Questioning the Ethics of Filmmaking: Bollywood Fetisizes Violence

newspaper clipping of Arushi's case via Hindustantimes.com

On May 16, 2008, Indian televisions and news channels were flooded with the murder of 14-year-old Aarushi Talwar who was a student at the Delhi Public School in Noida, U.P. Although I had been in India at that time and actually in Noida, I was in my early 20s absorbing the sights and smells of India and completely ignorant of the events that were taking place around me. I do, however, have a faint memory of the media circus that took place near Aarushi's home because I had lived in Noida for some time as I had been visiting my relatives there. This case, like many cases in India including the 2012 Delhi Rape case, has been in the court for the past 5 years! Her story has all the elements of a drama: suspicion on the domestic help and parents (both affluent doctors). The prime suspect, Hemraj's body was found on the terrace of the apartment. Most recent development of this disturbing and sensationalized news suggests that it was the parents who were allegedly responsible for the murder of the domestic servant and their young daughter. Their motives in the even recent news report seem unclear.  

Milan Lutharia 

While the case is still undergoing investigation, Times of India has released an article claiming that filmmaker Milan Lutharia will be undertaking this controversial topic and making it into a film. Lutharia is known to team with Ekta Kapoor and has directed other eye-brow raising films like The Dirty Picture (2011), Once Upon A Time in Mumbai (2010), and other films that are based on the underbelly of the Indian society. While these films especially the Dirty Picture was a biopic on the B-movie South Indian movie star, Silk Smita, Lutharia will be pushing the envelope taking on this controversial case into in his own hands. 

The Dirty Picture Poster

Lutharia tells TIO, "When investigations are not conducted properly and people do not know how the system works and who to point a finger at, there comes the desire to tell a story. Also, there's always this grey area that's intriguing and, as filmmakers, we have always responded to the stimulus around us."

Recently, Ekta Kapoor was also compelled to take a step back when Aarushi's mother implemented the National Commission for Protection Against Child Rights Against Balaji Telefilms to prevent Kapoor from airing an episode "inspired" by the case. The episode withheld from airing in 2008 itself (unbelievable, isn't it?) 

Manish Gupta's Rahasya was also inspired by this troubling incident. Gupta informs, " "The case gives a classic premise for an Agatha Christie kind of murder mystery, which would keep the audience guessing and hooked. Plus, there's the emotional quotient of the parents being accused of murdering their only daughter, something that the Indian audience has always felt for  [my emphasis]." 

Gupta, Kapoor, and Lutharia are directors and filmmakers who are known for making controversial films on topics that were otherwise not discussed in the public discourse. In many of their films especially like The Dirty Picture, the events were reconstructed from the life of a "fallen" woman/actress of the 1980s. Her decision to dress in skimpy and revealing clothes and act in more sexual bold and seductive films made her by default a controversial figure in the 1980s. While I was satisfied with the film, I did not find it problematic! 

What I do find problematic is that the decision to make a film, although the case itself has yet been concluded (and God knows when it will be?!) provokes the questions of film making. What are the ethics that filmmakers should keep in their mind when they touch on sensitive topics such as Aarushi's case? 

Gupa, Kapoor, and Lutharia's decision to make a film inspired by recent events suggest that these directors fetisize violence on women.

 Okay, the events of the poor girl's murder case may be like an Agatha Christie novel but what is the motive behind the filmmaker's decision to make the film? Is it to sensationalize violence? I would understand if they decided to make a film documentary on the subject as I believe that documentaries seem to be a more "realistic" medium than a film, which can "dramatize" the events and fictionalize them. There needs to be a law that requires film makers to a duration/period of time before they can jump unto making a controversial fictionalized film that will keep the audiences glued to the seat. At this point, it seems nothing more than a way to make an easy buck but also to further promote violence, which is problematic and troubling. 

