Ram-Leela Controversy

‘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.