am, of course, going by the comments made on your blog, not in the larger social media space. (By the way, why have you classified all those who were unhappy with Kaabil as “liberals”?)
What is different in the case of Padmavati is that the film and the film-maker are being hounded before the film is even shot, based on some anecdotal evidence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kurinji
February 1, 2017
The liberals can be annoyingly nitpicking but it cannot be compared with the coercive tacticts of religious fundamentalists . Bansali was physically attacked . So were the water crew. Calling someone for an argument is not same as punching someone in the face . Take iruvar for instance . The movie showed MK in negative light and put the onus on his character for the fallout between the main characters . I dont remember theatres vandalised during that time . If I remeber correctly prakashraj received an award from the same person he played on screen . Back home vishwaroopam and virumandi were targetted due to personal vendetta and pressure from government though it was done through certain groups. So it is more prudent to protect the rights of filmmakers from bullies who come in different forms and shapes . Can a movie be criticised in newspaper columns or blogs ? Absolutely .
LikeLiked by 1 person
shaviswa
February 1, 2017
@Honest Raj (formerly ‘V’enkatesh)
I am not against retelling and embellishments to story arcs. But not to character assassinations. You cannot characterize Sita to empathize with Ravanan. Nor can you characterize Rama as a scheming man who used his wife to kill the villain unable to defeat him directly.
Ramayana’s greatest aspect is the character arc of Rama and Sita. When you kill that, you end up with a sloppy film like Ravanan. 🙂
Similarly, Rani Padmini’s character is about how she killed herself rather than fall into Khilji’s hands. Making her prance around with Khilji is worst character assassination one can think of.
If you are interested in writing about some Rajput queen with some Delhi Sultanate King, nobody is going to object.
LikeLike
Deep ak
February 1, 2017
Let’s for a minute ignore the violence and ridiculous argument of Karni Sena about the issue and just consider the topic that you chose to point out the seemingly double standard approach of the liberal few. One is the argument to allow a filmmaker to be given the free-will to depict a historical personality, while the other is a criticism on a filmmaker who used his free-will and depicted a particular event.
The conservative argument in the former case is the protection of a symbol that is held as being sacred or pure, for which the liberal counter-argument would be to free oneself of the moral trappings (in this case religion, tokenism) that an age-old society had imbibed in oneself. If you consider the second issue, the liberal argument is still the same – the attempt to free oneself of the moral trappings (in this case victim-shaming, stalking) prevalent in the society. The difference you see is only in the way the liberals seek to make the changes happen – in the first case empowering and encouraging such events, while in the second case attempting to discourage such events in the future. This is the classic Conservative versus Progressive dialogue. Well, you pick a side.
I understand that choosing to be conservative for an issue, while being liberal for others can be considered as double-standards, but I don’t think this is such a case.
LikeLike
The Ghost Who Walks
February 1, 2017
What most reactions seem to have missed is that the earliest record of Rani Padmavati’s story comes not from historical archives or records, but from a poem written some time 200 years after the events. The poet who wrote Padmavat is Malik Muhammad Jayasi. If he were to do it today, he would be stoned to death! These are the times we live in..
LikeLiked by 4 people
The Ghost Who Walks
February 1, 2017
I’m curious to know what people here think.. Do we really believe all such attacks (can add Vishwaroopam and a bunch more to the list) are motivated by genuine hurt? I for one do not think that’s the case. The unfortunate reality is that offence taking has become profitable now and there is no shortage of people willing to take advantage of it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Srinivas R
February 1, 2017
+1 to the Ghost, all this vandalism and violence for reworking a piece of fiction. I pointed out the very same thing on FB and you can imagine the result. We have become a country of imbeciles, ready to take offence at anything
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul
February 1, 2017
Madan , no i don’t agree. If one is protesting against a particular expression peacefully they are NOT against FOE , they are against that particular expression.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 1, 2017
BR, I agree with Filistine. You are conflating two different things. No ‘liberal’ or even ‘feminist’ group, pseudo or otherwise, has asked for Kaabil to be banned, or for Sanjay Gupta or Hrithik Roshan to a) apologise or b) re-shoot that scene/cut the scene/insert whatever of your choice or c) attacked them physically to show our disapproval.
They have put out a product that some of us disagree with, and we say so. ‘Freedom of speech’ does not preclude its criticism. Our freedom of speech allows us the same freedom – to tell someone we disagree with them. Non?
B. I agree with ghost-who-walks. None of this is ‘hurt feelings’ or even ‘freedom of speech’. This is political mileage. We have already seen how the MNS held Karan Johar hostage; Kamal Hassan faced the ire of a political party and its acolytes with two of his films. The more we placate the bullies, the more we stand to lose.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anu Warrier
February 1, 2017
shaviswa, you are fallng into the same error as the Karni Seva lot purport to have fallen – that there is indeed a scene where Padmini cavorts with Allaudin Khilji. You don’t know that, but you are ready to slam Bhansali?
B) Let’s assume there is such a scene. What if the context was that Khilji is dreaming of Padmini, once he has seen her reflection in the mirror? A man fantasising about a woman he cannot have – surely that is permissible? Or is Padmini’s honour so sacrosanct that even imagining her in such a situation defiles her?
Re: Ravananan: as a movie, parts of it worked for me, parts of it didn’t. I didn’t like the ending because the characters became too black and white – in reverse of the myth, where Ram was whiter than white and Ravana blacker than black. However, even there, you must remember that Manirathnam was not retelling the Ramayana; he was reimagining it. There’s a difference. Of course, if he made it today, he would be in hospital perhaps.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
February 1, 2017
When it comes to art people must have absolutele freedom, even if it is to portray stalkers or a sensitive issue like rape however they see fit.
Anuja, I am pretty much in agreement with most of what you said, but I just want to respond to the ‘as they see fit’ part of your sentence.
I have no issues about films that portray stalkers. But then, call it stalking!. It is when they call it ‘true love’ and ‘romance’ and ‘devotion’, and then continue to hammer that message into our brains film after film after film, that’s when the problem starts. The thread on stalking addressed most of the consequences. Real life consequences that women are paying for, often with their lives. The normalisation of this behaviour as shown on screen, the absolute negation of a woman’s consent, the glorification of a macho creed that refuses to take ‘no’ for an answer – all these have undisputably increased crimes against women.
Again, no one called for a ban there; no one attacks these film-makers or actors, or holds them hostage until they promise to change. But yes, we can ask for that change.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anuj
February 1, 2017
“What makes stalking in cinema problematic is that it normalises a behavioural pattern as something not only worthy of being emulated, but shown as being acceptable to women.” ~of what I read last, pseudo liberals and experts critics like BR were actually going gaga over this pile of trash called RAANJHANAA :p
LikeLike
Anuj
February 1, 2017
“In an ideal society, anyone should have the right to re-imagine anything, whether it’s an epic or history or whatever. People have the right to watch it, or reject it, or non-violently voice their protest, like writing about it, etc. But art should not be constrained, else it’s not a free society.” ~ spoken like a true pseudo liberal (folks who like to identify themselves as critics). ART is not a holier than thou medium that the so called artists can go about blasphemously fiddling with history and playing with sentiments. Agreed that violence is not a solution or a manner of protest but that in no manner implies that film makers/artists are free to portray everything as per their imagination and make a mockery of mythological/historical legends. I said the same thing during PK’s Shiva scene and I stand by this.
LikeLike
olemisstarana
February 1, 2017
Anuj, wtf is a pseudo liberal? As opposed to a true, died in the wool liberal? Give me some context here.
LikeLike
Madan
February 1, 2017
“If one is protesting against a particular expression peacefully they are NOT against FOE , they are against that particular expression.”
Voltaire – “I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to death your right to say it”.
Sorry, there are no exceptions to FOE, nothing like there’s a particular expression that you would not see expressed. You can disagree with what is expressed, of course, but I think we have already established that that’s not a problem. Again, I am not asking YOU to support the right of each and every artist to express in whatever way they choose to express. I am just saying once you entertain the possibility that it is ok to oppose the mere airing of a particular film, you are no longer for freedom of expression.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 1, 2017
Anuj, I didn’t like Raanjhnaa though I admired Dhanush’s acting in it. For what it’s worth, I don’t think Raanjhnaa glorified stalking, or rewarded it – the girl remains constant in her ‘no’. Two, it is told from the stalker’s perspective. There is a difference between that film and the two-penny ones that release each week, where the girl’s no becomes a yes after she’s relentlessly stalked, even shamed into ‘falling in love’.
Two, the PK Shiva scene – the man who is playing Shiva in a play within the film is shown smoking and running away. What was problematic about it? That ‘Shiva’ was smoking? Then surely, no actor playing mythological roles should smoke or drink in real life, or be anything other than ‘godly’, no? Or is the problem only with making fun of them? You cannot dissociate showing a man-playing-the-role-of-Shiva who is smoking from the ‘God’ Shiva, who incidentally is supposed to love his bhang and his hashish even from our mythological stories?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anuja Chandramouli
February 1, 2017
“But then, call it stalking!. It is when they call it ‘true love’ and ‘romance’ and ‘devotion’, and then continue to hammer that message into our brains film after film after film, that’s when the problem starts.”
