this is not a movie review

For better or for worse, India has long been the centre of attention for the rest of the world’s fascination with the ‘exotic other’. From the Persian rulers to European sailors, Arabian traders to hippie travellers, imperialist mercenaries to beat poets, India seems to have played host to an innumerable range of enthusiasts, tyrants, and money-makers, amongst others. Now, it seems, is the turn of western moviemakers. And why shouldn’t it be so? Combine a history of the west’s fascination with India, the ‘booming’ economy of the country, a society as complex as (if not more than) any in the world, and you can tap into an audience and subjects, the likes of which have never been seen before.
So what’s all the fuss over Slumdog Millionaire taking home top honours at the Academy Awards? Why all the talk of a skewed perspective of life in India – voices speaking from within and without? It has everything going for it: a universally appealing rags-to-riches story, a gritty portrayal of a rising nation, elements of that vastly entertaining (and mystifying) entity known as Bollywood, a great cast and near-perfect cinematography and post-production. In fact the film has even proven to be a real-life rags-to-riches story for its young slum-dwelling actors, who now have access to fully-funded education, a monetary return that is (relatively) pretty big and a one-way ticket out of slum housing.
Could it be that India is ashamed of its poverty? Yes (and it should be), but it’s a little too naïve to imagine that over a quarter of a billion people living below the poverty line hasn’t been noticed by the world. Was the portrayal of poverty over the top? Probably not, since the movie was shot on location and is backed up by years of proof about living conditions for the poorest in India.
What is true, however, is that Slumdog Millionaire will provide widespread entertainment, food for thought, cringe-inducing emotions, Bollywood-tinted elation, and ‘cultural insight’ in coffee shops around the world; and it’ll just as easily whisk through the imaginations of millions of viewers without creating a positive impact.
The film unintentionally desensitises the audience to the plight of the poor in India and around the world. It brings to life the vivid colours and the melodious cacophony of the Indian slum but can’t possibly bring the audience the feeling of walking on rotting garbage or the stench that surrounds you constantly. Neither you nor I can know what it is to be in a Mumbai slum for more than a few minutes. Yet, we walk away from the film empathising with its characters. Neither you nor I can imagine the kinds of things that occur to the children of the slums. Yet we can’t stop talking about their lovability and indefatigable spirit. This, then, is the failure of the film. This is how it manages to negate all the wonderful characteristics about itself. It creeps up on us with its Bollywood charm and Hollywood panache and makes us forget that slumdogs can’t become millionaires. It makes us believe that things are getting better or somehow will because humans are resilient. Resilience is all one has when all else is lost. Things are getting better for a small minority but the rest continue to watch from the outside. But it’s okay, right? Eventually they’ll get lucky and things will turn out fine. In the mean time, why don’t we discuss how slick the movie looks?

Nightmare in the City of Dreams

Last week’s terrifying attacks on Mumbai left in their wake death and destruction on the ground, confusion and helplessness around the country, and horror in the minds of millions around the world, including many on campus, watching the events unfold on television. For a long time we had no words to express our feelings. We sat glued to news channels, unable to understand what to say, words of anger, disgust, fear and hope intermittently filtering through our shocked minds. Sitting thousands of miles from home we watched the heart of our country under the siege of terror. The tragedy was unimaginable, the lack of respect for human life was shocking; our hearts went out to all who were in Mumbai at this time of horror and silent prayers filtered through the disbelief. It was close to impossible to articulate our thoughts at the time, it is terribly hard to know how to respond even now.

Mumbai, the city that epitomises the nation that is home to over a billion, the city that almost single-handedly supports the economy of the largest democracy in the world, the city that represents the Indian dream in its truest form, a city that never turns away those who seeks its embrace, had been taken over by terrorists. This meant more than just an attack on the nineteen million who call Mumbai home; it meant that the entire country was at war.

