Many
identify vicariously with the entertainment media: it plays an important role
in shaping their desires and dreams. Often, this has to do with fashion and
style. Young boys copy hairstyles, imitate Hrithik, Salman and Sanjay
Dutt's machismo and passion for 'body-building'. Some want to walk, talk and
act like Ranbir Kapoor. I see newly married women in sequinned saris,
heavy jewellery and make-up exactly like the women in Ekta Kapoor
serials.
But it does
not always stop at that. These media also partly influence people's ideal notions
of family (think Hum Apke Hai
Kaun? and Baghban), friendship (Kuch
Kuch Hota Hai, Dil Chahta
Hai, ZNMD),
relationships and love (Dilwale Dhulhaniya...), and even nation and
citizenship (Rang De Basanti and Chak De India). For some, it
may also have a bearing on how they think about what constitutes 'the good
life'. Walk into a typical middle or upper middle class wedding in India
and it is like a set for a Karan Johar movie. Many have imbibed Karan Johar and
Ekta Kapoor's belief that the more opulent, expensive and bigger - the better! Bollywood
has even influenced travel plans and honeymoon destinations: Switzerland,
London and New York can thank Yash Chopra Films for burgeoning tourism.
My complaint
is that mainstream Bollywood, since the mid-90s, often portrays an exclusionary
vision of India. According to it, India is constituted exclusively by the
consuming middle class. Think Kal
Ho Na Ho, Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna, Namaste London, DesiBoyz, or even
the more sophisticated - but still showcasing the same exclusive vision
- Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara. The
working class and poor simply do not exist (Minorities are absent as well because
Shah Rukh Khan is always Rahul, Salman Khan mutates into Prem and Aamir becomes
Aakash). Right up until the '80s, the Indian film industry regularly had as their
protagonist peasants and working class persons, and focused on socio-economic experiences of the common man.
However, Bollywood films of the 1990s/2000s almost always focus on the struggle of a
middle class protagonist, which too is of a personal nature. Mainstream cinema ignores social/economic experiences like hunger, economic exploitation, inequality related to gender and caste, and so on.
This is not
to say that all cinema needs to deal
with such heavy subjects. What is objectionable is the dominance of this exclusionary vision, which unfortunately often reinforces the insularity of many
upwardly mobile members of the middle class. In this light, it is commendable
that a Bollywood actor has endeavored to burst this bubble; to remind us of
alternative experiences and ignored visions.
Given that
Bollywood and StarPlus soap operas leave an indelible mark on many minds, it is
not entirely wrong to believe that were famous 'stars' from this
"entertainment business" involved in campaigns around relevant social
issues - be it gender inequality, domestic violence, religious extremism
or caste discrimination - they would be extremely effective in raising
awareness among ordinarily
apolitical citizens. Our
hyper-competitive, sensationalist news media rarely misses any such story; this additional news
coverage can spark off debates and help to break the silence around social
issues. This could only help in making the socially unaware conscious
of them.
This is why
it is important that Aamir Khan anchors Satyamev Jayate, and not any social
activist ignored by the mainstream media and tabloids. What is brilliant
and noble about the show is precisely the fact that it is not social scientists
talking to themselves; exchanging esoteric knowledge, using
jargon, statistics and abstruse theories. Satyamev Jayate is neither an
academic book nor a seminar. It is unique in that it aims to dialogue with ordinary persons who
might be unfamiliar with the issues at hand.
This is a
difficult task for anyone seeking to address a complex issue, let alone
for an hour long TV show that must compete for TRP ratings with IPL5 and the
likes of Ekta Kapoor. Catering to the 'lowest common denominator'
requires one to target persons in the audience who know zilch about the issue,
explain its complexities in the most simple, effective way
and yet give as nuanced a
picture as possible.
Satyamev
Jayate, so far, has not aimed to provide us with any 'final solution' to any
problem (contrary to what Sohini Ghosh has argued in Kafila on May 9
and Farah Naqvi in The Hindu of May 12,
2012). At no point was his plea to the CM of Rajasthan to fast-track court
cases of female foeticide represented as 'the' solution to the problem. Nor was
his donation to ChildLine, the helpline for children, represented as 'the' way
in which the sexual abuse of India's children can be expunged. These are merely
efforts to contribute in some way: to let the audience know
that if they feel strongly they can at least attempt to help those who need it, or let
the latter know that there is help they can turn to.
The show (so
far) has not claimed to address every aspect of the issues it
seeks to address, nor the ability to bring about a sudden, total
transformation in Indian society. Judged by these yardsticks, Satyamev
Jayate will always fail to meet expectations. Aamir's show must be judged
by its intent to get us talking about the basics
of some of the many complex problems that plague Indian society. Its efficacy
lies in breaking the conspiracy of silence about them in our public and private
lives. By giving even ten children the ability to recognise what constitutes
sexual abuse, by letting even five know that it is never okay and never their fault, and by giving even
three the courage to complain to someone - the show will have achieved a
lot.
Viewed
against this, criticism of it by certain 'liberal'/'progressive' minded people
- for not dealing with all facets, for apparently wrongly
portraying girls as 'cute little bunny rabbits' that have to be 'saved', for
Aamir's (admittedly) contrived reactions - makes one suspect that
they cannot but sneer at even a much-craved effort to spark
off a genuinely public debate on relevant social issues
insofar as they themselves are not monopolising the
debate or setting its terms and so long as they are not
ones rescuing 'the victim', whoever it may be, in their way. Those who disparage Aamir's "jaadu ki
chhadi" - the collective strength of "you" and
"me" - as useless in the longer struggle against social evils are
either missing the point or being unnecessarily pernickety. It is obvious that
this is only an attempt to inspire and jolt us out of inertia, apathy and
insensitivity. This adamant refusal to appreciate and encourage this
admittedly small, but sincere and much-needed effort betrays a
disturbing tendency among some critics to be needlessly highbrow and
dismissive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This blog was published in India Current Affairs: http://indiacurrentaffairs.org/india-why-i-like-aamir-khan%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98satyamev-jayate%E2%80%99-vanya-vaidehi-bhargav/ (June 5, 2012)
_________________________________________________
Some
criticism of Satyamev Jayate -
Sohini Ghosh
in Kafila - http://kafila.org/2012/05/09/dil-se-nahin-dimaag-se-dekho-thoughts-on-satyamev-jayate-episode-1-shohini-ghosh/ (May
9, 2012)
Other opinions on SMJ -
Prof. Ravinder Kaur's opinion (similar to mine) - http://www.indianexpress.com/news/good-at-heart/965572/ (June 23, 2012)