Thursday, February 19, 2009

Slumdog Denigrates India, and Everything Hindu

by Jagannath Sharma
The film starts with Jamal Malik getting the third degree in the Police Station-- to make him "confess" how he had succeeded in "cheating" the Kaun Banega Crorepati (KBC) show till then. He was getting the third degree because the show host (Anil Kapoor), had asked the police to find out how could a slum-dwelling chaiwala pile up a huge win of ten million rupees by answering the diverse questions asked. The police got to him as he was readying to notch the 20 million rupees question. From then on the film is a series of scenes switching from those of Jamal facing the questions on the KBC set, to those of his childhood and teenage in a Mumbai slum and elsewhere, which he draws upon to answer the questions.

Mumbai's slums are a hell on earth. Those who have seen them from close quarters (as I have) cannot but be revolted by the inhuman conditions in which impoverished men, women and children live out their lives. As an Indian, I am ashamed that such conditions exist in India. Being ashamed is a positive thing, but allowing this blot to be broadcast to the world with nauseating invented add-ons to create a non-existent "reality" is another. Danny Boyle, the British director of the film has done this typical western thing. But I won't blame him. I cannot however excuse the Government and the party in power. The film was shot in India, and all these things were allowed to be shown raw and exaggerated with the consent of our politicians, babus and sections of the intelligentia. Clearly, self-respect and self-esteem are not part of their character. A white man's patronage and money is enough to get anything done by the servile political class, babudom, the English language electronic and print media, and of course the so-called intelligentia (English-speaking one).

Danny Boyle was not content with focusing sharply on the colourful excreta of Jamal in the toilet; he wanted to shock the blasé western viewer. So, he thought up a huge shit pot and made Jamal jump into it! "This was entirely Danny's idea," crowed one of his Indian colleagues admiringly. The scene shows the shit covered Jamal rushing into a crowd crying out, "Amitabh Bachan! Amitabh Bachan!" to try and get an autograph! This is not plausible. Contrary to Danny Boyle's thinking, even a child of 7 or 8 living in an Indian slum is sensitive, and will find it nauseating to see his body covered by shit. The first thing he will do will be to rush to wash his body, irrespective of any overpowering attraction before him. Danny and his friends may relish such content, but no true Indian will.

There are so many implausibilities and improbabilities in the film, but there is no space here to relate them all. I will mention only a few. Can anyone believe that primary school children in the slums of India not only read "The Three Musketeers," a work in French by Alexander Dumas, but also remember those unpronounceable French names-- Porthos, Aramis, Athos, D'Artagnans etc.? Danny Boyle's Indian slum children do! Also, can one imagine American tourists at the Taj Mahal beseaching an ill-kempt teenager to be their guide to the monument? In this film they do. An American couple corners Jamal, pushes a $100 bill into his hands, and implores him to be its "guide.!" In reality, such youngsters pester western tourists, and are brushed aside. There is also a blind beggar, childhood friend of Jamal, who immediately answers, "Benjamin Franklin!" by touching the $100 dollar bill! Implausible? But that's how Jamal gets to give that winning answer for the KBC question as to what appears in a U.S. hundred dollar bill !

As Swami Vivekananda said, Hindus accept all religions to be true, and respect all religions. Alas, others don't think the same way. This film has an anti-Hindu bias deliberately built into it.
The original name of the protagonist in Vikas Swarup's book was Ram Mohammad Thomas. It was changed to Jamal Malik. No harm in that. But soon one realizes that there was a definite reason for changing the name, and it was not a noble one. The slum-dwellers were made out to be Muslims only, which is contrary to fact. Mumbai slums have Hindus, Muslims and Christians from different parts of India. And they live out their lives harmoniously -- preoccupied with making the best of their grinding, impoverished life.

