The Amitabh encounter

"My father was among the first persons in Allahabad to go against the caste system that was prevailing at that time and is still prevalent in India. He married into a sikh family - my mother was a sikh. He often said that he would like his children and grandchildren to marry persons from different parts of our country. I married a bengali, my brother married a sindhi, my son married a tulu from south India and my daughter is married in a punjabi family."

He clearly liked to talk. He gave long answers to each question of the Italian journalists, explaining everything at great length, sometimes repeating it, to make sure that they understood.

May be it was because he is considerate and knows that in the West, mainstream understanding and knowledge about India are fairly limited. Or may be, he feels that the journalists who come to film related press conferences are not very intelligent, because of his experiences with the press in India, that is forever obsessed with mundane details of the stars' lives? Or, may be it was because he also loves his own baritone voice that can weave magic on the screen?

The attention of mainstream Italian media about India used to be limited to issues like poverty, Sonia Gandhi, spirituality, yoga and Mahatma Gandhi. Other Indian news appeared in Italian news channels, when there were some kind of a disasters or riots. Only over the past decade there have been new additions to these themes, as there are stories of India as an emerging superpower. Increasingly Italian businesses have relocated outside western Europe and Bangalore is one of the symbols for the news stories on "emerging countries are going to take over the world" hype.

We were in one of the meeting rooms of Savoy hotel in Florence, Italy. Selvaggia Velo, the organiser of the River to River film festival had introduced him as "One of the most important icons of Indian cinema, Mr. Amitabh Bachchan."

I was not expecting to see many Italian journalists at the press conference, because Bollywood is still a very niche phenomenon in Italy. To my surprize, the room was almost full with journalists and photographers, representing some of the major Italian newspapers.

Someone had asked him about the future direction of Bollywood films - if they would continue to be formula-driven masala films or there will more of intelligent sensible kind of cinema?

Amitabh started his answer with the often repeated explanation about poor persons' need for a fantasy world to get away from the squallor of their real lives. "Elementary my dear Watson, it is entertaiment, entertainment, entertainment", as Sherlock Holmes would have said.

"In the west there was recognition for the artistic kind of Indian films, while western audience were cynical and even critical about other kind of Indian films because they felt that it was too fantasized and unreal. We have not changed so much, we continue to make both kinds of films, but in the west today perceptions have changed and there is greater recognition of our popular cinema."

"May be today the two kinds of cinemas can be looked at together. After the opening of Indian economy in early 1990s, there is more affluence and a bigger middle class in India. This inlcudes about 350 million persons, who are more educated and can appreciate more intelligent cinema. If they don't like something, they can be very critical", he had added.

Another related question was about the reasons of popularity of Indian cinema in many different parts of the world including in north Africa, middle east and in countries of former Soviet Union.

"Many years ago, I had asked this same question to a moscovite - what do you find in the Indian films? He had told me that it was because when he came out of the cinema hall after an Indian film, he had a smile on his lips and a dried tear on his cheek."

I was never a big fan of Amitabh Bachchan, in the sense that I never went to see a film just because he was in it. I had not seen his first film, "Saat Hindustani", when it had come out. But I remember his small role in Sunil Dutt's "Reshma aur Shera", where he was a gangly awkward young man, very un-hero like deaf and mute guy, who kills newly married Rakhi's husband and sparks off the family feud. It had me feeling a little embarassed as well as a little proud, because I could identify with him. It was the time when I was acutely aware of my thin body, long neck and awkward limbs.

However, I had liked Amitabh in Hrishikesh Mukherjee films like "Anand", where he had played serious middle class characters. But I was more of a Rajesh Khanna fan at that time.

The moment I first saw him when he entered the press-conference room at Savoy, my first thought was about "Anand". "Wow, Babu moshai!", I had said to myself. Immediately after, my second thought was that he was so very thin, almost gaunt and his face showed that he is no stranger to pain and suffering.

Ever since I had known that he was coming to Florence, I had started worrying about the questions I could pose to him. After a lot of thought I had decided that I would have focused about his days in Allahabad and about the literary world of his father. I remembered his joint interviews with Jaya Bhaduri that were published in the Hindi magazine Dharamyug in the 1970s. Those interviews were done by Pushpa Bharati. I wanted to know about those parts of his life.

Amitabh Bachchan is what is called a character actor in Hindi cinema, that means actors who are no longer the main heroes of a film. These actors may play the elder brother or the father or the uncle or friend or the villain. Most of the heroes, when their films stop being successful at the boxoffice, disappear from cinema screens and public memory. Increasingly after the proliferation of private TV channels since the 1990s, they may find work on the TV, hosting shows or acting in TV serials. However a few of them become respected character actors, some times getting important roles in films or even films that revolve around them.

Amitabh had also gone through his days of oblivion after a number of commercially unsuccessful films in late 1980s and then made his come back through a very popular TV show in late 1990s, and then the popularity of his TV show brought him back to the films as a respected character artist.

There have been a number of character actors who had been equally respected in Hindi cinema including Ashok Kumar, Balraj Sahni, Motilal and Pran. Films were made around them. However, Amitabh Bachchan today is considered a bigger icon of Bollywood, probably because of its greater reach in the world due to NRIs and probably because of the greater economic might of Bollywood.

Sitting in Amitabh's press conference, I had suddenly remembered a meeting with Ashok Kumar in Mohan studios in Bombay in 1975. Ashok Kumar was a hero in 1930s-1950s, and during 1960s had shifted to the character roles. My father had been a fan of the "hero Ashok Kumar", for me he was an "old man". At that time, I had identified with Amitabh. To see him in Florence and to think of him as "old", was a reminder of my own white hairs.

I had often wondered about his film on Dharamveer Bharati's novel, "Gunahon ka Devtaa". I remembered seeing some stills of this film that was titled, "Ek tha Chander, ek thi Sudha". The novel was based in Civil Lines in Allahabad where Amitabh was born and had grown up. I had loved that book and I had dreamed of watching that film. Due to some problems, that film was never completed or released. After almost 40 years, I still remember it and I would have loved to talk to him about it.

There were other reasons for my self-identification with Amitabh. My father's family also came from Allahabad. My parents, also a UP Kayasth and a punjabi like his parents, had known his father. I would like to think that we had also shared the world of Hindi literature in our growing up years.

In those Allahabad days, what was the relationship of his father with other literary figures like Mahadevi, Nirala and Dinakar? How did he feel when he walked near that patch of grass where Chandrashekhar Azad was shot down? Did he used to go to Anand Bhawan to play with young Rajiv Gandhi? What he did feel about Nehru? Can he see the punjabi part from his mother's side in his personality? How is that punjabi side different from the UP side?

There were so many questions I would have liked to ask him, but in the press conference there was no time for them.

"My father was a poet, an icon of literature in India", Amitabh had said proudly, talking about his father Harivansh Rai Bachchan many times during the press conference in Florence, "When he was old, every evening he watched one of my films. One day I asked him, what is it in these films that you find so attractive? He said that those films provide poetic justice in three hours, something that does not happen in real life."


"I would like to be treated as a very normal human being, someone who can make errors and mistakes like everyone else. I can't be perfect all the time, but the moment you become a celebrity, everyone expects you to be perfect. If there is any kind of political or moral situation, people want to know my opinion about it, though I may not be qualified to talk about it. And the moment you respond, you are taking sides and there will always be a reaction to everything you do. Why does every body presume that just because you are a celebrity, you are also intelligent to answer all kinds of questions?" Amitabh had said during the press conference.