No argument there, Anu Warrior. People ought to know better than to deliberately mislead or misinform others.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
February 1, 2017
@Anuj, fiddling with history? So you cannot look at it from a different perspective? At all? Gandhi’s assassination – you cannot see it from Godse’s viewpoint? Does that fiddle with history? Or give us a much-needed look into the psyche of a man (and men like him) who desperately believed in an ideology? One need not agree with that ideology to appreciate the other side, no?
‘Hurting people’s sentiments’ – which people’s? What sentiments? How can anyone write/film/paint/insert art of your choice here because something somewhere will offend someone? How will art flourish if it is so dependent on ‘people’s sentiments’? We are adults, surely? Living in a free society? Vote with your feet, with your money… don’t watch/read/go to see whatever offends you. PK hurt your sentiments – so? We ban it? We don’t allow a film maker to make it?
Padmini is ‘hurting’ the Karni sevaks’ sentiments – so we stop Bhansali from making it? We make him change his vision to something that will suit us. But what if something else in that film hurts someone else’s sentiments? No problem – we cut that off as well. Next.
Or burn books. Or vandalise an art studio. Destroy public property in the name of ‘hurt sentiments’.
Way to provide an environment for art to flourish.
Now in the news – the government has given visas to not one, but two Pakistani artistes to work in a new Hindi film. Why? After all the furore over Uri and ADHM? When this new film is due for release, many someones will protest that their work is an ‘insult’ to our soldiers fighting and dying on our borders. Then the film-makers will have to cut their roles, pay ransom money, and live in fear of their lives. I ask you – why is there no outcry against the government handing out visas to Pakistanis? Why wait until the film is ready for release to protest against the film-makers for ‘hurting our sentiments’? Whose sentiments? Do you think any of these protestors really have any sentiments to hurt? If so, why aren’t they voicing their protests against the government?
What’s ‘pseudo-liberal’ about protesting this? Or for arguing that yes, while there has to be a responsibility, especially if you are glorifying/normalising a certain egregious behaviour in film after film after film, the artists’ vision should be independent of constraints?
LikeLiked by 6 people
Vikram S
February 1, 2017
Very topical. My point is this- doesn’t freedom of speech/ expression come with some responsibility? Very few film makers can walk the tightrope between depicting and glorifying.. if you remember the old film ‘insaf ka tarazu’ touted as a film against rape actually used the subject as an excuse to objectify/ glorify….
Re: haramkhor, I was personally disgusted with the film’s premise and decided to stay away from it. As an audience member, that is all I can do…no amount of liberals ranting on social media will make changes…the only language that film makers will get is the audience voting by staying away from a film…
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
February 1, 2017
Shaviswa: You cannot characterize Sita to empathize with Ravanan. Nor can you characterize Rama as a scheming man who used his wife to kill the villain unable to defeat him directly.
I repeat, the film isn’t a retelling of the epic nor a fan-fiction. Second, Ramayana to Rani Padmini’s tale isn’t apples to apples; I strongly believe the former to be a fictitious story with constructed characters. I’m all for criticism against movies which deliberately distort historical events, but I wouldn’t put Raavanan into the same basket. In fact in the Thai version of Ramayana, Ramakien, the characters of Rama and Hanuman are ‘assassinated’ to the maximum extent possible!
Lastly, when the Dravidian rationalists and Hindu nationalists are busy celebrating Raavana Leela and erecting temples for Godse, why can’t the anti-national libtards have freedom of expression? They are humans too. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aadhy
February 1, 2017
For a moment, I’m gonna sidestep the argument that creators should/shouldn’t be bothered with historical accuracy. Like Anuja had mentioned, how are the history guardians so certain that a version, which has been retold and reinterpreted several times before it reached them, is actually what had happened/historically accurate? With all the video evidences we’re using now to document events, we’re still skeptical about what to believe. And we are talking about what happened with Ranis and Rajas of yore, with handwritten scripts as historical recordings. While epistemologists are breaking their heads to examine the veracity of renowned historians, people are already sure that the so-called facts are not just passed-on myths? These ‘facts’ are stories told by a storyteller, who you think has credibility. Another storyteller tries to interpret it in his own way and it’s distortion of facts? If we start collecting living human witnesses for an event we can only go as far as 100 years back, and that too we wouldn’t know if they are lying, unless there is a large scale acceptance across the world and strong scientific evidence. And everything before that is just passed-on information that someone passed on to our informers.
I really liked Raavanan just because of the role reversal. All our lives we’ve been fed the pro-Ram version and it was nice to see a diametrically opposite take on it. It humanized Sita and didn’t make her an epitome of so-called ‘purity’ that we’ve always been taught. The reason I think it got made without problems is because it was a modern day adaptation like a Thalapathy, Ahalya, Aaranya kaandam etc., and not a period drama. If Sita had been shown as herself, getting attracted to Raavanan in a periodic setting, I doubt if that movie would have ever come out. High time we see these stories as sprawling works of literature with rich content for drama and not attach faith-related emotions to it, or at least not impose these emotions on anyone else.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Nkb
February 1, 2017
Good lord, Shaviswa is exactly that… ‘a right winger with a vocabulary’ and what’s worse is he/she doesn’t know it :p Wanting art to cater to your biases rather than being open to what it may offer is the biggest disservice we can do as a society in limiting its thoughts. Geez how hard is it to understand this simple concept?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
February 1, 2017
Aadhy: Thanks for bringing up Ahalya. I wonder what would be Shaviswa’s take on the film!
LikeLike
blurb
February 1, 2017
Anu Warrier and olemisstarana, ‘pseudo liberals’ or the ‘regressive left’ :
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/can-liberalism-be-saved-from-itself
LikeLike
Arjun
February 2, 2017
Lib: I may disagree with what you say but I’ll blah blah blah
Mustafa: Allahu Akbar, chop chop
Saifullah, Kareemullah & co: Takbir,Takbir
LikeLike
Arjun
February 2, 2017
Being intolerant and anti FOE is in fact very good from an evolutionary fitness standpoint.
See also: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15#.dduxdmuh0
LikeLike
Anuj
February 2, 2017
“So you cannot look at it from a different perspective? At all? Gandhi’s assassination – you cannot see it from Godse’s viewpoint? Does that fiddle with history? Or give us a much-needed look into the psyche of a man (and men like him) who desperately believed in an ideology? One need not agree with that ideology to appreciate the other side, no?” ~the point is, NOBODY would dare make a movie from Godse’s point of view even though Godse’s tale is nothing short of inspiring imo. I’d have had no issues with the Lord Shiva scene is PK had anyone from bollywood (a synonym for mafia) dare portraying Muhammad or Jesus in a similar manner. I doubt anyone would have the balls to do so.
‘Hurting people’s sentiments’ – which people’s? What sentiments? How can anyone write/film/paint/insert art of your choice here because something somewhere will offend someone? How will art flourish if it is so dependent on ‘people’s sentiments’? We are adults, surely? Living in a free society? Vote with your feet, with your money… ~right, i’m sure you’re the kind who’d support a film maker’s point of view even if he/she wants to portray Rani Lakshmibai as a prostitute under the bogus pretext of “freedom of art”. Fundamental rights come with fundamental duties but I guess that does not imply to artists and film-makers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aran
February 2, 2017
Aadhy, I think it is the mythic truth that leads to more of a defensive reaction than objective truth. Because mythic truths are based on belief and require a personal or societal investment into them, and since they become personal, they are defended from a sense of self or identification of the individual. Attack the myth and it’s like you’re attacking the belief system of the individual. Myths mean something to people emotionally. In contrast, objective truth is more rational and evidence-based – doesn’t have that same sense of ‘MY TRUTH’ that mythic truth does. With objective truths though, as you pointed out, there isn’t really any way to reach objective truth a lot of the time. So it’s pretty much a matter of, “I’ll live in my bubble here and attack anyone who tries to pop it.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul
February 2, 2017
Madan, I think I can’t express myself clearly. In any case, last try – if i am not asking for taking away the freedom of expression of an individual, I am not sure how i am against freedom of expression.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 2, 2017
right, i’m sure you’re the kind who’d support a film maker’s point of view even if he/she wants to portray Rani Lakshmibai as a prostitute under the bogus pretext of “freedom of art”. Fundamental rights come with fundamental duties but I guess that does not imply to artists and film-makers.
I am not talking about falsifying history, so that’s a strawman argument that you have set up there. There’s no ‘other view’ that can prevail there, can it? She was never a prostitute. Historical figures, if you are making a period film based on their story, have to be true to that story. (Which is why I found the Pinga sequence in Bajirao Mastaniproblematic.) But if you are making a story based on a legend, and even if you have Allaudin Khilji fantasising about Padmini being his own (which I am not even sure it does), how does that violate Padmini’s ‘purity’?
