4 फरवरी को लालकिले पर आयोजित कवि सम्मेलन में इस बार दो वजहों से गया। एक तो ये कि मैं पिछले बारह सालों से दिल्ली में रहते हुए कभी लालकिला नहीं गया। दूसरा कि मेरे पुराने साथी अभिनव शाह से आखिरी बार जब क़रीब छह साल पहले मिला था तो वो कुंवारे थे और अब एक बच्चे के पिता हैं और ऐसा ही विकास मेरा भी हुआ है। ऐसे में इस तरह के कवि सम्मेलनों से अच्छी कोई जगह नहीं जहां घिसी-पिटी बातें सुनने से ज़्यादा अपनी बात करने के हज़ार मौक़े मिलते हैं।

एक ऐसा खचाखच भरा कवि सम्मेलन जिसे दूरदर्शन के ज़माने में टीवी पर देखकर लगता था कि शर्ट या कोट पर फूलों वाला गोल बैज लगाकर कविताएं पढ़ने वाले कवि ही आगे चलकर महान कहलाते होंगे। इस बार वहां पहुंचा तो पाया कि जितनी कुर्सियां भरी थीं, उससे ज़्यादा ख़ाली थीं। 8 बजे से तय कवि सम्मेलन का पहला डेढ़ घंटा फूल मालाएं देने, एक-दूसरे की पीठ खुजाने और मुख्यमंत्री, उप मुख्यमंत्री, उप-उप-मंत्री, गुपचुप मंत्री को सम्मानित करते ही बीता। कुमार विश्वास सिर्फ अतिथि के तौर पर बुलाए गए थे, मगर अपनी आदत से बाज़ नहीं आए और कम से कम 15 मिनट कवियों का परिचय पढ़कर ख़राब किया। जिस दिल्ली हिंदी अकादमी ने इस सम्मेलन की मेज़बानी की थी उसकी उपाध्यक्ष मैत्रेयी पुष्पा को इस फालतू के डेढ़ घंटे में एक शब्द भी बोलने का मौक़ा नहीं मिला। इस बीच लालकिला और आसपास से लोग आते रहे और फूलों से लदे,पंजाब से लौटे आम आदमी पार्टी के मंत्री जाते रहे।

इसके बाद के डेढ़ घंटे में एक-एक कर जिस भी कवि को बुलाया गया उसने कविता के अलावा इतनी बातें कहीं जिन्हें पढ़-पढ़ कर हम सोशल मीडिया, व्हाट्स ऐप पर हज़ार बार हंस चुके हैं और इतनी ही बार फॉरवर्ड-म्यूट कर चुके हैं। कविता के नाम पर चार पंक्तियां, चार पंक्तियां कहते-कहते कवि इतना कुछ फालतू कहते रहे कि अफसोस हुआ कि ये सब नमूने हमारी बिरादरी के ही हैं। डियर राष्ट्रवादी-सांस्कृतिक चेतना के कवियों! भीड़ को ‘बांधने’ का मतलब रस्सी से बांधना थोड़े होता है। उसे कविताएं भी चाहिए। कोई संपत सरल, सुदीप भोला या कुंवर बेचैन जैसे ठीकठाक कवि बिठाकर 25 बुरे कवियों को दिल्ली के लालकिले से पेश करने का जो अपराध साल-दर-साल सरकारी खर्चे से हो रहा है, उसका पाप पता नहीं श्रोताओं के सर जाना चाहिए या प्रस्तोताओं के।

आम आदमी पार्टी के सबसे ख़ास आदमी केजरीवाल ने सम्मेलन के शुरू में कहा कि कवि हमारी पार्टी और मोदी जी की पार्टी को भर-भर के गालियां दे सकते हैं। ऐसा आदेश प्राप्त होते ही, चूंकि इस सम्मेलन का चेक दिल्ली सरकार से मिलना था, कवियों ने अपने बासी चुटकुले नोटबंदी, छप्पन इंच वगैरह पर ही सीमित रखे और दिल्ली सरकार को ‘बेनिफिट ऑफ डाउट’ मिला। कुमार विश्वास से इस कदर विश्वास उठता जा रहा है कि वो केजरीवाल की तुलना लाल बहादुर शास्त्री से कर बैठे मगर फिर भी कोई आश्चर्य नहीं हुआ।

मंच संचालक रास बिहारी गौड़ साहब एक (अ)भूतपूर्व मंच संचालक कुमार विश्वास की मौजूदगी से इस कदर नर्वस और मर्द-बरबस दिखे कि एक महिला कवि के कुछ सेकेंड देर से माइक तक पहुंचने पर पूरे घटियापन से बोल गए कि ‘माइक तक आने से पहले भी मेक-अप करना नहीं भूलतीं’। महिला कवि ने माइक पर आने से पहले सबके सामने उन्हें ऐसे घूरा कि वो उनका संचालन अंत-अंत तक कुरूप और नीरस ही रहा होगा। बिहार से आए एक सांवले सज्जन शंभू शिखर अपने रंग-रूप पर कटाक्ष सुनकर इतने उत्साहित थे कि ज़ोर-ज़ोर से ‘पानी का तुक वानी’ और ‘निष्ठा का तुक विष्ठा’ से लगाकर तालियों की भीख मांगते रहे। जनता ने किसी भी कवि को इस मामले में निराश नहीं किया। राष्ट्रीय कवि सम्मेलन में आयी लालकिले की जनता ने महिला कवियों के ताली मांगने पर सीटियां भी बजाईं और ‘जवान, पाकिस्तान, नौजवान’ जैसा कुछ भी सुनने पर उछल-उछल कर ‘भारत माता की जय’ के नारे से पूरे चांदनी चौक की रात ख़राब की।

मुझे कवि सम्मेलनों से कोई चिढ़ नहीं है। मैं ख़ुद भी माइक पर कविताएं पढ़ने में बहुत भावुक महसूस करता हूं। लेकिन अगर आपको पिछले दस-बारह साल से इस तरह के मंचों पर एक ही धुन सुनने को मिले, बस गवैयों के चेहरे बदलते रहे तो चिढ़ होनी चाहिए। अगर आपको कुमार विश्वास की नर्सरी से निकले तमाम झाड़-झंखार, घास-फूस ही एक मंच पर लालकिले तक ‘राष्ट्रीय’ सम्मान बटोरते कवियों की लिस्ट में दिखें तो गुस्सा भी आना चाहिए। कवि सम्मेलनों के आगे राष्ट्रीय लगा देने से कोई आयोजन महत्वपूर्ण नहीं हो सकता। तालियों और सीटियों के बीच कविताएं आखिरी मेट्रो पकड़कर घर भाग गई हैं। हो सके तो उन्हें पकड़िए। राष्ट्र हित में जारी…

The post राष्ट्रीय कवि सम्मेलन-2017: “कविताएं आखिरी मेट्रो पकड़कर घर भाग गई हैं” appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz, an award-winning online platform that serves as the hub of thoughtful opinions and reportage on the world's most pressing issues, as witnessed by the current generation. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to find out more.

Dear Shah Rukh,

From watching you jump off a helicopter and run into your mother’s arms in “Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham” to seeing you host awards shows with your inimitable charisma and wit, I have admired you both on and off the silver screen for several years now. The manner in which you have established yourself in an industry that often determines one’s success based on the family that they are born into, is an inspiration. Every time I am asked to host an event, I instantly channel your “Filmfare energy”, which I’ve grown up watching. That I come nowhere close is a different story!

Yet, in today’s intellectual world, being a fan of yours has become a one-way ticket to ridicule amongst one’s peers. Shah Rukh Khan fans are ridiculed about how their baadshah has started making formulaic movies. The fact that a Shah Rukh Khan film is incomplete without your characteristic running sequence or a shot of you with your outspread arms, is reiterated in every single conversation about your movies. I know because I’ve watched silently as it’s done to others in my friend’s circle. I’ve been a closet fan for some time now, just waiting for that cinematic masterpiece from you that will set the record straight.

The extent of your popularity is such that any group of youngsters in India will most definitely have at least one die-hard SRK fan. These are people that I genuinely admire and whom I am grateful for because their presence means that the group is forced to watch your movies. When the die-hard in our group suggested we go for “Raees”, I carefully measured my response. The fact that I would watch it was never in doubt, but I had to maintain that uninterested façade as well.

As we settled down into our seats, I was quietly optimistic that this would be the masterpiece I had been waiting for since “My Name Is Khan” came out. The trailers looked good and the fact that it was a biography meant that there would be greater character depth, something that has been lacking in your past few films. However, as I came out of the theatre, I couldn’t help but think that it hadn’t lived up to its potential. I had prepared myself for an entertaining albeit nuanced portrayal of the Mumbai underworld. But to my disappointment, I was served up yet another formulaic film.

In recent years, both Aamir and Salman Khan have evolved their style of films. Aamir has begun to take over the creative process behind a film. Thus any Aamir Khan film is not influenced by his acting but his input in all other spheres as well. Salman has begun selecting stories that almost always have a socially positive message.

I know that hits have come easy with films like “Chennai Express”, “Happy New Year” and “Dilwale”. But, all of us need you to make more proactive choices with your films and their stories, because films have the power to shape ideologies and condition thinking amongst a vast portion of their consumers.

Recently, my other childhood hero Roger Federer gave me great joy, when he triumphed over Rafael Nadal at the Australian Open. The world seemed to be right again! Federer won his last title in 2010, which happens to be the year “My Name Is Khan” came out.

I’ll just wait because I know, picture abhi baaki hai mere dost.

With love and respect,
A die-hard fan trying to break out of the closet.
__

Image source: Lisa Maree Williams/Getty Images

The post Open Letter From A Closet SRK Fan appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz, an award-winning online platform that serves as the hub of thoughtful opinions and reportage on the world's most pressing issues, as witnessed by the current generation. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to find out more.

“Paribo ni (I won’t be able to do it),” is a sentence that brings dismay to every teacher, as it does to me every time one of my students utters it.

I teach English grammar to Class X in a school in rural Odisha. I am a native Bengali speaker and speak Odiya haltingly, ironically, making a botch of the grammar. My students speak mainly Odiya and Saura, a local tribal language. Many of them know a smattering of Hindi, a language that I have been using along with Odiya to explain concepts and rules of grammar.

Teaching one language through another does not work beyond a point, but much like with the Rosetta Stone, knowledge of an unknown language has to begin by translation from a known one. So, in an English class, we use Odiya and Hindi to learn English.

Interacting with the students, it appears to me that the biggest obstacle to learning English is the notion of the stigma attached to not knowing it. The same students who would cheerfully practise their Hindi with me would feel embarrassed about speaking in English because they’re afraid they will make mistakes. I have been trying to understand why making mistakes in English is considered qualitatively different from doing the same in any other language.

Why is it that we consider learning English a task of insurmountable proportions? While accepting prima facie the fact that learning a new language is an uphill task for most of us, it must also be accepted that it is not as difficult as or comparable to dragon-slaying of lore. After all, in India, with her rich variety of languages and innumerable dialects that change from village to village, many of us have grown up multilingual, learning at least one new language in school in addition to our mother tongues.

Why is it, then, that we hesitate even to begin when it comes to English? Is it because English is ‘foreign’, and therefore beyond our understanding? The popular notion that English is the language of the privileged, the so-called upper classes has much to do with students in rural areas feeling that they are not capable of learning English. After all, even now, anyone who is comfortable speaking in English is termed videshi (foreigner). This is the notion which, above all, needs to be deconstructed.