The implications of the attacks are manifold. One need only take glance at any leading newspaper to know that India stands at a very crucial juncture in its history and its future is closely related to that of the entire world. The effects of the attacks will be felt in the spheres of economics, politics, international relations, internal security and will affect the national psyche in an unprecedented manner. It is not that India is any stranger to terrorism – the last six months have seen six major attacks around the nation and India ranks second in the world in terms of the terror strikes it faces. What’s different this time, as many repeat over and over, is that enough is enough.
The scope of the horror unleashed by the terrorists is mind-boggling – the ten young men hoped to kill up to 5000 people, ravage the city till it was on its knees and do so till they breathed their last. The targets were the most crowded places in Mumbai, the places that were the landmarks of the city, places where one would find all kinds of people the city had to offer. The terrorists planned to create havoc, to kill indiscriminately and cause destruction till they were caught or killed.

The strikes left close to 200 dead and over 300 injured.

Numbers, they say, speak for themselves. But it is only now that the people of India are waking up to the fact that their combined voices can to be heard too. All across the nation there is unparalleled outrage at the events; people want action to be taken, people want to know what went wrong and want their country safe again. It is tragic that only in the face of horror can a country unite, but it is the hope of most that this will lead to a safer India, if not a safer world.
Sentiments, understandably, are running high in India, both on the streets and amongst the authorities. The situation has already been politicised with an eye on the upcoming national elections and the media frenzy has left people gasping for the truth. Those affected directly are trying to limp back to normal life, others are venting their anger through diatribes against the suspected perpetrators, while everyone prays for a safer future. Tension is already rising in South Asia as leaders from India and Pakistan begin their anticipated exchange of blame and try to use the situation to gain political and tactical mileage.

But this is not a time for indiscriminate anger, not a time to raise spectres from a violent and tragic past, it is not a time to secure votes or gain alliances, it is not a time to align with extremists or liberals, it is not a time to speculate, nor a time to sit back and spew fire against old enemies or act hastily. Some atrocities are too big to be turned into trivial issues. Some atrocities demand action and demand action based on prudence. The voices in India are finally beginning to unite and they can hear an echo from across borders, near and far. And these voices are demanding immediate action.

All I hope is that action is taken prudently, justice is served rapidly and fairly, anger is restricted by reason, hope is not thwarted by pessimism, that the dead and wounded do not become mere numbers in our memories, that we never experience another tragedy like this. And I also pray that my hope resonates amongst people around the world as we grieve for the losses borne by the City of Dreams.

The Issue of Kashmir

Anyone with even a vague notion of diplomatic relations amongst the South Asian nations will know that Indo-Pakistani relations have been strained since independence and the bone of contention has always been the Kashmir Valley. Since gaining independence from the British and being partitioned into India and Pakistan, there have been four armed conflicts between the two nations, of which three were directly related to claims over Kashmir.
At the time of British India’s partition in 1947, Kashmir was ruled by Raja Hari Singh, a Hindu king who aspired for an independent state, not committing to either India or Pakistan as was the directive for all kingdoms in the region. Pakistan claimed the kingdom on the basis that Kashmir was home to a predominantly Muslim population. As a nascent Pakistani army descended upon Kashmir, Hari Singh chose to join the Indian side and requested military help, resulting in a war that ended with the division of Kashmir into two contested regions. The issue remains unsolved today with the most recent armed conflict occurring in 1998. The Kashmir issue is one that is close to every Indian and Pakistani’s heart. Over the years it has turned into an issue of national pride, which most people find hard to look past.
Even though Indians and Pakistanis look alike, speak similar languages, eat the same food, follow similar lifestyles, there is always this shadow that hovers somewhere in the distance ensuring a rift between people who share everything but a national identity. Some of my closest friends on campus are Pakistani but somehow we always avoid discussions about Kashmir. I realize that this isn’t because we find it hard to broach such a sensitive topic but because we realize the uselessness of the conflict and are tired of agreeing with each other over that fact. Our nations don’t need to spend billions on the military when there are much more pressing needs to be addressed.
Despite sitting quite low on the UNDP’s Human Development Index rankings, both India and Pakistan (ranked 126th and 134th respectively) continue to allocate around three percent of their respective GDPs to military expenditure. Around thirty percent of either country’s population is living below the poverty line. The respective public spending on education is no more than military expenditure while more than half of either country’s adult population remains illiterate. Public spending on healthcare is less than half of the expenditure on the military. One could go on and on and never come across a statistic that made sense to anyone when compared with the presence of a war that has lasted over sixty years.
I came across a button that said, “Don’t act stupid! We have world leaders for that.” It is easy for one to forget about bigger issues from around the world, particularly if they don’t directly affect one’s college life, and it is easy to push them aside by using jokes, but those issues never go away. They only wait in the distance, threatening to grow bigger than they are. The only route to peace in South Asia is through a resolution on the Kashmir issue and our generation is the first that has the opportunity to pursue that goal. Only those who have the ability to move beyond issues from the past, to look past illogical prejudices and to replace the narrow-mindedness of a minority with the hopeful outlook of tolerance, can begin the peace process that is so essential for improving living conditions in South Asia.