But let us argue, for argument’s sake (because now, that’s all you are doing), that some film-maker decides to make a film based on Rani Laxmibai as a prostitute. Because, really, anyone is free to make any film he wants with his own money. But a) I can’t think of anyone insane enough to try that one b) if he does, I would think he has serious issues, and I’m not going to watch the film. If enough people don’t watch the film, because they are offended by the subject, that film sinks without a trace.
If you ban the film, beat up the film-maker, and vandalise public property, all you are doing is giving him tonnes of free publicity – which, in turn, will cause the public to go see what the fuss is all about.
Now, on the other hand, if there were historic evidence that a revered hero was indeed a prostitute, I see no reason why a film shouldn’t be made on the subject. That she was a sex worker doesn’t take away from whatever else she did that made her, justifiably, famous, does it? I don’t see the need to deify my heroes and heroines. I’m happy they are flawed, and yet so courageous in other ways, or achieved something so absolutely great.
I don’t know what ‘kind’ I am, but I’ll tell you what kind I am not – the kind who accuses someone else of being ‘some kind’ of person, as if by lumping everyone into one group (‘pseudo-liberal’ in my case), you win the argument.
But enough. I doubt I will change your mind that we are pseudo-liberal yes-men/women cronies of BR, so peace. FWIW, I’m pretty happy being liberal if that means fighting for the rights of a person to express his views without being beaten up for them.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Anu Warrier
February 2, 2017
the point is, NOBODY would dare make a movie from Godse’s point of view even though Godse’s tale is nothing short of inspiring imo.
You prove my point right there – nobody would dare because that ‘nobody’ would get lynched today. By the same people who will object to Bhansali’s vision of Padmini (even if they have no clue what it is about).
And again, for what it’s worth, Mi Nathuram Godse Boltoy was a very successful Marathi play, based on Godse’s defence in a book called May It Please Your Honour? When it was staged, Congress activists threatened the director and actors. It was banned after 13 shows, then resurfaced in 2001, and later in 2011, playing to packed houses anytime it was staged.
It’s also interesting that you don’t mind a play about Gandhi’s assassin, portraying the other side of the issue. What happened to ‘fiddling with history’ and ‘hurting people’s sentiments’ then?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anu Warrier
February 2, 2017
@Aran – the mythic truth vs. objective truth – that was a great comment.
LikeLike
Jay
February 2, 2017
Thanks for pointing out the obvious, and also proving that people will still find something to tangentially get incensed about whilst someone else points out the obvious.
w.r.t some of the comments upthread; You can have a problem with stories and potrayals and even make psychoanalytic statements about institutional attitudes without necessarily robbing people the platform they use to voice their opinions. You can have a problem with Kaabil and critique the hell out of it (possibly even socially ostracize the director) without robbing said person of a platform to voice their opinions.
If you think banning such movies with the help of institutional bureaucracy is more efficient than discourse (possibly because you believe the beasts of the B and C strata won’t understand your ideas) that says more about you than it does about the gullible movie watcher who imbibes the ideas presented to him on the big screen.
LikeLike
Jay
February 2, 2017
I find it ironic that this post is about absolute free speech, and yet the comment section is moderated (I cannot post my comments without them being reviewed by the moderator). Oh well.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 2, 2017
@blurb, how is this relevant here?
LikeLike
Aran
February 2, 2017
Jay, the moderation probably has to do with spamming and bot comments than curtailing freedom of speech. But just a guess.
Anu Warrier, thanks. Just came across that little bit in Aadhy’s comment that interested me while trying to formulate a post about the freedom of speech vs. responsibility debate and how that might be related to the bigger kind of societies we live in. Still trying. Language is hard. 🙂
LikeLike
praneshp
February 2, 2017
@Jay: In the US, free speech means the government (or specifically, Congress) cannot prevent you from speaking out. It does not apply to a private entity running a blog, and it does not mean freedom from consequences of speech. I’ll let someone more knowledgeable than me comment about what it really means in India.
If it means the same thing (on paper) in India, it’s not ironic at all. @brangan is awesome, but he is not our government yet.
LikeLike
IMF
February 2, 2017
Not really a liberal, but I’ll bite:
This is one of the most poorly reasoned posts I’ve read on your blog. I haven’t read other comments yet, but let me point out the obvious:
a. Criticizing any film/book/work of art, no matter how vehemently, is NOT tantamount to forcing them to shut down through threats and violence. And SLB was sure not the first victim of this (although in this case it was more direct onslaught). I haven’t heard of any “liberals” threatening Sanjay Gupta or heck, even moving legally on this front to ban Kaabil because the movie was problematic. All I’ve seen are reviews criticizing the film and people using satire/humor to undermine the film in general. Which is totally warranted and justifiable.
But if you’re aware of it, sure do point it out.
b. There’s a BIG fundamental difference in some people being “offended” for some reason because they feel history is being distorted etc., and making films with regressive politics that reinforces existing prejudices, i.e. sexism, homophobia and so on. Say, someone having a problem with PK vs someone having a problem with Remo or such tripe, they’re not remotely on the same plane. It’s not about being “offensive”.
c. You can perfectly makes films about morally complex (or “controversial”, so to speak) topics without reinforcing any such beliefs. Take Haraamkhor for instance: I don’t know if someone had a problem with Haraamkhor in that sense (politically or morally) – because it didn’t make value judgement on the actions of their characters – it just shows this is how complex and messed up it is. And most of the reviewers didn’t seem to have a problem with the film.
If they did, you could have mounted a defense for that of course, would have made much more sense.
Exactly the opposite is the case with Kaabil – HR is a hero, a “sympathetic” good guy character (because that’s how it’s framed), and the film’s confirming to all these archaic misogynistic tropes, so of course these things should be deconstructed for what it is.
And there’s the discussion about limits of freedom of speech – as someone who’s interested in ethics and political philosophy, I’d love to discuss these things in general, but here it seems totally unnecessary, so I’ll end it at that 🙂
LikeLike
An Unknown Man
February 2, 2017
Just curious Rangan; did you write a piece on AIB being made to apologise to the Christian community? Did you write one on Vishwaroopam controversy? Did you write one on the sleeper cell controversy regarding Thuppaakki? Somehow, you manage to come up with detailed write-ups for PK, Padmavati, and the AIB’s roast of Sachin and Lata. What gives?
LikeLike
brangan
February 2, 2017
An Unknown Man: I did one on pk, and one on the Vishwaroopam controversy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Uncouth Village Youth
February 2, 2017
a) Freedom of speech/expression is absolute – no ifs, buts, add-ons and riders.
b) Criticize,educate,debate – don’t ban.The uncomfortable stuff will not go away by banning them.
c) Alternative facts,post-truths,truthiness have the same FOE as PC, SJ and liberalism.
d) Movies/art glorifying are all welcome. Most people will watch may be even enjoy them, but they will move on. A few however will be inspired by shit, no matter what and sadly might act on it. However, that is the price we pay for a free society.
e) Don’t decide for the B and C center beasts – they are perfectly capable of making sound judgments. As they say ‘Guns don’t kill, people do’.
f) Poor judgement on anyone’s part for drawing out false equivalences between Padmavathi and Kaabil. They are not even in the same ball park.
LikeLike
Kabali
February 2, 2017
I read Kaabil as Kabali in the heading and was puzzled by the lack of any Kabali reference there. Maybe I am dyslexic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
praneshp
February 2, 2017
@brangan: I heard Nirmal Shekar passed away, my condolences. I was looking forward to an article about Federer’s win.
LikeLike
Uncouth Village Youth
February 2, 2017
@praneshp – Even I was waiting for Nirmal’s article in Hindu – alas not to be. A Fededer win always felt incomplete without his article, especially for someone like me who shuns newspapers/media for a couple of days after a Fed loss. Miss you Nirmal 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
MANK
February 2, 2017
Brangan, i was shocked to see SLB being slapped and manhandled like a petty thief by a mob. Padmavati is a film i am keenly looking forward to watching this year. he had staged this as an opera before and i am keen to see what he brings to it as a motion picture. i hope this incident hasnt broken his spirit and that he will be able to finish and release the film without compromising his vision.
LikeLike
MV
February 2, 2017
This is a good thread & I feel both the sides deserve some credence, though the arguments put forth by the liberals are more straightforward and undeniable.
But coming to the other side if the fence:
On FOE : isnt our exposure, as Indians, to liberal thinking quite nascent, as opposed to say the US or Europe? Even in the 90s I remember Oliyum Oliyum censoring even mildly suggestive moves (Guna -eg Paartha Vizhi final dance) & rarely any movie going beyond the necessary tropes of luvvv and revenge. Economic liberalisation just meant getting coca cola & Sun TV for most.
It was perhaps after the millenium, more so around 2003 (post the economic slump caused by y2k) that things started taking shape. So in that sense the concept of FOE is in its tumultuous teens now as far as India is concerned. While the champions of FOE must still go on, shouldnt the ones trying to push the envelope wait a little more for things to evolve more?
