Now, Goons Come Out In Support Of NCW Probe Team

A very peculiar situation is unfolding in the aftermath of the Manglore pub attack as the Shri Ram Sene comes out in support of the member of the National Commission for Women, Ms.Nirmala Venkatesh, who was heading the probe into the highly publicised Manglore pub attack, and whose report has already been rejected by the head of the Commission, Ms.Girija Vyas. The probe team had in its report held the pub authority responsible for the incident. After a public outcry NCW has rejected the report and the ministry has in fact issued a show-cause notice to Ms. Venkatesh. Both the NCW chief and Women and Child Development Minister Renuka Choudhury are justified in taking steps but it needs to be borne in mind the swung into action only after the media had exposed the sham that was being conducted in the name of investigation.

It is really strange why Ms.Venkatesh did not think it proper to meet the victims! Instead, she chose to meet the perpetrators in jail and actually claims to understand them. One of the first things she did was investigate if the pub had license to serve alcohol and the last thing she did is recommend NCW to cancel the license. It is really strange that it never occurred to her that she was neither an excise officer nor a law enforcement officer to question the legality of the pub.

But that's not all. Going by her statements it seems that Ms.Venkatesh may in fact, have more than a wee bit of sympathy for the perpetrators. After all, she does say that she understood the attackers and that their motive was not to beat up women. This fact and her inquiry into the legality of the pub clearly indicates that Ms.Venkatesh had no clue as to what her duties and responsibilities entailed. As a member of the NCW she should be the last person to "understand" the culprits and as member of an advisory body she should refrain from treading into territories which belong to the executive.

However, Ms.Venkatesh is not alone, not long back Orissa's State Commission for Women chief had displayed similar apathy and lack of understanding of her job profile when she carried out raids on parks in Bhubaneswar haunted by young, unmarried couples. Moral policing is usually aimed at protecting/subjugating women, so when functionaries of bodies set up to fight for women's rights themselves become the moral police, the civil society needs to introspect seriously. One of the reasons that the situation has reached this stage is the practice of using the offices of these constitutional and/or statutory bodies as rewards to party loyalists. This trend can be seen in almost every government founded body from those dealing with sports to wakf and national and state commissions. An undesirable consequence of this practice is that being politicians these functionaries are found unwilling to risk annoying their constituents. Shouldn't the process of appointing office-bearers of these bodies be more transparent and competitive to ensure that the posts go to people who deserve it and are ideologically inclined towards the cause they are supposed to further.

The slothful pace at which the campaign for female emancipation and gender equality is being carried out in India and the opposition it faces from different quarters, including the self-appointed guardians of Indian culture, offices in the National and State Women Commissions should not be doled out as political rewards and should instead be entrusted with notable feminists who have shown grit and determination to take on established misogynistic traditions and dogmas.

While Medha Patkar, Kiran Bedi, Sarojini Sahoo and even Shabana Azmi may fit the bill, to me, someone like Rakhi Sawant would be more acceptable as a member of the NCW rather than a more respectable lady politician who ends up sympathizing with male chauvinists and herself assumes the role of moral brigade.

Posted By Danish 12:29 AM

0

Continue Reading

Slumdog Millionaire : Joning The Debate

In my last post,i have appreciated the movie Slumdog Millionaire quite unabashedly but that does not mean that i agree with everything that is being said about this movie.

Slumdog Millionaire comes across as a great work of art, an insightful journey through the life of a slum dweller as he passes through different worlds which transition in the background seamlessly. In many ways it is more like Herman Hesse's "Siddhartha" and Paulo Coelho's "the Alchemist" rather than a realistic "bandit queen". I think what has appealed to the audiences world-wide is the protagonist's upbeat spirit rather than realism. In fact, the so-called "ugly India" serves only as the backdrop which constantly transforms providing only fleeting glimpses.

Boyle doesn't even scratch the surface and rightly so, the script revolves around the protagonist, not the background. It is therefore intriguing that the movie is being seen as a portrayal of the real India. The criticism started well before the movie was officially released in India making me wonder if the critics had actually seen the movie or were just being apprehensive because of past experiences.

The allegation that film-makers exploit India's poverty is not without a basis. Film-makers of Indian origin such as Mira Nair and Deepa Mehta are especially adept at seeking out tales of exploitation, brutalization and misery from the nooks and corners of India and take them to the Western audience as work of art. I do not blame the Western audience either, India to them has always been synonymous with two clichés-poverty and spiritualism. Films portraying poverty and deprivation in India are thus more acceptable to Western audience.