He was wearing a turtle neck black sweater with a scarf around his neck, and his hair combed and put in place carefully. His hair were clearly dyed but not in the usual jet black dye chosen commonly by men in India. Rather they had shades of dark and light maroon with some grey in it.

Later that evening, when he had entered Odeon cinema, venue of the inauguration of the film festival, crowds had gone berserk, surrounding him, touching him, clapping and whistling for a long time. A group of young Indians and Italians had secretely prepared a flashmob that had burst into a medley of songs and dances inspired from the famous Bachchan films.

Like all his roles in the films, that evening he had played the role of the superstar from India, taking the bows on the stage in a shiney pearly black coat.


As fans and as interviewers, how do we relate to persons we idealize? Is our idealizing, a kind of self-identification?

During the press conference, everything Amitabh said had to be translated into Italian. Thus there were pauses when Manuela, the translator spoke and Amitabh sat there listening. During those gaps, I was looking at his face to see if I could sense his thoughts. Most of the time, he seemed attentive towards the translator and the persons sititng in the room. Only occasionally I thought that there were fleeting glimpses of a brooding man, his eyes serious, as he observed everything around.

When I was young, I used to daydream about being a famous film star. Perhaps most young people had those kinds of daydreams. Looking at Amitabh that day at the press conference, suddenly I felt happy that I was not Amitabh Bachchan.

After the press conference, I wanted to go out in the square, walk around, eat an ice-cream. When you are Amitabh Bachchan you can't do so many things that I take for granted. People asking questions in press conferences is bad enough. I would rather sit on the side asking questions rather than answering questions! People pointing at me and wishing to talk to me all the time, would be a real nightmare. Being famous is a difficult burden to carry.

PS: In Florence someone had asked me if I read Mr. Bachchan's blog and I had to shamefully admit that I had never looked at it. I did look at it after the press conference. He is very prolific and regular at his blog and probably I can find all the answers to my questions on his blog!

***

Religions For The New Millennium

Do we really need a religion? If yes, what kind of future religions are being shaped by our societies? If we can study the birth and development of religions in the past, can that help in understanding what kind of religions will come in future?

These are the questions I often ask my self, while thinking of the situation of religions today. On one hand, today we have more inter-religous dialogue and harmony among persons of different religions than ever before in history of mankind, and on the other hand, radicalized and exclusionist religious groups seem to be getting stronger, who insist, often with violence, that their way is the only acceptable way.

Is it feasible to think of possible future developments of religions? Let us start by going back in time to see what do we know about the development of religions in the human history.

Religions of the prehistorical humans

Our earliest progenitor, Homo habilis, who used stone tools, came out more than 2 million years ago, but modern humans developed only around 50 thousand years ago. One of the earliest records of those first humans are the rock paintings, like the ones in El Castillo in Spain that are 40 thousand years old.

The El Castillo rock paintings mainly show animals on the cave walls. This was the Paleolithic (initial stone age) phase of human development. Thus at that time human beings were using simple stone tools, they did not have writing, yet they had good drawing abilities and had some spiritual understanding of their world.

Caves from Lascaux in France and Altamira in Spain are between 15 to 10 thousand years old, from the early bronze period of human development. These also show mainly animal figures and tracings of human hands. Any human figures in these images are mostly schematic, that means stick like figures, different from the more natural looking animal figures.

More recent cave paintings, around 3 to 8 thousand years old, showing animals and hunting scenes are found in many different parts of the world such as the San cave paintings in South Africa.

All these rock paintings point towards the religious or spiritual ideas of humans who lived as hunter-gatherers. They lived in small groups and travelled from one place to another. Usually men were hunters, while women specialized in gathering seeds and plants.

Animal rock paintings have been linked to influencing the spirits of animals, to facilitate their hunting. Thus, early humans thought of spirits in all the living things. It is also thought that lack of proper human figures in rock paintings is linked to taboos around drawing of human spirits.

Earliest evidence of agriculture, that means, domestication of plants and animals, comes from around 10 thousand years ago, from the neolithic period (new stone age), when better stone tools for agricultural and hunting use were made.

Another evidence of religious significance from the early humans are the Venus figurines showing female bodies. Some of these are more than 35 thousand years old. These statues are thought to be linked to spiritual view of nurturing role of mother nature and fertility rites.

Writing developed only 4 thousand years ago, around the time when the first cities were coming up. The earliest surviving tombs such as stone vaults (Hypogeums) and megalithic tombs are 4-5 thousand years old.

The prehistoric small human groups of hunter-gatherers were in competition with each other for survival. Not till the farming communities came up and then over the next thousands of years, first cities were established, there were incentives for human beings to collaborate and work together with other groups of human beings. Thus the initial 40-45 thousand years of human beings must have been marked by fights and wars between different groups.

Though the hunter-gatherers in different parts of the world had similar religious ideas about spirits of living beings, they probably identified with different animal totems as their protectors or symbols of their groups.

The different social roles of men and women were established during this long dawn of humanity lasting for 40-45 thousand years. Thus women mainly engaged in gathering plants and seeds, household work, and needed protection during pregnancy and growing years of their children. On the other hand, men engaged in hunting and wars. Violence, killing and rape of enemy groups' women as acceptable behaviour of the war, probably shaped the societies in this phase.

I think that though human socities have changed completely in the past few hundreds of years, our male and female social roles are still largely shaped by thousands of years of this early conditioning of human societies.

Religions at the beginning of historical era

The beginning of historical era, started around 4 to 5 thousand b.c. (6 to 7 thousand years ago), as the first cities and civilizations came up in different parts of the world including Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, India and Greece.

At the beginning of historical era, majority of world population was engaged in agriculture and/or animal rearing. Some people continued to be hunter-gatherers but gradually they were becoming the minority. All the different world cultures at that time had started building specific praying places and all of them included a pantheon of gods.

How did the change from animal figures of cave paintings of early humans to the pantheon of gods of early historical period come about?

James A. Michener in his book "The source" (1965) traces the development of different religions in middle east, from the beginning of the historical era till today. In a fictionalized form, he explains the transformation from hunter-gatherer human societies to farming human societies:

.. for the first fifteen years of their married life, Ur's wife went out of the cave in all seasons trying fruitlessly to tame the wild wheat, but each year it was killed either by drought or flood or too much winter or by wild boars rampaging through the field ... Ur's son discovered that the springtime planting of wheat need not be left to the chance scatter of autumn grains. By holding back some of the harvest and keeping it dry in a pouch of deerskin, the grains could be planted purposefully in the spring and the wheat could be made to grow exactly where and when it was needed, and with this discovery the family of Ur moved to a self-sufficient society. They did not know it but if a food supply can be insured, the speed of change would be unbelievable: within a few thousand years cities would be feasible, civilizations too. Men would be able to plan ahead and allocate specialized jobs to each other. They would find it profitable to construct roads to speed the movement of food and to devise a money system for convenient payments.

Thus, farming societies were completely different from the earlier hunter-gatherer societies. Farming communities living in the villages were much more vulnerable to nature's forces such as rains, lightening, thunder storms and fires. These farming humans developed religions with pantheon of gods - a different god for each of the nature's forces that affected their lives. Thus in the pantheon of gods, those who controlled rain, fire and the thunder storms were more important for the farmers.

These gods were seen as temperamental beings who, if happy could give food, prosperity and security, and if angry, they could destroy everything, putting human survival into danger. Therefore, all the different cultures developed systems of prayers and sacrifices for "keeping the gods happy".

For example, India's first sacred book Rigveda, written around 1500 BC, puts into writing the oral traditions of religious prayers that had developed in this early historical period. The most powerful gods of Rigveda, to whom maximum number of prayer-hymns are devoted, are Indra, the god of rain, and Agni, the god of fire.

