Torn between two lovers

“Torn between two lovers, feelin’ like a fool
Lovin’ both of you is breakin’ all the rules.”
[Lines from a song by Mary MacGregor (of the ‘Peter, Paul and Mary’ fame)]

I was born in Calcutta and grew up there. I loved the city. I’ve spent the best years of my life there… that is, the best years of my life until I moved to Bombay in 1995. The reason for my move was purely professional. You see, professionally I’m a marketing consultant, and Calcutta didn’t offer much of a future for me back then. But, I fell in love with Bombay and decided to stay.

Recently I visited Calcutta (now Kolkata), after eleven and a half years, and fell in love with the city all over again. I didn’t feel like returning to Bombay. My old friends in Kolkata and their warm welcome must have been the reason for this… or, at least, that’s what I kept telling myself. Or, was it because I was once again connected with my roots? I’ve heard such things happened.

When I mentioned this to my friends there, they exclaimed, “You’re not going to do an Alex Hailey on us, are you?” No, I promised them. I shall return to Bombay (now Mumbai) peacefully. Return to Mumbai I did, and my friends here promptly asked me: “So, is Mumbai your home now?” Yes, I promised them, it was. It is.

This experience made me wonder what it is that attracts people to places. I understand the lure of job opportunities and money, the economic reasons, but there must be something else besides these. Is there some compatibility, some chemistry, between people and places – just as there is between two people – that we don’t know about or cannot explain? Something that involves us, engages us, binds us, enriches us, helps us to grow and discover ourselves?

And, is this something depended on our personality – our traits, our attitudes, our behaviour? Or, is it genetic and is depended on our DNA? Perhaps, it’s much more complex and is depended on both. Perhaps, it’s just a matter of willingness and adjustment due to convenience. Who knows! For the time being, why don’t I just pass it off as love?

The city of joy

[With apologies to Dominique Lapierre and his 'The City of Joy' - and the charity he is helping to bring to Kolkata.]

There's something not quite right in writing an epic about a city you've never lived in. You have to be a part of that city, a part of that city's fabric, to blend in. And only then can you realise what that city is all about. Be it London, Paris, New York or Kolkata, you just can't appreciate the nuances of that city with a foreigner's eyes. You need to be one with that city to appreciate its beauty and its benevolence, its demons and its dilemmas.

I learnt this the hard way during my visit to Kolkata. You see, I live in Mumbai now and, on returning to Kolkata after a decade or so, I looked at the city through a foreigner's eyes. I saw how Kolkata was different from Mumbai - not how Kolkata was Kolkata. And in doing so, I missed everything. It was only when I realised that I was a Bengali, born and brought up in Kolkata, did I begin to see things clearly.

Kolkata's joy - and Mr Lapierre is quite right here in using this term to describe this city - is in its bonhomie. It's everywhere. Whether you're asking for directions from a fellow pedestrian, or buying fish at the local market, or attending a meeting with clients, or having a drink at a club, or sitting in on an 'adda' (a powwow with friends or colleagues, usually over cups of tea)… people of Kolkata are proverbially friendly. It is this quintessentially Kolkata trait that makes this city great.

Mr Lapierre, Kolkata is not the melting-pot of misery, violence and struggle for survival that you make it out to be. Its joy does not emerge from misery, but rather from gladness and bonhomie.

Life between meals

Mumbai problems aren’t matters of great concern for Kolkata. And, why should they be? Kolkata has a life of its own. It’s a place far removed from the hassles of Mumbai such as those faced by Mumbaikars everyday (for instance, distance), or those faced by Mumbaikars every now and then (disturbance due to bomb blasts). Kolkata is a closely-knit peaceful congregation of (mostly) Bengalis relaxing over cups of tea, until it’s time for lunch or dinner – whichever comes first, or next. Yes sir, Kolkata is a relaxed life between meals.

Kolkata loves to eat – and it shows. Meet a friend from Kolkata and before you know it, you’re enjoying a snack or a meal with him or her. Originally a Bengali from Kolkata, I already shared this appetite for life that people of Kolkata have. But, I was re-introduced to its overwhelming power this week when I returned to this city after eleven odd years. Ever since I arrived, I’ve been eating and eating. My friends are glad to have me on board and treat me to a huge gourmet spread of the best Bengali cuisine – and along with it, Bengali culture and hospitality.