However, these movies do not get good reception in India. Why? Is the Indian audience unwilling to look at its ugly face even when it is shown to them? A lot of non-Indians seem to harbour a feeling that all Bollywood movies are unrealistic and fantasy-based and that the Indian audience's perception of reality is influenced majorly by these movies. To them movies portraying the poverty-sticken and brutal face of India are ignored by Indian audiences because they don't want to see them. That may be true in some cases but not in all and certainly not in my case.
Why i never liked such movies is because i myself never found them authentic enough. They depict India from an outsider's eyes, not India as it is. Poverty, injustice, exploitation are far more painful than these movies portray. Something like Slumdog Millionaire never happens with India's slum dwellers, and neither are the teenaged chai-wallahs of Mumbai as polished and sophisticated as Dev Patel. The actor deserves the applause for the performance but the fact remains that he does not look a Mumbai slum-dweller in any way.

There are many other instances where reality and its portrayal in the movie don't see eye to eye.
The theme of the movie mocks at the most tragic aspect of the India's poor and underprivileged. The aspiration to escape dreadful living conditions by winning a fortune in a game show is not something that India's under-privileged can dream. Their aspirations always seem to be for better condition within the boundaries of their immediate realties. The day these deprived classes begin to dream of getting to the top,social injustice in India would start losing ground.

Contrary to popular perception, realism has always been there in Indian Cinema, its just that these movies never got the visibility that they deserved. Just a couple of years back, Madhur Bhandarkar's Traffic Signal based on the lives of Mumbai's underbelly did a better job portraying the reality. Realism has always been a part of Indian cinema, be it Satyajit Ray's social commentary or Hrishikesh Mukherjee's light hearted comedies. The 80's in particular,spawned a generation of serious actors whose talent has been recognized world over. Naseeruddin Shah, Om Puri, Smita Patil, Shabana Azmi, Shekhar Kapoor are some of the names that have been synonymous with serious cinema.

However, it does not mean that popular Bollywood movies and stars did not contribute to serious cinema. Lets not forget that even Amitabh Bachchan has acted in movies like Aalaap, Abhimaan and Saudagar and SRK started his film career with movies like Maya Memsaab and Kabhi Haan Kabhi Naan. For a long time the difference between parallel and popular cinema remained stark but lately it is disappearing. Madhur Bhandarkar is just another member of the pack of film-makers whose movies have been successful because of realistic representation.

Looking back, some of my recent favourite movies like Parzania, Black Friday, Omkara, Page 3 and even Black seem more realistic the Slumdog Millionaire. So if Slumdog Millionaire has been nominated for realism then Parzania and Traffic Signal should have already won Academy awards. Unless, of course the Bollywood movies are considered eligible only if the film-makers do not belong to it.

Posted By Danish 6:54 PM

0

Continue Reading

Slumdog Millionaire : A Review

Suddenly, the impoverished, brutalized face of India is everywhere thanks to the Oscar nominated Slumdog Millionaire. Quite a few people including the legendary Amitabh Bachchan have spoken out against Danny Boyle's use of India's ugly face for his film! Tragedy sells and film-makers know how to make money by glamorizing grief. This movie has earned more criticism than expected mainly because the depiction of Mumbai's underbelly is being seen as a major threat to the image India has earned for its stupendous economic success in last two decades. The controversy continues, but, before i jump into it let me give you an honest review of the movie.

My spontaneous reaction after watching the film was one of delight. The script is ruthlessly upbeat The plot revolves around the life of Jamal an orphaned Mumbai slum kid, as he fights to survive in the dog-eat-dog world and overcomes various trials and tribulations of street life to emerge in the hot seat of the popular game show "Who Wants To Become A Millionaire?".

Jamal wins the game not because he is exceptionally intelligent but because he is lucky to face questions whose answers he already knows. He has known these answers not by reading but through the hard ways of life, each question takes you back to some gruesome episode that has taught the answer to Jamal .Danny Boyle takes the audience through a colorful and fast moving adventure of Jamal through these episodes in the protagonist's life which vary from cruel, horrific, shocking to joyful and ecstatic moments. Despite the circumstances the backdrop remains upbeat and optimistic and that is what carries the film through. My favorite moment is the climax of the movie when Jamal facing the penultimate question of the show (the 20 million rupees question) uses his final life-line to call his lost love knowing fully well that she doesn't know the answer to the question. Its the sort of sentimentality and optimism that only Bollywood movies could portray but Boyle handles it well.

Anil Kapoor as the host of the game show lives up to the expectation, his role may not have required it but his performance makes him the anchor of the film itself. Dev Patel's performance is stunning but for some reason i have confused him with Abhishek Bachchan and i am not talking about appearance! The real stars are the kids who play the roles far more convincingly than the grown ups.