As human beings developed greater understanding and control of agriculture and they developed new technologies such as boats for sea-travel, new gods became more important and older gods were forgotten.

The mythical Indian story of fight between rain-god Indra and pastor-god Krishna, where Indra brought incessant rains and Krishna protected the pastors by raising up the Govardhan mountain on his hand, is one such example of changing religious ideas as small cities came up and needs of protection from gods changed.

Another Indian example of changes in preferences of gods is about worship of Sheetla mata, the goddess who is supposed to protect children from diseases like small pox and chicken pox. You can still find temples of Sheetla mata in poor slum areas where diseases like chicken pox and measles continue to be a life-threatening problem for poor children, but such temples are rare in urban and more developed areas of India.

The rise of monotheistic thought

The ideas of pantheon of gods who controlled different aspects of life on the earth and to whom prayers and sacrifices must be offered were in conflict with earlier ideas of common spirit underlying all the nature. Slow development of technology such as control of fire and shift from caves to man-made dwellings, also conflicted with ideas of powers of individuals gods.

Building of praying places and offering prayers, gifts and sacrifices also gave rise to development of priest classes, with possibilities of conflict between followers of different gods, and between priests and others. For example there is the story of Ikhnaton, the "heretic king" in ancient Egypt, who revolted against the domination of priests of Amon and decided to pray to the Aton (sun god), is one such example of religious conflicts.

In situations of conflict, religious reformers appeared in different parts of the world. Some of them proposed the vision of "one God", a supreme force that controlled life. The period around 500 BC to 500 AD was particularly fertile for these spiritual reformers, especially in two specific geographical areas of the world - the western part of middle-east and northern-part of Indian subcontinent. Those reformers were responsible for most of the religious ideas that dominate the world today.

The middle-east saw figures like Moses, Jesus and Mohammed, who expounded on ideas of the "one God". The stories of Moses are told in the Old Testament, and are linked to Judaism. The stories of Jesus are part of new testament, the sacred book of Christianity. The voice of Mohammed is in Koran, the sacred book of Islam.

In the Indian subcontinent, apart from figures of Mahavira and Buddha, that led to philosophies of Jainism and Buddhism, there were many other philosophers whose ideas formed the Upanishads of Hinduism. These also tend towards ideas of monotheism, though in a different way from the monotheistic ideas that developed in the middle east.

For example, the initial sholka (prayer) of Isavasya upanishad is an example of one common unifying cosmic consciousness that moves away from ideas of pantheon of gods:

ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात्पूर्णमुदच्यते!
(Om purnamadah puranamidam purnatpurnamudachyate)
पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते॥
(Purnasya purnmaday purnamevavashishyate)

(It means: The whole is all that. The whole is all this. The whole was born of the whole. Taking the whole from the whole, what remains is the whole.) 

In each of these religious traditions, a cycle of periodic rise of new religious reformers started that continues till today. Sometimes, the reformers resulted in groups breaking off from the parent religions and becoming separate religions in their own right. Thus all the world religions are actually divided into different sub-groups. Some of the sub-groups, have developed into spearate religions including Baha'i and Sikhs.

At the same time, all over the world there continue to be small or large groups of persons who believe in older religious ideas of early farmers and pastors, such as fire-worshipers (Zoroastrians), nature worshipers, believers of the spirit worlds.

In terms of social roles of men and women, many of these religions have codified recommendations. Most of the time, these recommendations on different social roles of men and women, follow the earlier social roles of human groups from hunter-getherer period of humanity. This means, men are seen as superior, who make decisions and are the owners of the families. On the other hand, women are seen as home-makers and mothers, who need to protected, especially from other men.

The crisis of the religions

Humanity started changing around 4-5 hundred years ago at a greater pace, as cities became bigger and the technological innovations increased. Invention of printing press, colonization, slave trade, large scale immigration towards the "new world", scientific progress and industrial revolution gradually started challenging the existing religious ideas.

For example, in Europe, different developments such as discovery of fossils, Darwin's theory of evolution, Galileo's ideas of earth and planets circling the Sun, challenged some of the beliefs proposed by Christian theologians. These challenges resulted in ferocious religious backlash by Christian conservatives in Europe including centuries of brutal inquisition and religious crusades.

One of the most important change that is challenging traditional ideas of religions is the shift from rural to urban communities. This shift challenges the hold of religious, community and family leaders on individuals. Thus, in urbanized countries, earlier religious ideas and socially acceptable behaviours about everything including marriage, having children, sex (including same sex relationships), dresses and worship, have been overturned. The recommendations of the religious leaders are mostly ignored by large number of faithfuls, especially by younger generations.

Though this transition of old into new communities started in Europe more than 5 hundred years ago, it is still far from over. For example, Michael S. Kimmel discusses the challenges for men to understand the new roles of gender equity in his paper:

Indeed, the women’s movement is one of the great success stories of the twentieth century, perhaps of any century. It is the story of a monumental, revolutionary transformation of the lives of more than half the population. But what about the other half? Today, this movement for women’s equality remains stymied, stalled. Women continue to experience discrimination in the public sphere. They bump their heads on glass ceilings in the workplace, experience harassment and less-than fully welcoming environments in every institution in the public sphere, still must fight to control their own bodies, and to end their victimization through rape, domestic violence, and trafficking in women.

I believe the reason the movement for women’s equality remains only a partial victory has to do with men. In every arena—in politics, the military, the workplace, professions and education—the single greatest obstacle to women’s equality is the behaviors and attitudes of men. I believe that changes among men represent the next phase of the movement for women’s equality—that changes among men are vital if women are to achieve full equality. Men must come to see that gender equality is in their interest—as men.

If that is the situation in the developed world in Europe and America, what is happening in the rest of the world? The changes have become faster and even more radical over the past century, spreading over to all the different parts of the world. Improvements in health care and birth control, women going out of homes to work, access to education, international travel, globalization, information technology are some of these changes that lead to mixing of populations and ideas. These changes are challenging traditional ideas of different religions and the social roles of men and women.

Like the backlash of conservative christianity in Europe some centuries ago, these challenges to traditional ideas of other religions in different parts of the world have led to backlash of other conservative groups, sometimes equally ferocious and brutal in trying to repress these challenges. The rise of Wahabi Islam is one such example of religious backlash, but Islam is not alone in this - all religions are facing similar crisis.

In the remaining parts of the world, the transformation from rural to urban communities has started but would continue for the next fifty-hundred years. As the example of Europe shows, the change in mentalities may take centuries, and we can expect many more ferocious battles and backlashes from traditional religious and social leaders, who will fight to safeguard their powers and interests.

At the same time, there are already large groups of thinkers and activists in different parts of the world who agree with the need to challenge the status quo about the domination of socio-religious ideas and understand the need to define new rules to govern our social and public lives. Can we create national and trans-national communities that can make this trasition smoother and less conflictual? This is an issue that we need to address.

Religions for the future

Shall we really need religions in the future? I personally feel that as long as people will go through cycles of life and death, the questions such as what is life, what is death, is there an afterlife, are going to accompany us, and this will continue to create the space for religions.

There are many persons who do not believe in a spirit or a cosmic consciousness, who define themselves as atheists, but often even they have some doubts in explaining the godless accidental origin of life from a biochemical primordial soup.

Those of us who live in societies where technical progress safeguards us from the worst of nature's forces, people do not need to seek the protection of gods for their survival. Still illness, accidents, stresses of modern life, and relative poverty create fertile grous for prayers and religions.

