The Dappu foregrounds the hegemonic structure within which the Veena as a musical instrument operates.
Definition of culture and hence the acts of domination and hegemony are a part of the everyday. This is reflected in the debate around the Dappu and the Veena as shown by Samata Biswas.
The Dappu is a drumming instrument primarily used by the Madigas while the Veena is a string instrument associated with the Hindu Goddess Saraswati. Biswas notes three reactions to the mess notice board about the Dappu player. One was of cultural relativism where it was treated as a piece of new information about another culture. The second was of disgust that ‘real/material’ issues weren’t being addressed. And the third was of anger of “bringing in” caste in something like music. These three reactions are crucial to understand how the Veena has always stood for secular and hence cultural while the Dappu represents caste. It is the relational mode of analysis that brings to light how the Veena is universal and the Dappu particular. And that the discussion about the focuses on the religious and castist connotations of the Veena.
In essential, this debate points out how the Dappu and the Veena aren’t just musical instruments (standing in for many other cultural practices) but reflect the politics of terming something “national-cultural” and others as “regional.” It also highlights how the process of the Veena being celebrated as classical tradition while the Dappu remains the identity of a few. Different cultural practices are related in a coercive manner and the relationship between the Veena and Dappu is reflective of the violent marginalisations of certain popular practices in society. Evocation of the Dappu then points out the identity of the Veena as systematically and historically marginalizing the Dappu and millions of other such instruments, literature, religion, and ways of life. Hence the Dappu foregrounds the hegemonic structures of class, caste, religion and identity within which the Veena operates.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Critical Reading of Guru
The debate on masculinity and aspirational notions of masochism are often conducted in the frame of films like Krrissh who is seen as the Indian Superhero. But I think it is films like Guru that need to be examined seriously because it presents not just a model of reckless pursuit of money and success propelled by male aggression and disregard for rules, but the very definition of masculinity is altered.
Guru’s release in 2007 comes at a point when the Indian stock market has witnessed revolutionary peaks, lots of foreign capital has come in, Indian rupee has appreciated, tremendous growth in many sectors and India became a trillion dollar economy. Moreover India intensified its international integration and not only had foreign direct investment but also bought companies abroad. Just as Guru represents, India has witnessed a fast and furious (economic) growth in this decade. Politically, coalition politics (especially emergence of lower caste leaders) and renewed participation of the masses in voting are seen as the marked shifts in India’s polity. Moreover this economic growth has meant more migration to the cities and thus more pressure on the state to provide infrastructure. Seen in this context, Guru throws up interesting insights.
The entire film needs to be understood with the emergence of an “urban, media-exposed, modernizing middle class in India” whose aspirations and sensibilities were expressed on the site of cinema thus highlighting how the middle class notions of power, nationhood and political transformation mattered. (Lal and Nandy, 2006) Hence the film notes the paradigm shift in the middle class mentality that sees money making and profit as goals to be achieved and salutes the capitalist who generates revenue. Moreover through the film, Gurukant refers to himself and his shareholders as “middle class and calls themselves as ‘family’ pointing at the middle class eminence to family. The aspirations of being rich, owning factories, palatial homes form a part of this emerging middle class who stand to gain a lot from globalizing India and this forms the crux of Guru. The film is also a comment on the role media plays in making and breaking individuals. The investigative role of the media sees it emergence with the Emergency as media was identified as an alternative entry into Indian public consciousness. (Lal and Nandy, 2006) Thus media became the source of information for the masses and a critique of the misdeeds. But the 1990s also saw the manufacturing of news wherein the industry could be manipulated and bought. This dual role of the media comes out strongly in Guru wherein Gurukant’s rise to success is celebrated by the media while the corruption and competition is attacked only by one newspaper – the Independent run by Manik Dasgupta. The role of the media is outlined as the watchdog which doesn’t compromise on its ideals and principles even as Gurukant bribes and buys its employees, creates structural troubles of cutting power supply and attacks the owner. He uses the media to settle personal scores. He also banks on the principle of how newspapers depend on advertising revenue and how that can be used to manipulate its stand. Most Hindi films, especially of 1970s, always portrayed the “evil capitalist” as the villain and represented him as a cold, ruthless individual who cares only for profit. In absolute contrast is Guru which lauds the forces of liberalization and projects the capitalist as a messiah who will drive out India’s poverty. Moreover the significant point is that Gurukant has no remorse or compulsion to hoard wealth. As one reviewer pointed out that he isn’t an industrialist with any external compulsion or revenge to take, promise to keep or injustices to fight against. In fact he is an entrepreneur by choice and in fact heralded as a ‘true nationalist’ who is taking India towards progress. This celebration of individual capitalists and their pursuit of wealth are complemented by a bashing of the socialist state which was never seen as pro-poor but as pro-poverty. Hence Gurukant becomes the saviour of the masses whom the state claims to protect but doesn’t help economically. That this saviour resorts to fraud, manipulation, coercion are overlooked and this is evident even from the claps and whistles from the audience when Gurukant gives his oratorical speech in the climax of the film. He makes a profit of 30 seconds even in the speech and reiterates his status of being a baniya (only explicit reference to caste in the film) and carrying the underlying message of how baniyas are the mercantile castes, known to be penny-pinchers and are extremely adept at business. The emphasis on the individual is also seen in the reconstitution of the conjugal relation in the film. Sujata isn’t the typical village belle but an educated, opinionated woman who almost defies the patriarchal system by attempting to elope. Incidentally the person she is supposed to elope with a communist. This agency then is lost when she marries Gurukant not because he asks of it but because she becomes a dedicated wife who stands by her husband no matter what and when she disagrees, doesn’t show it. Moreover one really wonders of her reaction to the reality of the marriage being a ‘deal’ because she is standing right there when Gurukant speaks of their marriage to her father.
