An intolerant art

A Bollywood review: Band Baaja Baraat

Bollywood gets alliteration, obviously. That and a rather good-looking cast, coupled with the technical expertise of film-making, both hard not to get right in a country with one of the oldest traditions of film-making, the world's largest film industry at least in terms of annual feature-film production rate, multiple languages probably implying a variety in culture and, of course, a population both young and immense (this latter bit contributing to the presence of the physically attractive ones, even in a land where nutrition and freedom from physical labour is not a universal truth for children).

This particular film - Band Baaja Baraat (translated as "Wedding Music Band" in the Wikipedia article) - was released on the tenth of this month, i.e. three days ago, and I watched it on the eleventh of December. A childhood friend and I had had a satisfying meal in an excellent restaurant just before, and thus walked into the theatre unencumbered by popcorn and cola.

The plot

Young students in a college hostel, well-up on their Delhi slang, crash a local wedding feast, for the meal in the usual canteen appears unpalatable. Our man is accosted by a young lady who does not accept his wedding-guest credentials. He, however, on account of being acquainted with the videographer, manages to escape a cruel fate by asserting membership in the video engineering team. On the morrow, using a stratagem worthy of Odysseus, the male lead establishes the identity of the female protagonist. A chance meeting that asks for more than the suspension of disbelief allows the girl to show the boy her business idea, which he pooh-poohs. Shortly thereafter, his extended family shows up requiring his extended presence back home. To avoid banishment to the hinterland, he suggests that he may not, for he is part of an entrepreneurial venture. The ruse works, and, at an interview with a famed wedding planner, at which he accompanies the girl, he manages to insinuate himself into a business partnership. The duo leave the professional's service, on account of being shouted at (!), shout back (truer to their behaviour) and leave, having made the vital acquaintance of a dealer in floral arrangements. They set up shop, convince local contacts to trust them, set up a network of suppliers, celebrate successes, move up in scale, sleep together, have a tiff, dissolve the partnership, work independently, even as rivals, face repeated failure and debt, decide to come back together for a particularly lavish wedding, dance, make up and live, presumably, happily ever after.

If, that is, they don't mind the excessive shouting and the other appalling behaviour they continuously display. If this film represents contemporary Indian society, or even, say contemporary Delhi society, then we live in sad times. The film is to be criticized in that it confirms barbarianism. What, exactly, is so bad?

Well, to start with, almost everyone is rude to almost everyone else.

Employers routinely threaten employees with physical violence.

The male lead happily makes a contemptible racist remark, cheered by many in the audience. Perhaps it's perfectly acceptable, if the masses like it. Vox populi and all that sort of thing, or is art required to occasionally try to better the ticket-buying monster?

One might be forgiven for imagining that this is a Hindi film, given that it is made by Bollywood and set in Delhi. However, not one character in the film appears to have the ability to articulate a sentence with more than five words (exclusively) in Hindi. This ignorance, or is it intellectual laziness, is exemplified by the title, which starts with the English word "band".

In some ways, this is the New India, which thrives on entrepreneurship. The young lady is around 22, promises to marry a boy of her parents' choosing at 25, if only they will let her have a shot at the world of business. The enlightened parents agree (after all, 25 is a perfectly acceptable age for an Indian woman to remain unmarried till, this being the 21st century and all that sort of thing). The leading man, on the other hand, does not share her passion for the business. Indeed, his only motivation in joining her is to avoid returning to his village. And he had met her twice in his life before announcing his unsolicited candidacy for the post of partner.

For all that, our pair is remarkably successful, earning a fee of INR 2 crores (1 crore = 100 lakhs; 1 lakh = 100,000; making a total of INR 20 million) on one certain wedding (not, however, the monumental one the film leads up to) within mere months of starting the business. This is roughly USD 442,000. That's around 375 times the annual per capita GDP. On this same wedding, they manage a profit of 0.6 crores - that is a profit margin of 30%. A net profit margin, that is, for no one seems to discuss the little administrative detail of taxes. The New India.

The depiction of communal harmony is patently contrived - the chief suppliers to our wizards being Sikh and Muslim. Sikh and Muslim weddings (one each) too are depicted. The Jews, Christians, Jains, Buddhists etc. are not shown this honour. No religious group or caste is insulted, that being reserved for a certain race.

