Translate

Saturday, March 1, 2014

Subir Bhaumik -Why is Bollywood so insensitive?

March 2, 2014 

Bollywood has big budgets, latest technology and an appeal across the world that would make any competitor envious. What it lacks is imagination and so often it fails to get its history right. The faux pas over ‘Gunday’ brings this into sharp focus. How could its makers get 1971 so horribly wrong! Is it just sloppy oversight, poor research and lack of historical perspective — or some kind of a ‘know-all attitude’ that permeates the entertainment czars who rule the tinsel town in the Indian financial-entertainment hub?

In late 2011, I had lunch with a top Bollywood producer, one who had started to produce films after having made his millions as an actor. He was out on a tour of India’s many regions to promote his latest hit. Having heard him out on his latest film, I made him an offer. I said there is a great plot waiting to be done into a war film because Bollywood has so few of them and those that are there are hardly worth talking about. He admitted Bollywood’s failure to produce great war films, despite the many wars India has fought after independence.

That is when I told him about ‘Operation Jackpot’, one of the best-coordinated naval commando operations in the history of warfare. If properly done, this could be Bollywood’s Guns of Navronne, I reasoned with the producer. I told him with some pride that the men who pulled off ‘Ops Jackpot’ were not the usual big moustache martial races of the sub-continent, but diminutive rice-eating Bengalis who blew up all available shipping on several East Pakistan ports within a span of few hours and left the harbours clogged to the nightmare of the beleaguered Pakistani commanders in 1971.

Just after I had finished, he chipped in — “But this is a Bangladesh story, how will I sell it to an Indian audience”. I had to remind the producer that 1971 was a Bangladesh story as well as an Indian story because the war was fought together. He appeared less than convinced even after I had told him that Indian naval officers were involved in the planning of the operation, though it was the brave Bengalis who executed it. He asked me for some preliminary research material on ‘Ops Jackpot’ which I agreed to provide. But it really did not take off and the producer never got back to me. I have not named him because I want no controversy and would keep looking for someone to do possible film on ‘Ops Jackpot’. But if the pre-condition of a Bollywood producer to do the film is to find an Indian angle to launch an Indian Rambo into the choppy waters of East Pakistan, I am afraid I am not game. Simply because though Indian officials were involved in planning ‘Ops Jackpot’, the action on ground did not involve them.

A few months ago, I had a long chat on this issue with my good friend Aravind Adiga, whose debut novel, White Tiger, won the 2008 Man Booker prize. He was in Kolkata, researching 1971 and we talked about the war, which I had seen at close quarters as a schoolboy in my hometown Agartala. Aravind has been a colleague at Time magazine and we have known each other for years. He lives in Bombay (I prefer that to Mumbai) and has many big-time contacts in Bollywood. He promised to pass on my idea to those who may possibly be interested to turn it into a film.

But what haunts me is that question, which others interested in the plot may also ask — where is the Indian angle to the story? How do we sell it to an Indian audience, how do we appeal to the huge Indian market? I have a ready answer — for all practical purposes, it was a war we fought together, so 1971 is both a Bangladesh story and an Indian story but a story we made together and not — I repeat not — made in isolation. For the Bengalis who sacrificed so much for independence, it was a dream come true. For India, and surely its military, this was its finest hour. But if any film is made or book is written on 1971, it has to have in fair measure both sides of the story — the Bangladesh side and the Indian side.

I strongly suspect that the makers of ‘Gunday’ have messed up in their eagerness to make a film for an Indian audience and have ended up projecting 1971 as an India-Pakistan war. That also betrays the classic Indian obsession with Pakistan — as if it is the one neighbour we have. Ignorance should foster humility but sometimes it promotes arrogance, especially in Bollywood, with all its wealth, power and reach. So the makers of ‘Gunday’ should not try to get away with a joke of an apology, saying they did not intend to hurt anybody’s sentiment. Very often, sentiments of a people and a nation are hurt inadvertently by foreigners who are ignorant and unwilling to double-check.

Bollywood films have huge budgets — surely some of it could be spared for research. Any researcher who knows 1971 — including many important Indians who played a role in it and are still alive — would tell the makers of ‘Gunday’ to get enough of the eight months of Bengali suffering and heroism into the film before it turns into an Indian story.

I have said this before and would say it again that Bollywood is one of the key elements of India’s soft power. From Russia to Egypt, from Japan to Africa, audiences swing to its song-and-dance extravaganzas. That is precisely why it is so important that governments in Delhi must be extra careful with what Bollywood does. The Censors must be more sensitive to episodes that could hurt sentiments in the neighbourhood and they surely need to impress on filmmakers to get their history right. 1971 was a great moment for both India and Bangladesh. We don’t want a ‘Gunday’ to spoil that wonderful ‘bliss-was-it-in-that-dawn-to-be-alive’ memory.