Ofcourse the question would be how long to wait. Well, even Iran mellowed down on its Fatwa on Salman Rushdie in like 5 years. So hopefully things should shape up better soon for Indians too! Maybe till when the ideology gets absorbed well. Till then, like saying Parental Guidance required for teenagers, some self-checks & external controls may be required here.
LikeLike
MV
February 2, 2017
Also, incidents like the Padmavati scuffle are required – in a twisted sense, as it helps to expose out the latent authoritarianism in people, who would otherwise be considered normal on a day-to-day basis.
IMO, closeted chauvinists need more attention than the overt ones. I might live in a bubble thinking I am surrounded by free-thinkers, saying and doing what I like, until some incident triggers the worst in them. That would be more alarming than, say, living with my orthodox in-laws all the while knowing their take on things.
Let’s see – though people still take to arbitrary policing, the cause doesnt repeat. In the sense, when Kamal fights once for Sandiyar or Vishwaroopam, the battle gets over for that issue. Another one comes up – but hey lets deal them one by one.
LikeLike
Madan Mohan
February 2, 2017
“if i am not asking for taking away the freedom of expression of an individual, I am not sure how i am against freedom of expression.” – But if you oppose the expression of an individual, it is essentially taking away his freedom of expression. That is, I understand oppose to mean opposing the act of expressing that particular idea (as opposed to presenting an opposing idea against it). When Gandhi opposed British goods with Swadeshi, he could not possibly have been pro-British in acting thus even if his means of protest may have been peaceful.
If by oppose you only mean disagreeing with something, I have already said that that does not take away anybody’s freedom of expression so I don’t know what we are disagreeing about. 🙂
LikeLike
Madan Mohan
February 2, 2017
incidents like the Padmavati scuffle are required – As long as the culprits are dealt with. If it transpires that the govt has sympathy for them, on the other hand it would strengthen the right’s rampage against artists.
LikeLike
Madan Mohan
February 2, 2017
” While the champions of FOE must still go on, shouldnt the ones trying to push the envelope wait a little more for things to evolve more?” – idk, it was possible to watch A rated movies on TV channels ere 2006. Now they have brought them back by muting all the cuss words. But the point is it’s not at all clear we are progressing towards more artistic freedom. If anything, going by Anuj’s rant against the Shiva scene in PK, I wonder if the famous Mahabharat scene in Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron would pass muster today. Bet a corrupt Mumbai builder pays some idiot to file a sanskari petition against it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Karthik
February 2, 2017
If what Rohan did can be looked up from the spectrum of free speech, why can’t outrage on it be too seen from the same spectrum? Is your point that outrage on it was (a) pointless or (b) invalid? I’m not able to understand what is it that you are pointing towards. One can empathise with Rohan’s character and also outrage about it after the film is over, I assume.
LikeLike
Amit Joki
February 2, 2017
Freedom of speech really isn’t a thing when verbal(or visual for instance) opinions can result in physical altercations.
Nowadays, it is about playing to the gallery. Always. When in Rome, do as Romans do, else be burnt. That’s the motto to be followed to be safe.
Think of Jallikattu issue. Was there an alternative voice? Nope. Why? Was it because there was no alternative voice at all? Again no. It’s just that the majority opinion was large enough that alternative opinion becomes negligible.
Even Trump couldn’t win against the popular opinion. The so called liberal media painted it a #MuslimBan, even when the most populous Muslim countries were not in the ban. The ban was on countries which had some prior jihadist or ISIS movements confirmed.
But liberal media completely made Trump look like a Islamophobic.
So to sum up:
You can have an opinion. If it is the popular opinion, you’ll be hailed. If you deviate, you will be made to shove your opinion up your ass.
Now SLB has a clout and I hope he comes unscathed mentally. Now imagine a debutant in SLBs place. That’s the time we are living in.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Karthik
February 2, 2017
Liberals get activated only when there is presence of non left elements. No liberal questioned the groups(liberal!) which hounded STR for beep song. The same group cried wolf for Perumal Murugan and a liberal army was on the front line. Paradox.
LikeLike
Gul
February 3, 2017
Lovely article. Talking about something entirely unrelated, I’ve been wondering if you intend to write about the Federer-Nadal final?
LikeLike
Arjun
February 3, 2017
Just as this discussion is ongoing, violent protests at the veritable birthplace of the american free speech movement, UC Berkeley which has also produced the 5th largest number of nobel laureates, have scuttled a scheduled talk by an “alt-right” personality. If this is the case in a mature, evolved democracy like the U.S., that too within a very high-IQ environment, what about a poor, largely uneducated, low-IQ, sectarian cauldron like India, with a million mutinies everywhere? Do you think that, with all its thousands of pressing problems, anyone except Talebian IYIs (intellectual yet idiot) and AYIs (articulate yet idiot) seen in spaces such as these cares about FOE in India. The threat of violence is usually very effective in muzzling free speech and will ensure that one’s beliefs and sensitivities are always given consideration. The fate of those who experimented with cartoons of Prophet Mohammed demonstrates this very well.
LikeLike
brangan
February 3, 2017
Karthik, Filistine, Anu et al:
“You can certainly talk about it, or against it. But if you’re a liberal, you have to let others tell stories you hate with every fibre of your being. ”
This line — to me — says that it’s perfectly under FOE to outrage about Kaabil while still understanding that the film has a right to tell its story the way it wants to.
But that said, I agree with those who felt this piece wasn’t entirely there. This is a first draft. I was going to complete it and use it for this week’s column. Then I had another idea for the column, about SRK, and went with it.
But i felt there were still some points here that were close to my heart and I wanted to put them out on the blog at least as a blog post. The main point was that FOE covers things you hate with every fibre of your being, and since that was pretty clear, I just let it be.
Had I had more time, I would have addressed some of the apparent confusion, like the fact that those outraging against Kaabil aren’t exactly vandalising theatres, etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sanjana
February 3, 2017
Everyone has an opinion and there is a platform to express it. It is good for a thriving democracy, free speech and understanding others. Some want perfection which is impossible and some neatly divide people right and left forgetting that there are others who say I dont know as in opinion polls.. There is some merit in every argument. Knowing SLB, he would have turned Padmavati into a diva. But I am waiting for this film for many reasons. And there are many Rohans who are good at heart but they will take time to react and sometimes it will be too late. If we can accept flaws in our parents and siblings and yet be on good terms with them, why not extend the same courtesy to a fictional character as well?
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
February 3, 2017
@olemisstarana, Indian lefties and most of the people claiming to be liberals are actually pseudo liberals. Hindu right wingers are the real liberals.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 3, 2017
Amit Joki, make no mistake – Trump is Islamophobic, or he wouldn’t be talking of allowing Christian refugees from those very same countries to enter the US. B) If it is about terror links, why not Saudi Arabia? Why not any of the other Muslim countries, which are also terror zones, in which he has business interests?
The man is a racist, xenophobe, sexist, misogynist, sexual predator. And now, even the conservative Republicans who voted him into power are trying to control the Frankenstein they unleashed.
LikeLike
praneshp
February 3, 2017
“And now, even the conservative Republicans who voted him into power are trying to control the Frankenstein they unleashed.”
Err, no, not really. I’d like to switch over to your reality where politicians went past party lines to maintain checks and balances, and put their country first.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
February 3, 2017
Raj Balakrishnan: Just curious, are the ‘real liberals’ feminists?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Uncouth Village Youth
February 3, 2017
Trump is not alone in being Islamophobic – every country is grappling with the invasion of those-who-cannot-be-mentioned-explicitly. India too has introduced a bill without much fanfare, Citizenship (Amendment) Bill of 2016, which pretty much does the same. Quoting the operative part,check who is missing –
“Provided that persons belonging to minority communities, namely, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, who have been exempted by the Central Government by or under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or any order made thereunder, shall not be treated as illegal migrants for the purposes of this Act.”.
Typical Indian mentality – cry hoarse about Bangladeshi illegal immigration and changing demographics in West India, while asking America for a open door policy. Every country has the right to restrict entry based on any criteria – refugees/immigrants can abide by the rules or look for an alternate country.One is also left to wonder, why the neighboring countries are unwilling to take in these refugees.Trump is just carrying out policies initiated by the Obama admin to its logical end.
I’m in fact beginning to like Trump for not pandering to the liberal outrage. I also wish, he plugs the H1-B loopholes so shamelessly used by the Indian IT companies to send slaves to the US, at the cost of local workers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Ghost Who Walks
February 3, 2017
Even Trump couldn’t win against the popular opinion. The so called liberal media painted it a #MuslimBan, even when the most populous Muslim countries were not in the ban. The ban was on countries which had some prior jihadist or ISIS movements confirmed.
Oh, it was a Muslim ban all right. a) you exclude some of the nations which are pretty much accepted as breeding ground for Islamic Terrorism and b) you slyly leave a clause excluding the religious minorities from the ban. The US mainstream media ha botched up royally on so many counts during the run-up to the elections and in it’s aftermath, but on this, they are not wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Ghost Who Walks
February 3, 2017
Oops, looks like Anu Warrier has already made the exact point.