The idea behind teaching a language, or in fact, any subject, should be to demystify it and nurture in students a lively interest which will far outlast their school days. What is unknown is difficult; what is known is familiar. The goal of teaching should be to make the unknown knowable, understandable, easy to comprehend, and above all, interesting. For a new language, there are a variety of ways in which such interest can be created. The most obvious are the use of means of entertainment in that language – songs, movies, books, newspapers, tv shows – the list can go on and on. These open up the world of the new language to students and make them a part of that world without making it seem like an academic chore.

For this, the command of the teacher over the language being taught and its cultural and historical moorings is essential. A language cannot be presented to children as a foreign substance, one with which the teacher herself is not comfortable. More than what is being said, what helps in educating young minds is what is being done. A teacher’s comfort level with the language automatically permeates into the classroom space and brings the language within the grasp of the students. The teacher should be able not only to converse in English but also to connect matters of daily life which students are familiar with to the teaching of the language. In doing this, our English teacher faces a major challenge in the form of the course material that she has to work with.

Sadly, the content of our English textbooks leaves much to be desired concerning its relevance. Just because the language is English should not mean that the textbook needs to be British (and therefore, foreign) in content. We have a great number of Indian authors in English, many of whom have won laurels and fame both within India and abroad for their work. We also have a great number of works written with an Indian setting.

Why don’t our textbooks contain more works of R. K. Narayan and Ruskin Bond? Why don’t our textbooks have more material that students, particularly in rural areas, can relate to and understand?

There appears to be a serious disconnect between the content being taught and the worldview of students learning it. It seemed pointless, for instance, for me to teach letter-writing when my students have never even seen a postcard or the inside of a post office. Wouldn’t it be better to teach them how to e-mail the local BDO instead of how to write a letter to the postmaster about a registered parcel which has gone missing? All knowledge must constantly be updated; and yet, it seems that our school textbooks have remained the same for decades together, as though the IT Revolution has not happened at all.

There is, further, an inexplicable lack of emphasis in our education system for the most basic of language skills: speaking. We learn and teach how to read and write, not how to speak. It seems to me that it is a completely roundabout and unproductive way of teaching a language. I feel that teaching of any language should begin with the basics of its grammar and conversation. I can personally attest to the fact, having learnt Kannada that way, and I am certain most readers would agree, that the rate at which one can learn a language is directly proportional to the amount of time one spends listening to it. Also, speaking in a language gives a major boost of confidence and encourages the student to learn more and more. I am sure that if we could just get students to talk in English, and learn from their mistakes along the way instead of being embarrassed by them, it would go a long way in facilitating their education. For language serves a much greater purpose – communication, and good communication skills are the key to success in any field.

I am slowly coming to the conclusion that gaps in learning are actually deficiencies of teaching. The biggest mistake, I feel, we make while teaching English is that we treat it like a ‘subject’, not a ‘language’. Thus classified, the focus shifts to getting passing and higher marks instead of actually learning anything.

Unfortunately, in our country, marks have paramount importance, and this has led to the promotion of learning by rote over any other method. We teach our students that ‘if X is the question, Y is the answer, and if you write Y, you will get marks’ without ever bothering to explain what X and Y mean, much less why X the question has Y the answer. The all-important question ‘Why?’ is conspicuously absent from our school curriculum.

This is why we keep mass-producing literate but uneducated, certified but unemployable youth who come out of a gruelling schooling system without adding much to the skill-set that they were born with. It is high time we changed the way we teach our children. A fresh look at the education system is the crying need of the hour, and all the IITs and IIMs in the world will not be of any use if we do not strengthen the schooling system. We need to start asking ‘why?’.

The post Is Speaking English The Prerogative Of The Privileged? appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz, an award-winning online platform that serves as the hub of thoughtful opinions and reportage on the world's most pressing issues, as witnessed by the current generation. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to find out more.

A movie may hint at various perspectives. But I believe, one of the approaches where you feel the intonation offered by a deluge of pathos and melancholic voices, through the staggering snapshots, is only when you can get one’s understanding and view and see it through both his and your eyes. This comes with those benefit of experiences when you climb into the skin of Chiron and walk around in his shoes.

Barry Jenkin’s magnum opus reels off about the surrealistic beauty in black boys turning blue in waxing moonlight, and weaves it into segues of three phases: Little, Chiron and Black.

“Little”, as his friends called him, felt ostracised and struggled with inert emotions about his masculinity and manhood as he hides up in a boarded up home stationed in one of the do-rag enclaves. He encounters a friend named Jean who acts as a fatherly figure and teaches him to let go of his fears, and stand bolt upright and decide for himself gradually what he is, instead of falling prey to what others want of him.

The second phase spins around the adolescent phase where Chiron has grown up physically but not mentally. Still, he is entangled in a gender identification labyrinth too difficult to embrace. The neighbourhood he lives in, is addled with crack dealers and bullies, who fiddle with their usual felonies and crimes of the day is knee-deep in gay-bashing. Amidst the need to stay fit with this society, Chiron finds solace in the soft-spoken company of Teresa and the unusual kindliness of Jean. He has a moment of ecstasy and bliss when he lays low his boundaries and engages in brief physical intimacy, as Kevin works his way up Chiron’s shorts. Chiron’s mother is still alternating between her crack abuse to blur the pain of witnessing her son’s inclination to the unholy queerness and her overbearing indulgence in Chiron’s life.

“Black” is adult Chiron who has shielded himself with a muscular body, gold grills and studded earring into a drug dealer. Inspired by his first meeting with the crack dealer of a heroic figure Jean, he is moved by a call from Kevin as he wakes up to a wet dream and chooses not to give up on his cancelled dream of reuniting with his former lover. He races up to meet him embracing his craving desires and passion free of the societal barriers and the limiting restraints.

The idea of black boys turning blue seems lyrical. There is a chance levity layered underneath the bulwark of recriminations and false accusations. This is crystal clear in the fact that “Black” found lost love in his decision to evolve in his mental odyssey instead of taking the path down to regression, preferring to mould himself into his avenue of self-realisation and take the high road to self-discovery.
_

Image Source : You Tube

The post “Moonlight” Review: The War Within Is Greater Than The War Without appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz, an award-winning online platform that serves as the hub of thoughtful opinions and reportage on the world's most pressing issues, as witnessed by the current generation. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to find out more.

Have you been to the Pavilion Cabral Yard as a part of Kochi-Muziris Biennale? As you move to the second installation, you will be greeted by a black dog that is sitting on a rooftop. Pay close attention, and you’ll be amazed to know that it’s a man with a dog’s head. When you start wondering what it’s all about, you’ll be taken aback by a gut-wrenching groaning of a man, coupled with the moaning of the dog.

This installation, whose idea was conceived by B. Ramabhadran of KR Narayan National Institute of Visual Science and Arts, is inspired from “Vellappokkathil” – a short story by Thakazhi.

“The story talks about a Dalit man Chenaparayan, who is forced to leave behind his dog during evacuation because of floods in Kuttanadu. Once the water subsided, he swam back to find the corpse of the dog. The wistful moaning of the lone dog, at times akin to that of a man, brings up the deeper indefinable threads of existence that ebb and flow through life, man or animal notwithstanding is what the installation hopes to put forth in this form,” says Ramabhadran.

“The installation is novel as it recreates the feel of a story with certain sounds. The team was able to finish the project in very less time, however, have managed to present it without losing the essence of the story”, says Hruthu, one of the attendees.

Director Jayaraj, who had previously done a short film on the same story, inaugurated the installation and shared his experiences of “Vellappokkathil” with the audience.

The artwork was done by Sruthi EV and Ranjeesh Gopal. Mahesh MK, Sanal Mathew, Jacob Cherian and Amrith Sushakumar did the sound. Ajinsha, Unnikrishnan, Rahul Radhakrishnan, Sajeesh Swaminathan dealt with the creative design of the installation.

The post A Heartbreaking Tale Inspired This Art Installation About A Man And His Dog appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz, an award-winning online platform that serves as the hub of thoughtful opinions and reportage on the world's most pressing issues, as witnessed by the current generation. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to find out more.

Every year the Super Bowl happens, two American teams claw their way to the top of the National Football League and then fight each other off on live television, in front of what is estimated to be an audience of 100 million. The day is important for the game, yes – but its importance also lies in the fact that it is the evening that companies pay exorbitant amounts of money to run their advertisements on.

The huge sums of money paid – with an expected audience of a 100 million – the commercials that these companies air on this day are perhaps the most important commercial they will air throughout the year. And most commercials do end up getting social and political.

Dripping with ‘winking’, even ‘pointed’ subtext regarding the current political climate in the US, the commercials are quite like the statements that the most important brands in the country are making to their people. And while these commercials are seen as a reflection of the society, they also showcase what the society needs, and what these brands are going to stand for.

What aired on this year’s Super Bowl was mostly a message of ‘inclusivity’, with each brand’s commercial showcasing its own flavor of it. Given the current socio-political context of the country, these are perhaps the most important and inflammatory statements that these companies can make at the moment.

Google, the Silicon Valley giant, used this year’s Super Bowl ad to drive home a message of ‘inclusivity’. Their ad showed people driving past rainbow pride flags (indicative of the LGBTQ pride), walking into their homes past hanging mezuzahs (a piece of parchment inscribed with specified Hebrew verses from the Torah, often contained in a decorative case), and making dinner with a photogenic group of multi-ethnic friends that would make any network sit-com proud.

Going one step ahead and breaking the social stereotypes – the ad showed women in strong independent demeanors, out alone at night; it showed men taking care of children and contributing to the household. In a time where the feminist ideals are being relooked at, and questioned, in every socio-political context, from women’s right to abortion to the stark wide wage gap that still exists across the world – an imagery of that kind sends a strong message of a need to restructure the social moulds.

The next strong message was driven home by the makers of the alcoholic beverage Budweiser. Their commercial showed the story of Adolphus Busch, the German immigrant who made a harrowing journey to the United States to eventually co-find the Anheuser-Busch brewing company.

The minute-long commercial opened with a man in an American bar telling Busch that he doesn’t look like he’s “from around here.” The film then flashes back to what is obviously Busch’s ‘fraught’ sea journey to America. As soon as he steps onto the American soil, he was immediately ridiculed for being foreign. But then the man who first eyed Busch buys the German a beer, and Busch reveals himself to be a German by indicating the beer. The former man is none other than Ebert Anheuser, and that’s seemingly how Anheuser-Busch was born.

Now, the fact of the matter is that one of the world’s leading brewing brands was most definitely not born that way, over a mistaken bar encounter. But the fact that Budweiser is choosing to devote one of the most expensive advertising spots, the one in Super Bowl, to what’s essentially a short film about its company’s immigrant roots is quite significant, especially in the light of the Trump- executed immigrant-ban.

One of the world’s largest brands Coca-Cola re-aired an advertisement from back in 2014. The ad features “America the Beautiful” being sung in multiple languages, alongside people of various ethnicities. The ad places whites, seemingly American, next to women in hijabs, and black kids dancing, and people of the Latin American descent. Before we even dig into the underlying message in that ad, the imagery itself is quite bold and in the face.

When the ad first came out back in the day, it received two kinds of extreme reactions. While it was the center of appreciation for most liberals, it left ring-wingers with a bad taste. This ad pressed multiple hot-button issues for them – including the ongoing debate over the codification of English as the primary language in the U.S., immigration reform and the acceptance of same-sex relationships in mainstream media.

Perhaps the most powerful and blatant of the commercials came from Airbnb. “No matter who you are, where you’re from, who you love, who you worship, we all belong. The world is more beautiful the more you accept”, read the text splurged across the center of the screen, on a background of multi-ethnic faces.