So much so that I’ve actually had to rearrange my work schedule around meals and mealtimes. It’s quite amazing really. I now realise what I had been missing for so many years.

How safe are we?

It’s been a week since the Mumbai train bomb blasts have shaken us and I’m as concerned as you are. On the one hand, it was an act of terrorism which led to deaths and injury to many innocent people. On the other, it was a blatant invasion – and violation – of our safety. For, as we go about our daily lives in Mumbai, we don’t expect our lives, nor those of our friends, family and colleagues, to be blown apart at the push of a button by some faceless, nameless terrorist. We expect our days will pass safely, because safety is one of our fundamental constitutional rights. And yet, before us, we have a blatant violation of this right. What are we supposed to do?

Well, find someone to blame it on, of course.

The situation at hand is a bit murky at the moment. As far as media reports go, no-one’s sure about how things stand. Headlines suggest that there are no clues leading to the terrorists involved in the bomb blasts. The Police aren’t sure what explosives were used. Witness descriptions of suspect terrorists are inconclusive. Many criminals – big and small, including some riff-raffs who may have never thought of murder – have been picked up for questioning. Yet, suspect terrorist and informer information hasn’t revealed anything constructive. Still, some reports say, soon the terrorists will be identified and apprehended.

While this is going on, everyone’s formed their own pet theories on why the blasts happened and who were responsible. All fingers are pointing at the Pakistanis, of course, although there’s no proof of it yet. Why? Because the Pakistanis are taking revenge on us for the Gujarat riots, for sentencing to death three terrorists who were involved in the Akshardham Temple killings, for claiming Kashmir as ours, for hating Muslims in general, for not accepting Pakistan as a country… you name it and there’s a theory attached to the Mumbai train bomb blasts and why Pakistan must answer for them.

Some are talking about flushing out terrorists from Pakistan with the Pakistan government’s help. Some are talking about sending in Indian troops and attacking terrorist bases in Pakistan. Some are talking about going to war with Pakistan if terrorist attacks continue on Indians.

How much wisdom is there in all of this?

Then, there’s the question of safety. What is our country doing to make us feel safe and secure from terrorist attacks? How can we be sure that our lives will not be in danger from another bomb attack… or, for that matter, any terrorist attack? Are our defence and intelligence services ready to intercept and eliminate terrorist attacks on Indian soil and make us feel safe again? How safe are we really in our own land?

New acts of terror

How do we move against terrorists? Or, for that matter, against others – including organisations, communities and states – that support terrorism? What skill and magnitude of preparation do we need to have to protect ourselves? For, if terrorists are enemies of the people and not just the state, in terms of not making any demands for their acts or crimes, then, no matter what methods or strategies we adopt, they will find ways to break us.

Threats can come from anywhere – anytime. The use of hijacked passenger jets as cruise missiles in the case of the WTC bombings of 9/11 is a prime example of how innovative terrorists can be. On the other end of the terrorist spectrum, you have the simple case of a bomb in a bag as it may have been used in Mumbai last Tuesday. Even if we adopt security measures to ensure that such attempts do not succeed in the future – and that’s really a very tall order for a country like India – terrorists are unlikely to be stopped.

What I mean is, it’s not the innovativeness of the terrorist campaign, nor the complexity of the defence systems we employ to thwart their moves, that are issues here. The issue that threatens us is that of commitment that terrorists have – i.e. their willingness to die for the cause. Motivated terrorists will find new ways to threaten our lives. They will carry out new acts of terror. If a bomb in a bag won’t work, motivated terrorists will doubtless choose something else.

This is not an illusion. India has already experienced the level of commitment terrorists can have. Just think of the assassinations of Indira Gandhi (shot by her own bodyguards in her own premises) and her son Rajiv Gandhi (a bomb in a garland that welcomed him in a customary Indian way at a political rally), and you’ll know what I’m talking about. Weapons of various types and sizes exist – and they can be expected to be used by terrorists anywhere, anytime.

