Counter point On WATER
Extinguishing culture
IN Mumbai, which developed the unfortunate reputation in recent times for the intolerance of
its cultural police (which has thankfully been dislodged), a privileged few are seeing films
which effectively demolish the gloss that others in this city have worked hard to project of a
"modern" and "networked" India.
Some of these films depict the corruption, the callousness, the hypocrisy of the ruling
establishments that millions of ordinary people encounter every day of their lives. But so far,
"Hindu sentiments" of "the people" have apparently not been offended. So the film festival of
documentary films has proceeded unhindered.
In Varanasi, as is well known now, a film cannot even be made, leave alone shown, if it hurts
the sentiments of some people. Prior clearances, directives from the Central Government, or
even plain common sense seem to make no difference in such a situation. A lunatic fringe is
running the show, and those who claim that they are in-charge merely throw up their
collective hands in apparent helplessness.
It is extraordinary how many tangential issues are being raised in the controversy surrounding
Deepa Mehta's latest film "Water" when the central concern of anyone who believes in
democracy should be the right of freedom of expression and the freedom to conduct business
in any part of India. Instead of addressing the frightening atmosphere of intolerance that is
building up in India, we are told that Deepa Mehta is a publicist, that she was unwise in
making public the contents of her film, that she should have been politically savvy enough to
realise that she would face this kind of opposition in the Hindu heartland of Varanasi if she
attempted to tackle the wrongs of Hindu society in her film.
Even if all this is true, it is irrelevant in the present context. What we have to recognise is that
the attack on "Water" is an attempt to suppress any discussion on the ills of Hindu society
because that right is only granted to those who subscribe to the ideology of Hindutva. Deepa
Mehta is not just an "outsider", in that she lives part of the time outside India, but she clearly
does not share the views of those who believe that Hinduism is in danger and should be
defended at all costs.
The treatment of widows in India today - and not in the 1930s which Deepa Mehta is
attempting to depict in her film - should make everyone who call themselves Hindu hang their
heads in shame. In fact, here is a subject worthy of many films. Here is a quote from a report
in The Indian Express about the widows of Varanasi: "Wrapped in yellowing cotton saris,
these elderly, frail women carry the crushing weight of widowhood; years of deprivation,
exploitation, poverty and hunger. Abandoned by sons and daughters, fathers and brothers,
even husbands, they flock to Kashi and Mathura looking for shelter and solace."
Is the Shiv Sena and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) also going to attack the print media
for daring to expose the reality that despite so many other changes that this country has
witnessed, women continue to be valued only within the institution of marriage? That they are
discarded as worthless once they fall outside it? That there are men and women in this
country who consciously disown their own mothers and allow them to live an undignified life
of penury in Varanasi rather than caring for them in their old age? In a free country, can the
media, or film- makers, be stopped from depicting and exposing these terrible realities?
The visual medium is likely to be a bigger target in the future because its reach is already so
much greater than either print or even radio. According to the latest figures, television reaches
an estimated 400 million people in India.
Apart from freedom of expression, the protests over "Water" have other, more serious,
implications including what they suggest will be the future of women in a society that controls
the flow of information and bars debate. For today, the issue might be films like "Water" or
the earlier "Fire" by the same director, but tomorrow it could extend to women's rights within
marriage, women's right to choose careers, choose husbands, choose where and how they
will live, how they will dress. If the Hindutva brigade holds that certain traditions are
sacrosanct, then norms of democracy will be set aside, debate will be banned and "tradition"
will be upheld at all costs. As is evident from the situation in Varanasi, there is no concern for
women in these protests, only for the image of men as projected through oppressive traditions
that continue to survive.
We also have to see through the arguments used by the Sangh Parivar to disrupt free cultural
expression. The most prescient comment made so far on the subject was by the historian
Romila Thapar who said, "When the Sangh Parivar attacks anything to do with Muslims, it
justifies it in the name of setting right the wrongs of history. But when Hindu tradition is
criticised, it says this is history, why rake it up?" Thus whether it is the tradition of "sati", or of
widowhood, the Sangh Parivar will not tolerate any comment on these aspects of Hindu
society precisely because they expose contemporary attitudes towards women that remain,
essentially, unchanged.
And finally, it is important to understand how the "anti- national" and "anti-Hindu" arguments
are increasingly being collapsed into one. Thus, if you criticise the Government on Pokhran,
or on Kargil, you are anti-national. If you support Deepa Mehta's right to make a film on
widowhood you are anti- Hindu. And because you support an "outsider" exposing "national"
(read Hindu) ills, you are also anti-national.
The line between "Hindu" and "national" has never existed for those who believe in Hindutva.
We cannot permit this to become the norm.
KALPANA SHARMA |