Unless technological progress will lead to some kind of environmental disaster that may turn back the clock of human development, the change from rural farming and nomadic pastor communities to urban technological communities can not be reversed. This, in the medium and long term, will lead to new and different religious ideas.

Individuals living in resource and technology rich environments already often have religious ideas that have been called "New Age". An explanation of the "new age" philosophy is as follows:

To understand New Age philosophy it’s important to understand that the contemporary Cosmic Humanist movement has its roots in the Romantic poets of the 1800s, such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman, and Henry David Thoreau. These men rejected the God of the Bible, instead writing at length about a transcendent quality of spirituality experienced purely through personal introspection. These ideas did not attract a broad audience until the 1960s, when popular recording artists, movie stars, and Eastern gurus began trumpeting their New Age views across the nation. More recently, well-known recording artists such as Madonna and Alanis Morissette have identified themselves with Hinduism, while popular personalities such as Tiger Woods, Phil Jackson, and Richard Gere openly embrace Zen Buddhism. Other luminaries, such as Tom Cruise and John Travolta, express a belief in scientology. 

We don't know if future religions will be shaped by these "New Age" ideas or other different ideas. However, to be acceptable to majority of people, religions will have to take into account the needs of persons living in urban spaces as singles or as nuclear families. Thus the ancient ideas of women's and men's roles will have to change.

For example, in my opinion, religions asking for covering of women's bodies or not letting them go out to work or with rigid ideas about what kind of sexual lives people should lead, will not be accepted in future as socities will change and get used to living in urban spaces.

Personally, I also believe that future religions that do not take into account the principles of universal declaration of human rights, will be refused by majority of world population. Such conservative religious groups and sects may continue to flourish in small minority communities, but they will not become mainstream.

***

Breaking through the class ceiling

Indian society is made of hierarchies of class. We keep on judging persons and mentally classifying them if they are above us, at our same level or are below us. It happens inside our families, in our work places, when we go out, when we meet someone. This classification decides how we behave with them.

I am arguing that this class-based mindset is a barrier to development of India.

For the past few days, since the 23 year old girl was brutally raped and dumped from a moving bus in Delhi, I have been reading about the growing public outrage and protests, as well as, the reflections of persons about it.

For example, Shoma Chaudhury from Tahelka has written in her opinion piece:

THE SURGING outrage at the gangrape of a paramedic in New Delhi this week is welcome and cathartic. But it is also terrifying. There’s a fear that this too shall fade without correctives. But there is also a question we must all face: why did it need an incident so unspeakably brutal to trigger our outrage? What does that say about our collective threshold as a society? Why did hundreds of other stories of rape not suffice to prick our conscience?

The harsh truth is, rape is not deviant in India: it is rampant. The attitude that enables it sits embedded in our brain. Rape is almost culturally sanctioned in India, made possible by crude, unthinking conversations in every strata of society. Conversations that look at crime against women through the prism of women’s responsibility: were they adequately dressed, were they accompanied by a male protector, were they of sterling ‘character’, were they cautious enough.

Something about these discussions in the newspapers and magazines has intrigued me – while talking about the victim of the rape, they always add that she is “a paramedic”. Initial newspaper reports had talked about her being “a medical student”. Later on, reporters must have discovered other information and had become more specific – the girl is not a medical student but a paramedical course student.

How does it matter if the girl who is raped is a medical student or is studying to be a lab technician or a nursing assistant? And, why do newspaper or magazine have to specify it every time they write about it? Isn’t it enough to say “a young girl”? or a university student?

I can understand that when the news broke out, newspaper had to provide some information about the girl and her background. But why do they need to keep on specifying it, or rather, defining the girl in terms of her studies?

I feel that one of the reasons why we keep on specifying the study course of that girl is because we are very class-conscious. After visiting a number of countries in different continents, I think that Indian society is one of the most class-conscious societies in the world.

Perhaps the most defining criteria of this class consciousness is persons’ socio-economic background, their professions, incomes, etc. We behave differently with people who work as waiters, drivers, security guards, domestic helpers, cleaners etc. compared to how we behave with people higher up in hierarchy.

However, there are many other criteria to classify people and to calculate their relative place in the world around us. Gender is one such criteria, women are lower in hierarchy. If women claim higher hierarchical space, because of their socio-economic status, as soon as there is an opportunity, men placed lower down on their hierarchy, feel justified to “put them in their place”. Groping, violence and rape are some ways of putting women in their place.

Caste is another criteria for defining your place in the hierarchy of the Indian society. Comparatively, some attention has been given to issues related to caste discrimination. For those placed in the lowest margins of the caste system, parts of Indian society have asked for the removal of untouchability and affirmative action for their inclusion in areas of education and livelihood. However, we do not seem to have any problems with caste system if these "extremes" can be corrected. I wonder if only overcoming the stark discriminations against Dalits, would make the remaining caste-based hierarchies acceptable?

The language we speak, and the clothes we wear are other markers of our place in the social hierarchy. In “English Vinglish”, Shashi (Sridevi) says with a wry smile, “Important things are discussed only in English.” If you can’t speak English properly, you lose your place in the social hierarchy in India. Just a look at the smug publicity of “English medium” schools and the demand for “convent school educated” brides in the matrimonial columns is enough to state the obvious superiority of English. Even the poor and the uneducated persons know this and are willing to make sacrifices so that their children can repeat English nursery rhymes.

Every now and then I receive congratulatory messages from friends and acquaintances for “writing in Hindi”. I don’t know if there is another country in the world, where people are congratulated for their skills in writing or talking in their mother tongue, and where not being able to speak properly in the mother tongue is seen as sign of higher social status.

If Hindi is much lower compared to English in our social hierarchy, Hindiwallas look disdainfully at those who speak Maithili or Bhojpuri. Speaking sanskritized Hindi or refined Urdu is higher social status marker compared to those speak ordinary Hindustani.

Being from a big city, compared to being from a hinterland city or worse, being from a village, the colour of your skin, etc. are also markers of social status. This list of criteria for defining your place in social hierarchy goes on and on.

Unfortunately, these differences are not about human diversity, but they affect every aspect of our lives. For example, they determine, the kind of jobs you can have, the kind of news-worthiness you will have, and how the Indian system will treat you in your daily life.

There have been many social reformers in India who have spoken about the negative role of untouchability and caste exclusion, but there has been much less debate about the our rigid class-hierarchies and the impact these have on our lives and on our nation. One exception to this was Swami Vivekanand. Mr. Pranav Mukherjee, president of India, recently wrote in an article in the Week about the 150 birth anniversary of Swami Vivekanand:

Before he went to America in 1893, Swamiji spent a few years travelling all over India as a wandering monk. During these travels he was deeply moved by the destitution and backwardness of millions of ordinary Indians. However, he also saw that, in spite of poverty, the ancient spiritual culture was a powerful force in their lives. Swamiji concluded that the real cause of India's backwardness was the neglect and exploitation of the masses who produced the wealth of the land…Swamiji was intensely pained at the caste discrimination prevalent in India and full of sympathy for the poor and suffering of all nations, castes and creeds. He held the neglect of the masses and the subjugation of women to be the two causes of India's downfall.

Living in India, often it is difficult to become aware of these class hierarchies that permeate our lives. They are so pervasive and ingrained in our minds that they look like “natural phenomenon”, something god-given and thus, impossible to change.

Everyone in this system has some one else who is lower in some kind of hierarchy from them. While we chafe at the highhandedness and callousness of those above us, we are equally brutal in our behaviour towards those who we perceive as lower than us.

