Would I have winced as much watching Dabangg 2 had it not been for the horrifying rape in Delhi, I wondered silently walking out of the multiplex. It wasn’t just the oft-quoted, distasteful lyrics of the item number Fevicol se: “Main toh tandoori murgi hoon yaar, gatkaale saiyyan alcohol se”, but also the uneasy machismo and patriarchy embedded in the narrative that I found myself recoiling against. The woman seems to occupy a defined space, has a clear role in the imagination of director Arbaaz Khan (taking care of the house and raising the man’s brood), expressed rather eloquently in a throwaway dialogue—“Kisi ka ghar basaaten, kisi ko baap banaaten.”
But Dabangg 2 is certainly not an isolated case. It’s a universally acknowledged fact that the male-dominated and male-centric popular Indian cinema, be it in Hindi, Tamil, Telugu, Bhojpuri or any other language, has packaged women rather handily over the years. And viewers, including women, have lapped up these representations. Bela Negi, director of Daayen ya Baayen, remembers growing up listening to the Aankhen song, “O lal dupatte wali tera naam to bata.” “I was repelled by it, feared that someone might tease me while singing that song to me,” she says. “But that sensitivity is now gone. I have got used to the stuff that I once found objectionable,” she confesses. In recent years, it’s the excess that’s seems to have turned us immune to the crassness on screen. Bombarded with the suggestive Munnis, Sheilas and Jalebi Bais, we seem to take them rather casually. “Getting exposed day in and day out desensitises us,” says veteran filmmaker Shyam Benegal. The Delhi incident, though, woke the audience up from the daze, and how. Overnight, movies and songs became everyone’s favourite whipping boys. And the one to draw the most flak was the tad silly and yet hugely successful Yo Yo Honey Singh of the unmentionable lyrics fame.
Honey Singh in Gurgaon/ Fotocorp
But it doesn’t begin or end with some crass item numbers or Honey Singh. The larger question remains: who is to blame? Cinema or the society that willingly consumes it? Is cinema mirroring our perceptions or influencing them? Are we using cinema as an easy scapegoat for our own latent ills? The jury is still out on this but discussion has reached the filmmaking community as well. Filmmaker Onir thinks cinema is not mere passive entertainment and fun. “It can perpetuate regressiveness as well as progressiveness,” he says. However, for Amit Khanna, lyricist and chairman, Reliance Entertainment, it would be simplistic and naive to see it as an either/ or, black-and-white situation. “In the last couple of decades, the audience has been consuming several things on multiple platforms. As a society, we are not developed/mature enough to handle so much at the same time,” he says. “I am not absolving Bollywood of being irresponsible but it is part of a whole. Both our cinema and society are rotten,” he says.
Benegal too thinks that in a large, diverse country like India the effect of TV or cinema is not easily measureable. “We used to watch so-called ‘pondy’ films while growing up. They gave us a thrill. Did they affect us? No. But in a hierarchical, unequal society, it’s difficult to tell how individuals can get affected by cinema. You can’t generalise,” he says.
“It’s a spiral, a chicken-and-egg situation as to whether we are stoking the audience hunger or reflecting it, but our cinema does objectify women,” says director Rakeysh Mehra whose next film is Bhaag Milkha Bhaag. However, he feels that adult content should not be confused with objectification. “A film should have nudity, graphic violence if needed,” he feels. Columnist Shuddhabrata Sengupta too wouldn’t want to club all ‘sexual’ cinematic content under one group: “Sexuality can be affirmative. We should take it case by case and not collapse everything under one category.” In that sense, one can’t even paint all item numbers with a single brush. A song like Bunty Aur Babli’s Kajra re was fun and frank, in an equitable way, despite the heavy raunchy overtones.
Sengupta’s objection is specifically to the misogyny, the contempt and hatred towards women. “Hindi cinema of the ’70s and ’80s had this peculiar rape fixation. The only sex scenes in films were actually the rape scenes,” he says. Sociologist Shiv Visvanathan isn’t for brushing aside the good along with the bad and the ugly. “There are new explorations happening in films. There’s a lot of experimentation in terms of sexuality,” he says. According to him, the concept of ‘sacrifice’ is getting outdated, the vamp-heroine binary is vanishing and on-screen women are becoming “a bundle of contradictions”. “We shouldn’t push things back to standard cages, otherwise cinema will become non-creative and boring,” he says. Specially at a time when the Censor Board is opening up and films with mature content are being tentatively welcomed in the cinemas.
Also, there are other tricky questions here. How much is too much? What’s the thin line that divides irreverence from offensive? Benegal differentiates by taking the example of a nudist colony and a strip show. “In a nudist colony, nudity is taken for granted. No one ogles. But in a strip show, nudity is meant to arouse,” he says. Khanna explains: “Our folk music is also boisterous, raunchy, full of innuendo. But in our film lyrics, a contextual root and intellectual honesty is lacking.” So what’s the way out? Visvanathan is for constant critiquing. “But it shouldn’t be a moral edict or policing force,” he says. The word ‘ban’ comes riddled with dangers. One ban can justify several others in a rather blanket way. Onus then is on the viewer, to practice civil disobedience against what’s perceived as offensive cinema, to boycott and protest. “The viewers should make sensible consumer choice, should not see nor hear any rubbish,” says Sengupta, adding, “bans lead to publicity, boycott to box-office failures.” And no one finds it more difficult to take failures than the film industry.
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.
The idea of society seems to be, that if a girl is in front of a man, and trusts him, completely, and if the man feels both pleasure and discomfort, and decides that the lady has an advantage, because of her trust, and acts, then the lady has asked for it. The myth is, that the good girl is seen as the beacon. The modern lady has shown she can take on the world, and to the modern Indian man, the good girl is the immoral wimp, because she is unhappy, for taking any decision, as everyone takes decisions. I mean, I might be wrong.
BTW I don't even like Bollywood or movies in general. So I have no pro bollywood agenda here.
Also, every time I change to a movie or a music channel on TV, it's usually a semi naked man dancing. The suual suspects, John Abraham,Salman Khan & a whole truckload of other chaps, the names of who, I don't know & don't give a flying toss about.
What about them? Isn't this issue about freedom?
If men have the freedom to dance in their undies, women should too.
I saw priyanka chopra on NDTV yesterday while channel surfing so I stopped. Confident, articulate woman that she is, Barkha was annihilated in the debate & made to look like an ultra conservative prude moral police monkey.
That was hilarious. Aur lo liberalism ka theka, bloody fake liberals.
If clothes don't provoke a rapist how in the hell do songs provoke them into action?
It's either both or neither.
Balls in your court, fake liberals. It always has been!
The idea of Greek theatre, is that the heroic always remain so. When one does see Ms. Kaif perform ... 'Chikni Chameli', then it seems she is very heroic, and positively. There shouldn't be any unpleasant insinuations perhaps, when there aren't supposed to be, even if it be for the self.
Ms. Katrina Kaif is a great personality, because she represents what seems to be ideal, in physical appearance. People respect that a lady can look like a heroic personality, by her looks. The lady is actually quite a private personality, and has a manner, which is meek for the comfort of her fans. People like Akshay Kumar, and John Abraham, seem to have great personalities, and their looks compliment. I mean, there are many people with the nice face of Abraham, in many places, and he seems to make people really appreciate it. The same, in fact, is the case with Ms. Kaif. It appears, it doesn't matter, that she is pretty subdued, generally, and may not be gregarious, as Mr. Abraham is.
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