 Secondly, we do not know when the case will end and how the events will turn out. Is it really a story worth telling when the scars of the Aarushi case are still visible and hot for the last 5 years? What if her parents are not guilty of her murder? If they are, what are the motivations? Shouldn't the filmmakers question what is the motivation behind their decision to make a film "inspired" by true events? What message are they sending to the audiences? These questions still remain unanswered and deeply problematic. Something I fear these filmmakers are still not aware of. 

Lutharia says in another interview, "We are still doing research on the subject, but as a company, we want to tell Aarushi's story. There's a lot of curiosity and confusion about this case, that has seen several twists and turns. People should be aware about how our system works. We should start the film in about four to five months. It all depends on the final judgement."

These are the questions that plague my mind when I come across news articles such as these. While these filmmakers thus far have made successful films, I hope that this time they are careful and aware of their decision to make a film on a subject that is yet to be resolved. In addition, I hope they respect the poor teen who lost her life in mysterious ways at such a young age. 

Sources: timesofindia.com, dnaindia.com,and  indianexpress.com 

© Nidhi Shrivastava 2014 This content is subject to copyrights. Please ask for my permission before using this content for any purpose. 

No Woman's Land: Radha Bedi's Documentary "India: A Dangerous Place To Be A Woman" Echoes Concerns of the Past

Radha Bedi's India: A Dangerous Place To Be A Woman was released during the summer. Produced by BBC, the cameras followed Radha's journey to India and documented interviews with family members, lawyer, victims, and the father of Jyoti - the 2012 Delhi Rape case victim. Bedi's documentary was endearing, emotional, and traumatic. I do want to warn the viewers to be aware that the documentary has very troubling images and can trigger emotions to be vary of it while watching this documentary. Bedi is a British-Indian broadcast and journalist who belongs to a multicultural background in England. She is a third-generation British Indian who has grown up mostly in Belfast and she was educated at London Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts (LAMBDA). 

Bedi in India via Timeout.com

Recommended to watch this documentary by a good friend, I embarked upon the one-hour journey with her and came across many glaring issues that I have been dealing with not only of my own experiences when I have traveled to India, but also her project raised many issues that take us back to the time of the Partition and earlier. Particularly, I am referring to well-known Partition scholar, Ritu Menon's edited No Woman's Land: Women from Pakistan, India, & Bangladesh write on the Partition on India. The documentary touched on topics I am familiar with and have been working on since the time of my high school days - "harmless" eve-teasing, acid attacks, dowry deaths, female infantilization and now and much more magnified on international media - gang rapes. Bedi started her journey in Delhi and traveled to Assam and Punjab throughout the duration of her documentary. She recollected the horrific memories of the assaults she had experienced, interviewed a 15-year-old survivor of acid attack (her only crime was that she had refused to say yes or give attention to her friend who was enamored by her), and even comes face to face with Jyoti's heartbroken father who couldn't even express his love for her when she took her last breath. 

Bedi suggests in her documentary that these violent crimes are a result of the status which women have in India. She argues that because of problematic practices and cultural rejection of girls - women are seen as burdens to their families. She draws on stories of women from both upper and lower classes highlighting that the issue is not class-caste specific but something inherent within the Indian society.

I write this blog from a site of privilege (similar to her standpoint). I was born into a well-to-do family, where I have been lucky that my birth after 18 years was celebrated - my baby pictures found in relative's home whom I had not met since I was a year or two. I have dealt personally with many of the issues mentioned in the documentary but never to the extent that the stories that the documentary conveyed.Unlike Bedi's relatives who celebrated the birth of boys in the families and cried at the birth of daughters, I was warmly received into my family and loved by my immediate and extended family. Bedi herself concluded that she took the life of equality she had growing up as a Diaspora Indian-British woman was something she could never take for granted after the violence she saw in her one month journey into the dark crevices of India during the filming of the documentary. I was not satisfied with Bedi's conclusions and feel that there is more to the story than even what she told in this documentary. I can also never speak for the victims or women of India. I speak as a diaspora American-Indian who is coming to terms with her country especially her nation's capital being called the "Shame capital". It is this blackening of my country's capital that drives me to do the research I do today. This is the reason I wake up to everyday and makes my life worthwhile and meaningful. 

