I recently saw the trailer of upcoming Anubhav Sinha film, Article 15. It seems like a film exposing caste realities prevalent in our society- not that our society can be termed as one, rather a bunch of overlapping mixes of cultures- through the eyes of a somewhat outsider policeman played by Ayushmann Khurrana.
It got me thinking.
Does this narrative work. Of course Anubhav Sinha’s previous similar attempt to showcase society’s(bunch of overlapping mixes of cultures) communal underbelly did work for him and his film Mulk did make money, as i am told. But does that movie and this new one really put forward a convincing argument for the anti-communal or anti-casteist ideologies? I think, not.
Both the films by Anubhav Sinha, Mulk and Article 15 (judgement on Article 15 is based on the trailer only, so could become off the point once the movie releases) appeal to the pity of those who benefit from the communal and casteist differences. The movies talk of how difficult the life is for people who suffer due to communalism and casteism. And the advantaged are guilty if they don’t wish to change.
But does this argument work? Does appealing to the sensitive side of the exploiter really inspire a change of heart?
Let me take a moment to announce that I am not communal, I don’t believe in caste system, and I even accept myself as a feminist in making. I might act on religious lines sometimes unintentionally, but I am willing to be called out, debate my side/accept mistake, and mend my ways. Basically, I am human.
This piece that I write here, hence, is not to target the ideologies of equality, secularism or feminism, but to point out the futility of arguments made on behalf of these ideologies through story-telling.
Having cleared the air and relieved some of the readers(if any) who would jump to kill anyone who disagrees with them, I can move on to make my point.
I really wish for a society with no communal or casteist sentiments. But I don’t believe appealing to pity is the way to go about it. No one is going to give up eating pizza when he finds about the innumerable malnourished children of the world, or give up the air-conditioner after learning about the erratic power supply in a lot of Indian villages.
I am a man and patriarchy favours me, but learning about a lot of people(women; yes they are simply people) suffering because of my privilege isn’t going to make me give up my privileges. It just isn’t a good enough argument.
You have to give me an argument that affects me directly. Like I choose feminism not because I pity women, but I see myself suffering because of sexism. Patriarchy is putting me on the spot unnecessarily, time and again. Sexism puts a lot of pressure on men to constantly be in a bullying mode, always be in character, look for signs of revolt and quickly crush them. I don’t see that as an advantage. In fact, it shuts me off to half the people(women) I meet in my life, and I don’t want that. It takes up too much energy and not enough advantage in the modern world. I choose to apply those energies someplace else. So feminism is a pragmatic choice where I have as much at stake as any woman.
This is absent in the narrative of anti-caste and anti-communal moral stories. They are all moral stories, really, not intended to change one’s mind but to serve as an emotional argument when you are in the middle of a debate. They don’t talk about how being sexist or communal is not an option anymore and maybe the exploiters being part of the social structure could actually benefit from a change.
My guess is the story-tellers are not even bothered to put out an argument for the ideologies they use in their tales and in fact, are happy making money by appealing to those who already agree with them.
It got me thinking.
Does this narrative work. Of course Anubhav Sinha’s previous similar attempt to showcase society’s(bunch of overlapping mixes of cultures) communal underbelly did work for him and his film Mulk did make money, as i am told. But does that movie and this new one really put forward a convincing argument for the anti-communal or anti-casteist ideologies? I think, not.
Both the films by Anubhav Sinha, Mulk and Article 15 (judgement on Article 15 is based on the trailer only, so could become off the point once the movie releases) appeal to the pity of those who benefit from the communal and casteist differences. The movies talk of how difficult the life is for people who suffer due to communalism and casteism. And the advantaged are guilty if they don’t wish to change.
But does this argument work? Does appealing to the sensitive side of the exploiter really inspire a change of heart?
Let me take a moment to announce that I am not communal, I don’t believe in caste system, and I even accept myself as a feminist in making. I might act on religious lines sometimes unintentionally, but I am willing to be called out, debate my side/accept mistake, and mend my ways. Basically, I am human.
This piece that I write here, hence, is not to target the ideologies of equality, secularism or feminism, but to point out the futility of arguments made on behalf of these ideologies through story-telling.
Having cleared the air and relieved some of the readers(if any) who would jump to kill anyone who disagrees with them, I can move on to make my point.
I really wish for a society with no communal or casteist sentiments. But I don’t believe appealing to pity is the way to go about it. No one is going to give up eating pizza when he finds about the innumerable malnourished children of the world, or give up the air-conditioner after learning about the erratic power supply in a lot of Indian villages.
I am a man and patriarchy favours me, but learning about a lot of people(women; yes they are simply people) suffering because of my privilege isn’t going to make me give up my privileges. It just isn’t a good enough argument.
You have to give me an argument that affects me directly. Like I choose feminism not because I pity women, but I see myself suffering because of sexism. Patriarchy is putting me on the spot unnecessarily, time and again. Sexism puts a lot of pressure on men to constantly be in a bullying mode, always be in character, look for signs of revolt and quickly crush them. I don’t see that as an advantage. In fact, it shuts me off to half the people(women) I meet in my life, and I don’t want that. It takes up too much energy and not enough advantage in the modern world. I choose to apply those energies someplace else. So feminism is a pragmatic choice where I have as much at stake as any woman.
This is absent in the narrative of anti-caste and anti-communal moral stories. They are all moral stories, really, not intended to change one’s mind but to serve as an emotional argument when you are in the middle of a debate. They don’t talk about how being sexist or communal is not an option anymore and maybe the exploiters being part of the social structure could actually benefit from a change.
My guess is the story-tellers are not even bothered to put out an argument for the ideologies they use in their tales and in fact, are happy making money by appealing to those who already agree with them.
Comments
Post a Comment
Share your thoughts. Be nice. Have a good day.