Encouragingly, neither the civil police nor the political class is as being corrupt and self-serving; this is seldom the case in Bollywood. One small victory for the non-cynics. Oh, and the leading lady refuses to steal electricity, that all-too-common Delhi tendency. Crashing weddings is apparently all right, but there are moral boundaries. Don't worry; they tend to be amenable to being bent.

Relations between the sexes are mostly amicable, perhaps because only one such relationship is depicted. The language, patois really, is atrocious. Interestingly, the couple appears to fall in love, that happy descent, after having explicitly avowed not to, and after having slept with each other.

Around six people walked out after the first forty minutes - lucky them. Another five followed shortly after the intermission. Bollywood films often have a break, handy if one wishes to visit the washroom, satisfy a craving for nicotine, stock up on nachos or otherwise stimulate the economy. Unfortunately, this also generally implies that films demand much in terms of time.

Some, much more.

Bollywood comes up with some excellent films - Lagaan, Yuva, Johnny Gadaar, Dharma etc., but, all too often, it descends to the depiction of personal servants as deserving of mockery, physical abuse and general rudeness.

Of politicians - including ones democratically elected to office - as being utterly corrupt.

Of the police forces being contemptuous of the rights of citizens.

Of wealth as being either inherited or gained through illegal and scarcely honourable means - any means, except those involving creativity, discipline and hard work.

Slapstick is rife but even that is preferable to the general depravity ascribed to Indian society.

The witticisms are rarely original and, often, films are directly inspired, if one wishes to employ the euphemism, from world cinema.

Unforgivingly, violence is glorified.

Brutality is accepted, made banal.

The intellect of the viewer is rarely challenged.

There exists a censor of films. How all this gets past them is symptomatic of the current frame of mind. No sex, please, we are Indians. Never mind that one does not see artificial insemination clinics dotting the countryside in this land of one billion, most of whom have probably never seen a stork. And nothing against the Gandhis. Religion is the holy cow, or the major ones are. Jokes about skin tone, race and accents, and contemptuous of most foreigners, are acceptable, if in rather poor taste. Although it boggles the mind, films have also been known to mock the accents of foreigners speaking a foreign (their own) language in a foreign (their own) country, suggesting that the Indian pronunciation (of that foreign language) is the way to go. Or one certain Indian pronunciation, anyway.

Ten contemporary reviews

A now a quick look at what (a sample of) the Indian media has to say about this particular film. Unmissable, if one enjoys a mild chuckle. Unfortunately, a little disheartening to see the lack of erudition and critical thinking.

1. http://www.cinegoer.com/telugu-cinema/srinivas-reviews/band-baaja-barat-movie-review-101210.html

"The decorum of the film went for a toss with the unwanted love-making scene."

Unwanted by whom? You? In any case, this is not the movie that first leaps to mind, when one wishes to illustrate decorum.

"The ethical values are set aside for a brief period."

All ethical values? Your ethical values?

"In fact Bittoo, in order to getaway from the compulsion of going back to his home town and look after the sugarcane farm, needs an excuse to stay back in Delhi where he is graduated from."

One may end a sentence with a preposition, but one is not permitted to murder it.

"During the celebration of the success the couple goes intimate and crosses all the barriers where the problem is on track."

"The final verdict is that Bollywood is adapted to the constraints of Hollywood especially in romantic situations."

These two latter statements are probably best left to the psychiatrist's couch.

2. http://www.realbollywood.com/news/2010/12/band-baaja-barat-review.html

"The first half of the movie is full of fun and in the second half the viewers will get to see some twists and turns. The youth faces give freshness to the movie, which is a romantic comedy. It is a complete family entertainer and worth watching at the weekend."

Twists and turns are all right, as long as one does not run into anything hackneyed. The youth faces (youthful, one presumes) impart freshness - this is exactly the sort of perceptive insight one desires in the critics.

3. http://thebollywoodactress.com/band-baaja-barat-movie-reviewrating-35trailers/

"Through their business they experience the ups and downs of the lavish world of the glamour and glitz of Delhi weddings. In this mean while they knows one another well is the storyline of BandBaajaBarat (BBB)."

