|
|
|
 |
February 2016
Following excerpt is from the article "Patriotism without Nationalism" by Nitin Pai which appeared in The Hindu edition dated 23rd February, 2016, accessible here
"... Rabindranath Tagore, who became increasingly ambivalent in his opinion of Nationalism, wrote "I am not against one nation in particular, but against the general idea of all nations. What is the Nation? "It is the aspect of a whole people as an organized power. This organization incessantly keeps up the insistence of the population on becoming strong and efficient. But this strenuous effort after strength and efficiency drains man's energy from his higher nature where he is self-sacrificing and creative. For thereby man's power of sacrifice is diverted from his ultimate object, which is moral, to the maintenance of this organisation, which is mechanical. Yet in this he feels all the satisfaction of moral exaltation and therefore becomes supremely dangerous to humanity. He feels relieved of the urging of his conscience when he can transfer his responsibility to this machine which is the creation of his intellect and not of his complete moral personality.
"By this device, people who love freedom perpetuate slavery in a large portion of the world with the comfortable feeling of pride of having done its duty; men who are naturally just can be cruelly unjust both in their act and in their thought, accompanied by a feeling that they are helping the world in receiving its deserts; men who are honest can blindly go on robbing others of their human rights for self-aggrandisement, all the while abusing the deprived for not deserving better treatment."
The article "A film axed" featured in the Frontline edition of November 2015 (Volume 32, Number 23, November 14-27, 2015) seems prescient with benefit of voluminous hind-sight. Some illustrative excerpts follow with the complete article accessible here.
"Caste on the Menu Card, the documentary film by Ananyaa Gaur, Anurup Khillare, Atul Anand, Reetika Revathy Subramanian and Vaseem Chaudhary from the School of Media and Cultural Studies of the Tata Institue of Social Sciences, was made as part of the "Castemopolitan Mumbai" series in 2014, before the beef ban was enforced by the State government. The government denied the film an exemption certificate on the grounds that it dealt with the contentious issue of beef..."
"The film shows that many restaurants in Mumbai offer beef delicacies but off the menu. It delves into the idea of food as a site of exclusion by focussing on the beef-eating practices in Mumbai. The synopsis of the film says it attempts to portray the prevalence of caste differentiations as seen in the food choices of people in the city and touches upon the concerns relating to livelihood, social inclusion and human rights. ...
The film presents different perspectives on the merits and demerits of beef-eating, with even a cow therapist weighing in to give his views. But the objective presentation and the finer points of the film hardly seem to be the censor's concern. The fact is that it disturbs the homogenous cultural narrative of the communal forces by authentically showing how different kinds of eats are the staple food of the masses and how they are prepared and served on the streets of Mumbai. Hence it becomes a thorny issue for the censor. "
"However, the ban on the film had the opposite effect, with several invitations from across the country to the film-makers to screen the film in their cities. The film-makers YouTubed the film; it attracted more than 40,000 views in four days. The Birsa Ambedkar Phule Students Association (BAPSA) of JNU organised a screening on Sabarmati dhaba lawns, but the administration cancelled the show in the last minute. In a show of unity, close to 500 students came together to help with the screening of the film. Students affiliated to the Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) tried to disrupt the screening by raising a ruckus but were pushed back by progressive elements. The GS4 security guards pushed and shoved the students and tried to stop the proceedings, but the students formed a human chain to ensure that the screening went on uninterrupted. At the end of the screening, the students, led by Manikanta Bahujan, sang the "Beef Anthem" and took out a victory march to the Ganga dhaba.
...
As a direct result of the resilience shown by the JNU students in safeguarding the freedom of expression, Panchajanya, the mouthpiece of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), in its cover story dated November 8, called JNU the citadel of disintegration. "Whether to express sympathy for the hanging of Yakub Memon and Afzal Guru or pray to Mahishasur during Durga Puja, the last stronghold of the Communists, this school creates and multiplies social frissures," it said on the cover. It went on to describe the institution as a support base for anti-national activities despite receiving funds from the Centre. "In 2010, when naxalites in Dantewada, Chhattisgarh, killed 75 paramilitary personnel, the pronaxalite students' union of the university celebrated openly and hailed the act. And all this happened under the nose of the JNU administration," the article said.