How can we break these barriers? Can India truly develop without breaking down these barriers?

***

Colonization of minds

These days, I am reading Diana Eke's book "India - a sacred geography". Last night I was reading the part about the ideas of world-geography in the Indian sacred books. These books describe beliefs about the creation of the world and its geography. Different world civilizations have their own myths about the creation of the world and their own place in it.

Thus I discovered some Indian myths and stories that I had not heard about before. For example, ancient Indians believed that a mountain called Meru was the centre of the world. This Meru or golden mountain has eternal light and is connected to the polar star. It is un upside down mountain, narrow at the base and wide at the top. At its top are homes of the gods, especially the homes of Brahma and Shiva. The celestial Ganga river falls from the heavens on top of Meru and then divides into four rivers and goes in four directions, including Alaknanda going towards India. All the four Ganga rivers are equally holy. There are 4 continents, shaped are like four petals of a lotus flower around the Meru mountain and the southern petal is Jambudwip or Bharatavarsha (India).

Diana Eke explains in great detail these ancient beliefs and describes how this conception of the world was completely different from the world conception of other ancient civilizations:

Since Meru is king of the mountains in a confluence of mountain ranges that is the most awesome on earth, it is all the more arresting that Hindus do not derive their symbolic image of Meru from the great granite and ice peaks of Himalayas. Rather it comes from the living, organic world of flowers. Meru is the "seed cup" (Karnika) of the lotus of the world." ...

Bharata is the southernmost land of this lotus world. India's imaginative world map does not place India directly in the centre of the world as did Anaximander when he drew the first world map with Greece in the centre, or the medieval cartographers when they placed Jerusalem and the holy Land in the centre, with continents spreading forth like petals. Rather Bharata is but one of of the petal continents. In many ways it is the least glorious. Far from the usual ethnocentrism in which one's own world is described as civilized, while the surrounding lands, vaguely known, are thought to be less so, even barbarian, the Indian visionaries who described the world actually idealized the other petals of the world ...

Why don't the Indian school books say anything about ancient Indian traditions?

While I was reading this part, I was thinking that I am close to sixty years and this is the first time that I am reading about the worldview of the ancient Indians and about India's place in its geography. I felt a little cheated that our schools or colleges did not talk of these myths of ancient Indians and how these could have shaped our present world views and our ways of thinking?

I am not saying that we have to teach to school children that this is the geography of the world or that we should not teach them about modern geography. Conservative Christian groups in USA or conservative Islamists in different parts of the world or even Hindutva groups in India have those kind of ideas where they want that school children be taught what is written in ancient religious books, and not what the modern science has taught us. I do not agree with those ideas.

Rather, I am thinking that while we learn the modern geography and science, we should also learn about the ancient Indians myths and stories. Not as blind beliefs, but we should learn to look at them critically. This is needed to understand how these beliefs were different or similar from the beliefs of other ancient cultures, and how these could have shaped the development of Indian society.

A cultural understanding of societies

I think that societies have a cultural understanding of who they are and how to came to be the way they are. These cultural understandings are different for different cultures. In my view, ignoring or forgetting these cultural understandings is ignoring an important aspect of ourselves. We need to look at these cultural understandings in a critical way, to appreciate them, to value them, to recognise how they have contributed to the development of our societies.

This does not mean that we have to take them as the absolute truth, but it also means that they should not be devalued and forgotten. I am arguing for a middle way between the extremes of strident Hindutva and the denying-the-religions kind of secularism?

I agree that these ancient beliefs are Brahmanic beliefs. For centuries these beliefs have excluded large sections of Indian society, especially those who are considered "low castes" and tribal groups. Thus I am not saying that these are the "only" beliefs of ancient Indians. Yet given their pervasiveness in significant parts of Indians, these can not be wished away.

I also believe that parts of these ancient beliefs need to be changed. For example, Hindu scriptures propose a particular role for women and girls and they espouse a particular role for those they call as "low castes" and ask for their exclusion and exploitation. I don't think that respecting our myths and ancient stories means accepting these aspects of our culture as right. Rather, I believe that we need to change with times and look critically at how we deal with issues like dignity of individuals and dignity of labour and change our societies. But to criticise aspects of scriptures or to ask for change, does not mean that we hide or ignore parts of our history and traditions.

In a way, I feel that persons asking for Hindutva are actually blind to Hinduism's pluralistic traditions and tend to look at religion and culture through linear-rational way of thinking where they dream of homogenizing Hinduism, like a parody of monotheistic religions. Thus while they talk of saving Hinduism, in reality they work for destroying it.

Western "linear-rational" and Indian "non-linear, apparently contradictory" ways of thinking

The past few centuries have seen the rise and domination of western way of thinking that is linear-rational way of thinking. It has brought great progress in the world including science, technology and even the modern ideas of human rights and equality of human beings. This western way of linear-rational thinking is important for all of us as part of our education, science, industry, etc.

On the other hand, traditional Indian way of thinking is non-linear, multi-directional and apparently contradictory. In his book "Nine Lives - In search of the sacred in modern India", William Dalrymple has described an interview with a sculptor from Tamil Nadu, where he brings out this non-linear and apparently contradictory way of reasoning:

It seemed to me that Srikanda had mentioned three quite different ways in which an inanimate statue could become a god: via the channelling of divinity via the heart and hands of the sculptor; a ceremony of invocation when the eyes were chipped open; and through the faith of the devotee. I pointed this out to Srikanda, but he saw no contradictions; all that mattered was that at a certain point a miracle took place and the statue he had made became divine.

Sometimes, this non-linear and contradictory way of thinking confuses western students of Hinduism and Indian culture. Such confusion is also apparent in relation to philosophies of other oriental religions including Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc.

For example, I remember some discussions with friends of other religions where they felt that because of multitude of gods and goddesses and because of idol worshiping, Hinduism is in some way inferior to their ideas of one god, or at best, it is is an illogical way of thinking. I think that they look at Hinduism in a linear-rational way of thinking and can not appreciate the Indian non-linear way of understanding the world that feels that "this and its opposite, both can be true".

Should this non-linear and contradictory way of thinking be considered inferior or should be ignored and forgotten?

I also believe that the Indian ways of thinking has its own value. For example in the way we traditionally deal with nature. From ants and mice to owls and peacocks, ancient Indian beliefs look at insects, birds, plants and animals as sacred. This can be seen as superstitious or illogical by the western thought. However, looking at birds or plants as sacred, can also be seen as respecting the world and creating a harmonious relationship between humans and nature.

Breaking out of cultural colonization of minds

I feel that we have a kind of cultural colonization of our minds, where we pretend that only western linear-rational way of thinking exists, and world needs to be understood exclusively according to this logic. The non-linear and apparently contradictory thinking pervades our cultures, but we pretend that it does not merit acknowledgement or understanding.

We need to break free of this cultural colonization and learn to look at our ancient myths, stories and traditions as living paradigms that influence and shape us even today.

For example, I would like to learn about how the ancient Hindu myths were translated in Jain and Buddhist traditions? Did they influence early Christianity when it came to Kerala with St Thomas, two thousand years ago? Did they have an influence on Muslim-Sufi and Sikh philosophies? Did they shape the way Indians look at the world today?

***

Waiting for Bachchan ji

"We are going to have a big Bollywood star", Selvaggia Velo had announced almost one month ago and a guessing game had started.

From Aamir Khan and Shah Rukh Khan to Rishi Kapoor, so many different names were proposed by the Italian and Indian Bollywood fans, all trying to guess the name of the "big Bollywood star" coming to Florence (Italy) in December 2012.

