Posts Tagged ‘india’

The Imperial Objectification of the Othered Culture

Sunday, August 17th, 2008

A Critical Review of Anees Bazmee’s Neo-Colonialist, Greco-Capitalist Text, ‘Singh is Kinng’

I have a great deal of skepticism when it comes to approaching the works produced by present-day Bollywood. The underlying discourse is predominantly Greco-capitalist, anti-feminist, and rooted in the perverse dialectic of right-wing bourgeois hypernationalism. Anees Bamzee’s film Singh is Kinng with its imperial tone and othering of a minority culture does not succeed in breaking past my low expectations.

There is a great deal to criticise in Singh is Kinng. However I shall focus primarily on the Orientalist undercurrent of the text. In his support of the imperialist project, the producer Vipul Shah has created a text that is unrelenting in its placement of the Panjabi culture as being othered, culturally separate, and in contrast to the Gujeonormative themes of ‘financial’ and organised cultures.

The postcolonial scholar Purity Matchaba-Blavatsky identified the Western consciousness of tribalism as being the mechanism through which colonial powers imposed Western modes of thought and identity on occupied powers, thus perpetuating Greco-capitalistic structures of power and control even after ending their occupations of subaltern nations. This Western consciousness has been taken up by the Gujeratis, seen in their puritan adoption of temperance, their anti-female insistence on dhandho, and their remaking of the nationalistic identity by the ’symbolism’ of placing a Gujerati individual on the national currency – with quasi-ontological implications of establishing the Gujerati culture as dominant and in opposition to other minority cultures within India.

The dominance of financialism and feudal context is seen first of all in the title. Why is the title Singh is Kinng? Why does Bollywood refuse to celebrate characters who are not privileged members of the monarchy? Why is the reality of the peasantry not being depicted? The celebration of Kings rather than queens is also a celebration of maleness, which as the Dutch-German scholar Nettrich-Kahn has pointed out, is a subjugation of the femaleness. The subtexts that pervade the Indian film industry prevent it from discussing the proletariat, the queer, and the conjugated minorities in meta-realistic terms.

The retranslation of Gujerati ’superiority’ throughout the national cultural discourse has led to a false consciousness in ‘Indian’ minorities such as the Panjabis, the Bengalees, and the Jaats wherein they allow their cultural experience to be shaped through Gujerati portrayals. As the noted authority on Orientalism and sub-altern cultures Rene-Luc Pascal has pointed out, it is impossible for the culturally dominant mode to be anything but aggressive and imperial in its treatment of cultural minorities. The portrayal will be exotified, objectified, anti-diversity, anti-minority, and othering.

This exotification and othering pervades the movie, as we see when the so-called ‘humour’ of the film is derived from setting Panjabi culture as a counterpoint to the Greco-capitalist norms of ‘law’ and ‘civilisation’. This is plain from the main characters being named ‘Happy’ and ‘Lucky’, a clear pointer to the noble-savage essentialism imposed upon minority cultures. By portraying Panjabi characters as criminals when they are in the Western society of Australia, the movie reinforces Gujeonormative prejudices about Panjabi rusticity. The noted film critic Godot Nair has appropriately pointed out the dominance of the Western archetype in non-parallel cinema. In Singh is Kinng the Western archetype is demonstrated by the cornflakes which Ranvir Shorey’s character is seen to be eating. By posing parathas as a counterpoint to cornflakes, Anees Bazmee seeks to deny the agricultural experience of farmers starving in Vidarbha and the catastrophic fall in foodgrain consumption. This further demonstrates the neo-liberal and neo-colonial aspirations of the filmmaker.

The most appalling aspect of the ‘film’ is its refusal to address the issue of the Persian Gulf War in its proper context. The film centres its plot in Egypt, Australia, and Punjab, yet refuses in the most cavalier manner to discuss Australia’s illegitimate and immoral support of the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. The issue of Panjabis being forced into the United States Armed Forces to obtain green cards and the attendant themes of person-of-colour immigration and Greco-capitalistic fascism are cast aside without a thought.

The Indo-radical spiritual-charismatic healer Paithyonkaari Amma has said “It does not make it easier, to look into those sad eyes that stare through your window, while you sit in air-conditioned comfort.” For the viewers who sit in air-conditioned multiplexes, it has become easy to participate in the neo-imaging of the Imperial project and impose artificial constructs of ‘understanding’ upon the minority, non-Greco-capitalist aspirations of millions of Panjabis.  Singh is Kinng with its crass support of capitalism, imperialism, monarchy, maleness, and its even crasser rejection of the experience of immigrants, sexual minorities, femaleness, and the oppressed peoples of Iraq and Vidarbha shows itself to be lacking in empathy, sympathy, compassion, and guilt. It is heartless and unjust and must be overthrown immediately!