Yes, women are vulnerable in India but what can we, as individuals, do to support them?  How can we change the mindsets of a society so steeped in patriarchal values that values men over women on a daily basis. Is India really a No Woman's Land? 

According to the representative of UN Women in India, Sabrina Sidhu who tells Radha, "We did a study in Delhi. 95% of women in India are scared to go out. Our study also showed that 2 in 3 men interviewed felt that the dress that women wore provoked them." She continues, "Men want to be in control. They want to be in power. In your families, when boys grow into men, they see how the mothers and sisters are treated, right? What value is put on their education, on their mobility, etc and then they go ahead and do exactly that with their wives and daughters. Through their life cycle, they are being discriminated at every stage. Until these mindsets change, rapes, molestation and harassment will continue to happen. What's really clear and urgent  - we need to value women equally?" 

Sidhu makes a very salient point - mindsets need to change and become acceptable of women. Perhaps there are three steps that need to be taken in order to ensure a dialogue about women's subjectivity in India: 

1) Since the post-liberalization period in the 1990s India, the "new" women of India have now come into being. Women are now working late in call centers and other professional positions, which would not have been possible before. They are also social drinkers, do go clubbing (though I may not practice it myself, I have no issues of other women my age do), and they are now independent thinkers who are now attempting to shape their subjectivity in a country which has been deemed to have a "shame" capital. 

2) She speaks that "mindsets" should change, but its unclear what she means by "mindset"? I am being a little nit-picky but I think this should be defined and also - who's mindset? society's? families? boy's family? victim's family? 

3) Many blame westernization or "modernization" as a result of the magnified increase in rape cases in India, but is it really the fear of that these changes bring to the culture (which are inevitable) Is it enough to justify the "other" for the lack of steps taken to protect and empower your own country's women? I think Sidhu hit the nail on the head when she said - we need to value women equally! 

In the documentary, Bedi interviewed one of the defense lawyer of the Delhi rape case. The lawyer blamed the girl and said that she was not "respectable" and thus provoked the crime unto her. He said, "We have a different culture. Respectable girl and a non respectable girl means if you see someone if you feel respect about her, she is respectable. If she would be respectable, this will never happen to her. Respect is a very strong shield, which cannot be crossed by anyone at all. And respect comes by your character, respect comes by your behavior, respect comes by your actions, respect comes by your circumstances." Bedi questions him if he thinks Jyoti had any responsibility because she was out at the night with a boy. He responds, "She was responsible for this. You cannot say only the rapists were responsible. She is also responsible equally. And entirely the boy is responsible who put her in such circumstances and such scenario. You have to protect yourself number one. Any dog can bite you - that's happened." 

The defense lawyer echoes many themes that have been continuously discussed in post colonial feminist theories. He speaks of a "respectable" woman but his definition is unclear. He also blames the victim for provoking the crime and violence unto herself - that the men who raped her are not the only ones at fault for this heinous crime. 

Just this weekend, NY times released an article - Gang Rape In India, Routine and Invisible - which was a disheartening read and added more voice in an already controversy-wrought discourse on the Common Indian Male and the responses that have sprung up since the last time I wrote about this issue. The author argued: 

But the Mumbai case provides an unusual glimpse into a group of bored young men who had committed the same crime often enough to develop a routine. The police say the men had committed at least five rapes in the same spot. Their casual confidence reinforces the notion that rape has been a largely invisible crime here, where convictions are infrequent and victims silently go away. Not until their arrest, at a moment when sexual violence has grabbed headlines and risen to the top of the state’s agenda, did the seriousness of the crime sink in. 