"Overall, Band Baaja Baaraat is an entertainment movie as it is of a Romantic Comedy Movie."

The construction of these sentences possibly owes itself to having been written whilst in the dark of the theatre. One suspects that it is not only there that darkness reigns.

4. http://www.rediff.com/movies/review/review-band-baaja-baraat/20101210.htm

"Dialogues and screenplay by Habib Faisal...are first rate."

Apart, of course, from the fact that there is scarcely one sentence of any length free from grammatical error in the entire film. In any language.

"She (Anushka Sharma) can cry and laugh at the same time and deliver a biting line with equal believability."

Believablity equal to what?

5. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/band-baaja-baraat/723015/0

"A big part of the delight of ‘Band Baaja Baraat’ is the writing which imparts nice little touches to its characters, making them real as opposed to outlined caricatures."

The writing? Either this is irony, by someone whose acquaintance with the device is restricted to the Simple English Wikipedia article, or Ignorance boasts of the writer.

"Post interval, the film tries for mush,and dips, extricating itself only right at the end."

Dips in the mush? Fascinating use of the English language.

6. http://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/reviews/Mayank-Shekhar-s-review-Band-Baaja-Baraat/Article1-636924.aspx

"The dialogues are in colloquial Hindi, 'slanguage' more common to the north."

That's it? Hindi only shows up as a framework for the English and Urdu words.

"Bittoo and Shruti start a successful wedding planners' "binness" right after finishing college. This is good move, no doubt, given a culture that perennially envies its neighbour, thrives on throwing money at weddings and other personal processions to show wealth off."

Ironical omission of the indefinite article before "good move", right after mocking the pronunciation of "business" as "binness" in the preceding sentence.

A culture that envies neighbouring cultures? The writer obviously lost track of his or her sentence.

"This world is any day more relatable than duffers drivin' around daddy's Ducati in downtown West, known to Bollywood NRIs alone."

Obviously, alliteration is much loved, and is obliged when it demands taste as sacrifice.

7. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/movie-reviews/hindi/Band-Baaja-Baaraat/moviereview/7059509.cms

"And what a delightful smattering of colours is spilling forth as film makers try to understand what makes the Indian capital -- with its amalgam of cultures and communities -- so charismatic."

The return of alliteration. Obviously, well beloved of the Indians.

"....the earthy, emotional, rough-edged quintessential Dilliwala who peppers his language with street talk, doesn't believe in minding his Ps and Qs, revels in an in-your-face attitude and cocks a snook at the HS (high-society) people..."

Ah, the familiar and commendable theme of the common man standing up to a higher social class. Except that the lead character bullies his peers and threatens his own employees with brutal, physical violence. Interesting abbreviation, that (HS for high-society).

And he (and she) does not pepper his language with street-talk - it is exclusively street talk. There is not one minute of exclusively Hindi (or Punjabi, Urdu or English) dialogue in the movie. In a movie of more than two hours (seemed much longer, though).

8. http://www.thehindu.com/arts/cinema/article946135.ece

"The film is set in an outspoken world..."

This must be a euphemism for the threats of physical violence, the rudeness, the racist remarks and the general lack of polish and tolerance.

"When we return, we thank god once again that one sequence of intimacy doesn’t result into peristalsis!"

Obviously, the publication is doing its bit for our low-carbon world by not having printed copies of the style guide lying about on reviewers' desks.

More in this vein:

"At the end of the day it is a love story but the brain is not expected to be on a break. Once again it raises issues of commitment and integrity that surround the young generation but doesn’t skims the shiny surface."

9. http://www.bollywoodmoviereview.info/2010/11/yash-raj-band-baaja-baarat-watch-band.html

"Band Baaja Baaraat is comedy romantic movie based on love story of two characters who are business partners in Wedding Planners venture In the beginning of movie they don’t like each other cause of different nature and choices But at the end of movie they falling love with each other."

I am not making this up. Maybe I too sometime falling love with this movie.

10. http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_Review.aspx?id=577

"This is also because debutant actor Ranveer Singh is pitch perfect in the role of the uncouth but good-hearted small town slacker who is a bit of a duffer when it comes to matters of the heart."