LikeLike
sanjana
February 3, 2017
It is a classic divide and rule policy. A not subtle warning to those countries now excluded.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 3, 2017
the Indian IT companies to send slaves to the US, at the cost of local workers.
Er… no. Not ‘at the cost to local workers’. Because there aren’t enough ‘local workers’ to fill the jobs there are available in the IT industry. Make no mistake about it: in the IT industry, demand outweighs supply. The companies aren’t making any profit hiring an Indian worker to work in the US. Outsourcing is a different matter.
Pranesh: Oh, I am not saying the Republicans are falling over themselves to put their country first. Believe me, that lot would prefer to push their agenda through, country be damned. But. They are realising that Trump is a stumbling block to much of their agenda as well.
LikeLike
Uncouth Village Youth
February 3, 2017
Because there aren’t enough ‘local workers’ to fill the jobs there are available in the IT industry – Nope not true. The companies aren’t making any profit hiring an Indian worker to work in the US – absolutely not true, from what I have seen, while working for 3 of India’s top 5 IT outsourcing companies. An average IT guy in India has ~1000 marks in the higher secondary, ~ 80% in Engineering, doesn’t know shit about DS & Algos, has barely above average communication/leadership skills. Now, why is this guy sent to US on H1B and to an lesser extent on L1 visas ? Is it because a lack of talent in the US, or is it because the average US IT worker considers this as a low end gig ? Nope it is because our guys can bill a cool ~$30 – $160/hr, while paying bottom dollar to the guy sent there. What’s more, you get a slave who is on call 24/7, stays in the office as long as required and takes next to no vacation.
I’m not even going into the abuse that L1 goes through – showing off a web app which can be learned in 3 hrs as some knowledge know-how that is not present in the whole of US, while all the Indian guy is gonna do is OSC(On Site Coordination). Collusion with attorneys, whenever a case is sent back for review, is another way which keeps the gravy train moving. I sometimes wonder if the consular staff too have a hand in all this.
There is absolutely no shortage of talent in the US as being peddled by Indians – after all what great product has Indian IT shipped out in the last 30 years. The only reason local hiring doesn’t happen is $$$.
LikeLike
MV
February 3, 2017
I happened to switch from one of the top 5 IT cos. to a tier 2 company. The situation gets gross here – the top (not the cutting-edge ones, but the better ones among the lot) jobs go to the big players while the middle level companies are saddled with stuff like data-entry, excel-consolidation, data-collation (no, not analysis just compiling data) & the likes, which are outwardly tagged as IT / Software jobs.
I doubt if engineers from other countries would endure such a travesty for mind-numbingly long periods. So we are doing $ work at ₹ “costs” and not “at the cost of” American employment.
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
February 3, 2017
Uncouth Village Youth: Somehow, I’m being reminded of this:
LikeLike
praneshp
February 3, 2017
@Uncouth Village Youth: I was doing ~2 interviews a week trying to hire new candidates at my last job, and had a conversation about this with my manager here as well. Where I work now, it takes around 15 shots to hire one person. There simply isn’t enough local talent.
Just wanted to point out there are several good companies facing actual shortage, but none of them would balk at paying a good engineer $130k in total comp, or see their profits change, etc.
LikeLike
praneshp
February 3, 2017
@Uncouth Village Youth: Also the reason I replied is several times Silicon Valley Engineers are accused of living in a bubble when talking about H1b abuse, I just wanted to make sure others don’t live in consultant bubble. I mostly agree with your point, Indian companies (plus the hundreds of mom and pop ones in New Jersey and bay area) abuse H1 like crazy. For anyone wanting to read, the famous Disney case and the less famous Hertz case make for good reading.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3032350/it-careers/hertz-cutting-it-jobs-as-its-shifts-to-ibm.html
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 4, 2017
My husband works in engineering. His company, one of the top in the world, finds it difficult to hire ‘local’ talent. There are plenty of jobs and a real shortage of engineers. The only reason an American engineer will be out of a job today is because he/she is abysmally bad. Even average engineers get offers. Because that is the ground reality.
Note that they pay exceedingly well, and even an intern gets paid 50K. Interns also get absorbed into the company after they graduate, so it’s not as if the oportunity is not there. There simply aren’t enough engineers here. And that is the US’s tragedy.
LikeLike
Gayathri
February 4, 2017
Chipping in on the Padmavati controversy – When I first read the news article, I was outraged too – not on behalf of Mr.bhansali. In my mind my first question was “How can he cheapen Rani Padmini” – this when I am from Tamilnadu where my only source of info about Rani Padmini is the panels of amar chithra katha. So I can relate with what the rajputs who vandalized felt. Doesn’t mean what they did was right.
But when I thought about it some more, my feeling was Mr. Bhansali was right. Unless Khilji was fantasizing about Padmini, he is not likely to have mounted such a huge war, right. And in the hands of a good director this can be handled really well showcasing the sick fantasy of Khilji and contrasting it against the reality of Padmini who chose to commit sati rather than submit. Unfortunately, In my opinion Mr Bhansali is not that director. He makes beautiful(the artists, sets, costumes) movies not realistic or necessarily well written ones).
SLB could have made this movie without using Padmavati/Padmini name – there were many women in that time period who did what Rani padmini did. But where would the free publicity be? If he wants to tap on emotions using Padmini’s name he has to face the responses of the emotional rajputs too. In the same way, the attackers would have to face the jail term etc as their consequences. I don’t think it makes sense to categorize this as right wing attack or as a planned attack against bollywood sensibilities or as an attack on freedom of speech.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Venkatesh
February 4, 2017
Sir, your article brings to the fore the hypocrisy of the time which we live. But at the same I like to point out that the same kind of opposition is not seen or heard when Kamal’s vishwaroopam controversy happened. Where the actor is forced to remove significant portion of his film even though the movie is nothing to do with islam. It would be great to the society and people if critic and media are balanced in their views and opinions
LikeLike
venkatesh
February 4, 2017
Wait, we have another Venkatesh here, again.
Me thinks i should use another nom-de-guerre now.
Any suggestions ?
LikeLike
theartofexpressions
February 4, 2017
First of all a H1b can’t replace a US citizen at all. So no local talent is lost because of h1b.
People who do MS can replace a us citizen until now but then a MS in mostly a better worker than a local talent.
Generally local talent is not good enough otherwise american companies would not be hiring indians.. Almost every big company be it Apple, google have lot of indians. They are hard worker and smart and modest.
Moreover the problem lies with education cost in US, most middle class people cant afford it. So a person who is really passionate for study will do so and that person will perform very good too. But they aren’t many and whoever they are, many may not be ready to do the kind of work that is needed..
I agree local talent requires higher cost but demand and supply philosophy will always be there. If you get a servant [cook, maid] who is good enough to do work and for less money then why not hire it. But in the context of US, this just applies to service companies not the product companies like Google.
Also as said, a h1b worker cant replace a us local candidate and a company generally has to hire some number of us candidates as per rule..
So no loss there.. People always want to blame someone for their problem and that is the case with US.
LikeLike
theartofexpressions
February 4, 2017
@BR where is the article about srk??
LikeLike
sanjana
February 4, 2017
They go with work visas and many become permanent citizens contributing as a dedicated workforce, creating least problems, yet maintaining their identity. Whether they are Indians, Chinese or other ethnic groups. Why to upset the system which is working nicely?
LikeLike
Anuja Chandramouli
February 4, 2017
Venkatesh! I second BR’s suggestion. BR Discoverer 🙂 (was a bit confused when he put it in the comments section of the SRK article)
LikeLike
Amit Joki
February 4, 2017
Anu: I agree half way up there. But if he’s Islamophbic of countries that constitue just 12 p.c of Muslim population, it is not so bad after all, given that Obama had formulated that list of seven countries.
On the other hand, I am not going to judge Trump on what happened during the run up to the elections. I had no idea who he was until he became the a serious contender for the Presidential post, and then I see sexual allegations cropping up from years past and I can’t but think that it’s vendetta until it’s proved.
On the other hand, I will certainly judge him by what he does now. He’s certainly having the image of upholding America first and one who walks the talk.
All techies in here: I am now 12th and would soon want to join a college. I am from Karnataka, living in Tamilnadu and am from other(forward?) caste, so I would have nearly impossible chance to find a good college through counselling thats based on the cut off marks. Reservation sucks!
On the other hand, what I want to ask is, do you guys know any educational institute where the computer knowledge alone is the criteria for selection? Within Tamilnadu?
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 4, 2017
I can’t but think that it’s vendetta until it’s proved.
head to desk
No, since you don’t have to live under Trump, you don’t have to judge him at all. We will do that; we, who are suffering from his drastic policy changes and his temper tantrums and his twitter insults. We, who are seeing decades of women’s rights cut back by the stroke of a misogynstic pen. We, who are facing the breakdown of civil society, where hatred is being stoked by the highest in the land.