The idea of having a big shot actor or actress coming to the River to River film festival in Florence was enticing and at the same time, a little daunting for me.

I thought that with someone like Aamir Khan or Shah Rukh, there will be hordes of screaming Bollywood fans every where they will go, and that would take away the attention from the film makers presenting their documentary films in the festival.

In 2010, I had intereviewed Rahul Bose, Onir and Aparna sen in the festival. I had talked to Onir and Aparna in a coffee bar and Rahul in a small office. But I can't imagine myself sitting down in a coffee bar and chatting with Aamir or Shah Rukh, surrounded by delirious fans.

Finally on 11th, Selvaggia Velo, director of the River to River film festival, held a press conference and announced that the guest of honour this year is going to be Amitabh Bachchan. Three of his films - Sholay, Deewar and Black will be shown in the festival.

I am a little relieved by the announcement. I am sure that the serious Italian Bollywood fans will be there in Florence to look for Bachchan, and more Indian-Pakistani-Bangladeshi people will come to the festival to see him in person, but hopefully we won't have many of the delirious young fans milling around, looking for him to mob him and making it a big security issue. At least I hope so!

So I am looking forward to seeing Bachchan ji, though there was a period when I didn't like some of his films, like the period when he was doing films like Mard and Coolie.

I had loved his Hrikesh Mukherjee films - from Anand to Chupke Chupke, Mili, Abhiman, Namakharam and Aalap. I had also liked his initial films such as Zanzeer and Deewar, that had made him more popular among the masses. Then his popularity had grown too big, imprisoning him in certain kinds of roles, and I had stopped watching his films. I like his second innings as the elderly actor much more, that started in late nineties and that allows him to experiment much more as an actor. Films like Cheeni kum, Black and Paa.

I am not sure if I will get the chance to interview him, but I am keeping my fingers crossed.

The introduction to Amitabh Bachchan in the Italian press kit presents him as an icon of Indian cinema and also as the father-in-law of Aishwarya Rai. Though a couple of Amitabh's films (Cheeni kum and Kabhi Alvida na kehna) have been shown on national TV in Italy some years ago, he is virtually unknown among Italian public. On the other hand, Aishwarya Rai with a couple of mainstream Hollywood and British films is slightly better known in Italy.

I feet that his introduction should have also mentioned Jaya Bhaduri Bachchan, one of the best Indian actresses of that generation. I have been told that Jaya will be accompanying her husband for the festival. This news is much more exciting for me. I have always been her fan and I think that I have seen all her films, from Guddi, Uphaar, Koshish and Piya ka Ghar, right down to Hazaar chourasi ki maa.

Her films deserve a festival on their own right. So I am glad that among the films selected for the festival, there is Sholay, that is also Jaya's film. Italian public has also seen her in "Laga chunri mein daag", when it was shown on national TV a couple of years ago during the summer Bollywood festival called "Amore con .. turbante". I hope that I can interview her as well, and I am keeping all my fingers and toes crossed for this!

I am also looking forward to watching documentaries in the River to River festival, the only festival in the world dedicated entirely to Indian films (though over past few years, an occasional film from other Asian countries also made it in the programme). It is held in a beautiful, old and historical cinema hall in the centre of Florence, Odeon cinema.

This year the festival is going to be from 7 to 13th December. So if you are around in Italy in that period, write down the dates in your agenda. A special treat this time will be the screening of the first Indian film ever made, Raja Harishchandra made in 1913, whose print has been restored recently.

***
Suppose you have to choose one favourite film in which Amitabh and Jaya were together, which film would you choose?

They did many films together, including - Ek nazar, Bansi aur Birju, Abhimaan, Chupke Chupke, Mili, Sholay, Zanzeer, Silsila and Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham (have I forgotten any? - I remember that in 1970s they were doing "Ek tha Chander, ek thi Sudha" based on Dharamveer Bharti's famous book Gunahon ka Devtaa, but I don't think that it was ever completed and released).

From all these films, my personal favourite would be Abhimaan, followed by Chupke Chupke. Abhimaan was emotional and intense, while Chupke Chupke was light and frothy, so the two films were very different from each other and were equally lovable. Both films had marvellous music by S. D. Burman. However, for this classification, personally I would prefer Abhimaan, because in Chupke Chupke, the emphasis was on Dharmendra-Sharmila Tagore pair and Amitabh-Jaya had a more limited role.

If you have to choose one favourite Amitabh-Jaya film, which one would you choose?

***

Making of a Play - A tyrst with destiny

Jawaharlal Nehru and Gandhi ji were sitting and discussing on a mattress in the living room. Gandhi was spinning on his charkha, the spinning wheel.

I thought I was hallucinating. I was sitting in the corner of the living room of a person that I had never met before. More precisely, at that time, I didn't know whose house was it. It was evening when I had arrived in Washington DC and the actors were already rehearsing.

I knew that it was only a play. Yet, for some moments, I had been transported to a room in India, where Gandhi and Jawaharlal must have sat together more than eighty years ago.

That morning, I had left home in Bologna (Italy), more than 15 hours earlier. From the Dulles international airport, we had come straight to the rehearsal. The play is called "A tryst with destiny". It is about the people involved in events leading to independence and partition of India. It is written and directed by my younger sister, and I had gone to US especially to watch it.

***

I was intrigued by Jinnah. The suave, impassioned man played with raw intensity by Subhojit during the rehearsal. Why had he joined the All India Muslim League, when he was a member of congress party? At that time, in 1913, his views were nationalist and about Hindu-Muslim unity? Few years later he had even married a Parsi girl.

Suddenly I remembered the time when Altaf Tyrewala had come to a literary meeting in Turin, a couple of years ago. Altaf, a writer from Mumbai, didn't see himself in religious terms, but during the meeting he was presented as the "Muslim writer" by the organisers. Often others decide to underline our religious identities, for whatever reasons. When it happens again and again, perhaps it changes the way we look at ourselves?

Had something like that happened to Jinnah? Or, was it a quest for power, an understanding that "minority politics" could give him greater role? Or a combination of both?

I don't know much about Jinnah. He was not a welcome figure in our family discussions, because of the friends, lands and homes they had been forced to leave in Pakistan during partition.

"Subodh, how does it feel to play Jinnah?" I had asked Subhojit.

Everybody calls him Subodh. He is a research scientist, a Bengali from Mumbai, with music as his passion.

"Actually Amita wanted someone older to play Jinnah", Subhojit smiled, "but she couldn't find someone who was old and slim, and I got lucky that way. Initially it was a big challenge. I knew about Gandhi and Nehru, but I had no clue about Jinnah. In India, we learned that Jinnah was president of Muslim League and that he wanted Pakistan, but we didn't really study about him as a person. So to prepare for this role, I read a lot about him."

"By that time, we had started doing the play but I was not really feeling the role. Then I talked with my Pakistani friends to understand how they saw him. That changed how I saw him! When I could put myself in their shoes and see him from their eyes, it changed my understanding. After that, when I spoke my dialogues and I spoke about Muslims, I changed 'the Muslims' to 'us Muslims'. It became 'us', 'we' and 'I', then I felt the character", he continued.

***
Manoj Singh, a shy and gentle looking person, has a triple role in the play - he plays Motilal, Baba Saheb Ambedkar and Jinnah's Hindu servant. It was his scene as Ambedkar, where he asks Gandhi ji to break the fast, that spiked my interest.

Dalit leaders did not like the word "harijan" that Gandhi ji had proposed for them. How did Ambedkar feel about the word "harijan", I suddenly wondered.