Terrorism is here to stay

Imagine this: You’re on your way home after a hard day’s work. You board the usual local commuter train to your suburban home. You fend off the rush-hour squeeze from other commuters to get a place. You catch up on some gossip from the daily tabloid. You talk to your neighbour in the seat beside you. You answer a call on your mobilephone telling your wife that you’d be home soon. You stare out of the window dreaming many things… Then an explosion erases your entire life from this planet.

Something like this may have happened in the train bomb blasts of last evening in Mumbai; killing hundreds and injuring several times that number. Of course, some of those tales we’ll never get to know.

The instrument of terrorism was probably very simple: a bomb in a bag in a crowded train. It has been used before against Mumbai; in buses too, besides in crowded places. But more importantly, it has exposed the vulnerability of life in modern Mumbai. The terrorists knew how to exploit this. They planned seven such bombs to go off in seven different trains in a matter of a few minutes – too little time for Mumbai to spread the word to save lives.

Terrorists want to cause terror. Some say, terrorists don’t really want to kill people, but to gain sympathy for their cause. Free Ireland. Jerusalem is ours. Get out of Iraq. Release our comrades from your jails. Quit India. They want to show their power by disrupting peace, or taking hostages, or exploding bombs at places and times of their choice. They do it in order to warn, not really to destroy. What makes last evening’s act more terrifying is that no specific demands were made.

It looks like terrorism is here to stay in Mumbai. How do we prevent it? How do we reduce the damage? How do we save lives?

A short note on the caste system

If anything has endured in India, sadly, it’s the caste system. Today, caste-related discriminations abound, with no possible solutions in sight. Though it may appear to be a backward philosophy or principle of social structuring, from what I know, it was not meant to be that way. Its origins define it as a system based on ‘occupational specialisation’, with specific tasks allocated to specific groups of people according to their skills and knowledge. And, it must have benefited society at one time.

The caste system in India was probably the first socio-economic concept defining, what we would call today, the service sector. People were grouped into four basic categories (i.e. castes) according to the service they provided to (or in) the society. The Brahmins provided knowledge, especially knowledge leading to God; the Kshatriyas were skilled in the art of war, and provided defence against attackers or invasion; the Vaisyas were skilled in commerce, crafts and management; and the Shudras provided labour for all the menial day-to-day tasks.

No premium was assigned to any particular type of work or skill or knowledge. Each caste had its privileges, with the Brahmins (the priests) and the Kshatriyas (the warriors) given a greater share than the rest, as was the practice of all ancient societies across the world. If a person repeatedly failed to perform his or her tasks in society, the privileges for that person were withdrawn, no matter which caste the person belonged to. The caste system was a means of better socio-economic functioning of a society. In essence, it was a symbol of democracy. Contrary to popular belief, it was never an instrument of racial discrimination.

Somewhere along the line, people began to adopt the socio-occupational structure of the caste system as permanent – assuming it to be their birthright. They protected their social positions as if they were endowed with it, propagating hereditary guarantees to their children and grandchildren. Trouble followed thereafter. According to an article on ‘Caste and Gender Equations in Indian History’ (Tripod, South Asian History) from which I’ve quoted before, “In India, caste and gender discrimination appear to become more pronounced with the advent of hereditary and authoritarian ruling dynasties, a powerful state bureaucracy, the growth of selective property rights, and the domination of Brahmins over the rural poor in agrahara villages.”

Over the years, what may have been an excellent instrument of democracy was defeated.

The backbone of Indian society

I’ve got to hand it to India. She has a thriving caste system operating in the country – leading to poverty, discrimination, hatred and killings – and she acknowledges it fair and square. There’s no beating around the bush here. No big talks about classless societies. No theories on capitalism replacing traditional stratification of social orders of the past.

The fact is, Indians have always identified themselves with their caste. And, they still do. After all, it’s rooted somewhere in their hearts and minds.

In spite of rising literacy levels, education, foreign aid and influence, the advent of technology and the spread of mass media, it’s still hard to find the free caste-less Indian. Social positions and ties are still ascribed and hereditary, and these statuses are likely to remain permanent with no-one willing to give them up easily.