The writer, Dr. (Mrs.) Valentina Dimitrieva Pandey M.A. (lit.), M. Phil (illit.), Ph. D. (corres.), M.A.S. University, Darjeeling,  is the Randall Zakuroff Chair of Gender Studies at the Departrment of Social Sciences, at the University of St. Petersburg. She can be contacted at valentina.dimitrieva@pandey.ru

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The Great Brahminical Conspiracy – Part 1

Wednesday, July 30th, 2008

The UPA government survived the trust vote, and the farce on display would have put the best script writers to shame. The so-called Left voted along with the so-called Right in a ex-post futile attempt to topple a so-called Centrist government. Everyone was caught up in the drama, with horse-trading allegations, point and counter-points about the nuclear deal, and shifting loyalties. In this whole charade, yet again, glaring pointers to the Great Brahminical Conspiracy were ignored by all and sundry. All? No, not all. Mayawati, in her frustration, unknowingly made a reference to it when she said that the upper caste dominated parties had conspired to keep a Dalit woman from becoming the Prime Minister. Sadly, her remark was dismissed summarily without realizing that it struck at the core of a well-guarded secret. The Great Brahminical Conspiracy has managed to remain the best kept secret in Indian politics for over 80 years now. It is the subject of my doctoral dissertation at the University of Wyoming in Laramie, and as a conscientious student of political science, I think it is incumbent upon me to share this secret with everyone else.

So what is the Great Brahminical Conspiracy? Think about it. Almost all the Prime Ministers, Chief Ministers, Cabinet Ministers, and Presidents of this country have been from the brahmin caste. Is it not suspicious that in a country with a decently functioning democracy the ruling class is almost completely dominated by a community that makes up barely 10 percent of its population? Indeed, the Indian Right has been almost overtly brahminical in their ideology. One of the oft-repeated observations in intellectual circles in India is the fact that the top post of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has exclusively been held by brahmins, in fact almost exclusively Maharashtrian Chitpavan Brahmins.

What escapes attention is the fact that even the leadership of the Indian Left has been a brahminical hegemony. Look at the current Politburo or indeed Politburos over the years, and see if the proportion of brahmins is anywhere close to their proportion in the general population. Of course, this fact is never mentioned because the Left has successfully created the illusion that caste is irrelevant in their sphere of dominance. That caste is a non-issue in West Bengal and Kerala. It is all about class. And in that lies the germ of the driving philosophy of the great brahminical conspiracy. By creating an illusion of the irrelevance of caste, brahmins are free to dominate the Left, without really attracting the same charges of caste-ism as the Right does. H K Surjeet was the exception, but then he was not Hindu. Take him away and then examine the who’s who of the Indian Left and an ominous pattern starts to emerge.

Then there’s the Congress. Everyone talks about how it has been a one-dynasty party. That the Nehru-Gandhis are the royalty of the party, with a birthright to lead it. Fair enough. But is it just a coincidence that the dynasty (which should rightfully be called just the Nehru dynasty, for apart from the sperm donated by Feroze Gandhi, there is nothing non-Nehru about it) is also a brahmin dynasty? In the pre-British days, the only Hindus considered to have a birthright over governance were from the warrior Kshatriya caste (the one glaring exception being of course the Peshwas who, incidentally were from the same sub-caste as the RSS leadership). Now things have changed to such an extent that a brahmin family is considered the royal dynasty of India.

Brahmins thus dominate the leadership of all three major national-level political entities in India, despite the fact that ideologically speaking, they should dominate just one. Is it not peculiar that although Mahatma Gandhi, a member of the trader vaishya caste, almost singularly dominated the landscape of Indian politics through entirely non-violent means, and ushered in principles of equality, every major ideology in Indian politics is now dominated by brahmins? Of course, we have some supposed lower-caste politicians gaining prominence, like Mayawati, Lalu Yadav and Mulayam Singh. But they always play support roles and never call the shots. This is not just an accident, nor can it be fully explained by the “head start principle” (i.e. brahmins got a head start in education so they dominate all streams of ideology from the right to the left) over 6 decades after independence.

This brahminical dominance is the result of a well crafted strategy aimed at perpetuating the hegemony of a numerically insignificant community over a country of a billion “others”. When I elaborate on this strategy completely in subsequent parts, some of you might be tempted to dismiss it as a crackpot conspiracy theory. Some might even draw parallels to the idea of Knights Templar/Freemasons secretly ruling the world. But the evidence for the Great Brahminical Conspiracy is overwhelming. And this evidence is archival, historic as well as circumstantial in nature.

Before I conclude this post, let me leave you with some questions. When was the Communist Party of India formed? When was the RSS formed? When was V D Savarkar released from prison by the British? When did Jawaharlal Nehru start gaining prominence in the Congress Party? And finally, when did B R Ambedkar start his movement and gain prominence of threatening and competitive proportions? Remember or look up these dates, and you will be more prepared for my subsequent posts.

Pyotr Periyar Pandey is a PhD Candidate in the Political Science Department at the University of Wyoming in Laramie. He is working on his dissertation titled “The Great Brahminical Conspiracy: An Investigation into the Antecedents of the Hegemony of a Numerically Insignificant Community over the Polity of the Diverse Indian Nation”. He can be contacted at pyotr.periyar@pandey.ru