Uncouth? Well, that is certainly one word to describe the lead male character. And the lead female character. Good-hearted but not versed in matters of the heart. Fascinating, how we absolve our protagonists of brutality, intolerance, dishonesty and racism as long as they are good-hearted.

"The first half, in which him and Shruti set up their company is great fun, with weddings and struggle and a mid-point twist that will surprise you."

He and Shruti, not "him and Shruti", of course. But the writer is probably good-hearted and well-intentioned, so that's all right.

Incidentaly, the official website of the film is http://www.bandbaajabaaraat.com/ - worth a visit; the colourful posters of the very attractive leading pair etc..

Surely, we can go beyond this? The hoary old but-this-is-the-grim-reality argument does not hold water - this brand of cinema will win us no personal freedoms, will liberate no slaves. If it is entertainment we seek, surely we can afford to encourage and stand up for values we wish to see practised in our societies.

Values of fair play, common courtesy, basic civic sense, tolerance, rejection of street violence, celebrating the ability to string together a sentence using any one language et cetera.

And how do we do this? By writing critical reviews of movies? Just not going to the movies is not antidote enough. A more proactive approach is called for.

Perhaps an ironical awards night for those Bollywood films which most brazenly transgress against taste, which promote racism, cynicism, dishonesty and make brutality banal?

A discussion is always a good starting point.

Questioning the Modern Protester

The modern protester

They are regularly on our news channels, hoards of them, ranging from delightfully young but shockingly rabid college students to the scruffily dressed oppressed without jobs or formal education, and many other combinations, including some who sacrifice a vacation day, are well and variously informed about the issue at hand, are averse to throwing stones and Molotov cocktails, and would be able to participate intelligently in a conversation on the nature of truth.

Protesters in the past have won for us all freedoms we take today for granted, and while many who preach Liberté ou la Mort usually hold the interjection "someone else's" as understood, we must be grateful towards all who stood up against tyranny. Drawing on Koestler's idea of civilizations having various internal levels of progression, let us exclude from the current discussion those who unfortunately still must fight for personal liberty and currently accepted ideas of human rights. They need no justification and are beyond the pale of constructive criticism. Let us instead use the phrase "modern protester" to designate those living in a liberal democracy who feel at odds with certain policy decisions of a government elected by themselves or by their neighbours and choose to express this difference of opinion by publicly visible protest marches, sit-ins, slogan-chanting and, occasionally, vandalism, arson and murder.

The first pertinent question is: why a march? Why not a letter written to the local Member of Parliament, and another to the local newspaper, a door-to-door signature campaign, perhaps, a notice hung in the local coffee shop or public house, or a declamation on market day, positions outlined on blogs, emails sent to even second cousins etc.? One answer is that a march helps to raise public awareness and force the government's hand. Both rely upon a brute-force method - if we shout loudly enough, and increase people's commute-times and generally be enough of a nuisance, we will inevitably intrude upon the masses, forcing them to take a stand, any stand, our stand. If enough people get upset, the media will circle in, causing even more people to think about the matter at hand, eventually leading all politicians desirous of re-election (i.e. almost all of them) to formulate responses.

Note also that most protest marches are usually not fora where a debate is held, or can be held. It is dangerous to talk to a mob, even one not wielding pitchforks, and small, rectangular pieces of cardboard only hold reduced and over-simplified positions. Public awareness is indeed raised, but only in that the public is made aware that some feel strongly about a certain subject, and not what the various facets of said subject are. Indeed, in this sense, protest marches represent the darker side of democracy, the might of the mob, of inflexible, monolithic opinion over knowledge and discussion. Especially when protest marches move from being of a purely symbolic nature to one where the hands of protesters are used as main force - in this case, we might as well declare that the State Must Die and consider whether not all social institutions must be destroyed and whether the non-marching majority is entitled to an opinion and if one really needs to consider its wishes.