Of course, the dissolution of the caste system is being talked about in high circles, but nobody is actually sure where or when it’ll happen. The point is, the caste system is the backbone of Indian society. Where will India be without it!

Modern-world superiority

As long as there’s a world with people, I suppose, there is going to be exploitation of people by people. It has been so throughout history – slavery, European colonisation, the caste system in India, Hitler’s genocide – and continues to be so even now in various parts of the world under various guises of social, political and economic superiority. For, some people believe they are superior to others.

Take the First World countries, for instance, the rich nations of the capitalist West, the ruling aristocracies of the modern world. They not only consider themselves to be the most accomplished societies of our times, they actually enforce their ideologies and expansionist theories through economic and political manoeuvring to uphold their establishments.

Are they opportunists? Is this a survival strategy? Or, is this exploitation of other countries, markets and people based on the belief of individualism, of one group of people believing they are superior to others and, thus, establishing their dominance in the world? Maybe the answer constitutes all of these questions.

The guises of modern-world superiority take on many forms: ethnicity, religion, social position due to heredity or by decree, military strength, wealth, an accomplished culture, or the economic demands of the time. Typically those based on ascribed or inherited statuses… and not those based on equality or those following national constitutions or human rights charters.

India, within its own boundaries, offers one such tragic example to the world: the exploitation of the Dalits based on the Hindu caste system.

The Dalits (or outcastes) constitute a large group of people (over 170 million – 16% of India’s population) belonging to the ‘shudra’ caste, the lowest of the four Hindu castes. They make up people whose occupations involve lower-order tasks of society such as clearing waste or dead bodies, working with leather, scavenging for refuse, peasants and labourers. The Hindu caste system classifies them as ‘untouchables’.

According to the Constitution of India, it is illegal to discriminate anyone on the basis of caste. Still, the caste system is a reality in India today, and untouchability is still a part of the daily lives of millions of Dalits. They are shunned by society and have no choice but to stick to their own communities in the outer fringes of civilisation.

The Dalit population is still disproportionately below the poverty level, both in rural and in urban India. They have significantly higher rates of unemployment and landlessness than non-Dalits, and less access to educational, administrative and judicial resources. Discrimination against Dalits is common and atrocities against them are rampant in various corners of our country.

India may be the largest democracy in the world, but modern-world superiority has its own unique way of operating here. And, the tragedy is, nobody knows when and how it’ll all end. I guess, when it comes to notions of equality, amity and social well-being, there is still progress to be made even in the world’s largest democracy.

[Citation & following quotes from Friends of South Asia (FOSA) http://www.friendsofsouthasia.org/

Extensive list of atrocities against Dalits documented on website of National Campaign of Dalit Human Rights http://www.dalits.org/atrocities.html and a special report on Dalit houses being burnt down in Gohana can be found at http://www.dalits.org/Gohana1.htm.

In his presentation ‘Dalits and Globalization’ delivered at the World Social Forum held in Mumbai, Professor S K Thorat presented important data on socio-economic indicators of the Dalits. In 1999-2000, nearly 75% of the Dalits were landless or near landless; 65% of Dalit households were dependent upon wage labour; the literacy rate for Dalits was around 37% as opposed to 58% in non-Dalit; 43% of Dalits were below poverty levels, almost twice as many as the non-Dalits. During 1980-2000, a total of about 300,000 cases of human right violation and atrocities were registered by the Supreme Court with the police.]

Equal

We are all equal in the eyes of God, right?

Well, that’s what religion promises us. But I’m not so sure of it. So, I appease myself with the answer: Yes, we are all equal; but perhaps, after death. In this living world, we have to face the consequences of our birth – and all that we try to achieve ourselves. Because, this living world is full of inequality; and that’s the reality of the situation.

Many human beings feel inequality is a reality for them. Think of a child’s feelings when he or she is forced to eat a bowl of insipid porridge when the parents gobble up scrambled eggs with bacon and toast, and you’ll get the picture. You don’t have to belong to a specific race or religion or gender or social class to be stripped off your rights as a human being. It can happen to anyone.

