‘RAM-LEELA’ Controversy
For many days we are thinking about ‘Ram-Leela’ controversy. I write my views about it (Which I already presented in detail, in my presentation).
Some may think that why I write about this controversy after
movie released and it becomes very old topic. But now people seen the movie and
raised question against controversy, so, defend is necessary for that.
Today many people believe that this controversy is wrong. And
because of that, movie cannot be released and some material harm also happened.
They also said that there is nothing wrong in the movie and this bend or
prohibition is not right.
First I want to say very clearly that I am not against movie
or Art. I am also lover of art. But I want to defend the controversy. I want to
give some arguments, that this controversy is not only ‘time-pass’, but there
is something in the movie which is against any caste and cannot be acceptable
for some people. There is some characterisation, and because of that Rajputs
cannot accept the movie, and controversy rise. (When I mention Rajputs, I want
to relate ‘Jadeja’, I mean it Jadeja, the surname from which I belong and the
surname which the director uses in his movie.)
I want to clear one thing that I am not making my judgement
that the film is wrong or right, or the controversy is true/right or wrong. I
only defence the controversy, I only give you several reasons behind it.
When my father said that what are you doing? I answered him
that, my classmates are against this controversy. And my father very lightly
said, “Yes, different people have different perspectives.” I replied him that,
I am going to present on defence of this controversy. Then he said, “You have
to present your views with logic and with proper reasons.” As if he wants to
say that if you have not logical arguments then don’t present only for creating
loud ‘hangama’ type of situation. So, I try my best to prove my arguments with
logic.
There is one question
that ‘why some persons like the movie Ram-Leela?’ the reason is that, first, it
is a love story. Second, it is a hate story. Third, passionate emotions are
shown very passionately. And other reasons are that it is very artistic, acting
of all the characters is good, and music and cinematography are also nice.
There is a psychological reason behind liking of the movie. Love
is very common and normal emotion of every human being. Every person relates
himself with the character of any movie on love story. It is our hidden wish
that we have also that kind of lover who loves us as the character of the film.
It is our dream to get love as shown in the love stories.
But without violence love cannot be presented effectively. If
lovers do not suffer than story cannot possible. So, more violence, more
passionate emotions, more effective story will be. And movie becomes super hit!
Because of that reason many similar love stories we can find in Bollywood and
Hollywood also. Because of the psychological reason people like to see love
stories and that type of movies are repeated again and again. There is an old
form of English ‘Romance’, where the theme is of love, sex and violence.
(Written in the book of R. J. Rees) And from ‘Romeo and Juliet’ to ‘Ram-Leela’
the story is same, of love and it is not changed.
As we studied in our U.G. level, Art is not easy task, the
process is very hard. We know that when an artist makes an art he reveals his
neurosis. There is already in his unconscious mind and he only reveals himself
and become free from his neurosis through his art. So, there is always
intention behind imagination, imaginative work. To know artist’s intention and
what is hidden in his unconscious mind, we have to study biography and history
of particular art and artist.
For example, there is a very deep, philosophical ideas about
death are presented in ‘Hamlet’ by Shakespeare. The reason is that, when
Shakespeare wrote ‘Hamlet’, there was a death of his son! So, ideas about death
are in Shakespeare’s unconscious mind.
I hope that you
understand me properly. Directing film is also one art, that way we have to
study the film and director both. About ‘Ram-Leela’, Bhupendrasinh very well
wrote in his blog. He studied Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s past and relates it with
his art and find reason of his intention behind the misrepresentation in the
movie. He wrote,
“૧૯૯૯માં કચ્છનાં નખત્રાણા તાલુકામાં બિબર ગામમાં થયો હશે કોઈ વિખવાદ બાવજીભા જાડેજાનું ભણસાલી કોમની ટોળીએ ખૂન કર્યું. ત્યાર પછી સામે બદલો લેવાની કાર્યવાહી તો થવાની એમાં ગામ સળગ્યું અને સામે કેટલાક ભણશાળીની પણ હત્યાઓ થઈ. આપણે જાણીએ છીએ કે આ બધું ખોટું જ થયું છે. ફિલ્મ સર્જક સંજય લીલા ભણસાલી આ નખત્રાણા તાલુકાના બિબર ગામનો. એમનું મોસાળ રાજસ્થાનમાં છે. જાડેજા દરબારો અને કચ્છી ભણસાલી વચ્ચેની આ જૂની પણ બહુ જૂની પણ ના કહેવાય તેવી દુશ્મની સંજય લીલા ભણશાલીનાં દિમાગમાં રમતી તો હોય જ....”
I hope you already read this blog entirely. If not, this is
the link of it. Bhupendrasinh's Blog
Now, I want to tell you about this controversy. Movies are
mirrors of society. We can know the culture of some place without direct visit.