Suddenly, we see a mob rushing in. The English sub-title (for the western viewers and Oscar judges) reads, "They are Muslims! Kill them!" And Jamal's mother and many others are killed while the children escape. Was it right to allow that sub-title?. Amidst the rioting mob, we are shown a boy-- coloured blue and dressed up as Shri Rama carrying a bow and arrow. It is an imposition. How can such a figure appear in a Muslim slum? Danny Boyle had two purposes in showing Rama there: 1) To reinforce his point (oddly) that it was a Hindu mob, and 2) to show Jamal remembering that image to answer the question posed to him in the accompanying KBC scene as to what Rama held in his hands! Then, there is an organized gang which mutilates and blinds children and makes them beggars. Naturally, Slumdog had to show the gang as Hindu -- so the van they use to transport the mutilated children to their begging places has to boldly carry the name: Sai Ganesh! To reinforce the image, the children have to be taught a Hindu bhajan: "Darshan Do Ghanshyam Nath Mori Ankhiyan Pyasi Re…" And, to commiserate with the victims of Hindu barbarism, what would appeal to the western audiences but an evangelical input --a Christian hymn and scene of angels with a Christ-like figure holding a suffering child. Was it necessary to communalise the film to get an Oscar? By the way, the bhajan, a filmi bhajan incidentally, was introduced to enable Jamal to answer the KBC question as to who composed it: Surdas, Tulsidas, Mirabai or Kabir? He answered it as Surdas, and here the director and his research team blundered! The bhajan was composed by Mr. Gopal Singh Nepali for the film Narsi Bhagat in 1957! (see TOI Feb.16). Surdas had composed the bhajan: "Ankhiya hari darshan ko pyaasi." How can any one expect true knowledge and understanding of India from a rootless "secular" anti-nationalist research team?

Slumdog Millionaire is an example of the Hindus' immense capacity to tolerate anything unthinkingly. The film denigrates India and its people, and is an insult to the Hindus. What is unforgiveable is that it is the Indian Government, its Censor Board, the deracinated English TV and print media and the intelligentia who have made it possible, and are breathlessly looking forward to its winning the Oscar! Jai Ho!

10 comments:

  1. I fully agree with you. There is no point criticising outsiders when our own people lack self respect and self esteem ! Atleast such reviews should awaken and arouse readers to realise how our country is denigrated.

    ReplyDelete
  2. On the eve of oscars, I have to say that it is amazing that this movie has even made it to the list. I do not think it will win any oscars. It should not. There is no oscar quality in this movie. If it still does, it just goes to show how oscar has degraded itself to keep up with the modern trend.
    It is interesting to find that this Danny Boyle is not American. I think that makes it less likely that this movie will win anything except nominations for whatever reason.
    As far as the movie and its implausible theme, there is no point in blaming the government.
    It cannot control (and as a "democracy" should not control) media/movies. It should be left to the responsibility -if any-of the "makers", and let the viewers judge as you have.
    The anti hindu theme is an unfortunate practice of reverse discrimination from Gandhian politics. I am afraid the behaviour of the present Proponents of Hindutva- saffron brigade, bajrang dal, shivsena, srirama sena and their eventual certain evolution into vanara sena has only fuelled this into an uncontrollable hysteria of hindu bashing.
    It makes a great philopsophy into a laughing stock and followers into being ashamed of belonging to that great tradition.
    As an aside which should not deviate from the well written piece, I think intelligentia you refer to is intelligentsia?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Slums are a part of India and that is a reality we all have to live with. In fact it is a reality most Indians have been living with for all of their lives. It is a part of the dichotomy that India is – super rich and successful Cuffe Parade right along side the shanty towns one sees below those very up market balconies.

    While I agree that Slumdog Millionaire has stretched slum reality to the extreme,
    (Jamal jumping into the pit full of excreta is a bit much; even people living in Dharavi have some hygiene standards!) there are some truths that we have known of, for a long time. For instance, children being blinded to beg, or even the ‘pregnant woman racket’ is a common sight in many cities. Even though we as a people are desensitised to these things to a large extent, what makes us uncomfortable though, is the thought that the images that one often forgets after crossing a traffic signal, have made their way into our drawing rooms.

    The movie is definitely a grim reminder of some of these uncomfortable realities in our country. Now, regardless of whether a westerner makes such a harsh film or if films like Traffic Signal made by Indian directors reflect the poignant lives of slum children, slums are an inseparable part of large cities in India. Facing up to it doesn’t denigrate us as a nation in any way. If India is about its rich cultural heritage and traditions, it is also about a big percentage of people living well below the poverty line. Acknowledging its slums, completely corrupt bureaucracy and political system in the same breath, as celebrating its success as one of the fastest growing economies and ‘can do’ attitude is a more balanced approach to a nation and its peoples’ self esteem.

    It is possibly a generational difference in perspective too. This 20 something generation while being completely self absorbed, arrogant and directionless is also less defensive, more confident or perhaps just couldn’t be bothered about what the world thinks of India. One must realize that it is in their time that India has become a power to reckon with. My generation has seen this change happen but yet realizes how India was viewed by the world just a decade ago. Acceptance of the ugly underbelly is a tad easier for me than it might be, for many who have grown up at a time when India was struggling to even build an identity of its own.