The commercial is particularly pointed in terms of its political leanings owing to the fact that the company recently came out against President Trump’s refugee ban, insisting that it would pay for refugee housing if need be.

While one can obviously argue that these ads are scripted, and filmed for weeks, if not months, in advance – the fact that these companies are using what is quite definitely the most expensive advertising spot in the US for these messages definitely speaks for something. The statements might be veiled, but the message is quite clear: love thy neighbour, even if that neighbour looks nothing like thyself.

_

Image Source : You Tube

The post Defying Trump, How Ads For USA’s Largest Sporting Event Are Promoting Inclusivity appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz, an award-winning online platform that serves as the hub of thoughtful opinions and reportage on the world's most pressing issues, as witnessed by the current generation. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to find out more.

शतरंज एक ऐसा खेल है जो लोगों में आत्मविश्वास, अनुशासन और रचनात्मक दृष्टि को बढ़ावा देता है। इस खेल को शौकिया तौर पर भी खेला जाता है और पेशे के तौर पर भी। पर युगांडा की झुग्गियों में रह रही फिओना मुतेसी के लिए शतरंज सिर्फ इतना ही नहीं था। यह खेल उनके लिए गरीबी से निकलने का सबसे बड़ा रास्ता बन चुका था। समाज के जिस तबके से वो आती हैं वहां पर कोई सपने देखना तो दूर उसके बारे में सोचता भी नहीं है। इसके बावजूद उन्होंने सपना देखा, एक चेस ग्रांडमास्टर बनने का। उनके इसी संघर्ष पर 2012 में टिम क्रोथर्स ने एक किताब लिखी और 2016 में इस किताब पर एक फिल्म भी बनी।

इस फिल्म को नाम दिया गया क्वीन ऑफ़ कात्वे और इसे सितम्बर 2016 में रिलीज़ किया गया। फिल्म का निर्देशन किया मीरा नायर ने और स्क्रीनप्ले लिखा है विलियम व्हीलर ने। फिल्म में फिओना मुतेसी के संघर्ष और उनके कोच रॉबर्ट कतेंदे द्वारा दी गयी ट्रेनिंग को बड़ी ही खूबसूरती और सच्चाई से दिखाया गया है।

फिल्म की कास्टिंग भी बहुत ख़ास रही क्यूंकि मुख्य भूमिका निभा रही मदीना नाल्वंगा भी कमोबेश समाज के उसी तबके से हैं, जहां से फिओना हैं। ऑस्कर विजेता लुपिता नोयोंगो ने फिओना की माँ का किरदार निभाया है और डेविड ओयेलोवो फिओना के कोच बने हैं। इन दो मंझे हुए कलाकारों के साथ मदीना बड़ी ही सहज नज़र आयी हैं, जो फिल्म का एक बड़ा प्लस पॉइंट है। अहम बात यह है कि इन दो बड़े कलाकारों के सामने कहीं पर भी फिओना का किरदार फीका नहीं पड़ा।

फिल्म गति थोड़ी धीमी है, शायद स्क्रिप्ट पर कुछ और काम किया जा सकता था। पर ख़ास बात यह है कि समाज में मौजूद भेदभाव को बड़े अच्छे से यह सामने लेकर आती है। मसलन पहली दफा जब फिओना के कोच, चेस टूर्नामेंट के अथॉरिटी से बात करने जाते हैं तो उन्हें कहा जाता है कि यह टूर्नामेंट देश के सबसे अच्छे स्कूल में है और वहां हम कोई बीमारी नहीं ले जा सकते।

दूसरा जब फिओना अपना पहला मैच खेल रही होती है तो रिवायती तौर पर विपक्षी खिलाड़ी से हाथ मिलाती हैं। फिल्म में दिखाया गया है कि हाथ मिलाने के बाद विपक्षी खिलाड़ी अपना हाथ टेबल क्लॉथ से पोछता है।

इस तरह के दृश्य फिल्म पर निर्देशन की पकड़ और उसके विज़न को दिखाते हैं और साथ ही फिल्म को वास्तविकता के और करीब ले जाते हैं। इस फिल्म ने खिलाड़ी और कोच के रिश्ते को भी बखूबी दिखाया गया है।

इस फिल्म में खेल और असल ज़िंदगी के बीच के तालमेल का बेहतरीन चित्रण किया गया है। मसलन सबसे पहली दफा, जब कुछ बच्चे फिओना को छेड़ रहे होते हैं और वो डर कर नहीं भागती, तभी से कोच उसे “फाइटर” का दर्जा दे देते हैं। उसके बाद, शतरंज सीखते वक्त फिओना को क्वीनिंग (जब प्यादा आखरी खाने पर पहुँचने के बाद रानी में बदल जाता है) सबसे ज़्यादा पसंद थी क्यूंकि यह चाल चेस बोर्ड को पार करके की जाती है। इसी तरह जब फिओना के कोच उसे सेफ स्पेस (जब कोई सभी तरह से फंस जाए और अपने लिए एक सुरक्षित जगह तलाश ले) की बात समझा रहे होते हैं तो वह कुछ असल ज़िंदगी के उदाहरण देते हैं, ताकि खिलाड़ी उसे अच्छी तरह समझ पाएं।

यह फिल्म, विषम परिस्थितियों में भी हार ना मानने का जीवट सन्देश देती है। फिओना के कोच उसे दो गूढ़ मंत्र सिखाते हैं। पहला हारता वही है जो हार मान लेता है और दूसरा अपने आप पर यकीन रहना सबसे जरूरी है। यह खेल पर बनी कुछ उन चुनिन्दा फिल्मों में से है, जिसे संघर्ष के दौर में हर खिलाड़ी को देखना चाहिये।

“कभी-कभी हम उस जगह पे होते हैं जो हमारी नहीं होती, हमारी जगह वही है जिसे हम मानते हैं”– चेस टीचर रॉबर्ट कतेंदे

The post फिल्म रीव्यू: क्वीन ऑफ़ कात्वे appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz, an award-winning online platform that serves as the hub of thoughtful opinions and reportage on the world's most pressing issues, as witnessed by the current generation. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to find out more.

A part of us says “shit happens, forget it!” – deliberately trying to fight the undying rage which wants to fume out at one go, like a volcanic eruption. But the war rages on – “Leave it. It happened some twenty years back!”  But it’s impossible to leave it. How can one ‘leave’ or even forget that horrid incident, and the myriad emotions of fear and disgust – and that resounding self-doubt screaming “Why! Why! Why!…” – inside the mind and heart that, at once, were so calm and composed?

The disturbed psyche and behavioural manifestations of having suffered child sexual abuse – and how it persists even through adulthood – was best brought out by the surreal performance of actors in the play “Positively Shameless” in Rangasthala Auditorium, MG Road Metro Complex, Bengaluru, on February 3, 2017. A powerful and cathartic play surrounding the issues of child sexual abuse, it showed how the victims grow into adults who, on the outside, seem to ‘have it all’ – but the struggle they face inside is truly traumatizing. Fear, guilt and anger pillage their inner peace and self-confidence. The play incorporated a saddening yet true metaphor of a ‘packed-up suitcase’, in which a victim boxes up their true and free self, because society compels them to – thus forcing them to hide their joys and pristine memories, before the incident of abuse happened.

Rife yet acutely reported – child sexual abuse in India is a rampant crime. The exposition to the play pointed out to the survey conducted by Ministry of Women and Child Development in association with the UNICEF, and a few indigenous NGOs working for the rights of children, which became a watershed moment in bringing out how this issue was way beyond what was ‘par’ for the course. Conducted in 2007, across 13 states with a sample size of 12,447, it found that a staggering 53% reported of being sexually abused as a child. What hit even harder was another statistic of the same survey which stated that 50% of the abuse cases were committed by someone known to the victim, or were in a position of trust and responsibility.

It therefore becomes a grave issue – quite prodigious, for a nation as large as ours – to have half its children sexually abused. This problem is a violation of human rights – a traumatic personal experience, that even transcends to become a public health problem. Such an issue which is recondite and hushed up within the familial circles has fantastically lead victims to blame themselves for a crime committed by another.

Furthermore, ignorance of the ground reality has led people to form conclusions based on their own opinions, which in terms of culture and tradition, have turned into myths regarding child sexual abuse. Some common misconceptions that surround child sexual abuse (CSA) are-

1. Boys don’t get raped.

2. Most CSA incidents are committed by strangers.

3. Normal, educated people don’t do this.

4. Children being abused immediately report this to their parents.

5. There is always a physical evidence of abuse.

6. Children tend to exaggerate/falsely accuse.

The percentage of cases reported to police – compared to the estimated numerical statistics on the occurrence of this crime – is quite minuscule. However appalling this may seem, it becomes a reflection of how atavistic our society really is – despite all the development.

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) was a major step in the right direction by the Indian Government to make gender-neutral laws that encompass child sexual abuse in all its forms and degrees. The prima facie impression of these laws was quite good – and they still are. The Constitution is operational on this issue – but the interplay of many factors have made people not report incidents of child sexual abuse. One such example would be that many feel that bringing out the case of abuse – especially when the abuser is someone related to the victim – would be a sacrilege to family honour. Hence, the issue majorly revolves around the fear of social stigma.

_

Image Source : Positively Shameless/Facebook, Facebook

The post Play Portrays The Unspoken Trauma Of Sexually Abused Children appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz, an award-winning online platform that serves as the hub of thoughtful opinions and reportage on the world's most pressing issues, as witnessed by the current generation. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to find out more.

-Celebs may advise on how to celebrate love with opened arms but definitely not on journalism

Ever since the clarion for US Presidential election was blown, the world witnessed new folds unfurling in journalistic discourse. While Donald Trump and his collusion with media every second day gave a new thrill and direction to political reportage, debates ranged about how far we could tickle the limits of criticism and critical reporting. Furthermore, there were discussions and debates around the phenomenon of paid news that dominated headlines.

If this was not enough now in the aftermath we have Meryl Streep’s fireband speech at the Golden Globe awards, coated with bravado in which many described some apparent optimism. This was immediately followed by Indian film star Shahrukh Khan’s piece, “Why No Indian Meryl Streep?” In which he went on to pat journalists of the west and laid down their professional conduct as a benchmark for the Indian scribes to look up to.

In the midst of all this, evidently or subtly, what has occupied the centre stage is the question around the functioning of journalism – to be more precise – what is exactly the role of journalism? Or perhaps in a more cynical way, the changing discourse of journalism.

When I was writing my MA dissertation, I knocked at my supervisor Dr. Lee Salter’s doorsteps for our first meeting. After briefing him about my topic, reading out the proposal and explaining the plausible methodology, I expected his nod and feedback on taking my research forward. However, to my astonishment he had just one question for me, “So, what is journalism? You have nowhere attempted to explain it.” Having known Dr. Salter as a man of astounding wisdom from all my previous erudite interactions with him, I tried hard not to be skeptical.

However, unable to resist my curiosity, I ended up giving in to an obvious answer, insisting that the topic for my dissertation was way beyond the bookish definitions of journalism and had barely anything to do with the basic terminologies. To that he patiently yet firmly opined that I could not expect to draw a successful conclusion or even attempt at conducting a research encompassing journalism without having the basic understanding of it. Also, why would anyone accept my research as a journalistic piece if I fail to reiterate the basic role of journalism for without that every argument I make remains merely a fiction or judgment without any factual grounds to it.

During the next few tenacious weeks as I delved into the definitions of journalism, what appalled me more was discovering there actually cannot be an absolute defining line for journalism. The reason being, a formal definition of journalism may be troubling for an organization, as a strict definition could be used in court against the organization when it deviates from the set parameters. Therefore, what looked feasible was to define the role of journalists.