However, it is a director's movie all the way and Danny Boyle has done a great job engaging the audience and taking them on the journey of a slumdog through his various emotional, and mostly tragic phases, which the protagonist overcomes through gritty determination and optimism.

Posted By Danish 11:53 PM

1

Continue Reading

Munnabhai meets Mangalore Marauders

Culture vultures swooping down on helpless women in Mangalore, Rajasthan CM Gehlot and Karnataka CM Yedurappa vowing to fight "pub culture" and Sunjay Dutt's statement about his sister using their father's surname exhibit the role male chauvinism continues to play in the Indian socio-sphere. What is really alarming is the fact this is strain of thought is not restricted to the far right camp only. While Karnataka CM Yedurappa belongs to the BJP, Rajasthan CM Ashok Gehlot is a Congressman and Sunjay Dutt has just joined the Samajwadi Party, yet all of them have expressed similar sentiments regarding Indian culture.

As far as Sunjay Dutt is concerned it is really unnerving that the actor has remained so uninfluenced from the role he plays so convincingly in the Munnabhai series. His statement reminds me of a fellow blogger Zaina's post. A lot of people may not take it seriously enough but the fact remains that women adopting their husbands' surname goes contrary to the notion of gender equality.As for the new saffron outfit running amok in Mangalore, it shouldn't surprise us the way it does now. For years now we have allowed rightists and communalists to take control of our society. Extremists of every hue, be they Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs or any religious denomination, often justify their attempts to subjugate women in the name of protecting their honour and dignity.

Primitive human society (as well as animal societies) viewed their females as possessions that defined the individual's stature and represented the honour of the tribe. So when religious radicals talk of protecting woman's honour and dignity, it is their own primitive sense of honour of the tribe, that they are talking about. Further, dignity cannot be forced on anyone, it is a natural condition that exists until attempts, especially belligerent attempts are made by others to deny it. Use of coercive and brutal methods to bestow dignity actually means assaulting the woman's individual dignity and an act to protect the tribe or community's honour.

Since antiquity India has been a heterogeneous society, assimilating not only immigrants but their cultures too. Constant cultural synthesis is what Indian culture has represented throughout history. The marauding hordes of Mangalore are least likely to have any idea on the Indian culture, our heritage is too pluralistic, too composite and too rich to be understood by people with such primitive mentality.

Posted By Danish 12:45 AM

2

Continue Reading

Is India Inc Ready For Corporate Governance ?

Corporate governance is the new buzzword in the Indian white-collar community coming in the wake of Satyam debacle. Coming from a background that has had nothing to do with commerce, economics or business management, I find it difficult to understand if there is a greater need for corporate governance.

For all I know, more rules, procedures and processes remind me of the good old and inefficient bureaucracy and "the license permit raj" of pre-reforms India. In the Cold War era India's socialistic leanings (more like anti-capitalism) led to rules, processes and governmental control that most Indian corporates were either state controlled or dominated by big business houses. It did not allow the middle-class, traditionally business oriented, to dream big in terms of business.Economic reforms changed all that, private players took over and the result 15 years later is not bad at all. It is not just the big business houses and multinational companies that have been successful, of course they have had an important role but it is the small businesses that have been driving the engine of growth. Lots of energy, determination and innovation are the hallmarks of this epoch. It is also the period when entrepreuners and spirited individuals from rural and small towns of India emerged as key players. Did they know or follow management rules or processes?

I don't think so! Lets take Lalu Yadav as case-study. Lalu was seen by a lot of literati as the perfect example of illiterate, ignorant political leader who doesn't deserve to be in the legislature. While this impression may have weakened with passage of time, it is a fact that he lacks absolutely the sophistication and finese synonymous with corporate leadership. Yet he tranformed railways in a manner none could have imagined. I guess Lalu didn't go much into the established corporate strategies and plans. What he did instead is, apply his own desi business sense and unorthodoxy. The same goes for dabbawalas, Dhoni and scores of middle-class Indians who now lead India. Most of these people who have gone on to become corporate leaders have shown dictatorial traits. Should that be tolerated?

Before answering that question let us take a look at the fact that despite phenomenal economic growth, India is still the home of every third poverty-stricken person in the world. As things stand, this gulf between poor and others is set to increase unless the overall economy grows at a faster pace. History shows that raapid development has been a reality in autocratic states more than in democratic ones. So, as long as corporate leaders act dictatorial within their own organization,on purely professional issues and have no major or direct role in socio-political aspects of society, they can be seen as necessary evil. Of course, the government should ensure that the interests and basic rights of the employees and customers are safe-guarded and the value generated contribute to the society as a whole.

P.S: As I have said before, this is an area I am not knowledgeable in and I may be wrong. But do leave a comment to correct me :)

Posted By Danish 1:52 AM

1

Continue Reading