    The attention that Slumdog Millionaire has got in the international fora is because of its shock value. For most people, in many western countries such living conditions (with or without children jumping into make-shift toilets) are absolutely unfathomable. It is the same reason that movies made on the holocaust and the interminable suffering the Jews underwent during World War II are acclaimed. Slumdog is not a well made movie and in my opinion doesn’t really deserve the awards it has got. Its so called ‘critical acclaim’ is because of some serious contacts and its shock value for the western media and public.


    While there are many of us who rave about the movie, only because it has won some awards across Europe & the US, it is important to realize that the movie is not an Indian success. It is Danny Boyle & his crew’s success (if it can be termed as one). The only Indian success story that we can be proud of is, the acknowledgement AR Rahman (and he has done better work than this for many other films) & Resul Pookutty have received. They are Indian citizens, they struggled in India and honed their skills in India and happened to work in an international production and achieve recognition for their work.

    But we have this knack (and it is one of those irritating Indian traits) of hanging on to anything that is remotely ‘Indian’ & ‘successful’. Sunita Williams may be of Indian origin but isn’t Indian. Her success and in some manner Kalpana Chawla’s are not truly Indian success stories. They both chose to give up their Indian citizenship and achieved whatever they did as a result of their talent and the support of the country they chose to adopt. India had nothing to do with it but we were quick to claim it as our own.

    I hope to see a day when we learn to celebrate ‘real’ Indian success stories (and there are many already) and not desperately hang on to any remote success that we may have nothing to do with just because it has some obscure ‘Indian’ connection!

    Perhaps it is time we stop depending on western film directors to be a via media to showcase our country and work towards making films that depict the beautiful and indescribably unique nation that India really is.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have not had an opportunity to see the movie however I have heard comments both positive and negative. Mostly positive from the Western movie goers, and negative from the Indians.

    I grew up in Bombay "Mumbai" in the 50's and 60's and have seen Dharavi. We passed by many such slums every morning and evening whilst going to school.

    This is my take.

    We crow about the Multi National Corporations currently residing and doing business in India, thump our chests to show how wealthy we have become what with the IT industry that boomed,but vastly ignore the Dharavis of the world, who exist cheek by jowl with the posh steel and glass high rises housing such MNCs.

    So when a movie is made that exploits these slum dwellers, how do we react?, we get upset, naturally. No self respecting individual likes to be shown his weakness, much less have his or her dirty laundry aired to the rest of the world.

    This sudden exposure to the rest of the world of our poor on our soil causes such a great deal of embarrassment,that we take umbrage that anyone dared to put this out on celluloid and to boot, win "the Oscars" for God's sake.

    After all is said and done, isn't it high time that all Indians do something, anything to improve the conditions of such slums all over India not just Dharavi where this controversial movie is shot?

    It is a shame that India has one of the highest maternal infant mortatlity rates in the world and in the same breath we call our selves technologically advanced!!

    Indian Politicians are so corrupt that Shame is not a word they know, understand or can even spell! Next time vote with your feet. We are the largest democracy in the world and can boot such corruption out.


    Let's put our money where our mouth is so that we can show the rest of the world that not only are we a rising power but we can also take care of our people.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great explanation! First part explained above seems too nauseating and I do not want to watch the movie because of that. Its a pity for the award sake you need to show the worst part of a country, it is a saddistic approach. Being a proud Indian I am quite happy and thankful to God for blessing our country with marvellous resources of nature and a very dignified culture. What do these "Firangs" have? They have more divorces than marriages, concept of live-in relationship, children do not live with/love their parents. Now their economy which they were intoxicated off has also collapsed.
    I think "Slum... mill........" is just an attempt to cover their own butts.
    We should not let our culture and values get polluted by the outside influence.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I liked the style of this movie review, and wish I could say the same about its substance.

    Lighten up. This is just a movie intended, like most mainstream movies, to entertain, amuse, and humor. "Slumdog" does all this and more. It comes in a complete and attractive package - beautiful visuals, a smooth mixture of tears and laughs, an attractive cast, and upbeat music. All the things that any well-made Bollywood movie does.

    Is is meant to be a commentary on Hindu-Muslim poltics? A reflection of "Hindu barbarism? The white man's perception of the 'real' India? I think not. Just as we shouldn't be making a mountain out of every mole-hill, we shouldn't be treating every harmless bit of entertainment as a ponderous treatise on anti-Indian sentiments.