One may pursue whatever theory of press he/she wishes to but every single one would in the end culminate that holding the establishment and authority to account, tackling vested interests and speaking up for the common mass are the ideals of journalism. Whichever corner of the world you may be practicing the profession, the methods you use for chasing a story might vary but there can never be a second opinion to the fact that your role as a reporter is all about telling people what they do not know, exposing wrongdoing, questioning leaders, examine policy, put the powerful on the spot, making a nuisance of themselves.

While writing my dissertation as I was interviewing many journalists I could recall an interesting conversation I had with the editor of a local British daily, Mr. Mike Gilson. He firmly emphasized that journalists must essentially be the most hated beings by the establishment. It is not healthy for any journalist to have too cosy a relationship with the leaders in our community and journalists should necessarily act as outsiders because the safeguards that governs democracy demand that that’s how journalism should function.

Sticking to India, when a public figure of Shahrukh Khan’s stature having phenomenal global following rolls up his sleeves to be a journalism lecturer lamenting, “Why don’t journalists here behave the way their counterparts do in the West.” There indeed are some serious flaws or perhaps Mr. Khan should be thankful enough that journalists here “aren’t yet behaving like their counterparts in the West”. His personal telephonic conversations are yet to be a part of some news outlet’s next bestselling cover story. Indian media is yet to cover another Lady Diana like macabre story for “journalists here are yet to behave the way their counterparts do in the West”.

This brings me back to the question, is the journalistic discourse changing? I still have reasons enough to revel, for now, in a state of denial. Few months back during a panel discussion at a college event I had constructive arguments with the editor of a vernacular news channel. The gentleman seemed a little irked on my repeated exemplifying of the western press to establish my stance. He believed western press cannot set the yardsticks for Indian journalism. Indeed, I too nod in affirmation to that but also believe Indian journalism isn’t beyond perils either. Apart from writing an error free and factually correct story journalists here have to oblige to a lot more. Added to that there’s also now a need to take extra care to not give an “anti-nationalistic” impression!

Personally speaking, I am devoid of any answers if there’s any way out. But, I am optimistic enough to believe that this everyday collusion will certainly open new gates for discussion and through discussions we can foresee a change. Interestingly, journalism today rather than being defined on the basis any ideals, gets its definition from how professionals actually perform journalism. They might try to challenge the traditional framework and redefine it as a profession. But, few ideals shall remain as the unquestionable pillars of journalism. The role of a journalist shall forever be to question the mighty, to demand answers, to annoy and to open governments. The way they practice will define their role as practitioners but their practice cannot be a defining factor for the profession. The discourse cannot be altered.

The post Time Or Journalist: Who Decides Journalistic Discourse? appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz, an award-winning online platform that serves as the hub of thoughtful opinions and reportage on the world's most pressing issues, as witnessed by the current generation. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to find out more.

प्रकृति सौन्‍दर्य की गाथा का अनेक कवियों ने हिन्‍दी साहित्‍य में वर्णन किया है। प्रकृति से धनाड्य भारत विश्‍वमंच पर प्रकृति सौंदर्य के लिए विख्‍यात है। भारत में प्रकृति अनेक अनूठे स्‍वरूपों में विद्यमान है। कहीं मरू का रेगिस्‍तान तो कहीं विंध्‍य और सतपुड़ा की पहाडि़यों के बीच नर्मदा का मनोरम तट, तो कहीं केरल में नारियली छठा अपनी पूरी ईमानदारी के साथ आच्‍छादित है, तो दूसरी ओर रामेश्‍वरम का मनोहारी धार्मिक भावनाओं के पर्वत स्‍वरूप में निश्चिल अडिग विराजमान है।

प्रकृति के अनुपम अनूठे सौंदर्य की बात हो तो कश्‍मीर की घाटियों/हिमाचली पहाडि़यों के बीच कल-कल बहते जल के साथ-साथ संस्‍कृति बोध/उत्‍तरांखड की पहाड़ियों/पहाड़ से बहती गंगा/यमुना की वादियां/उत्‍तर पूर्व में सिक्किम/असम में बहती वृहत ब्रहमपुत्र और ओडिशा के पुरी तट के प्रकृति प्रदत्‍त सौंदर्य को कभी कोई अपनी कविता की सीमा में नहीं बांध पाया।

लेकिन प्रकृति वर्णन/प्रकृति दर्शन की बात आती है तो उसमें मन कुपित नहीं होता ना आंखें सजल होती हैं। बस आनन्‍दातिरेक में लेखक/पाठक/कवि/दर्शक केवल सुकून/शांति/आनंद की अनुभूति महसूस करता है।

ऐसा कभी नहीं हुआ जब प्रकृति से बर्बरता का भान हुआ हो, लेकिन ऐसा जरूर हुआ है, जब बर्बरता के कारण प्रकृति दर्शन/प्रकृति सौंदर्य और प्राकृतिक सम्‍पदा का ज्ञान हुआ हो। ऐसी प्रकृति के बारे में ज्ञान हुआ अंग्रेज शासन में। अंग्रेज शासकों के अत्‍याचार की कहानी कहती अण्‍डमान में फैली वन सम्‍पदा। नारियलों के ऊंचे-ऊंचे पेड़, बरगदी जीवन जी रहे पीपल/बड़ और कार्बाइन बीच का वह रेतीला सागर। नीले सागर को काले सागर में बदल दिया गोरे लोगों ने।

स्‍वतंत्रता सेनानियों को जिन जेलों में रखा जाता, जनसमूह उमड़ पड़ता। नारे गूंजने लगते। वंदे मातरम् /भारत माता की जय। हुकुमत ने जाबांज जिन्‍दादिलों को किसी निर्जन स्‍थान पर रखने का मन बनाया, जहां से इनकी आवाज़ खुले आकाश के नीचे बंद कमरों दब जाए और अवाम न मिल सके/न नारे सुन सके/न लगा सकें।

और फिर खोजा गया प्रकृति का अनूठा भण्‍डार/चारों तरफ पानी, नीले साफ आसमान की तरह बेदाग/वाइपर आईलैंड/हेवलाक आई लैंड/रॉस आईलैंड/निकोबार से आकार में बड़ा। वन सम्‍पदा में मध्‍य प्रदेश को मात करता हुआ/कालांतर में नाम पड़ा अण्‍डमान।
अण्‍डमान में प्रकृति जीवन जन्‍य स्‍वरूप फैली पड़ी है। कार्बाइन और मुण्‍डा पहाड़ बीच के अलावा भी कई बीच हैं। समुद्र अपने पूरे शबाब से सुबह-शाम-रात अपनी मर्दानगी पर इठलाता नज़र आता है। कई तरह के वृक्ष/बेल/फल और घाटियों से भरा-पूरा अण्‍डमान मनमोहक ही नहीं बल्कि मनोहरन भी है।

लेकिन इस प्राकृतिक छटा को निहारने से मन जितना प्रफुल्लित होता है, उससे ज्‍यादा दुखी हो जाता है, ”सेल्‍युलर” जेल देखकर।
पहाड़ी पर बनी यह जेल किसी ऑक्‍टोपस के समान लगती है। जिसकी सात भुजाओं में सैंकड़ों स्‍वतंत्रता सेनानी जकड़े हुए हैं। आज़ादी की लौ में दहकते अंगारों पर चलते, तिल-तिल मरने को मजबूर लेकिन शरीर के दुख कम नज़र आने लगते हैं, जब ऑक्‍टोपस की सातों भुजाओं से आवाज़ गूंजती है- ”भारत माता की जय/वंदे मातरम।

सुबह से रात तक सरसों और नारियल का तेल निकालते/लकड़ियों के लटठे चाथम मिल में ले जाने से लेकर कटाई/चिराई/बनाई में लगे स्‍वतंत्रता सेनानियों के ऊपर काम का कोटा पूरा न होने पर चाबुक की मार/झुलसाने वाली गर्मी में टाट के कपड़े/बैंत और कोड़े की मार अलग/इन सबके बावजूद अंग्रेज शासन उनके बुलन्‍द हौसलों और इरादों  को न हिला सका और ना गुलामी के लिए मजबूर कर सका। राष्‍ट्रीय धरोहर/तीर्थों का महातीर्थ कह जाने वाली सेल्‍युलर जेल बर्बरता और अमानवीय नरसंहार की एक जीवंत कहानी है।

जब इस कहानी को लाईट एण्‍ड साउंड कार्यक्रम के मामध्‍य से देखते हैं आप, तब आपकी चेतना शून्‍य हो जाती है, आप बर्बरता को देख/सुन पाते है। आपका मन पसीज जाता है। ऐसा शायद ही कोई/पत्‍थर दिल दर्शक होगा जो सजल नेत्रों से सेल्‍युलर जेल से बाहर आता है। ऑक्‍टोपस की भुजाओं में जकड़े वीर सेनानियों की आत्‍मा को सदगति प्रदान हो इसी भावना के साथ जयहिन्‍द का नारा लगाते सजल नेत्रों से जेल से बाहर आकर प्रकृति में फिर से खो जाते हैं।

(फोटो आभार-फ्लिकर)

The post “हां मैं अण्‍डमान हूं, मेरे जिस्‍म में कई घाव हैं।” appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz, an award-winning online platform that serves as the hub of thoughtful opinions and reportage on the world's most pressing issues, as witnessed by the current generation. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to find out more.

26 नवम्बर 2008, रात होते-होते न्यूज चैनल्स पर मुंबई में गोली चलने की खबर आनी शुरू हो गयी थी। मेरी तरह किसी को भी ये अंदाज़ा नहीं था कि ये एक ऐसा आतंकवादी हमला है, जो पूरे देश को अगले 2-3 दिन तक टीवी न्यूज़ चैनल से जोड़ देगा।

शायद मेरी तरह ज़्यादातर लोग भी बाकी के आंतकवादियों का नाम तक नहीं जानते होंगे लेकिन टीवी पर एक तस्वीर बार-बार दिखाई जा रही थी। एक आतंकवादी ने नीले रंग की टी-शर्ट पहन रखी है, पीछे बैग टांग रखा है और हाथ में ऐके-47 मशीन गन है। ये तस्वीर इस हमले में एक मात्र ज़िंदा पकड़े गये आतंकवादी कसाब की थी जो इस आतंकवादी हमले का चेहरा बन गया था।

पूरे देश में इस चेहरे से बेतहाशा नफरत होनी लाज़मी था, लेकिन हमारे संविधान के तहत कसाब पर कानूनी केस चला और उसे बचाव पक्ष का एक वकील भी दिया गया। ज़्यादातर भारतीय ये सवाल कर रहे थे कि कसाब को अपना पक्ष रखने का क्या अधिकार है? उसे बचाव करने के लिए वकील क्यूँ दिया जाना चाहिये?