The authors's argument sheds light onto another aspect of the rape culture. They suggest that not only is rape an "invisible crime" but the men or rapists who have committed the crime are a "group of bored young men" who routinely commit this crime. The writers describe the men as: 

None of the men worked regularly. There were jobs chicken-plucking at a neighborhood stand — a hot, stinking eight-hour shift that paid 250 rupees, or $4. The men told their families they wanted something better, something indoors, but that thing never seemed to come. They passed time playing cards and drinking. Luxury was pressed in their faces in the sinuous form of the Lodha Bellissimo, a 48-story apartment building rising from an adjacent lot

The men who have gang-raped the victims are said to have similar profiles. Jason Burke's remarkable article on this issue described the perpetrators as: 

Ram and Mukesh Singh, two brothers living in a slum known as Ravi Das Colony. The "fun", on previous occasions, had meant a little robbery to earn money for a few bottles of cheap whisky and for the roadside prostitutes who work the badly lit roads of the ragged semi-urban, semi-rural zones around the edges of the sprawling Indian capital.

Lavanya Shankaran argued, "Let me introduce the Common Indian Male, a category that deserves taxonomic recognition: committed, concerned, cautious; intellectually curious, linguistically witty; socially gregarious, endearingly awkward; quick to laugh, slow to anger. Frequently spotted in domestic circles, traveling in a family herd. He has been sighted in sari shops and handbag stores, engaged in debating his spouse’s selection with the sons and daughters who trail behind. There is, apparently, no domestic decision that is not worthy of his involvement." 

Shankaran's argument released a series of article strongly disagreeing with her standpoint and her call for the idealization of the "Common Indian Male." We do not know what she means by the common Indian male still. Does she mean a Middle class man? If so, then is she speaking of lawyers like the aforementioned men who blames the victim for bringing the crime unto her. Furthermore, have we forgotten that when the crime happened, NO ONE was there for the 45 minutes when she was bleeding and was by herself and her companion. The language in the media also refrained from defining the relationship between her and her "male companion" but I strongly believe that they were a couple or dating to my knowledge. 

While I enjoyed watching and was emotionally troubled by Bedi's documentary, there were many questions that the documentary sparked. Is being an empowered, vocal, opinionated, and strong woman a crime in India? Perhaps its even more basic - do women in India have inferior status? Have they always represented the honor of their communities through their silence, chastity, and sexual purity? If that's the case, then surely examples of popular culture that promote the idea that Indian women are now stronger and more empowered than is surely promulgating a misconstrued image in their films in which women have found a happy "medium" between their traditional and modern selves. Instead, even in the rhetoric discussed in the documentary and through personal experiences, the opinions seem to be contradictory. Had the 1990s liberalization not taken place or even the modernization that happened in the post-independence period not taken place, how would an Indian woman's subjectivity been shaped? There is more to the story than what we are being told and this documentary is an example of an avenue and dialogue that needs to take place to discuss this sensitive but powerful issue. 

There are no right or wrong answers to these questions but a reflection of media that seeks to answer these troubling questions. A must watch! 

Video Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF6r8jgFxgA
Source: bbc.co.uk, huffingtonpost.co.uk, unwomensouthasia.org, nytimes.com, radhabedi.co.uk

© Nidhi Shrivastava 2014 This content is subject to copyrights. Please ask for my permission before using this content for any purpose. 

Productions of Othello, Halloween, and the Production of the Other

                        Bethanny Jillard (Desdemona) and Dion Johnston (Othello) via Montreal Gazette

I recently went to see the production of Othello at the Stratford Festival in Stratford, ON. Dion Johnston (Othello)  and Bethanny Jillard (Desdemona) played the main characters in the most recent Stratford production of the play. Othello is one of the most memorable plays in the Shakespeare canon. Unforgettable for its powerful themes including the racialization of the other, military heroism and the incompatibility of love, and problems of isolation. I am particularly drawn to two themes in the play - domestic violence and racism - but I will focus only on racism. Since Halloween is in 3 days, I thought it will be interesting to discuss the various productions of Othello and think about how we perform different types of characters - whether they belong to our 'race' - and how we "perform" or enact different personalities.