Gandhi ji was sitting on the mattress in the centre of the room, spinning his charkha while Ambedkar was pacing around. I could understand Gandhi's view when he said "Hinduism has a remedy for this evil of untouchability. Hinduism can reform itself, caste system is not about that, Hinduism is an open religion and can transform....". That is the way we often think.

However, Ambedkar was impatient and scathing, "Please don’t lecture me on the glory of Hinduism . You were not born an untouchable in this country. You don’t understand what it is to live life as an untouchable."

Natwar Gandhi, who played Gandhi, imbued him with an air of vulnerability and disarming innocence, "That is why I pray that I am born as an untouchable in my next life."

"No Gandhi ji, we don’t want this problem going into our next lives. We need to end it in our present life times. I am here to discuss the issue of separate electorates for untouchables as agreed by the British", Manoj's Ambedkar was resigned and a little resentful, "I want you to end the fast. This is emotional and political blackmail on your part. If you die, caste Hindus will kill every untouchable in this country, the very people you consider so dear, your harijans."

What word did Baba Saheb use in his head when he thought about his fellow persons from the "low" castes? Harijan? Untouchables in English or Acchuts in Hindi or did he use a Marathi term?

During my time in the school, our history books in India talked about kings and queens of England but they didn't explain the different roles and positions of persons involved in our freedom struggle. Today it is much worse in India. Today talking about our history is treated like some dangerous perversion that must struggle continuously with political and popular censorships!

***

Two hours before the show was supposed to start, all preparations were done and the actors went to the green rooms to get ready.

Looking at persons putting on their costumes and getting their make up done was equally fascinating. Deepti Rattan, the production in charge, ran around doing hundred things.

"During my growing up years, I had no knowledge about plays and theater", Deepti explained, "but when I was in college, I met Sushil during a play competition. He was very involved in theater. We started going out together and I became interested in plays." After coming to USA, for many years, Sushil had become busy in his work as a gastroentrologist, and they were not very active in theater. Then one year ago, they had shifted home from Philadelphia and theater had come back into their lives.

Rita was doing the make-up. Putting the foundation and the eyeliners. Accentuating features so that actors' expressions were easier to make out for the audience. Even if Natwar is not thin like Gandhi ji was, still he did look very much like Gandhi ji. Next to him, Subhojit traced dark lines on his neck and face. It did make his face look thinner and more like Jinnah's.

Deepti, Reshma and Sangeeta struggled with Malviya's turban, wrapping and unwrapping it, many times before finding the turn that satisfied him.

Manoj has his hairs dusted with white and a white moustache, transformed into Motilal Nehru. But it was Krish who really surprised me. He looked so much like Jawaharlal Nehru!

***

Then it was the time for me to take my seat among the spectators. The theater quickly filled up. The theater staff was amazed. They had not had a houseful like this for some time. Among the audience there was the mayor of DC, who had come especially for Natwar, playing Gandhi.

Scenes of the play are mostly short pieces, presenting a collage of events, passing from one event to another, from one set of persons to others, with three central characters - Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah. In the play, the historical video clips connect the scenes and the point where a video clip stops, is the starting point of the next scene.

During the interval, people were a little cautious and guarded with their comments. There had been some good moments in the play, with occasional exchanges eliciting laughter. However, I think that, the first half of the play had not touched any deep emotions in the audience.

The second half of the play had much more life and passion. Almost from the first scene I could sense the excitement and engagement of the audience around me. The concluding moments of the play with the anger and frustration of Jinnah asking for a separate homeland for the Muslims, the shouting and crying Nehru justifying his decision to accept the partition of India and passionate plea of Azad for not dividing India, were truly magical.

During the rehearsal the evening before, this part had not been very convincing. During the play, Sushil as Azad, brought a lump to my throat with his helpless anger, "And what is the hurry for freedom, this divided freedom? Who decided we should be free on 15th August 1947 anyway? Mr. Radcliffe, Mountbatten? And who agreed? You? Sardar Patel on behalf of Congress? Gandhi ji?"

It was a crescendo. The last scene with parts of independence speeches made by Jinnah and Nehru, and with the wonderful voice of Sajeev singing "Vaishnav Jan to", had the audience give a rousing applause for the play.

The evening had concluded with a discussion that saw two South Asia experts, Teresita C. Schaffer and Walter Anderson, sharing their views about the play and that period of history. Both of them agreed that the play had caught the spirit of those troubled times and presented the events and persons in their complexity, rather than simplifying them to give facile answers about the partition of India and Pakistan.

***

Even after more than 60 years, the events around the end of the British India are able to provoke heated debates and anguished discussions. Today, often these discussions take place without a real knowledge of pre-independence era and its events. Rather, these discussions are shaped by deformed versions of our histories taught in the school books and by the events of the past decades such as the wars between India and Pakistan along with nationalistic jingoism.

During the discussions after the play, Altaf Kabeer, had raised up the issue of representations of the partition events by Indians exclusively in tragic terms with use of words like holocaust while for persons like him, it is an event linked to the birth of his country, Pakistan.

I think that Kabeer is right. It does not matter, how objective and neutral we try to be in these discussions. In the end, for most Indians, this part of our history is about death and suffering of so many, coupled with mutilation of our country. On the other hand, across the border, the stories of death and suffering are a means to a noble end, they are linked to birth of their country. This basic difference in the perspectives cannot be erased.

The morning after the play, I and Amita were walking back from a visit to the Potomac falls, when we were stopped by a young woman. She was Shabnam and she had been at the play with her father. They were from Pakistan. "When we had gone to the play, we didn't know what to expect but actually the play presented the different sides in a balanced way. I had not much idea about the events that had led to the birth of Pakistan, so it was learning for me. My father also appreciated the play", she had said.

I think that was great praise for "A tryst with destiny", that a play could give us a greater understanding about a moment of our history.

In the introductory booklet prepared for the play, Amita had explained, "As a psychiatrist, I help people make sense of their history and how it impacts their present. I deeply believe that we as humans carry not only our individual history but also our social, political and cultural histories, the history of our communities and nationalities in us."

The play was a way to look back with sympathy and understanding. Without our minds and eyes clouded by mists of anger. If we can understand our past, may be we can build a better future for us.

***

A more extended version of this article is available on Kalpana.it.

***

Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Issai - Inter-religious Bollywood

Artists don't believe in conventions, everyone knows it. Ordinary mortals are expected to follow the social rules, but for artists we are usually ready to make exceptions. Look at Bollywood. It is common enough to find marriages and relationships that go accross religious lines in Bollywood.

But if film artists can go beyond social conventions in their private lives, they also need to sell the tickets of their films. Do people go to watch films that defy social conventions?

In this three parts article, I will look at - (1) inter-religious families in reel-life Bollywood; (2) inter-religious love in reel-life Bollywood; and, (3) inter-religious stories from real life Bollywood. This first part of the article is about inter-religious families in Bollywood films.

Multi-religious societies & Cinema

I think that among all the different films made in different parts of the world, Bollywood and Indian cinema have touched on the issue of inter-religious issues many more times, compared to all other countries. May be it has something to do with the way Indians perceive themselves?

Almost all the countries of the world today are multi-religious. However, most of them do not think of themselves as multi-religious. Or rather did not think of themselves as multi-religous till recently. On the other hand in India, we think of ourselves as being part of a multi-religious country for a long time. May be it is because of our history. It may be also because many religions started in India.

