Too much thunder?
Were the angry protests over 'India's Daughter' really the best way to handle an undoubtedly patronizing film?
Did the storm sweep away calm reasoning, wonders DEVAKI JAIN (Pix: The NDTV Dialogue which sparked the controversy).
Reading Brinda Karat's comment in the Indian Express, March 6, 2015, Open Page-- has provoked me to reflect on our recent energizing protest over the promotion of the film, “India’s Daughter”.
As information came out on the BBC documentary ‘India’s Daughter’, especially the proud announcement by NDTV that they would be showing the film as their contribution to International Women’s Day, interest from various women’s groups picked up.
An NDTV preview showed the director Leslee Udwun insisting that the film was a must-see for Indians and that she had been inspired by the energy and solidarity of the protests that followed the Dec. 16th, 2012 bus rape. In fact, she called the film her ‘gift’ to us, something that would help strengthen our voice.
Then the protests against the film began. NDTV suggested that members of a few feminist groups (including Indira Jaisingh and myself) see the film before making a judgement. All the viewing did was reinforce our conviction that the film should not be shown, least of all on International Women’s Day, for it is full of misleading messages and marked by illegalities.
As we all now know, NDTV did not screen it and the BBC did go ahead but showed it at what was an unearthly hour in India, many in the media have criticized the film while others have criticized the government’s ban and an intense debate has been underway among feminist groups.
What was heartening about the whole episode was the extraordinary vigour and variety of opinion that emerged in the women's domain and also the sheer interest shown in the issue by the media. This phenomenon is definitely a sea change in the public space in India, helped by the internet’s ability to spread an issue like wildfire.
As to myself, I was put off by what, for the sake of shorthand, I can only call the ‘white woman’s burden’ approach of the film which was reflected in the title and the constant repetition by Udwin that "this is important for you to see " and "it is for YOU".
It reminded me of the time when the Justice Verma Commission was set up and feminist organisations were providing material, ideas, and research. A group from Harvard University made the patronizing offer of helping us to draft our proposals.
Echoes of Katherine Mayo’s infamous ‘drain inspector’s report’ came to mind as I saw the producer argue for the value of her picture and its revelatory aspects. I was also disturbed by the fact that such a film was being hoisted as an educative truth by big channels like BBC, and that an Indian channel thought this would be their gift to us, on women’s day!
I did not like the claim " India's daughter " evocative as it was, and the drawing of the bathos around Jyothi Singh ( I have always preferred to think of her as this and not Nirbhaya) and her mother's experience. Though I was absolutely overwhelmed with admiration for the strong articulation of her mother -and could see where her daughter came from--. the difference between the father and mother in voice- was to me the most incredible and wonderful part of the debates, but that came out more interestingly on Sonia Singh's pre release discussions in the NDTV Dialogue, than in the film .
Moreover, serious issues were at stake, of the law and the due process of law. Feminist lawyers Indira Jaisingh and Vrinda Grover drew attention to the violation of many laws with respect to cases that are still in the courts.
For example, among other things, Udwin’s interview with Mukesh Singh and other rapists, could distort the due process of law. Jaisingh drafted a letter which was sent to NDTV on 3 March pointing out that the interview with Mukesh Singh, which is replete with explicit derogatory statements, falls within Section 153A (1) (a) of IPC which reads:
Whoever……
(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities
‘The right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. It is subject to the restrictions contained in Article 19 (2) of the Constitution, namely decency, morality and contempt of Court. At present, the defendant’s appeal against conviction and death sentence is pending before the Supreme Court, therefore, airing the documentary would amount to gross contempt of Court. Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 states:
“Criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-
(ii) Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding, or
(iii) Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.
The letter ended: ‘Therefore, to project the discussion on this film as being posited between ban and no-ban lobbies, is misplaced and seeks to evade the complex issues that are involved”.
All true and accepted. Nonetheless, on a totally different note, I can’t help reflecting on everything that has been said and wondering if the debate could have been less heated. Was our own program, our voice and advocacies and issues overshadowed by this film and the publicity even we gave it?
Perhaps if we had let it go, it could have faded without a bang , and may be a whimper as we have such vivacious , very democratic and inclusive celebrations of women's day across India from gram to town. But that storm has in some sense over whelmed the visibility we needed and want for our own celebrations as well as claims ...
-->