Religious Violence in India

In the first few months of 2002, modern India saw its worst religious rioting since partition: the western state of Gujarat saw clashes between Hindus and Muslims. Estimates place the number of dead anywhere between one and two thousand, with the majority being Muslims. Over ten thousand people were affected by the violence that ensued as retaliation for the burning of a train carrying Hindu pilgrims in the town of Godhra. The violence continued for several months and allegations about who was responsible flew around as the death toll mounted. The state government, led by Narendra Modi of the BJP, a political organisation backed by the conservative right-wing Hindu RSS, was widely held responsible for the atrocities committed all over the state. The state was blamed for failing to curb the violence and in fact there were several instances when state machinery was seen as being directly used to spur the rampaging mobs all across the state. Only recently were several people, both Hindus and Muslims, convicted for their actions in 2002. Modi and the BJP continued to stay in power.
Fast-forward to December 2007: state-wide elections were held in Gujarat and many saw this as the end of the rule of Modi, dubbed “the merchant of death” by many. Contrary to all expectations, Modi won convincingly, hailed as the new face of Indian politics, and seen by many as a future prime minister for the country. Modi has always been a controversial figure and has used communal divisions as the primary mode for bagging votes throughout. One cannot deny that Gujarat has done well under his regime – the economic growth rate for Gujarat has been estimated at around ten percent, well over the national average – but at one cost? If the government that lets rioting continue for over three months is allowed to stay in power for ten years after the riots, how can a nation continue to call itself secular or democratic?
Religious fundamentalism of the worst kind has become a grave issue for people all around the world. One can see the wrongdoings of people who use religion as the basis for furthering their cause without caring about the consequences, but often the principles of religion are blamed instead of the people behind such issues. Instead of focusing on how people are using religion in such a way it probably makes more sense to focus on the people who spur others to embrace such extremist views. The responsibility for this does not lie with any one group of people – unless a majority of people responds to such acts in order to force the government to take the required steps it is hard to see changes in the near future. Hiding behind prejudice and bigotry to launch attacks on a faith can only aggravate the problem and allow individuals to continue using religion for violence. We need to take a few steps back and look at the problems within a broader perspective, take a look at history and the way in which religion has created conflicts all around the world, try to realise that most of them were steeped in irrational prejudice and refrain from judging the common person on the basis of his or her faith. And until we can do that, it seems unlikely that world will see a change in the recent trend of growing religious fanaticism.

