A recent documentary made by BBC, called India’s Daughter,
deals with the case of Jyoti Singh, a medical student who was brutally gang
raped in Delhi a few years ago. In addition to being raped, she was so severely
beaten that she died a few days later. This shocking incidence was reported
worldwide and in India it served as a wakeup call to do something about this
major blight in the society.
This very well made documentary chronicles the event through
multiple interviews and provides a glimpse in the minds of certain members of
the society who think of women as available targets, especially if they do not
obey strict rules of behavior. It also shows the revulsion felt by a large
segment of the society at the brutality of crime, and the brazen way it was committed.
Their demand to do something about it comes through loud and clear in this
well-balanced documentary.
The Indian government has decided to ban showing of this
documentary in the country and may even decide to file a lawsuit against BBC.
Although no clear reason is given, the probable one is that it shows India in a
bad light and may affect tourism.
Besides that, folks from India have put forth several additional reasons
why such an action is justifiable: It gives a platform to one of the rapists
who was interviewed for the documentary, it was made by a British woman (not an
Indian), and it ignores the fact that there are many other nations that have higher
rape statistics than India.
I feel that these objections are not justified.
In terms of showing India in a bad light----this is an old incidence.
So if any harm was done to India’s image that was a long time ago, and this
documentary is unlikely to do additional damage. Yes it does show the dark side
of the Indian society, but it also shows that it is a vibrant and law-abiding democracy
where people are allowed to protest in the street and even rapists are given a
fair trial. They are not taken to a nearby tree and hung, as would be the case
in many countries.
This documentary does provide one of the rapists an
opportunity to talk about the incidence and why he and his friends committed
such a horrible crime. He comes across remorseless and blames the girl, at
least partially, for the rape. Even more frightening than the interview of the
rapist are the ones of their lawyers. One of them proclaims that, “We have the
best culture. In our culture there is no place for a woman.” In his vocabulary,
a woman is someone who is not a lady. The other lawyer says that, “If my
daughter engaged in pre-marital activities, I will put petrol on her and set
her alight.” Remember, these are lawyers,
not criminals.
These interviews are pivotal because without them the power
of the film would diminish. They provide a window in their warped minds, and in
doing so demonstrate that the root cause for such crimes is the way women are
thought of by a certain (significant?) segment of the society---not just the poor
slum dwellers but educated professionals---and nothing will change unless that
basic issue is addressed.
Many people believe that providing platform to criminals
will lead to copycat crimes by others who would want to have their viewpoints broadcasted by the
media. That may true for terrorists who have a message to give to the world even
if it cost them their lives. I cannot
see why that would be the case for rapists. They are committing crimes in
response to their obscene prejudices and impulses, and not to make a
statement. I cannot imagine a copycat
rapist saying that: “Aha, if I go through with this rape, BBC will interview me
and I will appear in a documentary while I wait for my death sentence to be
carried out.”
Yes, a British woman, not an Indian, made this
documentary. My question is: Why didn’t
an Indian make it? In the US, where we have our set of problems, such as gun
violence, a person like Michael Moore makes a film with as much bite as India’s
Daughter, showing America in a very bad light, so to speak. Such films are not
banned; people watch them and make their own decisions. Why are folks in India so afraid of films showing their dark side?
Finally, and this is somewhat bizarre----I have seen some
people in India dredging up statistics of rape in various countries and arguing
that it is worse in other places. So, there should be documentaries about rapes
committed over there, not in India. South Africa, England, America, and
Australia are mentioned as those high on the list.
India’s Daughter is not a United Nations report on rape
worldwide; it is about a ghastly incidence that drew worldwide attention. Filmmakers
decide on a topic based on how compelling and interesting is the story, not
based on statistics for the type of incidence covered by it. That’s why they
make a documentary about people getting killed by guns in US, even when there
are many countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Honduras) where the likelihood
of dying by gun is much higher.
In any case, would arguing that the situation in a worse in
another country take away what is going on in our own? Also, do these people
believe that rape statistics truly represent what is going on in a country?
What percentage of rapes in India do they think get reported?
Interestingly, by banning the film, Indian government has
made this documentary more popular than it would have been otherwise. It is
available on YouTube despite government’s effort to stop it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I totally agree with you that Indian government should not banned this documentary. I will go further that they missed the opportunity to show it in different languages to masses what others think of India. I was surprised that Shobha de did not support BBC although she agreed that it shold not have been banned. It is over censorship and use of power. We in India refuse to face any social problem head on unlike Americans do. Even government views on LGBT are abhorring and should be corrected with time. Barring gun control act, American politicians are open to listen and change laws with reality. I wish more educated people run Indian government!
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree that this documentary should not have been banned. I think the Indian government was caught on the wrong foot for doing so. However, 99% of all the Indian media (social and conventional) concerning the BBC documentary was in total opposition to the ban. That reflects the real opinion of Indians (rather than the government's official position).
ReplyDeleteMoreover, I disagree that Indians do not make documentaries on their "dark side". Many have been made. The best and the most powerful are 20 odd episodes of Aamir Khan's Satyamevajayati series. These excellent documentaries do not just expose the dark areas but also offer concrete remedies. All these are on the Internet in HD quality for everyone to watch.
Sharad, you are absolutely right. I forgot about the Amir Khan's documentaries. They are outstanding.
DeleteWell, I can understand the outrage over the ban, but consider this. Apparently, Leslie Udwin signed a paper which said the film was not going to be used for commercial purposes, and that it was only a documentary for educational purposes etc. She then sold the film to BBC, obviously for commercial purposes, and judging from the success of the film in the West, to others as well. So the Indian govt. was justifiably irate about this particular aspect. There was no need to abet her commercial deceit by permitting the film to be shown in India, where the film box office receipts would probably exceed those in the west. I would suggest she needs to offer it for free to the Indian govt, to be shown at the govt's discretion. I believe the Indian govt. did fall into a trap and made it even more successful at least in the West (but not in India) by banning the film in India.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I have not seen the film obviously (because of the ban), but I suspect there are aspects of the film, which may only appeal to the wrong people's prurient interests, without any of the redeeming value claimed by the film's supporters, which may also justify banning the film in India. I think the protests following the Nirbhaya event, did far more to highlight the ills of such incidents, as anyone who lived in India in those times would testify.
Sections of male society in India and likely even in the "civilized" west, do have horrific attitudes towards women, exacerbated by cast differences, but that does not mean the govt. is tolerant about these attitudes, as interpreted by the ban by some folks in the west. It is just that the law in India is too lenient about such crimes in my opinion, and needs to be "beefed" up.
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Vijay. It does provide some needed background material for those of us in the West.
DeleteThanks, Ashok. I mean in the West everyone is for freedom of expression and all that, but freedom for a few in the arts cannot be at the expense of the many (Maybe I becoming ill-liberal in my old age!)
DeleteAlso, if Udwin were to donate the proceeds to charity for women's education in India or rape victims, then too someone in the Indian govt. would take a kindlier view about this film!
Thanks Vijay. I like the idea that Udwin should donate to some charity in India. I have never heard of her (unlike Louis Malle who made the previous documentary that was banned).
Delete