International Womens Day 1996 - 2014 Theme

International Womens Day 2014 Theme

2014 theme is "Inspiring Change"

International Womens Day Themes

Global United Nation themes used for International Women's Day to date:
2013 - "The Gender Agend: Gaining Momentum"
2012 - "Connecting Girls Inspiring Futures"
2011 - "Equal access to education, training and science and technology: Pathway to decent work for women"
2010- "Equal rights, equal opportunities: Progress for all" 
2009 - Women and men united to end violence against women and girls
2008 - Investing in Women and Girls
2007 - Ending Impunity for Violence against Women and Girls
2006 - Women in decision-making
2005 - Gender Equality Beyond 2005: Building a More Secure Future
2004 - Women and HIV/AIDS
2003 - Gender Equality and the Millennium Development Goals
2002 - Afghan Women Today: Realities and Opportunities
2001 - Women and Peace: Women Managing Conflicts
2000 - Women Uniting for Peace
1999 - World Free of Violence against Women
1998 - Women and Human Rights
1997 - Women at the Peace Table
1996 - Celebrating the Past, Planning for the Future
In 2009, Queensland celebrating its 150th birthday. The Queensland Government’s year-long celebrations (Q150) have been planned to enable Queenslanders to receive stock, reflect back, think ahead and move forward.
This landmark also provides an occasion to celebrate 150 years of astounding women and reflect on the achievement of the many pioneering and inspirational women who have contribute to making Queensland the State we have become.
Themed Our Women, Our State, International Womens Day 2009 aim to celebrate Q150 by reflecting on the women and their achievement, as well the events, places and stories important to women, who have contribute to shaping Queensland since its separation from New South Wales in 1859.
Through reflection on the achievement and contributions of women to Queensland through the last 150 years, the, International Womens Day theme aims to inspire all Queensland girls and women to consider how they can contribute to building tomorrow's Queensland.

Muslims are not required to cover up: ‘Hijab’ has nothing to do with morality: Farzana Hassan and Tarek Fatah

The Globe and Mail, Toronto

Originally a source of modesty, the hijab, or Muslim head scarf, has become a political tool.

Its latest manifestation came this week with the sight of 10-year old Muslim girls refusing to give up their hijab in a Quebec tae kwon do tournament, when the helmets would have served the same purpose of modesty and much more.

All Canadian women have, at some time in their lives, chosen to wear a head cover. In blinding snow storms or freezing rain, the covering of the head, irrespective of what religion one practises, is crucial to one’s survival.

Halfway across the world, in the deserts of Arabia, whether one was a Muslim or a pagan, the covering of one’s head and face was an absolute necessity — not just when facing a blistering sandstorm, but any time one stepped out of the home in the searing sun.

What was essentially attire for a particular climate and weather has been turned into a modern symbol of defiance and, at best, a show of piety by Islamists and orthodox Muslims.

There is not a single reference in the Koran that obliges Muslim women to cover their hair or their face. The only verse that comes close to such a dress code (Sura 24, “The Light,” verse 31) directs believing women to let their head coverings obscure their bosoms.

Yet, in the past few decades, Islamists and orthodox Muslims have made the covering of a woman’s head the cornerstone of Muslim identity. The head cover been pushed as a symbol of piety and only the Egyptian and Saudi version of the head cover — the hijab — is considered worthy of respect. Coverings that originate in South Asia, the sari or the dupatta, have been relegated as less authentic under Islam.

It is true that through history, Muslim women have chosen to wear the hijab for reasons of modesty. Today, however, some wear it for the opposite reason. “Young women put on a hijab and go dancing, wearing high heels and lipstick. They wear tight jeans that show their bellies,” 75-year old Nawal Al-Saadawi, Egypt’s leading feminist, noted recently. She is bitter at how the covering of a women’s head has been misrepresented as an act of piety and the most defining symbol of Islam.

Beyond fashion, however, this supposed symbol of modesty has assumed a decidedly political and religious tenor, dominating the debate on civil liberties and religious freedoms in the West. Any opposition to the hijab is viewed as a manifestation of Islamophobia.

This was the argument when young Asmahan Mansour was barred from a soccer league in Quebec, as she refused to remove her hijab while playing the sport. Quebec’s electoral officer recently moved to disallow fully veiled Muslim women from voting, as they would not be able to identify themselves adequately.

The piece of cloth becomes a subject of controversy also because those who favour its use claim it is religiously mandated and regard its use as their Charter-protected right. To dispense with the garment while playing a sport would amount to committing a sacrilege.

An inquiry into historical precedent, however, suggests the Koran does not mandate the hijab at all.

It should be noted that the khimar, a head scarf that predated the hijab, was worn by Arab women before the Koran’s stipulations on modesty of dress and demeanour. Verse 24:31 did not introduce the garment, but modified its use when it said that Muslim women should “wear their head-coverings over their bosoms” — previously, they were left bare, although decked with jewellery and ornaments.

The intent of the verse was to exhort believing women to cover their nakedness rather than their hair, which was left partially uncovered even though the khimar was a head dress.

Moreover, the khimar was never rooted in religious precept — it was rooted in custom. Modifications for its use were introduced into Islamic practice when the religion spread into Byzantine and Persian territories, where once again the head dress was prevalent as a social custom.

The khimar was also a symbol of class and distinction rather than of religion precept in pre-Islamic and early Islamic history. Indeed, there existed a hierarchy of sorts where slave women were actually barred from veiling.

Omar bin Khattab, Islam’s second caliph, for example, ordered harsh treatment to slave women who donned the veil. Surely, if the veil was based on religious precept, its use would not be enforced so selectively.

Therefore, to turn the hijab or khimar into a religious and political issue belies its original intent. Muslim women who so vociferously defend its religious use should consider its history before determining whether they must wear it.

Islamists have turned the hijab into the central pillar of Islam. They consider Muslim women who do not cover their heads — the vast majority — as sinners or lesser Muslims. They should come out and debate the issue rather than using young Muslim girls as shields to pursue a political agenda.