Another article in the magazine alleged that the "JNU is one such institution where nationalism is considered an offence. Presenting Indian culture in a distorted way is common. The removal of Army from Kashmir is supported here. They advocate various other anti-national activities here."
"Pratim, Gargi and Lenin, students of JNU, responded to the RSS' allegations in the online forum Kafila: "If, according to RSS, nationalism means throwing of ink, killing minorities, manufacturing riots, throwing all dissenters to Pakistan, cutting funds in education and changing the Constitution of this country, we are sorry but we do not share your idea of nationalism...Time and again the RSS and its affiliates have tried to cast aspersion on JNU and even claimed of bombing it, as Ashok Singhal had once said; but we stand tall with our head held high as does the rest of the country that stand by its democratic and secular ethos."
From the article "Unnatural State" (The changing representations of tribal people in Hindi cinema), by Sohini Chattopadhyay, which appeared in The Caravan, Volume 08, Issue 2, February, 2016.
"Mani Ratnam's Raavan (2010) tackles nationalism very differently from, and far more astringently than, Mary Kom and Veer. The film reconfigures the Ramayana to cast the demon king Raava as the unambiguous hero, a larger-than-life man of justice and honour, while Ram, the ideal man, is merely law-abiding and righteous. When Beera (Raavan) kidnaps Ragini (Sita), the wife of the police officer Dev (Ram), hostilities escalate between the police and the people of Lal Maati, a forested area that Beera administers with fierce love and strange facial expressions. The police are powerless there --- they don't know their way about the forest --- and Beera's men are ruthless with the policemen they encounter in their area. But Beera is drawn to Ragini's conviction and fury, and lets her go, unhurt. Dev tricks her into locating Beera, and then shoots him. But Beera falls to his death with the happy knowledge that Ragini rushed to try and save him from the bullet.
...
The film has a full-fledged tribal number, 'Thok de killi,' replete with energetic drums, equally energetic dancing, and the requisite unintelligible catchphrase. "If you look up the lyrics, you'll see how it articulates the marginality of adivasis," Baradwaj Rangan, a flim critic and the author of the book Conversations with Mani Ratnam, told me. "Aaja mil ke bethain, haal suna dain dil ka, kela wo khaate hain, hamko phenkain chilka chilka" (Lets sit down all together, speak of the things that pierce our hearts, that they eat up the bananas, and toss the skins our way). It's a curious thing, this song --- it conforms to the trope of the tribal number, but turns into an expression of protest." This is possibly the film's most political moment," Rangan said.
On the one hand is the state, and on the other, those who are labelled anti-nationals --- in this case, tribal people rising in Maoist-style struggle. Ratnam argues that the bogey of anti-nationalism is raised by an arrogant, immoral state, and that if anyone speaks for this nation, or some of its citizens at any rate, it is Beera. While some might argue that Raavan is an anti-India film, it is, if anything, an anti-government (emphasis added) film. "
P.S.: Some may wish to interpret Khalnayak in the same manner and many other films cast in the mould of a criminal fighting the state. All such films and stories really beg the question: in all such cases, is the term criminal wholly on account of conduct, or a result of an act by those who have more power of putting a label on those who have less power so that those with lesser power are easy to deal, use and dispose of?
For a precise defintion of nationalism one does not need to go beyond the following:
"Unfortunately for the minorities in India, Indian nationalism has developed a new doctrine which may be called the Divine Right of the Majority to rule the minorities according to the wishes of the majority. Any claim for sharing of power by the minority is called communalism, while the monopolising of the whole power by the majority is called nationalism."
---excerpt from what Ambedkar wrote in a Memorandum on the Rights of States and Minorities, dated March 24, 1947, submitted to the Sub-Committee on Fundamental Rights set up by the Constiuent Assembly's Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities, etc.; sourced from the article Constitution and Secularism, A. G. Noorani, Frontline, Volume 33, Number 01, January 09-22, 2016.
| |
|