कुछ समय पहले देखी एक इंग्लिश फिल्म ब्रिज ऑफ़ स्पाइस ने बहुत बेहतरीन ढंग से मेरे इन सभी सवालों का जवाब दे दिया। मशहूर निर्देशक स्टीवन स्पिलबर्ग ने फिल्म की कहानी, संवाद, कैमरा वर्क और बेहतरीन अभिनय के ज़रिये एक पेचीदा सच को दर्शकों के सामने पेश किया है, जहां संविधान हर किसी को अपने बचाव का अधिकार देता है।

1957 का समय जब अमेरिका और सोवियत संघ के बीच राजनीतिक रिश्ते शक की निगाह से देखे जाते थे। दोनों देशों का परमाणु हथियारों से लैस होना, 1945 में दुसरे विश्व युद्ध के अंत के बाद जर्मनी को दो हिस्सों में बांट देना, ये सारे प्रकरण उस वक़्त अमेरिका और सोवियत संघ में भय का वातावरण पैदा कर रहे थे। ये वो समय था जब दोनों देशों के अखबारों में आये दिन एक-दूसरे के खिलाफ खबरें प्रकाशित होती रहती थी।

फिल्म में कई सीन है जो काफी असरदार हैं जिनमे डोनोवन और एबल की जेल में मुलाकात जहां एबल, डोनोवन को अपना वकील स्वीकार कर लेता है, एक यादगार सीन है। एक अन्य सीन में फिल्म कोर्ट रूम से हटाकर डोनोवन के बेटे के स्कूल रूम में जाती है। डोनोवन का बेटा, बाथरूम में पानी का टब भरकर डोनोवन को बताता है कि किस तरह परमाणु हमले से बचा जा सकता है। यहां निर्देशक, एबल की गिरफ्तारी से उपजे सामाजिक भय को दर्शा रहा है और इसी भय से समाज में एबल और उसके बचाव पक्ष के वकील डोनोवन के खिलाफ उभर रही नफरत को भी दिखा रहा है।

अगले सीन में सीआईए के एजेंट और डोनोवन के बीच संवाद होता है जो इस फिल्म की जान है, जहां सीआईए एजेंट डोनोवन से कहता है, “यहां, कोई रुल बुक नहीं है”। जवाब में डोनोवन कहता है, “तुम्हारे वंशज जर्मनी से लगते है और मैं एक आयरिश-अमेरिकन हूं। हम दोनों को ही अमेरिकन होने का अधिकार ये रुल बुक यानि देश का संविधान ही देता है।” डोनोवन अपनी, सूझ-बूझ से एबल की मौत की सजा को 30 साल की सजा करवाने में कामयाब रहता है और सुप्रीम कोर्ट में एबल के लिये अपील करने की घोषणा करता है जिसे बाद में सुप्रीम कोर्ट ख़ारिज कर देता है।

इस फैसले के बाद कोर्ट रूम के बाहर और डोनोवन के घर में उस पर हमला होता है। यहां पुलिस अधिकारी भी डोनोवन से तर्क-वितर्क करते हैं। परिवार भी डोनोवान से नाखुश है और तो और जिन वकील मित्रों ने डोनोवन को एबल का केस लेने के लिये कहा था, वो भी डोनोवन से मुंह मोड़ लेते है।

फिल्म डोनोवन के संघर्ष को खूबसूरती से दिखाती है और अंत में अमेरिका के एक गुप्तचर और एक आम नागरिक को छोड़ने की शर्त पर एबल को सोवियत संघ को सौंप दिया जाता है।

यह एक बेहतरीन फिल्म थी जहां संवाद बहुत कम लेकिन लाजवाब थे। फिल्म पूरे 2 घन्टे 20 मिनट तक अपने साथ जोड़कर रखती है। यह एक अहम सबक देती है कि लोकतंत्र में संविधान नाम की एक रुल बुक है, जो अपराधी को भी अपने बचाव का पक्ष रखने का मौक़ा देती है। फिर चाहे वह किसी भी अपराध में शामिल क्यों ना हो।

The post ब्रिज ऑफ स्पाइस देखकर समझा कि कसाब को वकील क्यों दिया गया appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz, an award-winning online platform that serves as the hub of thoughtful opinions and reportage on the world's most pressing issues, as witnessed by the current generation. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to find out more.

I cried when I watched this documentary.

I did not cry because I was shocked and shamed by what the rapists or their lawyers said about what they thought of women.They did not say anything India and the world does not already know. I cried because of the dignity and grace of the parents of Jyoti Singh Pandey, the rape victim and because of the glimpse we get of a truly amazing young woman, who would have made us all proud. The BBC was wrong to market it in the way they did; they decided, like most media institutions today, to pursue a path of cheap publicity to gain views through sensationalism and controversy by focusing on the rapists. This film is not about the rapists.

I cannot even begin to fathom the enormity of her parents’ loss or the depth of their suffering. Yet, they have presented themselves with a dignity rarely shown by world leaders or royalty. Their wisdom, stoic demeanour and perspective prove once more that being rich or poor has nothing to do with grace. The parents of Jyoti not only celebrated the birth of their daughter with the same fanfare reserved for boys but also gave her everything they would have given a boy.

Unlike most of us in India, they realised that their child’s happiness had little to do with what they might want for her or what our society’s minimal and fewer expectations are. They decided that the greatest gift they could give her was to nurture the independent spirit with which she was born, and do everything in their power and limited means to help her realise her dreams; not their dreams. So when she asked them to invest the money her father was saving for her marriage into her education, they not only obliged but also sold their ancestral property to help.

Instead of forcing their child down a path of marriage and throttling her ambitions, they lauded and supported her choices. It seems like they gave her a strong value system, taught her to differentiate right from wrong, instilled principles and then let her fly. They allowed her to make her own choices and mistakes but were there to help and support when she asked for it. I think many parents today feel that they need to protect their children from the world, when they really need to give them the values and skills that will help them take on and face the world.

I was also moved by a story about Jyoti’s reaction to a boy who tried to steal her purse. A policeman caught the boy and started to beat him until she intervened and asked the cop to stop. She told him that beating the child would not help him learn his mistake. She took the boy aside and asked him why he tried to steal her purse. He told her that, like her, he too wanted nice clothes, shoes and to be able to eat hamburgers. She bought the boy everything he asked for but also made him promise never to steal again. Wow. Her actions are again a testament to how her parents brought her up. And it makes me think about how we are busy building statues for Mayawati and temples for Modi. Boy, do we have our priorities all wrong.

Yes, the film also interviews one of the rapists and the defence lawyers. But it neither glorifies rape nor gives these men a platform for self-aggrandisement; in fact, it left me feeling the opposite. I felt sorry for these sad and lost men who are clearly trapped by their small minds and medieval misogyny. But the thing that struck me most about what the rapists and their lawyers said was that it sounded like the same things our politicians and leaders have been saying for years; their attitudes about women’s place in our society and their indifference towards women was no different. This, I believe is the reason, our leaders have had such a violent, vicious and fearful reaction to this film. They cannot bear to look into the mirror.

The reason I believe that every Indian must watch this film is two-fold. One, rape is a global problem, not just an Indian one, and monsters exist in every society. Let’s use this as an opportunity to begin an honest debate about our demons. This way we can start to change the attitudes of the next generation of men, empower women and give them equal rights from birth. If we refuse to confront the ugly truths behind its underlying causes, we will only ever treat the symptoms; much like our government does, with hastily passing new laws banning lingerie on mannequins in shops or by banning Uber.

The second reason is to honour the memory of Jyoti. She wanted to live; even after everything that happened. Jyoti wanted to be a doctor, she called it the most honourable profession – being able to heal people and save lives. Let’s use this as an opportunity to make India a place where a ‘girl can do anything’, as she used to say.

If we do this together, not only can we create a stronger and more powerful India, but we will honour Jyoti’s memory and ensure that she lives forever.

Nikhil is an independent columnist and founder of Men4WomensRights.org. Follow them at @M4WRights.

This post was originally published here. Republished on YKA by the author.

_

Image source: YouTube

The post Why We Must Watch ‘India’s Daughter’ appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz, an award-winning online platform that serves as the hub of thoughtful opinions and reportage on the world's most pressing issues, as witnessed by the current generation. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to find out more.

Indians have always had a strange obsession with fair skin as is clearly depicted in Bollywood movies, a trend that still doesn’t seem to fade. Not all Indians are as fair as Bollywood would have you believe. Indian cinema still interprets having a fair complexion as a beauty standard rather than a skin tone. It’s time we stop considering white skin to be synonymous with beauty.

With the majority of the actors being light-skinned there’s almost no representation for dark-skinned people; this unrealistic euro-centric standard set by Bollywood prove to be harmful, especially to dark-skinned girls across the country.

Here are some ways Bollywood blatantly promotes colourism.

1. At The Casting Stage

The main requisite while casting an actress is that she has to be fair, her talent be damned. Renowned actresses like Smita Patil and Nandita Das have faced colourism in the industry.

This discrimination not only affects women but men, too. Actors like Nawazuddin Siddiqui and Dhanush have had to face many challenges because they were not considered to fit the “conventional hero” look.

2. Plots Of Prejudice

The movie “Fashion”, showed Priyanka Chopra’s character hitting rock bottom when she realises she has had a one-night stand with a black guy. Nevermind all the morally questionable things she did before  (which include sabotaging careers and substance abuse). Sleeping with a black guy is the lowest point in her life!

3. Song Lyrics

Songs, too, have contributed to this discrimination; we have been hearing songs celebrating the “gora rang” (white complexion) of the heroine for ages. With songs like “Chitiyaan Kalaiyaan” still being made, Bollywood doesn’t seem to be learning. PS: The lyrics translate to: “I have got fair-complexioned wrists… they’re yours now!”

4. Poor Jokes

We all heard of the incident where actress Tannishtha Chatterjee had to leave a popular comedy show midway because the host cracked jokes on her skin colour, prompting her to call out the colourism prevalent in the industry.

5. ‘Blackface’ Also Happens In India!

On several occasions light-skinned actors are cast for dark-skinned roles and their skin darkened, Alia Bhatt’s character in “Udta Punjab”, being the most recent example. Why not cast a dark-complexioned actor instead?

6. Endorsing Fairness

Another factor that promotes colourism are fairness creams that perpetuate the normalisation of white skin. What’s more harmful is that they cast dusky actors like Shah Rukh Khan and Deepika Padukone, whitewash them and endorse their product, which can be psychologically detrimental and promote internalised colourism.

This is why we need more initiatives like ‘Dark Is Divine’ and #UnfairAndLovely to challenge the norm. Dark skin is just as normal and beautiful and it’s high time we as a society shun this regressive mindset and begin to appreciate and embrace it.

Saumya Anand is an intern with Youth Ki Awaaz for the batch of February-March 2017.

The post 6 Ridiculous Ways Bollywood Continues To Glorify Fair Skin appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz, an award-winning online platform that serves as the hub of thoughtful opinions and reportage on the world's most pressing issues, as witnessed by the current generation. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to find out more.

Playing on the insecurities of women seems to be the daily sport of society at the moment. Patanjali’s latest beauty product ad highlights it with a big bold spotlight.

The ad features two good looking women. The voice-over narrates how one of them uses a Patanjali product and remains beautiful, while the other one uses ‘chemical’ cosmetic products and thus, loses her charm. She then tries to look ‘beautiful’ by putting makeup and is mocked for it. The ‘beautiful’ woman introduces her to the saviour, that is, the Patanjali product.

Well, for starters, let me assure you my problem does not lie with the Patanjali product or a ‘chemical’ product. Frankly, I am more of the opinion of staying as close to nature as possible, and I strongly believe that neither the latter nor Patanjali products are that. Once a product gets into a commercial space, it is bound to have certain industry standards, irrespective of whether the spokespersons and fans of Patanjali agree or not.

My problem lies with the premise of what the advertisement is standing for. I have an equal amount of problem, if not more, with the advertisements of the supposedly ‘chemical’ based beauty products, especially those of fairness creams.

What the market is basically doing is playing on women’s insecurities created by society, leaving them in a state of constant paranoia regarding their looks — because hey, nothing else matters more!