The second, and related, question is: should protest marches be allowed at all in a liberal democracy? The government is by the people, the courts and the constitution exist to check excesses and the legislator's contract was signed for a number of years. Note that the holding and dissemination of diverse opinions and public assembly is not being questioned here, and while there is a thin line between public assembly and protest march, we question here the motive, not the actual marching. Let the people march, if march they will, but let us not allow all policy matters to require protest marches - these impinge on the freedoms of others, the freedom to enjoy a quiet day in the park, the freedom to get home to pet dog or lover at seven in the evening, the freedom not to have reduced quality of healthcare because the state's budget was consumed paying the bills of policemen or because the public health system was occupied in tending to those who exposed themselves to harm because they are unable to articulate their ideas on a piece of paper and divert cash outflow to paying for postage.

A blanket ban on marches is dangerous for that would grant too much power to the state. Let those march who march must, even if because they only marching know.

However, let us consider that there is nothing inherently noble or morally superior in protest-marching. They serve too, who, instead of marching, toil to pay taxes to provide for the heating of shelters for the homeless elderly, who clean streets in unglamorous uniforms, outside the glare of flashbulbs, who compose violin quartets or low-fat pastries for a small minority etc.. The much maligned majority too deserves a voice.

Burqas and Delacroix

Or are the bans on burqas a threat to liberty?

The burqa displeases. Why?

Is the woman-in-burqa as disturbing as a middle-eastern looking male with a beard? The latter appears to be textbook racism, and as lovers of freedom, we must reject this.

Is the woman wearing a burqa in the West the equivalent of a teenager wearing a hoodie in the UK? Now, the latter is a potential source of physical aggression, but burqa-clad women typically are neither verbally abusive nor do they ordinarily ask you for your wallet or if you happen to be currently inconvenienced, dear friend. So, this does not hold water either.

Is the burqa worrying because it is a potent symbol of Islam, i.e. of Arabic Islam, i.e. of an Islam that is not only foreign-born but obstinately insists of remaining utterly foreign, and this in an era of being associated with poverty, inappropriate wealth (amusing contradiction, this, but somehow petrodollars reek of, well, oil, and only occasionally oppression), terrorism, intolerance and hostility towards females and even more so towards non-Muslims? But this sounds suspiciously like the hirsute middle-eastern gentleman of our first example. Symbols can be despised, but must be tolerated, in any society that wishes to be free.

So, as long as Islam is accepted as a religion like any other, and not decried as a social institution which is a source of danger to freedoms and cultural identity, then its symbols too must be accepted. Hence the beard and the minaret (zoning laws, requirements of the theatre, village ordinances etc. etc. to still be applicable as relevant) cannot be stopped.

And thus, in this case, the burqa must be allowed, or, better put, must not be disallowed.

However, when it is a case of sub-cultures routinely mistreating women and the burqa preventing such women from a healthy social interaction with other members of the larger society, and of an atmosphere which makes it uncomfortable (varying degrees of discomfort: from raised eyebrows, to verbal taunts to physical beatings, confinement etc.) for women to make the decision on their own, then the ban is to be lauded.

Here is a popular opinion, set against the ban.

(Nesrine Malik, writing in The Telegraph; www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/7896536/Burka-ban-Why-must-I-cast-off-the-veil.html)

> ...I felt infantilised, stripped of the right to dress how I pleased

> due simply to the fact that I was a woman, and hence, purely a

> sexual object to be concealed lest it should inflame desire....

> If anything, it seemed like a throwback to tribal, pre-Islamic times.

Ah, this hoary old device, to start with taking the position of the other side, before switching completely, in order to give the audience the impression that one's views are balanced and hence the conclusion is a logical, fair, even erudite one.

But our author is not skilled enough in the more refined arts of propaganda. She is devious, but not subtle. The burqa is (ostensibly) derided as pre-Islamic and the suggestion is clear: Islam is civilization, the world is made of those who chose this path (perhaps extending to the other Abrahamic religions) and the heathens, the latter being barbarians.

> It was a relief not to have to think about what to wear.

This display of inanity (in the context of defending freedom) sets the tone for the rest of the argument, hence the label "popular".

> The uniform black costume has a charming

> egalitarianism about it, and is both a social and physical

> leveller. Once social status or physical beauty cannot be

> established, all sorts of hierarchies are flattened.