    When I watched the movie here in California, I did what other movie-goers the world over likely did - I laughed, I grimaced, I closed my eyes, I cheered - and in the end marvelled at the full house which erupted in applause as the boy finds his girl and all is well again. It's so cool to be an Indian, said my colleague at the office the next day. No dispute there!

    (I enjoyed reading this blog, and hope you keep it going)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Slumdog has won an Oscar, and the Indians, especially the Hindus, have gone ga ga over it as one could foresee. Yes, a modicum of self-respect would have helped the people to sense that huge liberties have been taken of their catholicity and universalism. The very coinage, "Slumdog" is clumsy and demeaning, but the Indians are exhuberant! Whom to blame? Years of colonial servitude that has made them adore everything of the white man, and cherish every pat and reward that he throws at them patronisingly. I can see that you are part of a very small minority of people who have some self-pride and esteem. Imagine, if the film had been otherwise: suppose the film had the subtitle: Suppose the rioters were shown as Muslims, and the subtitle had read:"They are Hindus! Kill them!". Or the questions had been of Mecca or Medina, and pictures of these places had been shown when the Muslim rioters were killing the Hindus. Suppose, the gang blinding the children had been shown as Muslim, and the van carrying them to their work places had "Ya Khudha" or some thing of that kind instead of "Sai Ganesh", and the song being taught to the kids said" Alla ke Naam Kuch De De" instead of the bhajan.. and so on. Do you think the Indian censors ould have allowed it? Do you think the Muslims and their "secular" friends would have applauded it? No, the Muslims would have taken to the street, the Netas would have condemned the producers and sought apologies from them, and the film would have been banned. Of course, it would not have got the Oscar anyway, because the white man cannot accept India and the Hindus to be dignified despite poverty. Yours is a lone voice, but it is a voice of wisdom and truth. Keep it up!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have not seen the movie nor do I have any particular desire to do so. I have heard from my friends of all races and color that they enjoyed the movie and the poverty moved them. But never mind the slums or the poverty, they still thought India was a beautiful country, very colorful and rich in its heritage and yes they would visit it if given the opportunity.

    Now understand that one does not see that kind of poverty most anywhere in the Western world. I can, as a former Bombayite say that there is no comparison of the Dharavi slums to any ghettos or Skid Row in the US.

    I hear a lot of strong sentiments, nay resentment from many Indians, that this film is a very poor portrayal of India and its poor and worse, that it was glorified. How dare it win any Oscars!

    Why cannot we see cinema for what it is? Why does any celluloid story have to be dissected for the underlying emotions communal or otherwise?

    Most of all what bothers me is that we are a bunch of Hippocrates. When our dirty laundry is aired publicly, most specially in the Western world, there is a hue and a cry about the bad image of the nation. Why don't the intelligentsia do more than just criticize? If the politicians are corrupt, boot them out. Get off your apathy at election time and Vote with your feet.

    We thump our chests and crow with pride about our technological advancements and how "Rich" the country is now, what with more and more MNCs doing business on Indian soil. The last time I saw some of these MNC edifices they were all steel and glass, well appointed and plushly carpetted, jostling cheek by jowl with the slums which began right outside the automatic doors of these beautiful buildings. And how long have these slums existed? Mind you I cannot remember there ever being a time that those slums did not exist, where the nallas ran filthy and the stench was enough to hold your nose and run to the opposite footpath,etc etc. This is probably true in most parts of urban India where these slums exist. It is 62 years since India got its Independence from the Babus and since then We have not done much to help our poor, and I certainly don't see much being done NOW either.

    What is embarrassing than the movie winning an Oscar, is the Fact that India has one of the HIGHEST rates of Infant mortality and malnourishment on the globe. Worse, the rate is higher than Sub-Saharan Africa!!!!

    So I suggest we take off our Intelligent, critical thinking gandhian topees and get down to the dirt and grit to help the slum dwellers make a decent living and bring the future Netas to be born at Full Term, not undernourished or pre-term. No one wants to live in the slums, ask the little childstar from the movie who still lives there.

    Just my humble opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am no Einstein just an ordinary citizen who is wondering why this hoopla?

    I have not seen the movie nor do I have any particular desire to do so. I have heard from my friends of all races and color that they enjoyed the movie and the poverty moved them. But never mind the slums or the poverty, they still thought India was a beautiful country, very colorful and rich in its heritage and yes they would visit it if given the opportunity.

    Now understand that one does not see that kind of poverty most anywhere in the Western world. I can, as a former Bombayite say that there is no comparison of the Dharavi slums to any ghettos or Skid Row in the US.