Women are constantly told they are not beautiful, and that their natural state is not wanted, or attractive, and that they constantly need to be a certain way. They aren’t nudged to try; they are instead given ultimatums. “Ghar se bahar kaise jaogi? Sab log kya kahenge? Tumse shaadi kaun karega?” (How will you go out of the house? What will everyone say? Who will marry you?) On the other hand, if they do try, they are mocked. “Papdi ki tarah makeup utar raha hai tumhare muh se.” (Makeup is peeling off of your face.)

Why the society can’t appreciate diverse women is beyond my understanding. Women come in all shapes, sizes and colour. What I do understand is that these notions that have come into existence and are enforced every day. It only makes it more difficult for the women to exist in society. Women have impossible standards shoved down their throats and have no option but to adhere to them. And if they don’t, they are shunned out.

Lady, the skin tone is so much more important than your qualifications if you want a job! The moisturisers that whiten your limbs, because why just the face, eh? The deodorants that whiten your underarms. Hey, that’s what one uses a deodorant for, right? And who could even do without fair underarms? Don’t forget the cleansers that even give you a fairer genital area. The logic just surpasses me on this one!

Yes, I hear your argument that it is the advertising agencies that are doing this and not the society. But what that argument fails to understand is that anything put on television, and quite particularly in advertising, is either the reflection of the society or an effort to change the repressive elements of it. And this does not seem to be the latter at all.

So, lets come back to this Patanjali ad. As the introduction describes, the ‘beautiful’ one, Saundarya, is “paramparao ka palan karne waali” (the girl who observes traditions.) What’s quite obvious an indication here is that the cute smiling girl is inherently a submissive Indian bahu. On the other hand, Aishwarya, the one who uses ‘chemical’ products is a “Bindaas, wannabe type of a girl.” Due to whose moral policing a seemingly outgoing girl becomes the centre of negative conduct is beyond me.

Coming to where the plot intensifies, once Aishwarya has pimples all over her face, she covers them with make-up. They both go to the outside world, that is their college. Saundarya, the goddess, glides past, others mock her sister for using makeup. Now, what exactly is wrong with makeup is not a question we must ask. We must also not ask how visibly both the women in the ad are wearing makeup, while the ad ironically is supposed to be anti-make-up.

So, all in all, what the ad is doing is ridiculing women for not looking naturally nice, enforcing a standard on them, and one which defines beauty. They do try and are ridiculed for trying. What kind of a paradox is this? And what impossible standards are we setting for women?

_

Image source: Baba Ramdev/Facebook, YouTube

The post Why Patanjali’s Beauty Product Ad Makes Me Very, Very Angry appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz, an award-winning online platform that serves as the hub of thoughtful opinions and reportage on the world's most pressing issues, as witnessed by the current generation. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to find out more.

अमीर हो या गरीब… बंबई ने इस ऐतिहासिक घटना का दिल से स्वागत किया। उस शाम ‘ओलंपिया थियेटर’ में मौजूद हर वह शक्स जानता था कि कुछ बेहद रोचक होने वाला है। हुआ भी…दादा साहेब द्वारा एक फिल्म की स्क्रीनिंग की गई…पहली संपूर्ण भारतीय फिल्म राजा हरिश्चंद्र के प्रदर्शन ने हज़ारों भारतीयों के ख्वाब को पूरा किया।

धुंधीराज गोविंद फाल्के (दादा साहेब फाल्के) हांलाकि इस मामले में पहले भारतीय नहीं थे। उनकी फिल्म से एक वर्ष पूर्व रिलीज़ हुई पुंडलीक बहुत मामलों में पहली भारतीय फिल्म कही जा सकती है, लेकिन कुछ विदेशी तकनीशयन होने की वजह से इतिहासकार इसे पहली संपूर्ण भारतीय फिल्म नहीं मानते। फाल्के ने अपनी फिल्म को देश में ही पूरा किया जबकि दादा साहेब तोरणे ने पुंडलीक को प्रोसेसिंग के लिए विदेश भेजा। फिल्म रील मामले में भी फाल्के की राजा हरिश्चंद्र, तोरणे की फिल्म से अधिक बड़ी थी।

‘पुंडलीक’ के विषय में फिरोज रंगूनवाला लिखते हैं, “दादा साहेब तोरणे की ‘पुंडलीक’ 18 मई-1912 को बंबई के कोरोनेशन थियेटर में रिलीज़ हुई। महाराष्ट्र के जाने-माने संत की कथा पर आधारित यह फिल्म, भारत की प्रथम कथा फिल्म बन गई। पहले हफ्ते में ही इसके रिलीज़ को लेकर जन प्रतिक्रिया अपने आप में बेमिसाल घटना थी, जो बेहतरीन विदेशी फिल्म के मामले में भी शायद ही हुई हो।” वह आगे कहते हैं, “पुंडलीक को भारत की पहली रूपक फिल्म माना जाना चाहिए, जो कि फाल्के की ‘राजा हरिश्चंद्र’ से एक वर्ष पूर्व बनी फिल्म थी।”

बहुत से पैमानों पर पुंडलीक को फीचर फिल्म कहा जा सकता है :

1)- कथा पर आधारित अथवा प्रेरित प्रयास 2)- अभिनय पक्ष 3)- पात्रों की संकल्पना 4)- कलाकारों की उपस्थिति
5)- कलाकारों के एक्शन को कैमरे पर रिकार्ड किया जाना।

टाइम्स आफ इंडिया में प्रकाशित समीक्षा में लिखा गया, “पुंडलीक में हिन्दू दर्शकों को आकर्षित करने की क्षमता है। यह एक महान धार्मिक कथा है, इसके समान और कोई धार्मिक नाटक नहीं है।” पुणे के दादासाहेब तोरणे (रामचंद्र गोपाल तोरणे) में धुंधीराज गोविंद फाल्के (दादा साहेब फाल्के) जैसी सिनेमाई दीवानगी थी। उनकी फिल्म ‘पुंडलीक’ फाल्के की फिल्म से पूर्व रिलीज़ हुई, फिर भी तकनीकी वजह से ‘राजा हरिश्चंद्र’ की पहचान पहली संपूर्ण भारतीय फिल्म के रूप में है।

तोरणे की फिल्म को ‘भारत की पहली’ फ़ीचर फिल्म होने का गौरव नहीं मिला। पुंडलीक के रिलीज़ के वक्त तोरणे ने एक विज्ञापन भी जारी किया, जिसमें इसे एक भारतीय की ओर से पहला प्रयास कहा गया। बंबई की लगभग आधी हिन्दू आबादी ने विज्ञापन को देखा। लेकिन यह उन्हें देर से मालूम हुआ कि ‘कोरोनेशन’ में एक शानदार फिल्म रिलीज़ हुई है। पुंडलीक को तकरीबन दो हफ्ते के प्रदर्शन बाद ‘वित्तीय घाटे’ के कारण हटा लिया गया।

तोरणे ने फिल्मों में आने से पहले एक तकनीशियन का काम किया, एक बिजली कंपनी में उन्हें पहला काम मिला। पर यह उनकी तकदीर नहीं थी, कंपनी में रहते हुए वो ‘श्रीपद थियेटर मंडली’ के संपर्क में आए। वह कंपनी की नाट्य-मंडली एवं नाटकों से बेहद प्रभावित हुए, फिर तत्कालीन सिने हलचल ने कला के प्रति उनके रूझान को आगे बढ़ाया। बिजली कंपनी में कुछ वर्षों तक काम करने बाद अपने मित्र एन.चित्रे के वित्तीय सहयोग से कला क्षेत्र में उन्होंने किस्मत आज़माने का बड़ा निर्णय लिया।

तोरणे द्वारा स्थापित सरस्वती फिल्म प्रोडक्शन (सरस्वती सिनेटोन) के तहत अनेक उल्लेखनीय फिल्मों का निर्माण हुआ। इनमें: श्यामसुंदर, भक्त प्रह्लाद, छ्त्रपति शम्भाजी, राजा गोपीचंद, देवयानी जैसी फिल्मों का नाम लिया जा सकता है। रामगोपाल तोरणे सिनेमा कला में दक्ष रहे, माना जाता है कि सरस्वती बैनर की ज़्यादातर फिल्मों की कथा, पटकथा, संपादन, निर्माण, निर्देशन जैसे महत्त्वपूर्ण पक्षों को तोरणे ही देखते थे।

पुंडलीक के निर्माण के समय मोबाइल कैमरा की तकनीक नहीं थी, इसलिए फिल्म को केवल एक कोण पर ही रिकार्ड करना संभव था। रिकार्डिंग से तोरणे संतुष्ट नहीं हुए, इसलिए पूरी फिल्म अलग-अलग हिस्सों में रिकार्ड कर जोड़ने का निर्णय लिया गया। आजकल यही काम ‘संपादक’ करता है… तोरणे सिनेमा से जुड़े महत्त्वपूर्ण तकनीकी पहलूओं के दक्ष जानकार थे। दुख की बात है कि इस सब के बावजूद रामगोपाल तोरणे को लम्बे अर्से तक गुमनामी में जीना पड़ा। वित्तीय संकट की वजह से ‘सरस्वती सिनेटोन’ सन 1944 में तोरणे के हाथों से निकल गई, कंपनी को श्री अहमद ने खरीदा।

‘राजा हरिश्चंद्र’ के निर्माता दादा साहेब फाल्के ने अपनी फिल्म को ‘संपूर्ण स्वदेशी’ कहकर संबोधित किया। स्वदेशी अवधारणा से ‘पुंडलीक’ की दावेदारी को क्षति हुई। तत्कालीन भारतीय परिदृश्य में ‘स्वदेशी’ का उपयोग देशभक्ति के संदर्भ से अभिभूत था। विगत 150 वर्षों से परतंत्रता झेल रहे भारतीयों के लिए ‘स्वदेशी’ फिल्म परतंत्रता की बेड़ियों से ‘मुक्तिगान’ के रूप में जानी गई। लेकिन आज के वैश्विक या ग्लोबल परिदृश्य में जब विदेशी तकनीशियनों और कलाकारों का जोरदार स्वागत है, दादा साहेब फाल्के की स्वदेशी अवधारणा को समझना थोड़ा मुश्किल है।

इस वजह से भारत में सिनेमा के आरंभिक समय से ही कथाओं में ‘फैंटेसी’ और ‘पलायनवाद’ का प्रयोग देखा गया। सिनेमा ने कथावस्तु से सामाजिक एवं राजनीतिक जागरण का दायित्त्व निभाया। बालकानी एवं फ्रंट स्टाल के वंशानुगत विभाजन के बाद भी सिनेमा ने मनोरंजन का लोकतांत्रिक स्वरूप सुदृढ किया। सिनेमा हाल के अंधेरे में आडिटोरियम में धर्म और जाति की दीवारें ढह जाती हैं।

स्वतंत्रता से पूर्व के समयकाल में रजतपट ने राष्ट्रीय संवेदनाओं को एकीकृत करने का काम किया। भारतीय सिनेमा का पहला सेंसर विवाद ‘भक्त विदुर’ (1921) के संबंध में हुआ। फिल्म को सेंसर की बाधा, अश्लीलता या हिंसा की वजह से नहीं बल्कि ‘राष्ट्रवाद’ के संदर्भ में झेलना पड़ी। लेखक आशीष राजध्यक्ष एवं पौल विलमेन ने उनकी पुस्तक ‘भारतीय सिनेमा का संदर्भ इतिहास’ में इस बात की पुष्टि की है।