Yes, quite. But why would you wish to flatten hierarchies? The rejection of physical beauty is too horrifying a thought to be properly defended, for what can one say, apart from that the creation and enjoyment of beauty, of which "physical" beauty is no small part, is one of the noblest purposes of human existence. But that is a cultural prejudice. Perhaps the author would have us encourage uniform ugliness. What an uncouth idea! Even if it is perhaps utilitarian, and increases national crop output by 0.5%. Or some figure like that (for we wouldn't be worrying about how we look, nor admiring how others look, and hence have more time and energy to focus on praising some God or oiling our machines).

> Implicit in any law that proscribes women’s dress lies

> the most sinister, ideologically myopic assumption that

> a woman cannot be trusted not to succumb to pressure

> to dress a certain way.

"Most sinister" appears to be hyperbole and "a woman cannot be trusted not to succumb to pressure" seems to be either (worryingly) naive or a cheap trick to extend the issue to the realms of the absurd. Microinsurance in India, one of the world's emerging economies and worthy of interest because of its share of humanity, occasionally denies loans to men. Because men, in certain social contexts (ones which have nothing to do with academia or investment banking), cannot be trusted not to drink it away. Take this injunction to western Europe and it will be hailed as ridiculous and provoke an outrage. Similarly, when a young lady in Belfast starts wearing Gothic gear, this might be more than mildly shocking to her grandparents, but no freedom is under threat. When, however, this involves a sub-society which does not allow females common, quotidian privileges (accorded to males, even from a fairly young age), then the greater community takes a more proactive role in defending the personal freedoms of such a group. But only to an extent; the dwelling, for instance, may not be invaded. No different from how society attempts to protect children, or other vulnerable groups, from abusive parents. Chance remarks made by children (even when not capable of formulating intelligent arguments) are enough to set the apparatus in motion. And - now to employe a propaganda trick - this is not the apparatus of the Gestapo, but that of the Welfare State. Ah, that felt good.

I disagree with some other popular opinions supporting the ban too.

(http://divinepretenderexplorespolitics.blogspot.com/2010/09/burqa-politics.html)

> Burqa was never integral to Islam......Koran has only asked women to cover

> their breast since in those days many societies use to have topless women.

Only the breast? If it's all right for the Koran to "ask" (politely, I'm sure) that, why wouldn't it be all right for it to do the same thing for a burqa? This is the "It's not really Islam - that's why the ban is all right" school of thought. What if it were the "real Islam"? There's plenty of stuff in all religious books that are simply incompatible with our notions of a fair and free society.

> I believe if we live in a society where there is a rule to not be

> naked and hence cover our genitals so as not to offend other

> people it is completely legitimate to make a rule that one

> has to show their face to the people they are

> interacting with in a society.

What about Prada (or even Gucci, come to think of it) sunglasses? May one wear those? What about hats where the brim obscures the forehead? What about buttoning up the collar of a winter coat on a cold night, thus covering up the lower part of the face?

And large parts of our social lives and our economy are based on faceless interactions: internet discussion forums, online banking, buying train tickets at a vending machine and this blog.

> People who claim that we should be liberal in our

> society to allow others to practise what ever form of

> religious practise they want to do must try to see

> that liberty is the very sake for which this ban is

> been imposed in European countries.

There is no argument here, merely a (re?)stating of position. This is the "repeat my point often enough" school of thought. Usually to be seen with the "mention the Pope, the Flag or children's children often, when driving home a point" school.

Freedom needs to be not just defended but also encouraged, and in a consultative way, and without losing sight of the more fundamental freedoms and a sense of tolerance. So, no woman to be locked up or beaten for wearing a burqa (The converse takes place in certain countries). And no civil authority to break into people's homes to check whether there is a burqa hidden beneath the floorboards. And ultimately, if the burqa is an absolutely essential part of someone's life because it has religious value, then it might be a good idea to examine whether one is being consistent; whether living in a non-Islamic country, not under Sharia law, is such a good idea. Michael Moore moved to Canada, after all. But I am being facetious and, as every lover of freedom will understand, do not advocate putting people on ships and sending them off to Arabia, "for their own good".

In conclusion, I see the burqa ban as a temporary measure, and a necessary one, but perhaps not altogether sufficient. Merely banning the burqa will not guarantee increased, healthy inter-social interaction; I see the next steps as more platforms to interact, and more access to the works of various houses of art, philosophy (especially Nietzsche and postcolonialism) and religion.