We never visit south India still we very well know about dressing styles, food
habits, their way of living and their culture! Because of movies or media. That
way media and movies become representer of some society.
Generally, people like to see realistic movies. If we see the
movie ‘Krish’ we may say that it is children’s movie. So, similarity between
imagination and reality is important. People don’t apply the concept of
‘willing suspension of disbelief’ while seeing that type of movies.
As a student of cultural studies, we study culture through
the media, through the movies. So, these are the reasons that in the movie,
representation of any culture must be true. Movies must not be misrepresented
any culture.
If I write about Negro and portrait the characters with fair
and white skin, how far it is acceptable? So, when these misrepresentations
happen, there may controversy rise. You
don’t accept my portrait of Negro as white, because you know very well that
Negroes are not white. But what about who don’t know about Negroes? They may
start believing that ‘Negroes are white’, because of only misrepresentation of
culture. That’s way ‘Ram-Leela’ controversy is not wrong and controversy must
acceptable for people.
Now, I tell you what way misrepresentation is in the movie
‘Ram-Leela’.
In the movie, the director intentionally insults Rajput
caste. He also shows the enmity between Rajputs and Rabaries, which is not
true. He portrait Rajput caste as very violent, cruel, related with
criminality, war mongers, don’t respect woman and against peace, against
humanity. With portraying that way, as if he wants to show that, Rajputs have
no moral values, which is not true representation.
For intention of getting revenge from Rajputs and insulting
them, the director shows Rajputs are morally and even physically inferior to
other caste.
If anyone praise his own caste than it is common and normal,
but if he criticises another caste which is not related to him and from which
he doesn’t belongs than surely there is some intention behind this criticism. And
how can anyone compare castes without knowing it? How can he get right to judge one inferior than
other? How can we portrait any caste inferior and superior, compare them
without belonging from anyone caste of them?
It means that because of his wish to take revenge he shows
Rajputs inferior and criticise very badly in the movie.
The characterisations of major characters are also like that.
He portraits Rajput-woman opposite than reality. He shows the heroine, who uses
very slang, abusing language, who behaves like prostitute, and he presents her
with nudity. But reality is different; we cannot find any woman like her in our
surroundings.
In the movie, the character of ‘Dhankaur’-mother of heroine
is portrayed as she is very rude, rigid, and cruel, against love and humanity. In
the movie she is shown with cigarette and takes service from men! Strange!
Cannot imaginable, cannot acceptable. In the finger cutting scene, she is
portrayed very cruel.
When we want to criticise some person or some community than
describe them as a cruel, cruelty is the worst vice. That way, the director
shows Rajput caste with this cruelty and violence.
Even he became partial while characterising two women, wives
of hero and heroine’s brothers, Kesar and Rasila.
Rasila is daughter- in- law of Dhankaur- Rajput woman. She is
tried to be raped by Rabaries in the film and saved by other Rabari fellow.
Then the same incident is done with Kesar by Rajputs, who is from another
caste. But no one can even touch her and she saved herself without another’s
help. There is director’s mind!! From these incidents we can clearly see that,
there is some intention behind these two scenes.
In our society, women are known as “ijjat” reputation, honour
of any family or society. And what Sanjay Leela Bhansali did with both women?
We can clearly find and understand that why it is problematic for Rajputs. He
can also exchange the incident and can show that Rajputs don’t respect women,
but he want to insult the caste so he portrait the character of Rasila inferior
and weaker, helpless than other. Kesar's character is much glorified by the directer than any other character.
The characterisation of a person, who is going to marry with
heroine, is so poor and weak that one cannot accept him as Rajput. He is
portrayed so, to glorify hero’s character and to show heroine’s passion towards
hero, and cruel mentality of other family members of heroine.
This is only one side which is misrepresented, but another
point is, he portraits the hero with moral values. The director shows that hero
wants to stop enmity and want peace and love. His characterisation is so good
and powerful that viewers love his character.
Comparing both the characters, heroine’s character is become
lower and inferior to hero. With portraying these types of comparative
characters and all castes, Sanjay Leela Bhansali shows that other caste is
better than Rajputs and Rajputs have no morality, no values, even no physical
strength, no love, and no big heart, and have not a good character.
While truth is entirely opposite than this, for Rajputs
values are more important than life. Values and good qualities of Rajputs and
Rajput women are totally absent in the movie. Even some values or qualities
which are in their blood are not presented by the director. You cannot find any
woman from any caste who uses the language, and behave as the heroine in the
film.
That way, there is an insulting, misrepresentation by the
director. And so, this controversy rise. We can also judge that Bhansali makes
the movie with bad intention of getting revenge.
He also misrepresents Gujarati culture as showing the enmity
of two castes with such nudity and violence. He describes false history, if, as
he describes, there is 500 years old enmity between these two castes, then,
there is much news about this enmity than Hindu-Muslim riots. And with seeing
that type of misrepresentation, people of other states may believe that there
is always riots and violence going on in Gujarat, no good relations between two
communities in Gujarat!!