इसमें शक नहीं कि अधिकांश संचालकों के लिए ‘भारतीय सिनेमा’ व्यवसाय का विषय रहा, लेकिन सुधी फिल्मकारों की कोई कमी न थी। सिनेमा को समाज सुधार एवं राष्ट्र निर्माण का उपकरण मानने वाले फिल्मकारों में वी शांताराम, महबूब खान, बिमल राय और ख्वाजा अहमद अब्बास का नाम लिया जा सकता है। इन्होने सिनेमा को महज मनोरंजन की सीमा से बाहर निकलकर ‘सामाजिक यथार्थ’ का तत्त्व उसमे जोड़ा। फिल्मों को ‘सामाजिक दर्पण’ की सत्ता मानकर इनके माधय्म से ‘परिवर्तन’ की दिशा में उल्लेखनीय कार्य किया। सामाजिक बदलाव का स्वर लेकर असमानता, जातिवाद और सामुदायिक सदभावना जैसे प्रश्नों पर आमजन को शिक्षित किया।

उच्चस्तरीय सिनेमा शीघ्र ही ‘राष्ट्रीय गौरव’ का प्रतीक बन गया। सत्यजीत राय की फिल्म ‘पाथेर पांचाली’ ने कान फिल्म सामारोह फ्रांस (1956) में धूम मचाते हुए ‘सर्वश्रेष्ठ फिल्म’ का पुरस्कार जीता। गौरव का यह सिलसिला एक वर्ष बाद ‘कारलोवी वेरी’ फिल्म सामारोह में शंभू मित्रा की फिल्म ‘जागते रहो’ ने जारी रखा। अभी आज़ादी को महज एक दशक हुआ था, इस महान सफलता ने ‘हम भी सक्षम हैं’ की विचारधारा को विकसित किया।

भोजपुरी सिनेमा की पहली फिल्म ‘गंगा मैया तोहे पियरी चढइबो’ के (1962 में) रिलीज़ होने के तीन वर्ष बाद एक महत्त्वपूर्ण आलेख प्रकाशित हुआ। स्थानीय साप्ताहिक पत्र ‘रम्भा’ ने लिखा “फिल्म की बाक्स ऑफिस कामयाबी ने ‘भोजपुरी’ के महत्त्व एवं प्रासंगिकता में योगदान दिया है। सम्मानजनक भाषाओं की तरह भोजपुरी भी सम्मान की भाषा हो गई है। खासकर भोजपुर वासियों को अपनी भाषा पर गर्व महसूस हो रहा है।” आज जब किसी ‘अनजान’ भाषा की फिल्म को प्रमाणन संस्था, प्रमाण देती है तो यह ‘भारतीय अस्मिता’ का आंदोलन फिर से जीवित हो जाता है।

सिनेमा माध्यम ने पूर्व एवं दक्षिणी सिनेमा को परस्पर संवाद का अवसर दिया। सिनेमा ने दक्षिण एवं पूर्व की दूरियां पाट कर प्रेरणा, प्रोत्साहन व सहयोग से सकारात्मक प्रतिस्पर्धा व प्रोत्साहन के युग की शुरूआत की। दक्षिण क्षेत्र के एस.एस. वासान द्वारा स्थापित ‘जेमिनी फिल्मस’ ने यादगार हिन्दी फिल्मों का निर्माण किया। इस परंपरा को एवीएम एवं प्रसाद प्रोडक्शन ने जारी रखा। हिन्दी फिल्मों व गीतों की ‘राष्ट्रीय लोकप्रियता’ यह बताती है कि सिनेमा देश को एक सूत्र में बांध सकता है। सीमाओं के बावजूद सिनेमा क्रिकेट की तरह एक मज़हब हो गया है।

आज हमारा देश विश्व का सबसे बड़ा फिल्म निर्माता देश है। पचास के दशक में सोवियत संघ एवं मध्यपूर्व एशिया का दिल जीतने वाला भारतीय सिनेमा, ‘वैश्विक परिदृश्य’ में ‘वैश्विक’ अवधारणा बनने को प्रयासरत है। मुख्यधारा के सिनेमा में समय के साथ ‘संरचना’ एवं ‘विषय वस्तु’ में बहुत अधिक बदलाव हुए हैं। आज एक फिल्म की औसतन लम्बाई पहले की अपेक्षा कम हो चुकी है। एक समय में ‘युगल गीतों’ का चलन हुआ करता था लेकिन आज यह यदा-कदा ही नज़र आते हैं।

भारतीय सिनेमा में हर अंदाज़ के ‘सुपरस्टार’ हुए हैं। सपनों के इन सौदागरों ने सिनेमा के माध्यम से आमजन को उनके स्वाद के मुताबिक ‘निर्वाण’ एवं ‘पलायनवाद’ का मार्ग दिया है। आज का दर्शक निर्णय लेकर चयन कर सकता है। आज सिनेमा को याद करना स्वयं को याद करना जैसा है, वह दरअसल हमारी ज़िंदगियों का अक्स ही तो है।

The post ‘पुंडलीक’ को क्यूँ नहीं कहा जाता भारत की पहली फिल्म appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz, an award-winning online platform that serves as the hub of thoughtful opinions and reportage on the world's most pressing issues, as witnessed by the current generation. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to find out more.

किसी पराये मुल्क में खुद को कैसे ढाल लेना चाहिए इसकी मिसाल जाननी हो तो कोलकाता शहर के अफगानी लोगों से एक बार ज़रूर मिलें। जिन्हें आम लोग काबुलीवाला के नाम से जानते हैं। उनका यह नाम रवीन्द्रनाथ टैगोर की एक कहानी काबुलीवाला के नाम पर पड़ा है। जिसमें कहानी का मुख्य किरदार अपना देश काबुल छोड़कर हिन्दुस्तान व्यापार करने आता है और एक छोटी बच्ची से उसे बहुत लगाव हो जाता है।

ड्राई फ्रूट्स और गर्म कपड़ों का व्यापार करने वाले ये लोग करीब 50 साल पहले अफगानिस्तान से भारत आये थे और उन्हें यह ज़मीन इतनी पसंद आयी कि वो वापस अपने मुल्क गये ही नहीं और यहीं बस गये। व्यापार के लिए इन्होने कोलकाता का बाज़ार चुना और आज भी वो इसी शहर में अपनी एक अलग पहचान बनाये हुए जिंदगी बिता रहे हैं।

इनके घरों को कोलकाता में खान कोठी के नाम से जाना जाता है और ये अफगानी लोग अलग रहन-सहन, बोली और संस्कृति के बावजूद भी ये हममें इतने घुल मिल गये हैं कि अब ये पराये नहीं लगते हैं। आज के समय में कोलकाता में तकरीबन 5000 काबुली परिवार हैं और उनमें से पिछली दो पीढ़ियों के लोगों का जन्म तो यहीं भारत में ही हुआ है। आइये देखते हैं उनकी ज़िन्दगी से हमें रूबरू कराती एक बेहतरीन शार्ट फिल्म।

Video Courtesy : 101 India 

The post काबुलीवाला: पराये मुल्क के अपने लोग appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz, an award-winning online platform that serves as the hub of thoughtful opinions and reportage on the world's most pressing issues, as witnessed by the current generation. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to find out more.

मेरे पिया गए इंग्लैंड, रंगून फिल्म का गाना है, रेखा भारद्वाज ने गाया है। सुन कर अच्छा लगेगा, ढोलक की मस्त आवाज़ आती है, कंगना ठुमके भी मस्त लगाती हैं, फ़ौजी भी दिखेंगे, थोड़ा ड्रामैटिक भी है। मुझे तो गाने के बोल पहली बार में अजीब से, अलग से लगे और जी हां, जो हटके दिखता है- वही बिकता है।

शायद इसलिए इसे इतना हटाया गया, फ़ौजियों के सामने परफॉरमेंस हो तो तोपों पर चढ़कर ठुमके लगाना शायद काम कर जाए, पर मेरी फ़ेमिनिस्टिक सोच हर लुभावनी चीज़ में कमी ढूंढ लेती है।

गाने के बोल हैं- मेरे मियां गए इंग्लैंड, बजा के बैंड, जाने कहाँ करेंगे लैंड… इस तरह वो पूरा बखान करती है अपने मियां का और अंत में इंग्लैंड-पेरिस घूमने वाले मियाँ से गुजारिश करती है कि “बस भूल ना जाए मेरा बस-स्टैंड।”

मेरी समझ से परे है, कि बॉलीवुड में अभी भी ऐसी फ़िल्में और गाने क्यों बनते हैं? क्या उन्हें लगता है कि अभी भी लड़कियां ऐसे गाने सुन कर खुश हो जाएंगी? क्या अभी भी वो अपने मियां से बस इतना चाहती हैं कि वो उन्हें भूले ना? क्या वाकई अभी भी लड़कियां प्यार में इतनी बावली हैं?

ज़नाब अब लड़कियां खुद अकेले पेरिस-इंग्लैंड घूम आती हैं और लड़कियां ज़िद करके मियाँ जी को साथ भी लेके जाती हैं। मैं नहीं कनेक्ट कर पायी गाने से खुद को। हाँ ये गाना कुछ-कुछ, “मेरे पिया गए रंगून” जैसा है, लेकिन उसके लिरिक्स ज्यादा अच्छे थे, जिसमे गए पिया टेलिफ़ोन करते हैं, तो वो कहती है कि तुम्हारी याद आती है।

जो लड़कियाँ “लन्दन ठुमकदा” जैसे गानों पर थिरकती हों, वो कैसे कनेक्ट करेंगी ऐसे गाने से? करना भी नहीं चाहिए। लड़कियां कमाल हैं-बवाल हैं, सिर्फ प्रेम में बावली नहीं है। बॉलीवुड को उन्हें सिर्फ इंतज़ार करती औरत के रूप में दिखाना अब बंद करना चाहिए।

The post लड़कियां कमाल हैं, बवाल हैं सिर्फ प्रेम में बावली नहीं है appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz, an award-winning online platform that serves as the hub of thoughtful opinions and reportage on the world's most pressing issues, as witnessed by the current generation. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to find out more.

एक लड़के द्वारा बेली डांस का प्रदर्शन। सुनकर अजीब लगता हैं ना, क्योंकि नृत्य की इस प्रसिद्द शैली का नाम सुनते ही हमारे दिमाग में हमेशा इसे प्रस्तुत करते हुए एक महिला की ही छवि उभरती है। आमतौर पर महिला कलाकारों द्वारा ही इसे प्रस्तुत किया जाता रहा है, लेकिन अब लड़के भी इसे सीख रहे हैं और इन सीमाओं को तोड़ रहे हैं।

हालांकि यह अभी बहुत प्रचलित नहीं है और इसके पीछे कई तर्क दिए जाते हैं जो कि प्रमुख रूप से समाज की पित्रसत्तात्मक सोच से प्रभावित रहे हैं। हमारे समाज में मर्द और स्त्री के बीच इस तरह का बंटवारा हैं कि नृत्य की इस शैली को भी महिलाओं तक ही सीमित किया गया है और यदि कोई मर्द इसे सीखना चाहे या इसे प्रस्तुत करना चाहे तो उसे घर-परिवार, दोस्तों और उसके आस-पास के लोगों के भारी विरोध और तानों से गुजरना पड़ता है।

लेकिन इन सब के बावजूद कुछ लोग ऐसी कोशिशें कर रहे हैं क्योंकि नृत्य का सम्बन्ध आपके स्त्री या पुरुष होने से नहीं बल्कि यह आपके व्यक्तिगत रुझान पर निर्भर करता है। देखिये समाज में स्थापित इन वर्जनाओं (taboo) को तोड़ते हुए बैली डांस कलाकारों ईशान हिलाल और वासु चौहान द्वारा नृत्य की इस शैली को अपनाने के सफ़र को दर्ज करता यह छोटा सा विडियो-

Video Courtesy: 101 India 

The post सोशल टैबूज़ को तोड़ते ये मेल बेली डांसर्स appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz, an award-winning online platform that serves as the hub of thoughtful opinions and reportage on the world's most pressing issues, as witnessed by the current generation. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to find out more.