Inspired from a Huffpost article I recently read arguing that Halloween is not an excuse hate and racism. When we are asked to "dress up" and not be who we are, people use this holiday to impersonate or dress up in costumes that can be offensive without realizing (albeit it could be an unintentional move and not directed to hurt anyone)

I want to suggest that we should use Halloween as a time to wear costumes that yes, are fun and creative but also respect various cultures and people without reducing them to others reinforcing racist ideologies. It should not be a time to mock cultures and customs but a time to celebrate the act of "dressing up" in costumes without trying to "perform" people of different races and cultures. I also agree and want to reemphasize the idea that Halloween is NOT an excuse to promote hate and racism.

I still question Heidi Klum's Kali costume but these are the types of costumes that I want to draw attention to. This type of a "costume" not only mocks the religious Hindu ideologies and further promotes the notion that Indian religions are primitive and barbaric. Without knowing the reason for why Goddess Parvati/Durga transformed into Kali, the costume will promote a very problematic understanding of Hinduism.

                                   
                                                 Heidi Klum as Kali via fasthack.com

On my recent trip to the Stratford Festival last Friday, I learnt that Othello had been produced in 1973. Nachum Buchman, an Israeli actor with a heavy "accent" played the role of Othello while Stratford icon Matha Henry owned the role of Desdemona. I found it fascinating and troubling that the production choices has "othered" an already "othered" actor. During the trip, my classmates and I earnestly and excitedly went through all the image stills, production booklets, and so on trying to understand and construct the performance in our minds.

                      Nachum Bachman (Othello) and Douglas Rain (Iago) via pictures.historicimages.net

The production choices included Nachum Bachman to wear the blackface makeup, brought especially from England and earlier worn by Lawrence Olivier in his 1965 NT Live production. I found it troubling and fascinating that the production had doubly othered Othello and the play had not received good reviews. Why was there a need to produce an already racialized actor who would have been perfect to play Othello as he were and almost mock his costuming and make up? In my opinion, I would strongly argue that Othello can be a man of middle-eastern descent. It is not necessary that he has to played by a "black" actor although it has become a norm for the productions of Othello to be performed. Performing a racialized character, one that is not of our own race, is always a questionable move. Furthermore, it almost seemed unnecessary to put the "blackface" make up on. Below is Laurence Oliver and Maggie Smith 1965 production of Othello:

                                 Laurence Olivier (Othello) and Maggie Smith (Desdemona) via dailymail.co.uk

Olivier's costume again emphasizes his "uncivilized" roots reinforcing the play's racist ideologies that are at work in both the text and production. By wearing the "blackface" makeup, Olivier is still "white" in the inside but attempting to construct a persona, which is a characterization of an African man in his own mind. It is not authentic by any means but the character of Othello is magnified by his star persona. Is it "authentic"? I would argue NO.

Thus far, we have talked about actors who wore "blackface" makeup - Nachum Bachman and Laurence Olivier. Now, what happens when an Othello is produced in Washington theatre and Othello is played by a "whiteman" i.e. (hold your breath) Star Trek star Patrick Stewart while the rest of the characters are "black." I struggle with the rhetoric "black", "white", "brown", etc to describe people as the language is problematic but that discussion is for another day!

                               Patrick Stewart (Othello) and Patrice Johnson (Desdemona) via Tony Awards

In an interview, Stewart who had come up with the concept told Playbill,"I've been imagining myself playing Othello and, in a sense, preparing for it, since I was about 14. "When the time came that I was old enough and experienced enough to do it, it was the same time that it no longer became acceptable for a white actor to put on blackface and pretend to be African. One of my hopes for this production is that it will continue to say what a conventional production of Othello would say about racism and prejudice... To replace the black outsider with a white man in a black society will, I hope, encourage a much broader view of the fundamentals of racism."

Many actors have suggested that Othello should be produced in a similar way - a man who is an "outsider" in his own society should play Othello to understand the "fundamentals of racism." In my own view, I do not think it is a bad idea - much better - than the idea of "blackface" which actors wear stripping the character of any sort of an "authenticity" the character may have. Halloween is a great time to explore these problematic ideologies when we dress up and try to enact characters that are not our own. Stewart uses an important word  - "pretend" - and that was we do during this time - we "pretend" to be someone who we are not. Our actions are at stake each time we wear our costumes. Just because theatre has stopped using "blackface" makeup, it does not mean that we should have an excuse to wear it during this time.