Hindi films have always played up the good versus evil dialectic with the good always triumphing the evil. Guru is a marked detour because the very definitions of good and evil are altered and the evil disguised as the good seems to triumph. Seen in the background of these many narratives, Guru seems to be a warning to the rest of the world and to critics of globalization that India is emerging and how. It is unrepentant, fast, and aggressive and is at par with other nations. At the same time, it attaches great value to the family. It reflects the middle class values and undermines the utility and significance of the state. The individual completely dwarfs the state. This biopic in fact heralds Ambani without ever critically engaging with the means he deployed to reach success. It becomes the new manual for defining masculinity and prescribes roles for the educated wife, state, media and the middle class. Guru effectively shows that anyone who is capable and willing can make it big in the globalizing world and completely overrides the exclusions, the barriers and the burden of globalization.
Guru’s release in 2007 comes at a point when the Indian stock market has witnessed revolutionary peaks, lots of foreign capital has come in, Indian rupee has appreciated, tremendous growth in many sectors and India became a trillion dollar economy. Moreover India intensified its international integration and not only had foreign direct investment but also bought companies abroad. Just as Guru represents, India has witnessed a fast and furious (economic) growth in this decade. Politically, coalition politics (especially emergence of lower caste leaders) and renewed participation of the masses in voting are seen as the marked shifts in India’s polity. Moreover this economic growth has meant more migration to the cities and thus more pressure on the state to provide infrastructure. Seen in this context, Guru throws up interesting insights.
The entire film needs to be understood with the emergence of an “urban, media-exposed, modernizing middle class in India” whose aspirations and sensibilities were expressed on the site of cinema thus highlighting how the middle class notions of power, nationhood and political transformation mattered. (Lal and Nandy, 2006) Hence the film notes the paradigm shift in the middle class mentality that sees money making and profit as goals to be achieved and salutes the capitalist who generates revenue. Moreover through the film, Gurukant refers to himself and his shareholders as “middle class and calls themselves as ‘family’ pointing at the middle class eminence to family. The aspirations of being rich, owning factories, palatial homes form a part of this emerging middle class who stand to gain a lot from globalizing India and this forms the crux of Guru. The film is also a comment on the role media plays in making and breaking individuals. The investigative role of the media sees it emergence with the Emergency as media was identified as an alternative entry into Indian public consciousness. (Lal and Nandy, 2006) Thus media became the source of information for the masses and a critique of the misdeeds. But the 1990s also saw the manufacturing of news wherein the industry could be manipulated and bought. This dual role of the media comes out strongly in Guru wherein Gurukant’s rise to success is celebrated by the media while the corruption and competition is attacked only by one newspaper – the Independent run by Manik Dasgupta. The role of the media is outlined as the watchdog which doesn’t compromise on its ideals and principles even as Gurukant bribes and buys its employees, creates structural troubles of cutting power supply and attacks the owner. He uses the media to settle personal scores. He also banks on the principle of how newspapers depend on advertising revenue and how that can be used to manipulate its stand. Most Hindi films, especially of 1970s, always portrayed the “evil capitalist” as the villain and represented him as a cold, ruthless individual who cares only for profit. In absolute contrast is Guru which lauds the forces of liberalization and projects the capitalist as a messiah who will drive out India’s poverty. Moreover the significant point is that Gurukant has no remorse or compulsion to hoard wealth. As one reviewer pointed out that he isn’t an industrialist with any external compulsion or revenge to take, promise to keep or injustices to fight against. In fact he is an entrepreneur by choice and in fact heralded as a ‘true nationalist’ who is taking India towards progress. This celebration of individual capitalists and their pursuit of wealth are complemented by a bashing of the socialist state which was never seen as pro-poor but as pro-poverty. Hence Gurukant becomes the saviour of the masses whom the state claims to protect but doesn’t help economically. That this saviour resorts to fraud, manipulation, coercion are overlooked and this is evident even from the claps and whistles from the audience when Gurukant gives his oratorical speech in the climax of the film. He makes a profit of 30 seconds even in the speech and reiterates his status of being a baniya (only explicit reference to caste in the film) and carrying the underlying message of how baniyas are the mercantile castes, known to be penny-pinchers and are extremely adept at business. The emphasis on the individual is also seen in the reconstitution of the conjugal relation in the film. Sujata isn’t the typical village belle but an educated, opinionated woman who almost defies the patriarchal system by attempting to elope. Incidentally the person she is supposed to elope with a communist. This agency then is lost when she marries Gurukant not because he asks of it but because she becomes a dedicated wife who stands by her husband no matter what and when she disagrees, doesn’t show it. Moreover one really wonders of her reaction to the reality of the marriage being a ‘deal’ because she is standing right there when Gurukant speaks of their marriage to her father.
Hindi films have always played up the good versus evil dialectic with the good always triumphing the evil. Guru is a marked detour because the very definitions of good and evil are altered and the evil disguised as the good seems to triumph. Seen in the background of these many narratives, Guru seems to be a warning to the rest of the world and to critics of globalization that India is emerging and how. It is unrepentant, fast, and aggressive and is at par with other nations. At the same time, it attaches great value to the family. It reflects the middle class values and undermines the utility and significance of the state. The individual completely dwarfs the state. This biopic in fact heralds Ambani without ever critically engaging with the means he deployed to reach success. It becomes the new manual for defining masculinity and prescribes roles for the educated wife, state, media and the middle class. Guru effectively shows that anyone who is capable and willing can make it big in the globalizing world and completely overrides the exclusions, the barriers and the burden of globalization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)