Please don’t judge. But please don’t shame us by calling our protests ‘ vendetta’.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anu Warrier
February 4, 2017
p.s. Obama may have formulated a list of seven countries, but he didn’t ban anyone; what he suggested was to proceed with the most stringent vetting procedures. There’s a difference.
LikeLike
Madan
February 5, 2017
“He’s certainly having the image of upholding America first and one who walks the talk.” – Certainly seems to be a rather strong adjective there. But even allowing for it, there is surely a difference between image and substance. The TPP would in fact have secured America’s interests vis a vis its Asia-Pacific partners. Now, with the TPP torn apart and Trump badmouthing America’s staunchest ally, it may not be long before we have a CPP – China Pacific Partnership. I don’t know about you but I for one don’t want to see China become the undisputed superpower. It may be inevitable but Trump sure is hastening the transition. It’s the irony of ironies when China bats for free trade at the WEF and none of the other biggies sitting on the table can say a thing because they all need to trade with China.
Another thing I pointed out elsewhere: it’s America that was allowed to make the rules for the last half a century or so. Were their leaders really so incompetent that they always made rules that were detrimental to America’s interests? Come on, this is just the next new narrative after Reagan’s Evil Empire theatrics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amit Joki
February 5, 2017
Anu: Come on, Anu, when did I even talk of protests. What I meant was political vendetta by the other candidate.
Also, I never intended to give him free pass, but just that may be he may have played to the gallery by behaving like a stereotypical American who’s a bully and a badmouth kind (I am sorry if this stereotype is not correct) of thing, to make himself nearer to the white collar workers, or middle class Americans who are his stronghold.
Also, I don’t support deporting thousands of people who are already in the US. That’s plain stupid and insensible. A blanket ban seems immoral yes, my only argument is #MuslimBan is looking like he’s banning every Muslim in US, when he’s only banning 12℅ from blacklisted states.
I certainly didn’t mean to shame any of the people’s movements undertaken by you guys.
Madan: There’s a reason why I used the word image. Time will tell if he is good on substance too, but yes you’re right, and I don’t want China to be a superpower too, because that would directly affect India which has had a turbulent relationship with China.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 5, 2017
Amit, I don’t know where you get your news from, but the ‘other political candidate’ had nothing to do with women coming forward to talk about being harassed. There was no ‘political vendetta’ by Clinton. Whatever else her faults were, she only used his own words and actions against him on the campaign trail. And they were quite a lot.
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
February 5, 2017
@Honest Raj, Hinduism is the most liberal religion in the world. It does not condemn non-believers to hell or call them sinners. All true, believing Hindus are liberals.
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
February 5, 2017
Raj Balakrishnan, you did not answer my question.
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
February 5, 2017
@ Honest Raj, there maybe a few of them in the Hindu right wing but the numbers will be far lower than Christian or Muslim right wing.
LikeLike
Ash
February 5, 2017
@Raj Balakrishnan, how do you define “true, believing Hindus?” Because all the Hindutva, RSS, BJP or other right-wing Hinduism-based ideologies are anything but liberal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
February 5, 2017
“All true, believing Hindus are liberals.” – But are all true believing Hindus allowed to visit the temple irrespective of their caste?
LikeLike
sai16vicky
February 5, 2017
Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma) is open to Atheism. In fact, it is even open to other religions. For instance, you can rest your faith in Jesus/Allah or in yourself and still be very much a part of the religion. You might be out-casted in certain cultures (which is again a fault of humans practicing the religion and not the religion itself).
Try bitching even slightly (maybe using a cartoon) about the supreme authority in other religions (you know which one I am talking about) and you can see the results right in front of your eyes. This universal closure that Hinduism provides is sufficient to argue it is complete and (although I hate this word) ‘liberal’ by nature.
LikeLike
rahultyagi
February 5, 2017
“All True, believing Hindus” eh? What do you know of True Scotsmen? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Handsome Gollum
February 6, 2017
“The greater your ability to induce violence, the greater Freedom of Expression you have”. PERIOD.
LikeLike
shaviswa
February 6, 2017
On the discussion regarding Trump and his policies, the Democrats brought this on themselves by nominating that one candidate who would not defeat Trump. Sometimes I feel that there was probably some heavy match fixing that went on to ensure Trump one.
Hillary was a bad Presidential Candidate choice and the democrats should accept this and move on. Allow Trump to function as POTUS and see if he can do something good. Else, you always have another election coming up in 4 years.
PS: BTW the shift to right is happening across the world. Modi, then Brexit, now Trump. This is going to be followed by Merkel likely to lose her re-election and France too is trending towards the right —
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/05/marine-le-pen-promises-liberation-from-the-eu-with-france-first-policies
Is there a message to the liberals in all this? Hopefully the liberals and the far left folks learn 🙂
LikeLike
Radhika
February 6, 2017
I am curious – what if SLB did his own revisionist version of Padmini – in which she doesn’t commit Jauhar for fear of being defiled by the invaders, and instead hugs him with those tiger claws with which Shivaji filleted Afzal – would that be okay for all parties? Because the idea that Hindu culture needs a Hindu woman to jump into fire (that last page in Amar Chitra Katha is imprinted in my memory) is as offensive to me, as the idea of her dream-cavorting with the enemy is to “them”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Madan
February 6, 2017
“Hopefully the liberals and the far left folks learn” – They may or they may not. More importantly, sooner or later, the people at large will realise the folly of trusting right wing populists. Hopefully it won’t be too late when they do. But the mistake has already been committed in USA and only Europe is holding out. If at all it appears as if it isn’t quite so bad in India, I submit it is mostly because of the numbers held in the Rajya Sabha by the much reviled opposition which forces the BJP to preach a message that’s far more inclusive than they’d like it to be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arjun
February 7, 2017
“I am curious – what if SLB did his own revisionist version of Padmini – in which she doesn’t commit Jauhar for fear of being defiled by the invaders, and instead hugs him with those tiger claws with which Shivaji filleted Afzal – would that be okay for all parties? Because the idea that Hindu culture needs a Hindu woman to jump into fire (that last page in Amar Chitra Katha is imprinted in my memory) is as offensive to me, as the idea of her dream-cavorting with the enemy is to “them”
Perhaps some context may help? The women who didn’t commit jauhar faced the prospect of years of sexual slavery and the trauma of continuously bearing children of the rapist killers of their menfolk . Eg.
https://twitter.com/TrueIndology/status/825891491314794497
But why go back so far? Here is a recent report on Yazidi women killing themselves in ISIS captivity-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/middleeast/yazidi-women-suicide-in-isis-captivity/
Besides, ritual suicide by womenfolk of warrior communities has been commonplace in several cultures and tribes through history,. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku#Female_ritual_suicide
for another prominent example.
Universally, a war is considered over when the men have fallen, except in the heads of modern feminists of course. When the king and the generals fell, the choice for the royal women of northern India, especially in the face of barbarous invaders was to end their lives honorably or fight on and risk almost certain capture, followed by years of being bartered around as sex slaves and duly halaled when they were no longer considered viable in the market.
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
February 7, 2017
@Ash, as I said even right wing Hindus are more liberal than fundamentalist Christians or Muslims
@ Madan, Hinduism does have tis drawbacks. These need to be addressed.
LikeLike
Ash
February 7, 2017
@Raj Balakrishnan, can you explain what you mean or back it up? Because here you’re just stating opinions, and that isn’t really helpful in my trying to understand where you’re coming from.
LikeLike
Apu
February 8, 2017
Radhika: “Because the idea that Hindu culture needs a Hindu woman to jump into fire (that last page in Amar Chitra Katha is imprinted in my memory) is as offensive to me, as the idea of her dream-cavorting with the enemy is to “them””
Yes, yes, yes!
Indian history is about glorious deaths as much as it is about glorious wins, but almost every generation of woman grow up to the stories of Indian women who sacrifice themselves rather than facing dishonor. It is no wonder that our society expects rape victims to commit suicide as dishonor is worse than death. We hardly have stories (few exceptions: Rani Laxmibai, Rani Karnavati) where the women fight for their honor/land rather than committing suicide, as “ruling”, “owning” seem to be considered only patriarchal rights, so a war is lost when the men are defeated, and now the ownership of women move from their husbands and fathers to the enemy.
Arjun: “Universally, a war is considered over when the men have fallen, except in the heads of modern feminists of course.”
Was that a barb to the “modern feminists”?
Sometimes I wonder if “feminists”, “activists” are just logical people who refuse to tow the age old practices and ask “why”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
hari ohm
February 8, 2017
Gayathri – “SLB could have made this movie without using Padmavati/Padmini name – there were many women in that time period who did what Rani padmini did. But where would the free publicity be? If he wants to tap on emotions using Padmini’s name he has to face the responses of the emotional rajputs too. In the same way, the attackers would have to face the jail term etc as their consequences. I don’t think it makes sense to categorize this as right wing attack or as a planned attack against bollywood sensibilities or as an attack on freedom of speech.” very well said. Unfortunately the “liberal” forum is not going to understand this.