Halloween is not the time to promote and produce the "Other"!

Images & Sources: stratfordfestival.ca, playbill.com, thepsn.org, tonyawards.com, i.dailymail.co.uk, montrealgazette.com, fasthack.com 

© Nidhi Shrivastava 2014 This content is subject to copyrights. Please ask for my permission before using this content for any purpose. 

The "Good" Men and the "Not so Good" Men of India: Conflicting Views on an Impending Issue

                                                                  Rapists in Delhi 

Today I came across an article published in the New York Times titled "The Good Men of India" in the Op-ed section of the widely-read newspaper. The author, Lavanya Sankaran ,offered a rosy picture of the men of India defending their subjectivity in the backlash men have received in India which has become magnified in the international media as THE country where women are the most vulnerable and unsafe! Arguments have been made that the perpetrators of the Delhi rape case and other rapists should be sentenced to death or castrated according to the Gang Rape law case under section 376 (G) that was instated in 2012 after the horrific Delhi Rape case took place stunning men and women around the world! I also could not but find the glaring contradictions between NY times article and Times of India, which spoke the alleged gang rape of a 30-year-old woman in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.  

                                                               Image courtesy: wsj.net 

Sankaran's analysis of the men in India she encounters on her flight to Bangalore highlights the changes in the power dynamics of the airplane where men are air stewards while a woman pilot controls the plane - stereo-typically found to be the reversal of gender roles in the airline industry profession. She argues and suggests that there is an "alternate male reality" where men are the "kindest in the world." Now, I don't have any issues with the claims she makes here. India, as a country, is a complex potpourri where people's subjectivity is shaped by various elements including class and economic status, religious, and caste status. She was observing the behavior of upper-class business men who supposedly did not "grumble" when toys and children were creating chaos in the airplane space. 

I also found it interesting that the NY times had chosen a clip from Ranbir Kapoor's Wake Up Sid to represent the "Indian Common Man" but when you google the "common Indian man" a very diverse set of images show up! You cannot but question her essentialist analysis of the "COMMON" Indian man! 

                                                       Wake up Sid (2009) via NYtimes.com 
She writes: 

Let me introduce the Common Indian Male, a category that deserves taxonomic recognition: committed, concerned, cautious; intellectually curious, linguistically witty; socially gregarious, endearingly awkward; quick to laugh, slow to anger. Frequently spotted in domestic circles, traveling in a family herd. He has been sighted in sari shops and handbag stores, engaged in debating his spouse’s selection with the sons and daughters who trail behind. There is, apparently, no domestic decision that is not worthy of his involvement.  

Yes, the Indian men are the way she describes them but I am deeply troubled by her decision to use the term "the common Indian Male" that too with capital letters. Who is the "Common Indian Male"? This definition needs to be investigated before we can make any argument. I am in agreement with her defense of the Indian men and appreciate her voice in this important discussion but we cannot overlook universalized assumptions that excuse the inaction that has taken place since the Delhi Rape case happened in 2012 and blackened the name of India with titles like "Shame Capital" forever! I myself responded defending the Indian men in a previous blog but also realize that it is not a rosy picture Sankaran claims in her article. 

                                              Troubling notices during Delhi Rape case protests 

She also points out: 

But when it is at its best, the results, in women’s lives, speak for themselves. If the image of the Indian female as victim is true, so, too, is its converse: the Indian woman who coexists as a strong survivor, as conqueror, as worshiped goddess made flesh. Indian women have served as prime minister and president. They head banks and large corporations. They are formidable politicians, religious heads, cultural icons, judges, athletes and even godmothers of crime.

I am in accordance with her argument here! I do agree that Indian women are not just victims but many occupy a position of power within the Indian government, large corporations, and so on but we cannot by any means. However, have we thought about the "Common Indian woman"'s subjectivity? Have we questioned her position with the social spheres she interacts in? What type of sacrifices does she have to make in order to be in the position of power if she is in one? Herein lies the rub....