Tibet

As protestors follow the Olympic torch's passage across the globe, the issue of China's treatment of Tibet has captured newspaper headlines the world over. The issue of China's occupation of Tibet came up once again as protests broke out in Lhasa last month, approximately coinciding with the anniversary of the major Tibetan uprising against Chinese authorities in 1959.
What began as a series of protests by monks in Lhasa has turned into a concern for the global community; it is now a very sensitive issue with nations skirting around it, wary of ruffling any feathers.
The issue itself seems to be forgotten by the general public, hidden behind a media-driven frenzy, with scores of people running to associate themselves with the cause of “freedom”. Chinese authorities argue that Tibet is an integral part of their nation, while Tibetans accuse the Chinese government of impinging their freedom, of erasing their cultural identity.
China occupied Tibet in 1949 claiming that Tibet has historically been a part of it. Since then Tibet has enjoyed only a certain level of autonomy and it is doubtful that the Tibetan spiritual identity, based on centuries of belief, would be wiped out even under a regime with ideals so different from theirs. However, the most important effect of the occupation can be seen by the influx of non-Tibetans into Tibet. The Chinese occupation has certainly improved the economic situation in Tibet but for whom, and what cost? Can an improvement in numbers that appear in development reports justify the loss of one world’s richest cultural heritages? This is what the Tibetans argue – they do not want economic development at the cost of their independence and their identity.
While the debate over Tibet’s relationship with China can go on incessantly, the fact remains that at this point violent protests and violent crackdowns are becoming worse in Tibet and areas of China with large Tibetan populations. The problem is further compounded by the attitude of Chinese authorities towards news coverage by independent groups. Even news groups from Hong Kong have been forced to stay away from affected areas. The international community’s outrage has been heightened by China’s treatment of the issue itself, by their refusal to talk about it openly and multilaterally.
As protests mount all over the world the situation surrounding Tibet and the upcoming Olympics is getting tenser as the opening ceremony gets closer. China’s refusal to conduct dialogue with the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s spiritual leader, or with other international leaders (China states that the entire issue is an internal affair), the protestors’ use of violence and rioting, and the refusal of world leaders to take a firm stance on Tibet are all contributing to a worsening situation in Tibet.
Violence begets violence. No matter who is right and who is wrong, world leaders have a duty to conduct peaceful talks (and reach a viable solution), to curb violence without using violence, to work towards peace swiftly. Unless dialogue is initiated immediately the world can include one more failure in the struggle for peace.

Responsibilities

Over the last couple of decades the number of young men and women who leave their home countries to pursue further education elsewhere has risen by leaps and bounds. The increase has been particularly high when one considers the flow of students from the developing world to the developed world. The reason for such an increase is easily explained when one considers the relative standards of education that exist in the developed and developing world, along with rapid economic growth for many nations of the developing world, much of which has allowed a certain segment of their respective societies to be able to afford a daughter or son studying at a school in the developed world.
While this indicates the movement towards a world that is much more “global” in a nature, the creation of a generation that is made up of individuals who can empathise with those who might be as different from them as chalk is from cheese; while it shows that the developing world is catching up, that the economic inequality facing the world is slowly being reduced, one can’t ignore the deeper-reaching implications of this wave of students moving to the developed world, or the questions it raises about their links to their home countries.
Often, there are arguments about the “brain-drain” that arises for an economy that is seeing a larger amount of human capital flowing out of the country and how it affects the nation’s economic future. To view human actions in purely economic terms makes it easy for us to understand the economic effect of such actions but we ultimately lose the microscopic implications of moving away to a world that provides one with a significantly higher level of opportunity, comfort, and freedom.
The question then, is: What responsibilities do students from developing nations have once they leave their own country, one that is still struggling with problems that the developed world dealt with quite a while ago? Is it irresponsible to forget about that and move along keeping in mind that the opportunity one has is the first step towards personal success in a field chosen from a host of available options?
To say that one should forego everything one has worked hard for and often faced myriad difficulties to achieve would not only be hypocritical but also foolish; but to completely ignore the opportunity of giving something back to one’s home country after learning so much about the world would be tantamount to something quite similar.
There is no easy way to understand what one can do to help alleviate some of the problems that one has seen before moving away from home. But there is always a way to begin seeking ways of using one’s education to improve conditions that outsiders won’t ever be able to completely understand. It is important for students leaving their countries to consider going back to use their education and make a change: to take a stand is important, and to use that as the basis for moving ahead is critical to any change that we want to see in the world.