The problem with both the liberal as well as right wing crowd is they have forgotten to understand the perspectives from different sides. Listen to this from my favorite Jon Stewart talking about the hypocricy – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6_x7lrfx5A. The same thing happens here in India.
Somebody above said that there should not be a limit for FOE. I think it is all wishful thinking and an Utopian idea. The million dollar question is can the artistic faculty anywhere accept this kind of responsibility?
To me, Padmavati is a commercial product from SLB using the “history” as a tool and not an art product. And so this should be treated as a commercial product and it is going to attract criticism. This is a sentiment among various non-liberal non-right wing friends of mine. If the liberal community does not get this perspective it is their loss.
I do condemn the slapping. But the question I have is does anyone for sure know the entirety of what went on during the incident.
LikeLike
Sifter
February 8, 2017
@Punee- A thread about SLBr and you are no where to be found.Where the heck are you? 🙂
LikeLike
Uncouth Village Youth
February 9, 2017
My H1B comments are primarily regarding Indian Service companies that file H1B like crazy and then go looking around for slots to accommodate those who got through. The doyen of Indian IT and the father of GDM, NRN has affirmed my line of thinking. He has also mentioned a cultural hesitation on the part of Indian managers(mild reverse racism maybe) in hiring local talent. I’m not against talented people moving across borders – my beef(or should it be chicken) is against the kind of ‘talent’ that is being H1Bed from India. It is almost laughable that talent not available in US is being fulfilled by Indian talent. I routinely select people and prepare cases for all kind of visas, so I have some knowledge on how the whole system works.
I find it incomprehensible, how people are against Jauhar irrespective of context. I am a privileged male having faced no discrimination of any sort, all my life (Ok, a girl rejected me in college because I was not a Mallu) 😛 and I would gladly take Jauhar instead of capture by a marauding army hell bent on destruction – all the more so when there is precedent as to what the said army has done to the vanquished. It should also be noted that Jauhar was not performed when Rajput tribes went to war among themselves – because women were guaranteed safety, honor and ‘sexual independence’ in case of defeat.
For some people here PC is more important than logic and reason – yes a war is over when the menfolk are defeated decisively. Saying this out loud, does not make one a misogynist nor does it demean women. It is the same as people switching off their television when SRT/Kohli get out – yes there will be some exceptional chases – but statistically outliers are weighted less. Some time back I read a story( I don’t remember where), which proposed sending only women and some vials of semen on a multi generational, inter- galactic space exploration mission. It also proposed eliminating all male progeny, to save resources, till the exploration finds a suitable planet to set foot on. I have no problem with this line of thinking, since it is backed by L&R. It is just human ingenuity at it’s best, that we are leveraging the unique traits of sexes to our advantage.
LikeLike
sanjana
February 9, 2017
How anyone can support Jauhar in any context? How can one be sure that it is voluntary? Even if the queen decided, how is it possible that all the other women shared the same feelings and not forced? The drums , they say, beat the loudest to drown the shrieks of women dying in the fire. After a while, getting rid of the responsibility of widows, monetary considerations and other material considerations were behind apart from making women to think that they are doing something great and noble.
I am surprised that SLB and his cast like Deepika Padukone are indirectly glorifying this practice by filming Padmavati. No one questioned them about this?
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 9, 2017
Sanjana, I don’t think filming a story and showing what happened to a character within that said story is glorifying the practice. We are placing it in context of the times in which the story is placed. On the other hand, having a rape victim commit suicide (on screen) is usually problematic (there are some film-makers who can make the point that this character in this situation chooses this way out) because it seems to normalise the fact that rape victims cannot live a regular life after the incident.
As far as I know, Jauhar is voluntary, Sati is not. Now, how far Jauhar was voluntary, I do not know. Strangely enough, the men were tormented by the women’s cries because it underlined their defeat. ‘Protecting their women’s honour’ was a huge part of their masculinity and Jauhar just underlined the fact that they had failed in their duty.
But even today, in war-torn countries, one hears of women committing suicide or at least risking death rather than fall into the hands of their victors.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apu
February 9, 2017
Sanjana: ” getting rid of the responsibility of widows, monetary considerations and other material considerations were behind” – I agree. Very few really sit down and think about this. The same group would condemn Sati but not Jauhar.
LikeLike
Garvit Sharma
February 10, 2017
@Sanjana-“How anyone can support Jauhar in any context? How can one be sure that it is voluntary?”
The information about Jauhar that I have come across and believe to be credible is from the blogspot .
http://mariam-uz-zamani.blogspot.in.(Please check it out for more details.Its beautiful)
Here Akbar,himself through his “fatahnama”(Official Mughal story of Victory) after defeating Chittor in March,1568 delineates very clearly what he ordered
“In accordance with the imperative command of the benevolent and all merciful- Kill the idolaters altogether.The defiant ones who were still offering resistance having formed themselves into knots of two to three hundred persons were put to death.And their women and children taken prisoners.According to the promise,Allah promised you many acquisitions which you will take.Immense booty and spoils in cash and kind were acquired.So the roots of the infidels who were unjust were cut off;and all praise is due to Allah-the Lord of the worlds”
The full fatahnama-i-Chittor is full of expletives for Rajputs and other Islamic religious justifications for war.The Jauhar of Chittor was unique in the sense that it was performed not in specially constructed “Jauhar Kunds”(Kund in Hindi means pool) but three different places in Chittor Fort.What this means is that women along with children,majorly of the warrior castes including some Afghans in Mewar,performed the ritual as quickly as they could because the Mughals had already breached the fort walls and not following the rules of seige war,continued fighting into the night.As far as I know,there were no Jauhars performed when the Rajputs were attacked by fellow Rajput kingdoms and Marathas. Historical records suggest that Muslim kings had no respect for regal rules and rights of Hindu warrior classes and women were separated from their children and sold as slaves.Lucky ones found their way into the royal harems.
Regarding the war of Chittor,Akbar was so infuriated by the loss of face due to the six month long seige of the fort that he ordered a complete massacre of 30000-40000 civilians.This information is not to contest that Akbar grew on to be a tolerant ruler but what was unleashed on Chittor is sheer barbarism.
Hope,you understand why Jauhar was a better option for Rajput royal families when they faced perpetual slavery or slaughter of their families.I for one definitely empathise with this custom in light of the historical information that I trust to be correct.Once a Muslim ruler termed a territorial conquest as religious warfare,it was incumbent upon the Islamic soldiers to follow what the Mullahs of their regime decreed.
Regarding Sati, you will definitely not find any rationalizations but what you will find is disagreement about the prevalence of the practice.It does have mention in Ramayana and Mahabharata but not any scriptural support. Practice of Sati grew as monetisation of economy grew and Brahmins saw it as an opportunity to earn more from the families who in turn themselves wanted to elevate their status in society.Girls were drugged,tied to bamboo sticks,beaten until they agreed to burn themselves.It was not necessary that they immolated themselves on their husband’s pyre but they could a pick a date themselves and continue as a married one.So,legally it was voluntary but realistically it was mostly forced upon women.But there are high chances that most of our ancestors did not practice Sati at all because practice was highly restricted to warrior castes and later Brahmins.
LikeLike
Apu
February 10, 2017
Anu: “I don’t think filming a story and showing what happened to a character within that said story is glorifying the practice.”
Incidentally, this video is getting a lot of hate 🙂 on social media right now, especially from some of my right-wing friends who are concerned about Hinduism being constantly targeted by media.
https://www.thequint.com/videos/2017/02/03/quint-rant-why-are-we-glorifying-padmavati-for-choosing-honour-over-life-a-message-still-taught-to-women-in-2017
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 10, 2017
@Apu, I don’t know how Bhansali will portray it, so I won’t comment on that. Thanks for that link – and I am conflicted about it. ‘Death before dishonour’ is pernicious, and can be interpreted in so many ways (mostly penalising women) that I’m afraid to even seem to endorse it. I agree that rape doesn’t (and shouldn’t) mean the loss of izzat; I will heartily endorse that there is no reason for a rape survivor to commit suicide so her so-called izzat can be inviolate.
But. If my future was to be sold as abused by the victors, and then sold to be someone’s sex slave, would I not prefer death to a life worse than death? I think I would prefer to die. Only wimp that I am, I don’t see throwing myself into fire; a vial of poison would do the trick. I am only half joking.
The Atlantic Monthly (if I remember correctly) had an article on the women in Syria, Yemen, Africa, etc. where the ISIS, Boko Haram and their like operate. And spoke of women who killed their girl children before killing themselves so they wouldn’t fall into the hands of vicious men. Refugee camps are filled with young girls, some of them barely in their teens, rescued from the Boko Haram – many of them gang-raped, sexually abused, pregnant… if that were your future, what would you do? I will be honest – I don’t know that I wouldn’t prefer to kill myself.
Jauhar was pretty much the same thing; again, Rajput women did not commit Jauhar in the case of internecine warfare within their land. It was only when the Mughals lay siege to their kingdoms and they knew they were going to be vanquished that they did so. For very good reasons – as a couple of comments above have stated.