I belong to an upper middle class family in India. I was born in India and with my family migrated to Malaysia when I was 7 years old. After which we lived in Singapore for 7 years, and finally migrated to the United States in February 2001 and am pursuing a PhD. in Canada. 

Despite living in so many countries, I held on to the conventional Indian values and was raised in a semi-liberal household where we - both my brother and I - were raised to have a modern outlook on life but retain our "traditional" Indian values. I struggled throughout my childhood, teens, and early 20s to define my subjectivity. How could I find a balance between the conflicting modern ideologies we learned in school and our traditional values we were raised with? 

I observed many things growing up and continue to do so: 

• In many traditional Indian households, women cannot pray in the religious temple if she is menstruating (yet she is viewed as a Goddess)! I found this a deeply problematic practice and somewhat hypocritical but you have to respect the wishes of friends and elders who strongly believe in it. Its hard to engage in an analytic and "objective" analysis of the practice without hurting the feelings of those who believe in it so you have to let go of the irritation. 
• Wearing clothes that are body-tight and otherwise show cleavage becomes a cause of worry for people quite quickly. Women are raised to be more modest but there seems to be no control of how men perceive you and this problem I would like to highlight is universal and everywhere not regionally or geographically-specific. All Indian men are again I want to repeat are not out to "get some" and I cannot overemphasize this point. 
• There is no discussion of intimacy and sex within an Indian household (in my observation and do not want to generalize). I hope to change this practice in my own home one day. I would like my son or daughter to be aware of everything so that he/she accepts this as a normal human practice. Hence, there is no knowledge that is passed on to the young girls and women about safe contraception and safe sexual practices. Instead, abstinence is encouraged to prevent any early teen pregnancy or STDs but if you look at films like Dev D (2009) and Luv Ka The End (2011) both highlight a culture in cities like Mumbai and Delhi where young women choose to engage in pre-marital sex without being aware of safe sexual practices. They end up having unhygienic abortions and can be subject to fatal infections! There is an emphasis on honour, purity, and chastity within households lest its forgotten that a person's characterization and purity stems from actions not because they have or have not been sexually active or not. 
• Aamir Khan's Satyamev Jayate highlighted important issues that we cannot overlook. We keep on bringing these issues to our forums but do not take steps to further understand why its happening and why India has become the posterchild for rape cases? 

                                       Aamir Khan's Sataymev Jayate episode "Is Love A Crime" 

Monisha rajesh concludes, "Ultimately the conversation must continue. Since the Delhi gang rape the discussion over each newly reported rape has subsided faster and faster with social media moving swiftly on to lamenting the fall in the rupee or arguing over India’s foreign film entry to the Oscars, while the everyday rapes, acid attacks, domestic abuse and violence continue quietly in the background." 

                                                            Image courtesy: rutgers.edu 

True to the statement Rajesh has concluded, the discussions may continue but its important to understand the complexities and nuances of the "common Indian men and women" in India. Leela Fernandes (2006) 's India's New Middle Class offers a comprehensive analysis of the middle class Indian since the 1990's and I highly recommend this book to understand the politics of the "New" India. 

                                                  post-Mumbai Rape case protest 
I myself am still trying to understand the socio-economic, political, and literary implications of the recent discussions of rape cases in India. There is no right or wrong answer to this problem since it is laced with lots of complex issues and mind you, I have not even engaged in class/caste politics and rape of Dalit women. Furthermore, rape of men does take place. Aitraaz (2004) was a powerful representation of this issue but again, we just assume that women are victims. These are the issues I am grappling with as I read these news articles and further engage in these discussions. 

Images and Source: stream.aljazeera.com,  nytimes.com timesofindia.com, amazon.com, cdn.asiancorrespondent.com, wsj.net, and newstatement.com
© Nidhi Shrivastava 2014 This content is subject to copyrights. Please ask for my permission before using this content for any purpose.