Cinema in India for long, without a doubt, has been a major force. It fuels and adds dimensions to the existing socio-cultural and political environment. Despite being on the cusp of a paradigm change in terms of filmmaking and themes, its treatment of people belonging to the LGBTQ community is still myopic. It has still not gone beyond the ‘ugly’, ‘sissy’, ‘pansy’ and ‘butch’ portrayals. Celluloid has ben pretty harsh, stereotypical and has circumambulated around the archaic ‘Hays code‘.

How queer characters are still deployed only for comic relief, as sidekicks or as villains, be it, Amitabh Bachchan lampooning in a sari imitating a transgender in “Laawaris” or Osma Jasmine in “I”, whose sexual desire towards the hero is her only goal in life. Portrayals of LGBTQ people have been stereotypical. They have been shown as debauched characters, saying salacious dialogues and the portrayal often takes the form of ‘soft porn’.

The Malayalam movie industry, during a period solely famous for soft porn, has a rather love-hate relationship with its character portrayals. It has been exceptionally bold and also narrow-minded and hypocritical. Yet, it has always stood in the celluloid high table and has given us realistic and pathbreaking cinema.”Randu Penkuttikal” was Malayalam cinema’s first prominent encounter with lesbian relationships. Yet, its boldness ultimately gave in to the orthodox society, explaining the lesbian relationship between two childhood friends as a passing stage in every adolescent girl’s life. Despite being way ahead of its time in a conservative society like Kerala, it was not able to achieve what a movie like “Blue Is the Warmest Colour” was able to.

I am sorry to say, but Indian cinema always had this tendency to applaud and shower laurels on the wrong kind of cinema. Even the pioneers of Indian cinema such as Deepa Mehta, have made films like “Fire”, which actually treated the subject of lesbianism with kid gloves, depicting the relationship in the movie as a result of a failed marriage and as a means of equalising the power alchemy in a patriarchal family. It actually downplayed the very essence that makes up the fabric of homosexual relationships, seeing it is as a means to fight against male chauvinism.

Another Malayalam film called “Chanthupottu” is centred around an effeminate dancer and how the society looks upon him. The movie had a ‘happy ending’, as the character becomes more masculine and has a child. The character proves to everyone that he is ‘normal’. There is a scene in the movie where the protagonist’s mother asks him to fall in love with a girl and marry her so that the society stops ostracising him.

Despite narrow portrayals at times, certain movies like “Desatanakkili Karayarilla”, “Sancharam”, “Ardhanaari”, “Papilio Buddha”, etc., stand out in the representation of the LGBTQ community in India. Padmarajan’s “Desatanakkili Karayarilla” depicted the tale of two rebellious students whose life takes a turn after a school tour. Never in the movie do they explicitly depict the lesbian relationship, but give us subtle and intelligible hints.The movie stands out not only in its bold narrative but also the fact that a superstar in the peak of his career was ready to act in it, that too in a less prominent role.

The portrayal of the LGBTQ community in Bollywood, India’s most prominent face of cinema has been rather narrow. It has depicted alternative sexualities as a subversive culture of the west, as an ‘evil’ of urbanisation and the corporate world. Don’t forget the plethora of effeminate dance teachers, hairdressers who are transgender, gay fashion designers and software engineers shown in Indian cinema. Juxtapose this with Malayalam cinemas like “Sancharam” showing a lesbian relationship in the backdrop of a rural orthodox church. It doesn’t carry around a cul de sac view of restricting a person’s sexuality to their geographic identification and occupation. It revisits the whole sociological and gender studies debate on the relevance and reflection of LGBTQ portrayals in subaltern spaces. It further raises the questions linking gender fluidity to geographical spaces and occupational hierarchies.

Bollywood, on account of having a pan-Indian colour despite the criticisms and hypocrisies, has played a bit of role in bringing topics of the LGBTQ community to the dining table. Is this something to be proud of? Elsewhere, no. In homophobic India, it just might be.

We need to see films where an alternate sexuality is only a part and not the sole thing of the characters’ lives. The tendency to depict LGBTQ characters as unidimensional needs to be dropped. We need to accept the fact that sexuality is only one part of a character and there is no need to reduce a person’s entire existence to it.

“Mumbai Police”, a stylish thriller stood out as the sexuality of the character is only a subplot to a brilliantly made flick. The issue in itself presents a dichotomy, between whether such portrayals would create a more accepting space or will it only lead to further subjugation by dominant gender identities. We are yet to have films that portray them as complex characters with myriad idiosyncracies and their own stories. Not just melancholic unidimensional tales focusing solely on their sexuality and the societal stigma they face. A serious question that needs to be debated. Restrictive censorship which makes it hard for movies like ‘My life partner’,’Ka Bodyscapes’ and ‘Unfreedom” further reflects the state’s actual mentality to artistic expressions and notions.

Malayalam cinema needs to see more progressive representations, not only of existing LGBTQ themes but also of the lesser discussed colours in the rainbow. We need to see more ‘in your face’ flicks with LGBTQ themes, exactly the same manner in which the community took up ‘queer’, a pejorative word used against them, as the very name of the community.

_

Image source: YouTube

The post What Bollywood Can Learn From Malayalam Cinema’s Portrayal Of The LGBTQ Community appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz, an award-winning online platform that serves as the hub of thoughtful opinions and reportage on the world's most pressing issues, as witnessed by the current generation. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to find out more.

Cinema is rarely acknowledged as an exclusive domain of academia, but it offers a very rich dimension to our understanding of an issue. It has the power to move us and shake our beliefs in a manner not possible through any other medium. Apart from the direct influence it wields, cinema can be read as a source and also as a performative act. That is how we can understand the relation between the medium and the audience.

The signifier and the signified here takes a much more diverse form because the signifier here is not just a spoken or written word, it is a performance unfolding before us. So is the signified, which is not just an image, but also a sound, a spoken word. Thus, the commentary that establishes the plane of interaction between the signifier and the signified is not just an unspoken word but also an incomplete or even absent gesture, emotion and expression.

It is in these silences that I wish to locate the film. Thus, the analysis of the film is not just the critical description of the nuances of the film but also the conscious state that I go through while watching this film as part of an academic exercise and as a history student. It would have been an entirely different exercise had I been watching this movie as a lay viewer. Also, we can use Derrida’s conception of re-reading the text. As he points out, a preface of a text is basically a re-reading of the text by the author, as it is based on a perceived meaning of the text, but no text is read twice in the same way. So, every time someone re-reads a text, he acquires meanings that are very different from the meaning which may have been intended. Thus, as Michel Foucault points out, in treating the signifier as an enigma and trying to resolve it through commentary, a word becomes signified and layers of meanings open up that were not originally intended.

Let’s come to the movie “Aligarh” now. In the first scene, through the use of a pan camera angle and night vision shots, the movie tries to establish the mundane and gloomy existence of the protagonist, which also serves as the pretext for the subsequent scene, which establishes one night as a perceived metaphor for the working of the ‘illegitimate’ domain of sexuality. It is perceived because this autonomy of ‘personal domain of sexuality’ is to be disrupted by the ‘social ethics of sexuality’. Again, we go to Foucault, who points out educational institutions, hospitals and churches as sites where the ‘discursive discourse’ of sexuality is defined as well as regulated, and in a sense, exercised.

Curiously enough, the one who is scrutinised for his ‘unethical’ sexual behaviour is the professor. Thus, Aligarh can be seen as a site for defining the institutional modalities of sexuality and a homophobic structure through which the sexual code of hetero-normativity is exuberated. “Aligarh” is also a story of alienation. An individual is a metaphor for the different spheres of alienation that interact and overlap with each other. So, professor Siras is not just a culturally alienated figure due to the linguistic differences but also alienated as an odd one out in the community of patriarchal family units.

A single, unmarried and divorced person is seen as sexually dangerous. He is a digression from the normal sexual code defined by our society, which needs to be regulated and if necessary, purged. In a sense, it represents the power structure held by the social bodies, expressed both linguistically (through suggestive signification) as well as through social and violent reactions. The interaction between professor Siras and Deepu is a sphere of overlapping of spheres of both the individuals.

The cameramen who recorded Siras’ relation with the rickshaw puller, as well as Deepu’s first interaction with Siras (with his over-exuberant cameraman friend clicking pictures) are encroaching the space of Siras. Only when Siras allows him into his space is Deepu able to carry forward his work.

The dilemma of Siras to interact with outsiders and trying to escape from his existential crisis is also reflected in the narrative. The songs he plays on the recorder also help him to momentarily escape from his miserable existence. In another scene, the playing of old songs carries with itself an air of nostalgia which helps him escape the misery, existential crisis, cultural alienation and sexual jeopardy as well as social ostracisation in the present. The inner domain of both the characters are claustrophobic to various degrees. Thus, the narrative is also an interaction of claustrophobia between an indifferent metropolitan vs. the morally scrutinising Aligarh

We find that the deployment of sexuality via cultural norms are more severe than the linguistic reluctance associated with the taxonomy of sexuality. Sexual divergences are either criminalised or pathologised, wherein the individual becomes a mirror of its sexual choices.

He or she becomes an object of severe authoritarian gaze which objectifies the individual to an extent that they become a mere face to a sexual category. It also offers perspective on the concept of space defined generally through the binary of public and private. What we witness in the narrative can be termed as the ‘encroachment of space’ of an individual, which raises questions as to whether morality and norms of propriety can be universally attributed and reinforced. It also asks if those norms can be forcefully imposed in the private sphere, within the very existence and identity of an individual? Also, can a person be punished for violating norms of propriety that doesn’t create any external problem?

In fact, through the court scenes, the punishment meted out to the individual for his perceived divergences are justified through a teleological rhetoric of greater good of the society. Thus, the violation of the right to privacy and human dignity are garbed under the rhetoric of social morality.

The film raises questions as to whether morality has a cultural bearing. How come sexuality acquires an overarching discourse that dominates the sphere of politics, society and culture? How come the digression from hetero-normative sexuality acquires a much graver disdain when associated with the question of class? What it reflects is a bourgeoisie idea of morality and secondly, it assumes a layer of exploitation when two different classes are engaged in such a relation.

In the end, the movie comes full circle to the idea of claustrophobic existence. Even though Siras wins the case, the hopelessness of the justice system and the social prejudices associated with the identification and the reluctant affirmation of that existence makes the claustrophobia greater.

Siras succumbs to the claustrophobia in and out. Now, there is no clarity on how Siras actually died and speculations of his alleged murder are very ripe. This again points out the social stigma and its violent repercussions when society doesn’t let go of its prejudices, and as we see in this case, how it becomes a bigger entity than the life of an individual. Perhaps it reflects the reluctance on the part of the moral community to accept its defeat. Anyways, Siras was choked to death by the claustrophobia that defined both his private and public sphere.

The film helps us chart out different layers of power structures, sexualities and most of all it questions our existence and how much of it actually belongs to us and how much of it is surrounded by the notions that not only guide but sometimes dictate and forcefully determine our existence. The bigger question is related to our right to live with an identity that is truly ours. Or whether there is something that we can call ‘our existence’, or even that in totality is a social construct.

_

Image source: YouTube

The post How ‘Aligarh’ Helps Us Chart Out Different Layers Of Power Structures appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz, an award-winning online platform that serves as the hub of thoughtful opinions and reportage on the world's most pressing issues, as witnessed by the current generation. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to find out more.