Again, it was a harsh land; it had harsh laws, and rules. Within that context, when a filmmaker is making a film based on a written work (which was the work of a Muslim poet, by the way), I think he should be free to film that work. If he can’t, then the list of things that we cannot show because it ‘glorifies’ something or the other, will only grow.
Would filming the abduction of Sita glorify the lakshmanrekha that women would do well to follow? Would filming Draupadi’s vastraharan if someone made the Mahabharata glorify the abuse of women? No period film, based on legend can ever be depicted then; because our myths and legends are all based on women’s purity and men’s heroism.
LikeLiked by 2 people
sanjana
February 10, 2017
As Anu said, a vial of poison is a better option. Or try to face the enemy in the battlefield with weapons and get killed by them or kill them. In modern times, there are options even after falling into enemy’s hands. And that raises international responsibility to those caught in the crossfire and providing them asylum . And that brings us to the furious debates about refugees and their accommodation. And that also brings us to the debate about right to take one’s life and euthanasea.
And about honour and self determination. Some may prefer to be slaves than immolate themselves in a hurry. Some may take a chance. Afterall we have only one life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sanjana
February 10, 2017
As for glorification, Dangal made some girls take to wrestling in a big way. Suicides dramatically portrayed as in some movies make some youngsters try it. If jumping into the fire is portrayed as a heroic deed by a beautiful Padukone, who knows how it may influence some impressionable souls? That does not mean one should not film it. But filming it in a dramatic way as was done in MUghal E Azam with background music and dramatic tension will glamorise it to some extent. Just the way Devadas in south India became a hot favourite with drunkards!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apu
February 10, 2017
Anu: I am all for SLB filming a movie the way he seems fit – which is in keeping to the topic of this post. So yes, I wouldn’t want him to be stopped. My point was, there might be effects – some not so desirous. But as a society, we need to weather it.
Coming to this: “But. If my future was to be sold as abused by the victors, and then sold to be someone’s sex slave, would I not prefer death to a life worse than death? I think I would prefer to die. ”
Agree.
The question is – would you glorify one choice against the other, as in, would a woman who choose to die be considered a hero as opposed to someone who lived through the torture? Herein lies the difference I think.
I might be totally off. But this thread made me think.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rahini David
February 10, 2017
Apu,
Each year there are hundreds of movies where people avenge the death of their loved ones. Is avenging moral? Violence is mostly glorified in these movies. I personally hate these movies not because the murdered or raped girl is just a prop but because I don’t get entertained by blood and gore. All I can do about this is keep away.
I think that the same applies to movies that are glorifying a girl who’d rather die than be a sex slave. The common thinking is that it is better to die than to be one. It is not the same as looking down on another girl who did not have the guts to throw herself out of the moving train when she had that one chance.
Each time you see a movie with an avenging theme, do you look down on the fathers and husbands of real victims for not having avenged the rape of their daughters? Not really, no? So a movie on a girl taking option A is not automatically a movie that looks down another girl who took option B.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Uncouth Village Youth
February 10, 2017
Jauhar was chosen over poison (me thinks) because a) It guaranteed death, for a large number of people in a reasonable amount of time. b) It prevented(to an extent) the enemy from carrying back the body as some kind of trophy back home.c) We still have not perfected the correct cocktail , for a painless execution. Let us not be naive in thinking that everyone can go out to war and die a heroic death – the enemy army will always try to capture you alive, if you are a high value target. Even in modern times,with the protections of Geneva convention, ICJ,ICC we have seen what had happened in Rwanda,Sudan,Sri Lanka, Congo Somalia etc… We also have to agree that even civilian women, when captured are treated far worse than male combatants.Also in an all out war, there are no rules – it is difficult to separate the black from the white, and each moment lost in making judgments is an advantage you are giving the enemy – hence people on both sides are usually ready, to put up with collateral damage.
Having said that, I think I’m beginning to see what some people above are trying to shine light on. There is indeed an element of glorification in Jauhar and a subtle coercion to choose honor over life(especially for women). I think women are smart enough to differentiate between Jauhar and suicide after isolated rape. Societal peer pressure kicks in the moment we take our first breaths – your child has not talked yet ? , Oh! you are not taking first group, Why are you marrying a older woman ?, Still no child, Oh I’m sorry(even if I’m not) and so on. Honestly no solution for this – the individual has to stick it out for oneself ,as far as possible and settle for a reasonable compromise if required.
LikeLiked by 2 people
sanjana
February 10, 2017
People who will watch this movie, will wait for the final moment or culmination. And SLB will naturally mount it on a lavish scale, dramatise it and extract the last bit of emotion from the audience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
February 10, 2017
The question is – would you glorify one choice against the other, as in, would a woman who choose to die be considered a hero as opposed to someone who lived through the torture? Herein lies the difference I think.
Ah, therein lies the nub. At least for me, I think one is not ‘greater’ than the other; finally, it all comes down to choices. A woman who chooses endure that abuse, and come out stronger at the end of it? My respect. A woman who chooses to die, albeit a painful death, rather than allow herself to violated (I will not say ‘dishonoured’)? My respect. My problem is that many, many women do not have the freedom to ‘choose’ the first option. It is made for them.
So yes, I agree with you. To me, both options are heroic because I can only imagine the strength that is needed to endure either. Women and children are always collateral damage when a war is fought; invading armies have always, but always, treated women as chattel. It doesn’t matter which army.
With regard to Queen Padmini, my introduction to her came through the pages of the Amar Chitra Katha. As a kid, I was mightily impressed with the notion that someone held their honour so high that they preferred death. Tales about the Rajputs always thrilled me. 🙂 I’m still a sucker for raja-rani stories.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
February 10, 2017
Suicide was considered an honourable way of ending one’s own life – irrespective of gender. Take the Ramayana for instance, Lakshmana’s act (of committing suicide) is viewed as a heroic moment. If I were to make a movie based on the character, it would be great injustice to film the scene, where the character disappears, without necessary drama.
Jauhar/sati were usually “fire-centric” for the simple reason that Hindu corpses were mostly cremated.
http://www.tubechop.com/watch/8869146
LikeLike
tonks
February 12, 2017
If creative freedom was thought to be absolute, Anurag Kashyap would be in the right here.
This is now viral :
http://www.mymedicalmantra.com/i-am-truly-dismayed-a-doctor-writes-an-open-letter-to-anurag-kashyap/
Point no 7 – It well known, despite the statutory warning against smoking, a number of persons cutting across our social fabric — be it political leaders, professionals, academicians, doctors, gangsters, army and police officials, bureaucrats, intellectuals, lawyers, anti-social elements or others — do smoke and use tobacco products,” it says.
If we have to buy this logic, why are you not revolting against censorship on violence, sex, cruelty against animals? Why portrayal of sex is censored when it is inherent part of life of every living species? Why is depiction of cruelty against animals censored when we all witness such killing in chicken/meat/fish shops regularly?
Indeed there is a deep logic when government imposed such censorships. Such scenes disturb the vulnerable minds of young audience and violate viewership norms. As per your philosophy, anything that is commonly done or part of our daily life, must not be censored. Urination and defecation are also natural acts. Should they be shown on screen in any civilized society? Just because cigarette smoke is invisible, it doesn’t make it better than urinating!
Mr Kashyap, the habit of using tobacco starts as early as 17 years of age (Global adult tobacco survey 2010) when you are neither an engineer nor a doctor. That is the time, in the throes of rebellious adolescence; one tries everything that is forbidden. This is shrewdly exploited by the tobacco industry. Two third of all tobacco shops are near the educational institution as per survey of an NGO in Mumbai. By the time one become doctor, engineer, soldier, lawyer, politician etc. it is too late to quit the habit. Only 2% of Indians are able to quit tobacco that too after getting fatal illness. No one knows it better than you, how difficult it can be to quit smoking.
Point no 8 – The Act imposes curbs on usage of tobacco products in films and television programs, unless an “editorial justification” is provided by the filmmaker, and also necessitates an ‘A’ certificate from the CBFC, the petition says these provisions are “illegal” as film certification comes under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and cannot be governed by the Cigarettes and Tobacco Products Act.
The best way to avoid that ‘disturbing’ clip is by avoiding glamorisation of tobacco in the movie. If it is absolutely essential, why are you shying from offering an editorial justification? Moreover, a law to protect public health naturally supersedes a law that governs entertainment. Moreover, I don’t believe that a talented director of your stature needs ‘Ugly” smoking scenes to enhance the impact?
Prof Pankaj Chaturvedi,
Tata Memorial Hospital
Mumbai
LikeLiked by 1 person
Atulaa
February 16, 2017
Brangan- Have you watched Memories of a Machine yet? Its a 10 minute short by Shailaja Padindala that definitely made me think about how accepting I am as a self-professed liberal of the bounds of free speech. Do check it out, it’s on youtube, would love to know your thoughts.
LikeLike
sravishanker1401gmailcom
December 19, 2017
CARTOON : THE CONTROVERSY
LikeLike
Kadambari
January 20, 2018
Well written
LikeLike