Just for a moment, imagine this: It’s some time in the future. Things have gone out of control and you suddenly find yourself as a slave to a person who considers himself or herself, by some decree, superior to you. What would be your notion of equality? Would you feel like one of the human prisoners of Pierre Boulle’s ‘Planet of the Apes’? Or, would your world be something different?

While you think about this, here’s an excerpt from ‘The Newness of New World Slavery’ (from African American Voices, Digital History, University of Houston) about the lives of slaves in the ancient world:

“In Homer’s Greece, it was not a crime for a master to beat or kill a slave, and the testimony of unskilled slaves was not allowed in court unless it was obtained through torture. Nor does the Bible prohibit the beating of slaves. In the Roman Republic, a master might kill a slave. Vedius Pollio, a citizen of Rome, reportedly fed the bodies of his slaves to his pet fish. Flavius Gratianus, a fourth century Roman emperor, ruled that any slave who dared accuse his master of a crime should be immediately burned alive. Roman slaves who participated in revolts were crucified on crosses. In ancient India, Saxon England, and ancient China, a master might mistreat or even kill a slave with impunity. Aztec Mexico publicly staged the ritual torture and killing of slaves…

…slavery in the classical and the early medieval worlds was not based on racial distinctions. In ancient times, slavery had nothing to do with the color of a person’s skin. In ancient Rome, for example, the slave population included Ethiopians, Gauls, Jews, Persians, and Scandinavians. Unlike seventeenth, eighteenth, or nineteenth century Europeans, the people of the ancient world placed no premium on racial purity and attached no stigma upon racial mixture. Ancient societies, however, did tattoo, brand, or mutilate their slaves as a symbol of their debased status.”

Slavery is, perhaps, an extreme form of social inequality. But, it aptly demonstrates the lack – and the purposeful destruction – of human rights that we all believe is ours from birth.

Backwardness

India has been known as one of the greatest civilisations in the world… well, at least, in the ancient world. For, over the years, India has become known as the land of the poor; the land of caste divisions, untouchability, dowry, sati, and various other gender discriminations and social ills. In the eyes of the world, these social ills and customs define India’s backwardness – a land unwilling, and unable, to change with the times, despite its growing importance in the global economic forum.

I’ve often wondered who sanctioned such social customs. What gave life to these social practices that made a great civilisation dysfunctional and turned it into a backward society? Perhaps, if we could find answers to this question, we could reverse the process of social backwardness in which India has been slotted… and make India a great civilisation once again. While reading up on the Net, I came across a very informative site on History of Social Relations in India (on Tripod) and have provided here several quotes from one of their articles on ‘Caste and gender equations in Indian history’.

Historically, caste and gender discriminations have been evident in many societies. They are not uniquely Indian as many people believe them to be. Wherever and whenever there have been hereditary and authoritarian ruling dynasties, or the domination by religion or a powerful state bureaucracy, social inequities have appeared. The roots of these inequities have been economic in nature and have, typically, focused on distribution of wealth, rights to property, and political power.

Socially, it seems, this has meant stratification of societies into classes, where the elite – made up of the royalty, the warriors, the priests and the land-owners – have garnered the greatest share of privileges. Not only that, according to the article I referred, this social system has “often meant hereditary privileges for the elite and legally (or socially) sanctioned discrimination against those considered lower down in the social hierarchy.” The article provided several interesting examples of this social stratification from various parts of the world, and I have reproduced below a few of these for you:

“…in Eastern Africa some agricultural societies were divided between land-owning and landless tribes (or clans) that eventually took on caste-like characteristics. Priests and warriors enjoyed special privileges in the 15th C. Aztec society of Mexico as did the Samurais (warrior nobles) and priests of medieval Japan. Notions of purity and defilement were also quite similar in Japanese society and members of society who carried out ‘unclean’ tasks were treated as social outcasts – just as in India.”