So, as a woman, as a feminist, as a Gujarati and as a Rajput
I defend controversy, because of misrepresentation of women, insulting
description of Rajputs and misrepresentation of Gujarati culture and false
history.
If I forget all about caste, what is new in the movie, old
story repeated. And now it must be changed. People want something new. Still it
is liked by many people and they are also right. I already accept that movie is
artistic and the reason is that, as artist more neurotic art is more artistic
(psychological concept).
After seeing the movie I feel that Sanjay Leela Bhansali uses
the name of Gujarat to earn money. He uses the fact that, he comes from
Gujarat. There is also controversy against him that he doesn’t mention
‘Meghani’s name (famous poet of Gujarat) and used his song in the film. He
copied which is very famous and popular today, and presents it in film. And get
his personal revenge through the movie.
If he want to present culture of Gujarat, than he have to
know about it. Without close reading, imitation must be false and cannot be
true representation. If we forget about his intention, if he doesn’t make the
movie with bad intention, I want to say that, if he knows Rajputs & Rajput
women truly, than he may, he must not accept his own portrait of heroine
and description of Rajputs in the film.
There are many counter arguments, people put in against of
this controversy, so, now I want to clear some arguments logically.
Some viewers find that, very nice moral message given in the
movie, But, If the director wants to give moral message about anything and if
he wants to present the story of ‘Romeo and Juliet’ than why he doesn’t choose
imaginative name and imaginative story? Why he uses real name of particular
caste and community? It means that he is interested in his personal intention.
Other argument is that, the movie is about inter-caste
marriage, which is still not acceptable in our society. But there are many examples of inter-caste
marriages in our surroundings and now it is not much problematic for people in
Gujarat.
One argument against the controversy is said that, Bhansali
shows mirror so, this controversy raised. But, if he wants to present vices,
than describe it. But he describes the vices which is not present in reality.
Vices of Rajputs, which he shows in the film is created, constructed, but not
real. For example, portrait of ‘Dhankaur’, Leela and other scenes are problematic.
He also shows criminality of caste, but criminality is not belongs to any
caste, class or community. It is more individual thing.
Some favours the characterisation of the heroine and
interpret her as she is suppressed. But with behaviour of the heroine in some
scenes like, the entry scene and in the song ‘Lahu muh lag Gaya’, we cannot
find him as suppressed. If you feel like that than compare her character with
the character of Mira in movie ‘Dor’, you can easily understand that whose
character is suppressed.
Other argument is that, the director not did anything wrong
with taking revenge in his own way. But, Sanjay Leela Bhansali takes revenge
through art. Then art is not pure but with prejudice, becomes personal and
partial. The person who suffers and the person who writes, he must be different
(T. S. Eliot’s theory of depersonalisation). It means that Sanjay Leela
Bhansali is not good artist, not good director.
One argument on this controversy and my presentation is that,
we have to detach while criticising anything. But if Sanjay Leela Bhansali
cannot detach his self and personal past than how can we? And how can he expect
from others not to attach with movie with playing Disclaimer?
Here I give you one example, if a person who is from foreign country
and, if he wants to judge any India-Pakistan controversy, then he has to know
something about India and Pakistan. After knowing that, he makes judgement with
using his knowledge, that India is wrong or right, or Pakistan is wrong or right.
That’s way, with knowledge, attachment automatically come.
Because of his bad intention, “સર્જનાત્મક
બૌદ્ધિક બદમાશી,” serious effect already began in the relation of the two
castes. Enmity began, which was never been in the history. (For other
information of harmful effects, refer Bhupendrasinh’s blog.)
If anything wrong done with Bhansali and he want to take
revenge from the wrong doer, than he can write it in his personal blog or say
it in his interviews. Others also sympathise him or identify the wrong doer.
But, because of his misrepresentation of whole caste, wrong interpretation of
culture must happen in future. And if he has problem with one how should he
take revenge from whole. If I have problem with one person, should I make his
whole family suffer? Anyone can accept
that it is not right way of taking revenge.
I understand counter points very well, and they are also
true, I can see with that perspective also. Some people may not find anything
wrong, misrepresented, but, as I said earlier that one has to know what is
real, original and what is imaginative, then you can judge what is
misrepresented.
To argue and to defend this controversy I saw the film (though
my morality doesn’t allows me) and I know very well about Rajputs and Rajput
women, then I put my views and argue what is wrong in the movie.
To understand my perspective, first one has to know, feel and
observe something about Rajputs and Rajput women than make judgement. Perhaps,
to understand my perspective you have to born at my place at your next birth.
I hope you accept my views and interpretations. If not, or if
you disagree with me, then I whole heartedly welcome you for counter attacks.
And if you misinterpret anything than forgive me for that.