In India 80% of the population is Hindu, though Hinduism can be interpreted very differently among different groups of people in different parts of India, and remaining 20% is composed of different religions. In US, about 75% of population is Christian (protestants and Catholics), while the remaining 25% belong to different religions, including those who do not believe in any religion. In UK about 70% of the population considers themselves as Christians. In Italy, 80% of the population identifies itself as Catholic. So more or less, all these countries have similar percentages of majority groups and minority groups.

Yet, in my opinion, the awareness about different religions and their beliefs, is much higher in India than any where else. Could that be the reason why Bollywood has been extra-sensitive to the issue of inter-religious relationships?

If I think of films from any other country - USA, France, Italy, Japan, Korea, China ... I can't remember even one film on the subject of inter-religious relationships. Even when their films have characters from other countries/religions, usually they are shown in a way where religious differences are not an issue. However, I have seen some American documentary films on this subject, specially on the issue of inter-religious marriages between Christians and Jews.

If you know of some examples of mainstream films from any country touching on inter-religious relationships, please do let me know.

Persons of different religions in Bollyworld

Bollyworld is the make believe world of Bollywood that exists only inside the cinema halls and DVDs. In Bollyworld, the idea of including persons of different religions is so pervasive that it hardly makes news. For reaching out to people of different religions, often Indian films include persons of different religions, most common being Muslims but also Christians and Sikhs, shown usually as "almost family" like friends.

Films where Muslims, Christians or Sikhs or Parsi are the main protagonists are less common, but there are some examples of these. Muslim socials was distinct category of Bollywood films till 1980s with films like Nikaah, Mere Huzoor and Mere Mehboob. However, this genre of films is less common today. Sikh culture has found greater expression in Punjabi cinema, though there are some examples from mainstream Bollywood such as Singh is King and Jo Bole So Nihaal.

More commonly, Bollywood places its main stories in Hindu famlies, while persons of other religions are shown as friends, or less commonly as villains. There was a time when this practice allowed film makers to introduce specific things like ghazals and shairo-shayari in the narrative. It is hard to think of films which did not have such characters from 1960s and 1970s. From Hrikesh Mukherjee, to Ramanand Sagar, Prakash Mehra, Manmohan Desai and Tarachand Barjatya, all their films had such characters.

Even more recently, some of the big box-office successes of Karan Johar, such as "Kuch kuch hota hai" and "Kabhi Khushi kabhi gham", have continued with this idea of close family-friends kind of relationships with persons of different religions.

I think that the basic idea behind it is to make sure that persons of all religions can relate to the film (and make it a commercial success). At the same time, it does reflect the real-life reality of India, where it would be impossible to find any person who has not interacted with persons of other religions in the neighbourhoods, friends and workplaces.

Mixed Religion families in Bollywood

While the more popular Bollywood films used characters of different religions in close family and friendship relationships, they also maintain clear boundaries between them. Thus, in most of these films, Muslims are always married to Muslims, Christians to Christians and Hindus to Hindus.

However, the idea of mixing up of religions in the Bollyworld families has been touched upon many times. When I think of significant Bollywood films that have touched on theme of inter-religious families I think of four films - Dharamputra, Amar Akbar Anthony, Zakhm and Bombay.

There are other significant films like the recent Kurbaan, but I see them more about inter-religious love stories rather than about inter-religious families. However, I do concede that this division into inter-religious love and inter-religious families is arbitrary and subjective.

Dharamputra (1961): This Yash Chopra film was my introduction to a world united and yet divided because of religions. It was about a Muslim girl (Mala Sinha) who has to give away her son, born before her marriage, to a Hindu couple who are her family friends (Manmohan Krishen and Nirupa Roy). Years later, that son (Shashi Kapoor) grows up into a Hindu fanatic and during the partition riots goes to burn the house of his Muslim mother.

Amar, Akbar, Anthony (1977): This Manmohan Desai film is another old favourite about three brothers who get separated when they are young, and grow up in three different families beloning to three different religions - Amar (Vinod Khanna) grows up as Hindu, Akbar (Rishi Kapoor) grows up as a Muslim and Anthony (Amitabh Bacchan) grows up as Christian. One of its most celebrated scene had blood transfusion tubes running from the arms of the three brothers and going into the arm of a blind woman (Nirupa Roy) who is actually their mother, but they don't know it.

The film looked at religious differences as being important for the individuals and yet almost unimportant for the relationships among people. The three brothers growing up with different religions, are shown to be in love with girls from their own religions. They are shown living in the worlds made of persons of their own religions. The film never discusses the impact of religious differences but rather seems to take it for granted that the persons from different religions would love each other "because they are brothers".

There are no religious fanatics or any speeches about religions in this film. Thus, I see this film as an allegory for the ideal multi-religious India, where each religion can maintain its distinctiveness, its own costumes, and yet be like a family.

Zakhm (1998): This is one of the my favourite films of all times. Directed by Mahesh Bhatt, this was an autobiographical film. Against the backdrop of religious riots in Bombay, the film tells the story of an old woman (Pooja Bhatt), who has been burned alive by a Muslim guy. As she struggles for her life in the intensive care unit of a hospital, her younger son, with the help of Hindu hardliners would like to take a revenge on the Muslims. Her elder son (Ajay Devgan) tells the story of their family to his younger borther.

It is the story of a Muslim woman in love with a Hindu film director, who dies in an accident leaving her with two sons. She hides her own faith and brings up her two sons as Hindus, even though she is rejected by her husband's family.

The film had a powerful performance by child actor Kunal Khemu as the elder son, during the parts in flash back, where Ajay tells about his childhood.

In South Asia, the boundaries between religions can often be hazy. Many families carry hidden histories of inter-mixing of different religions. I felt that this film brought out the issue of those hidden histories in a powerful way. It was also a strong voice against the fanatics and the hate-mongers of different hues.

Bombay: This 1995 film by Mani Ratnam is one of those rare films that touched on a vital question in all inter-religious marriages - the question of the religion of their children. The Hindu-Muslim couple in the film opt for a civil marriage and ignore the religions.

However, their two fathers would like that their grandchildren follow the family religion. The couple has twins and thus, the two grandfathers decide that one grandchild can receive Muslim religious knowledge and the other can be Hindu. Only when there are Hindu-Muslim riots that threaten the lives of the two children, it makes them understand the futility of religious fights.

Many mixed-religions couples today are like the couple of this story, who do not feel very religious and who feel that they can continue to follow different faiths. However, the issue of their children's religions is a thorny one, especially when there are family expectations and pressures from the two sides.

The different ways in which families deal with this issue, I think that it needs to be tackled in more films.

Conclusions

Bollyworld often shows persons of different religions, living together as close family friends or relating to each other in positive ways.

In a way it is a reflection of the Indian society and at the same time, I believe that it strengthens knowledge and relationships between people of different religions in India.

The past few decades have been marked by shifting of religions towards more exclusionist and radical positions, not just in India but all over the world. In such a situation, I think that Bollywood's role in promoting a multi-religious society is important.

There are many examples of mixed-religions families in Bollywood cinema. Personally, I believe that in this direction, Bollywood (and Indian cinema in other languages) has been much ahead of all other cinematic traditions in the world.

So if you think of Bollywood films dealing with inter-religious families, are there any films that have impressed you? Are there any such films from other countries, that you know of?

In the next part of this article, I will touch on inter-religious love stories in Bollywood films.

***
This article is part of my reflections for an email based research on mixed religious couples and families. This research is called "Mixed Doubles: You, I and our Gods".

If you are or were a part of a mixed religious relationship or if you grew up in a mixed religious family, please consider joining this research by sending me an email at: sunil.deepak(at)gmail.com

You can find more information about this research at the Mixed Doubles Blog.

***