    I hear a lot of strong sentiments, nay resentment from many Indians, that this film is a very poor portrayal of India and its poor and worse, that it was glorified. How dare it win any Oscars!

    Why cannot we see cinema for what it is? Why does any celluloid story have to be dissected for the underlying emotions, communal or otherwise?

    Most of all what bothers me is that we are a bunch of Hippocrates. When our dirty laundry is aired publicly, most specially in the Western world, there is a hue and a cry about the bad image of the nation. Why don't the intelligentsia do more than just criticize? If the politicians are corrupt, boot them out. Get off your apathy at election time and Vote.

    We thump our chests and crow with pride about our technological advancements, our brain power and how "Rich" the country is now, what with more and more MNCs doing business on Indian soil. The last time I saw some of these MNC edifices they were all steel and glass, well appointed and plushly carpetted, jostling cheek by jowl with the slums which began right outside the automatic doors of these beautiful buildings. And how long have these slums existed? Mind you I cannot remember there ever being a time that those slums did not exist, where the nallas ran filthy and the stench was enough to hold your nose and run to the opposite footpath,etc etc. This is probably true in most parts of urban India where these slums exist. It is 62 years since India got its Independence from the Babus and since then We have not done much to help our poor, and I certainly don't see much being done NOW either. The only difference is there are now Brown Babus instead of White Babus.

    What is more embarrassing than the movie winning an Oscar, is the Fact that India has one of the HIGHEST rates of Infant mortality and malnourishment on the globe. Worse, the rate is higher than Sub-Saharan Africa!!!!

    So I suggest we take off our Intelligent, critical thinking Gandhian topees and get down to the dirt and grit to help the slum dwellers make a decent living and bring the future Netas to be born at Full Term, not undernourished or pre-term and poor. No one wants to live in the slums, ask the little childstar from the movie who still lives there.

    Just my humble opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have not seen the movie nor do I have any particular desire to do so. I have heard from my friends of all races and color that they enjoyed the movie and the poverty moved them. But never mind the slums or the poverty, they still thought India was a beautiful country, very colorful and rich in its heritage and yes they would visit it if given the opportunity.

    I do not particularly care for the word Slumdog either. It is insulting to say the least, however having said that, I would not like to dissect the sentiments behind why the movie was made with its gross inaccuracies as has been pointed out by the creator of the blog.

    Now understand that one does not see that kind of poverty most anywhere in the Western world. I can, as a former Bombayite say that there is no comparison of the Dharavi slums to any ghettos or Skid Row in the US.

    I hear a lot of strong sentiments, nay resentment from many Indians that, this film is a very poor portrayal of India and its poor and worse, that it was glorified. How dare it win any Oscars!

    Why cannot we see cinema for what it is? Why does any celluloid story have to be dissected for the underlying emotions and intentions, communal, colonial or otherwise?

    Most of all what bothers me is how hippocratic we are. When our dirty laundry is aired publicly, most specially in the Western world albeit celluloid, there is a hue and a cry about the bad image of the nation. But our poor have stayed poor since we gave the Gora Sahib a royal boot!

    We thump our chests and crow with pride about our technological advancements, our brain power and how "Rich" the country is now, what with more and more MNCs doing business on Indian soil. The last time I saw some of these MNC edifices they were all steel and glass, well appointed and plushly carpeted, jostling cheek by jowl with the slums which began right outside the automatic doors of these beautiful buildings. And how long have these slums existed? Mind you I cannot remember there ever being a time that those slums did not exist, where the nallas ran filthy and the stench was enough to hold your nose and run to the opposite footpath,etc etc. This is probably true in most parts of urban India where these slums exist. It is 62 years since India got its Independence from the Babus and since then we have not done much to help our poor, and I certainly don't see much being done NOW either. The only difference is there are now Brown Babus instead of White Babus.

    Why doesn't the intelligentsia do more than just criticize? If the politicians are corrupt, boot them out. Get off your apathy at election time and Vote for God's sake. The voting rates in India for the middle class (Intelligentsia?) are lousy at best.
    What is more embarrassing than the movie winning an Oscar, is the Fact that India has one of the HIGHEST rates of Infant mortality and malnourishment on the globe. Worse, the rate is higher than Sub-Saharan Africa!!!!

    So I suggest we take off our Intelligent, critical thinking Gandhian topees and get down to the dirt and grit to help our poor make a decent living and bring the future Netas to be born at Full Term, not undernourished or pre-term and poor. No one wants to live in the slums, just ask the Oscar winning little childstar from the movie who still lives there.

    Just my humble opinion.

    ReplyDelete