There was a time when tuberculosis was the cinematic sickness of choice. Filmic epidemiology was at that time an underdeveloped field. The trouble was that Nirupa Roy, who was very good at snapping up the tubercular role, was hardly physically tubercular. There was nothing remotely pinched or wasted about her well-fed Gujarati frame. How represented ‘reality’ in the Bombay film suffered on account of Nirupa Roy should be a field of inquiry in Indian film studies.
Somewhere in the 1960s, cancer displaced tuberculosis as the dread disease of cinema. But most “sickness” films contented themselves with fiddling around with disease on the edges of the story, rather than giving it a central role. That changed with Asit Sen’s 1969 film Khamoshi, which also added unipolar depression to the list of celluloid illnesses, and Hrishikesh Mukherjee’s 1971 film Anand, about a cancer patient. Bollywood’s clinical spectrum has since dilated, somewhat alarmingly, to accommodate cardiac transplantation (Red—The Dark Side, Dil Ne Jise Apna Kaha), corneal transplantation (Naina), HIV disease (My Brother Nikhil, Phir Milenge), dyslexia (Taare Zameen Par), autism (Apna Aasman, My Name is Khan) and dissociative identity disorder (Aks, Karthik Calling Karthik). Round the corner is Guzarish (paraplegia following spinal cord injury). There is a possibility that the global resurgence of tuberculosis may revive its movie career.
If we try and locate the doctor in the traditional stereotypes of the Bombay film, we’ll find that—unless played by a megastar—the doctor has always been depicted as a hopeless little twerp who has had, at best, something more or less sincere to say or do during the course of his screen presence, which largely revolves around an intramuscular injection, a pointless bit of fiddling with a stethoscope and facial perspiration during an operation. That continues to this date—consider the Mr Beanish twit in the climactic ambulance scene in Delhi 6! (By the way, no one, with the possible exception of first year medical students, wears short-sleeved white coats.) And medical discourse in Bollywood is limited to invoking divine providence.
It’s also fair to say that over the 70 years that the Bombay film has engaged with modern medicine, cinematic representations of medical processes and hospital chattel have had all the gravitas of a Daffy Duck short. Sample the opening sequence of Manmohan Desai’s blockbuster Amar Akbar Anthony. A much injured Nirupa Roy lies comatose on a hospital bed, perpendicular to the ones occupied by Amar, Akbar and Anthony, the blood donors. Blood from their veins goes against gravity into a bottle hanging on an IV stand next to each of them, from there via an aerial network of IV lines and connectors to a receptacle, and then the cephalic vein of Nirupa Roy in a quick stream. It seems that not only did Desai not attend his school biology and physics classes, but he also didn’t appoint anyone remotely connected to a hospital to serve as a consultant.
The newer films coolly verbalise about the pathological; it doesn’t matter if the real truth of the pathological fact is missing. Much filmic satisfaction comes from creative licence. As the disclaimer in the recently released Paa says, “Creative licence has been taken with the physical manifestations of the disease.” Indeed it has: children with progeria hardly ever grow beyond four feet. And Vidya Balan makes a rather fetching gynaecologist (unlike those in real life) with a practice lush enough, at 33, to get her a chauffeur-driven Honda Accord.
That’s alright, at one level: the Bombay film is not a cinema of reality. Its representations are poetic and metaphorical. But when the diseases are complex, using them as gimmicks to dress up a story—while claiming at the same time to have “sensitised” mass audiences to them—becomes a way of lampooning those who actually suffer from them. In My Name is Khan, Shahrukh Khan, who suffers from Asperger’s, is no different from the Shahrukh of Asoka, with his constant set of oddities in pitch, intonation, prosody and rhythm: what Wodehouse would’ve described as “reminding the hearer partly of an escape of gas from a gas pipe and partly of a sheep calling to its young in the lambing season”. His repetitive motor behaviour extends Asperger’s far beyond its clinical definition. Indeed, the Khan takes head-bobbing to the level of the martial arts. Why claim to deal with complex issues of high-functioning autism, dyslexia or whatever when all you’re peddling in the end is conventional Bollywood drama?
(The writer is a Delhi-based vascular surgeon. His debut work of fiction, Perineum: Nether Parts of the Empire, was published by Penguin in 2007.)
Dr Kidnis ki Amar Kahani (Apr 19) was an interesting yet phlegmatic diatribe on the trend of spicing up drab scripts with obscure medical diseases and characteristic mannerisms to draw in the ‘discerning’ crowds back to watch the ‘zara hatke’ Bollywood movies. Audience ennui over our steroid-pumping, larger-than-life heroes, scantily clad bimbettes and raunchy comedy has made scriptwriters pen stories of ‘human interest’, ending up caricaturing patients with these disorders. It’s high time a dash of medical reality found its way into the Bollywood spice garden.
Very serious situations have been transformed into uproariously funny scenes thanks to the Dr Kidnises of our movies (Dr Kidnis ki Amar Kahani, Apr 19). However, the inadvertent humour belies the dangers wrought by these idiotic scenes. Take, for example, those popular blood donation scenes. Like in Saheli from the ’60s. In a tearjerker of a finale, one ‘saheli’ donates her blood to the other ‘saheli’ and promptly drops dead afterwards! Who in their right mind would donate blood after watching scenes like this? But perhaps the prize-winner of all medical blunders is a scene from Mithun Chakraborty starrer Suraksha! In a shootout, the arch-villain is shot dead but later the hero spots the ‘dead’ villain at a party! He feels the person they’d despatched a few scenes earlier was a guy on whom plastic surgery had been done to dupe the hero. They exhume the body and we see a skeleton with some bits of brilliantly coloured plastic on its skull. “Aha!” sez the hero triumphantly, “didn’t I tell you that plastic surgery was done on him?” Some of it on us too.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT