Viswaroopam : For Gods Sake…

Kamal Hassan, arguably India’s finest actor, has found his latest movie Viswaroopam banned for 15 days by the Tamil Nadu state government, following protests by several Muslim organisations who argued that in portraying the terrorists as Muslims, Vishwaroopam had hurt the sentiments of Muslims and cast them in a negative light. Following the decision by the Tamil Nadu government, several countries including Singapore have chosen to delay the release of the movie. This evokes several pertinent and serious questions that needs to be highlighted and addressed.

Firstly, let us address the ban issued by the Tamil Nadu government. The decision is questionable on the fundamental notion of what the state defines as being Muslim and being a terrorist. The word terrorist is by no means synonymous with being Muslim. Muslims refer to people of a given religious faith, the vast majority of whom are peace loving people with absolutely no disposition to violence of any kind. Terrorists refer to people who practice “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes” and they come from all religious faiths and political leanings. They are not exclusive to Islam.

When one chooses to make a film or write an article on the 9-11 attacks and the terrorist attacks and wars that followed, the portrayal of the terrorists as being Muslims is fact, not a perspective directed at making defamative remarks about Muslims. There is a distinct danger that arises from not drawing a clear distinction between terrorists who are Muslims and Muslims as fundamentally being inclined towards Terrorism. The latter is an extremely flawed perspective that I fear may be enhanced by the government choosing to ban Vishwaroopam. A movie that is based on 9-11 and the Afghanistan is always going to portray the terrorists as being Muslim, portraying them as Eskimos would be somewhat factually inaccurate. Banning the movie as being insensitive to Muslims however enhances the notion that terrorists who are muslims are one and the same as the peace loving man of Islamic faith living next door. It is both shocking and disturbing that the Tamil Nadu state government and its Chief Minister, Jayalalitha cannot make that distinction and explain that to the protesting organisations, all of whom are merely politicking for the sake of a blind populist agenda for which any cause is a good one.

There is also little legal sense in the ban. In banning the movie for two weeks, the government of Tamil Nadu has merely excused itself from its fundamental responsibility of protecting the right towards the freedom of expression, with the fortnight stipulation added making it all the more laughable. The movie is not going to change in two weeks, with Zulu tribes and Amish people added to the terrorist group portrayed to make it less offensive. In a temporary ban, the government, for political reasons, has chosen to pass the buck, anticipating that Kamal Hassan would take legal actions, thus making it the problem of the Madras High Court and a legal issue.

There is no doubt that Kamal Hassan would win the case, should sanity which seems to be a rare commodity these days, prevail in the High Court given the legal precedent set so far. Firstly, the right to ban a movie and the decision to allow it to be screened lies with the Central Board of Film certification, as enshrined under the Cinematograph act of 1952. In 2006, the Supreme Court of India, dismissed a petition to ban The Da Vinci Code while The Madras High Court dismissed a ban issued by the government. In another case, S.Rangarajan vs. P.Jagajivan Ram the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the movie Ore Oru Gramathile which had been banned for being critical of Tamil Nadu’s education system. The court ruled that “freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threat of demonstration and processions or threat of violence.” as this would “be tantamount to negation of the rule of law and a surrender to blackmail and intimidation.”

Given the precedent, the judgement should be in Kamal Hassan’s favour but that does not undo the emotional strain put on the man who starred, directed, wrote dialogue and lyrics as well as produced this movie for a whopping budget of 95 Crores. (950 million Rupees) The government of Tamil Nadu must be held accountable for passing the buck, and attempting to preserve its vote bank.

Equally puzzling and disturbing is the Singapore distributor and theatres’ decision to not film the movie as well despite the movie being passed with a NC-16 rating by the Film Censors in the Media Development Authority (MDA) of Singapore. Despite tickets having been sold, a decision was made to delay the screening of the film in Singapore. This leads one to conclude that perhaps Jayalalitha has been elected Chief Minister of Singapore in secret as well, given that the Tamil Nadu government’s decision to ban the movie takes precedent over the MDA’s decision to allow its screening. Equally disturbing is the lack of information offered to Singaporean viewers detailing the reasons behind the decision to yank the film off the theatres in the last minute. Given the small audience and their dependence on a small, loyal minority, distributors and theatre owners, one would assume would take more care not to disrespect their patrons.

There is little that film enthusiasts and Kamal Hassan fans, both in Singapore and Tamil Nadu can do for now, except hope that cooler and saner heads prevail. The politicization of God often rears an ugly head and this is yet another viswaroopam of such wonton ugliness.

Pravin Prakash
The Social Swami

Some of the information used in this article, particularly the legal bits were taken from this article in The Hindu which can be accessed at : http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/responsibility-to-protect/article4341102.ece

Fifty Shades of Power

Let’s talk about power.

Today’s society, supposedly increasingly non-patriarchal, has both men and women in positions of power and leverage. Yet, there is an increasing sense of awareness that the ‘woman can have it all’ belief is an illusion. (Please refer to the slew of recently published TODAY social commentary pieces on this issue.) More so, the various labels women define themselves by today seem multiple and contradictory, binding us in a wholly fragmentary, undermining way.

Women reading intensely romantic BDSM themed novels as a mainstream phenomenon could be a cultural representation of their latent need to romanticise the emotional bondage they inherently suffer, tied to the multiple yet contradictory roles enforced on them by current social contextual demands, ironically manifested through the people closest to them.

We seem to want to be drawn to someone for no reason, drawn in a way we forget our modern day sensibilities and succumb to our baser urges, to defer completely to someone till we lose ourselves in the ‘us’ and the ‘we’ and have no ‘me’.

Perhaps this need is an instinctive reflex to counter the socially ingrained overcompensation of the past few decades based on lofty feminist ideals to become the ‘independent and emotionally sustainable woman’. Perhaps, true equality between men and women involves understanding that this is impossible in terms of human nature itself. We are all connected, interdependent and emotionally vulnerable on a variety of levels. We keep refusing to acknowledge this fact because we have come to believe this would lead to a loss of control and power over those we are connected to. This is far from the case.

Men are not invulnerable, not even when they were at their chauvinistic peak – just watch an episode of ‘Mad Men’. It is no longer the case of which will be the more powerful gender. This preoccupation that there is a shift in power from men to women with regards to their place in society is obviously an error. Power is not static – it shifts constantly, mutates into various forms in varying situations. Control moves along with it. It is not as direct and unilateral as everyone would like to think. Power relations are a lot more fluid and flexible and more people need to understand this.

We most often associate power with job title, material wealth, physical appearance and even, academic qualifications. The most annoying thing about today’s culture is that it propagates this belief – more often than not, the male protagonist in books and movies is viewed as the embodiment of masculine power only because he has the looks and the money and the tailored suit.

We often forget that power has more to do with the intangibles – upbringing, vastness of mind, benevolence of heart, a certain raw form of energy that radiates from within and seems to draw people close.

Perhaps understanding these indefinite origins of power will allow us to fully comprehend and develop functional relations of power and control between each other more effectively – not just with respect to men and women but between individuals in general.

Power relations can be found to be the most problematic aspect of intergenerational interaction, especially within families. This is particularly acute in our society where working adults live with their parents. These children who are now contributing to the household income want to be recognised as equals but are met with resistance by parents who believe in the inflexible nature of power and authority in a household. This can breed tremendous tension.

Perhaps it is time for us to throw down the gauntlet and face our fluctuating roles in our various social relations with each other in the context of our times. Besides, it all boils down to a quintessential fact – one day your employee could be your boss and you do not want to get fired because you told him or her to make your coffee strong and black.

 
Reena Devi

The Renaissance of Superheroes

You have all been to see The Avengers and there is Dark Knight Rises to look forward to, the last installment of Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy.

This reign of comic book superheroes in our mainstream pop culture is inescapable but why, in spite of all the movies, television shows and brilliant comic books produced all these years, is it during this day and age that they have attained such an elevated place in our collective cultural imagination?

What do they represent to us?

It goes beyond mere escapism. To call them the gods of our time, as Grant Morrison does in his book ‘The Supergods’, seems rather naïve.

As people, we hate to be told we can be better, we want to be told we are already good to begin with, the best even. The modern day retelling of these comic book superheroes show us this; flawed, shadowy, egoistical, insecure, out of place, lonely individuals struggling with their place in the world and in doing so take on forms and personas which elevate them almost to the level of demigods.

Some do so by training and acquisition of a particular skill set, some do so by genetic experimenting gone awry, some do it with a lot of money and technological expertise. What makes them all similar is their inane desire to immerse themselves into battling for a vision that is bigger than themselves, the greater good of mankind. In doing so, they find an escape from their self-doubts and issues.

This specific means of empowerment combined with escapism employed by the superheroes is very apparent, especially in their big screen reincarnations. It is almost as if this is the hook which draws us to the cinemas and renders these movies the blockbuster hits which they have become.

At best, we want to nurse the idea, however deeply buried, that no matter how flawed and irredeemable we may seem, we will step up to save the day when the occasion calls for it.

At worst, we hope that some day the collective vision of a better society will drive away the increasing disconnectivity we feel and imbue our lives with the much longed for sense of community, that sense of belonging to something bigger than ourselves.

A whole range of social institutions and constructs have been created over the course of history to proffer this feeling to us – religion, family, nation state etc.

Yet these very same things have also divided us time and again, so we look towards other sources to make us feel part of a united whole. Think about how effective the World Cup and the Olympics are in doing this – it definitely explains the continuation of these events till today.

These international sporting events, like the abovementioned movies, involve exalting mortals as heroes.

Perhaps it is not gods that we need after all, but merely heroes, people like you and me, willing to do what it takes to get up on the pedestal, for the good of an entity larger than themselves, be it a country or mankind itself.

If they chose this path because they witnessed their parents get mugged and murdered in a dark alley and vowed in the presence of their dead bodies to make the city crime-free like in the case of Batman, it is not for us to judge.

Ambition and drive are necessary inventions of our times – their underlying motivations, often cast in the murky recesses of our beings, tend to be forgiven (though not necessarily forgotten). We all have our inner demons after all.

That is the inherent understanding of the twenty first century individual: sometimes the man who is angry all the time i.e. The Hulk can save the world, sometimes the shadows can create light.

More crucially, movies such as The Avengers show us how this happens -when one drinks from the modern day elixir of empowerment and self-styled exceptionalism.

 

Reena Devi

 

 

 

 

What Lies Beneath

Sex is in the air.

In Singapore, forty-eight men, including businessmen, a former school principal, a Navy captain, a police superintendent, were charged in court this week with having paid sex with a minor. They allegedly procured the services from an unlicensed online vice ring, which had employed the under-aged girl or girls.

Concurrently, President Obama’s advance Secret Service detail have been recalled from Columbia, where the President is currently attending the Summit of Americas, over allegations of misconduct involving local prostitutes. The United States Southern Command has announced that five members of the U.S. military may have also engaged in “inappropriate” behavior at the same hotel as the recalled agents.

In Rome, Italy, former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is on trial for allegedly having sex with an underage prostitute. A witness even recounted in court that strippers in nun costumes danced for him at his villa.

Salacious (and clichéd) details aside, it is usually nobody’s business what anyone does in their personal lives.  However, it becomes state prerogative when it involves an illegal act such as solicitation, sex with a minor, and using the services of an unlicensed prostitution ring.

(In the case of US, the Secret Service takes all allegations of misconduct seriously, having an image of propriety and protocol to uphold in keeping their President safe.)

This raises the question – why paid sex? It is not as if the most powerful man in Italy could not have found himself a lover or two if he so wished. In Singapore, where people never seem to date but rather fall into relationships, perhaps it is a bit harder to find the willing woman for a one-night stand or a purely physical fling. Yet, there are many a men who have managed to do so without resorting to solicitation.

So what makes the world’s oldest profession still exist? Why the ageless ceaseless demand for sex which is paid for?

Perhaps, it comes down to the bi-polar image of women as the virtuous versus the prostitute. Perhaps, this dichotomy has never truly departed from our collective psyches, in spite of the outward changes of laws and legislations and attitudes regarding women and their place in society.

In the classic Iranian Literature Blind Owl by Sadegh Hedayat, the author articulates the impotent male psyche unable to deal with the shifting reality that formulates itself around the shape of a woman. In fact the women in Blind Owl symbolise the two polarized images of the classical Iranian narrative – the inaccessible ethereal women and the all too accessible temptress. There is no integration of the different aspects of women, no understanding that they can exist as a cohesive whole rather than as individual extremes.

The fact is no matter how liberated women are in today’s modern society, there still exists a demand for prostitutes – this shows the need for a type of sexual possession and power which pervades time and modernity.

To pay for sex means you can demand anything you desire from the person you own for that period of time. It is ironic that in the past it was traditional and religious notions which prevented one from exerting such demands on their wives whom they viewed as good, non-sexual, virgin women and now, principles of equality and freedom for both sexes cause men due pause in making such requests to their wives and girlfriends, no matter how sexually liberated the woman may be. The question men now grapple with on a subconscious level is – how do you demand sexual degradation from a woman you are supposed to treat with respect and as your equal?

Perhaps the reason paid sex is always so hotly debated and contentious is because it reflects a depravity in society which will always need to exist, to feed the collective desires of our inner beasts. It is an unavoidable reminder that we are eternally man and animal all at once.

Reena Devi

A Tale of A Thousand Cities

Much ado has been made about New York City receiving the Lee Kuan Yew Prize. The idea that a city with an established status in our global cultural imagination needs an award from Singapore seemed appalling to many. Interestingly, the responses from this side of the pond had an admittedly aspirational tone.

In the past, the cultural obsession to emulate the West has always been an issue much discussed and debated. The recent economic recession, violent manifestations of pathological social apathy (London riots), class inequality (Occupy Wall Street movement) and a general lack of worldliness in the West should have put an end to this. However it has not.

Now, what has previously passed for Western ideals have become entangled with global ones, forming a cosmopolitan philosophy, so to speak. In this instance, the mainstream belief is that as a city, Singapore, has to aspire to be like other cities in the West so as to become a world-class city of its own.

The thing is, New York City became the icon it is today not by trying to be like another city, but simply by being itself, allowing its people to meld and clash, to luxuriate in their varying immigrant cultures and counter cultures, creating a sense of spontaneity and freshness of thought.

Singapore has all the necessary hallmarks of an international hub. It has already established itself as far as economy, education, security, technology and transportation are concerned. During the past few years, policy makers have focused on making Singapore a more culturally vibrant city by building the necessary infrastructure and funneling the required funds to arts, entertainment and media industries. They have relaxed certain laws and legislation and created new avenues to increase tourism. We seem to have it all.

We have the brand but not the substance. Culture cannot be copied, it has to be created. For Singapore to possess the cultural and intellectual joie de vivre it seeks, it has to do so on its own terms. Comments questioning our freedom of expression and blaming government restrictions are excuses being recycled from a bygone era.

It seems that the fundamental thing holding us back is ourselves, our fear to own up to our place in society, our diverse yet shared cultures, our immigrant history, our land.

Perhaps this deep rooted inferiority complex in our collective social psyche has to do with the fact that we have always been a small country surrounded by far bigger ones, forcing us to be an overachieving population, constantly striving to prove ourselves by taking on a path of success and cultural recognition already laid out by older and ‘wiser’ nations.

Or maybe it the shape of our terrain itself inhibiting us. The Ancient Greeks talked about people who lived on land completely surrounded by sea lacking the imagination and depth in thought which their counterparts living in mountainous regions possessed. Apparently, the strangest mythologies and the oldest cities sprung from unbroken and wild terrain. Yet these very same Greeks spoke about the island city of Atlantis, that mythological place where men reached their full cultural and intellectual potential.

Perhaps, it is time for us to release all these preconceived notions about what a great city should be and simply aspire to be greater than ourselves.

At the same time, it should be noted – like any other cosmopolitan and culturally established city, New York City has a dark side, a historically rich underbelly of crime and poverty and homelessness. There is always a cost to greatness.

Reena Devi

An edited version of this piece was published in TODAY newspaper and TODAYonline.