“Amongst the most stratified of the ancient civilizations was the Roman Civilization where in addition to state-sanctioned slavery, there were all manner of caste-like inequities coded into law. Even in the Christian era, European feudalism provided all manner of hereditary privileges for the knights and landed barons (somewhat akin to India’s Rajputs and Thakurs) and amongst the royalty, arranged marriages and dowry were just as common as in India. Discrimination against the artisans was also commonplace throughout Europe…”

“It should also be emphasized that caste-distinctions were not the only way, or even the most egregious way in which social inequities manifested themselves in older societies. In ancient Greece and Rome, the institution of slavery was at least as cruel a practice, if not worse…”

Are these examples of great societies or social backwardness? Do they celebrate civilisations or deride equal opportunities for human beings? Is there a learning for us all in these examples? Whatever they be, they do not seem to justify India’s position on social, political, religious or economic discrimination of its own people. Perhaps, it’s time India looked forward.

Marginalised communities

My recent posts on this blog are not about any specific prejudice against Muslims in India or the African Americans (please read my previous posts for reference) by their government or the people around them. These examples are used to illustrate the point that, while the Muslims in India and the African Americans constitute a homogenous group – in fact, a substantially large community in numbers – social inequities exist against them despite their size.

In India, minority groups are far too many in number to be considered as a single homogeneous group. Matters are made worse as the ‘minority’ population is fragmented into many Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) groups and Other Backward Classes (OBC). These groups form a huge number of communities classified on religious, economic, social, linguistic, ethnic, regional and caste divisions. This classification may have been made formal now, but these divisions have existed for thousands of years.

Today, people from these communities, typically, make up the peasants, the landless labourers, the ‘untouchables’, the artisans and others belonging to many old-economy trades. With the advent of globalisation, new technologies, the changing economic scene and the corresponding liberal economic policies adopted by the government, these communities are further marginalised as their contribution is no longer perceived to be important to the economy.

Maybe they should be rehabilitated, setting aside reservations and quotas to create opportunities for them. Even then there is trouble. While seeking government relief, there are severe inequalities in the allocation and distribution of resources (most of which is consumed by the elite and the urban population), with the marginalised communities falling prey to, and succumbing at the feet of, our political leaders.

But who’s worried? India continues to forge ahead in the new economy, leaving its marginalised communities more and more demoralised.

Minority report

[This is not about Steven Spielberg’s film starring Tom Cruise]

The African Americans are not the only minorities in the world with problems. In fact, they may be the lucky ones. There are many others – really, many many others – about whom the world does not know much, nor have heard about. In my country, India, there are so many minority groups that I’ve lost count. Most of them are classified as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) in the census report. And, it takes no great brains to realise that this nomenclature automatically puts these minority groups in a less-privileged position.

The conditions of these minority groups are made more difficult by India’s own problems of a huge population, poverty, illiteracy, access to healthcare and education, lack of infrastructure and several other economic factors. But, most importantly, historically, there have been two aspects of the Indian social stratification which have created problems for these minority groups: religion and the caste system. It’s tough enough managing a population of almost 1.3 billion people; with religion and the caste system as points of social and cultural distinction, matters become worse.

Consider, for instance, the position of Muslims in India. They make up close to 12% of the population in India (similar to the African Americans in the US). That adds up to almost 150 million people (almost four times the population of African Americans), making up the second largest Muslim population in the world and the largest Muslim population outside an Islamic country. Yet, in India, they form a minority group. And, as is the fate of most minority groups in India, and in the world, they face the censure of social, political and economic discrimination. However, unlike the African Americans, the segregation of Muslims in India is based on religion, not race.

Compared to other religious minority groups in India – e.g. the Sikhs, the Christians, the Parsis – the Muslims, as a community, do lag behind economically. In terms of income distribution, employment, ownership of assets, access to education, healthcare or other public services, the Muslim minority seems to enjoy fewer achievements than other religious minority groups in India. This is damaging to the Muslim community – to the extent of developing severe economic backwardness, and perhaps social stagnation, in a country which is actually on an economic upswing. This is indeed a serious matter for the Muslim community in India.

Is the size of the Muslim population a deterring factor in their growth? Does Islam, or as it is interpreted and lived in India, contribute to this Muslim economic backwardness? Is the Indian government biased in their management of minority groups like the Muslims? Is the rising support for the Hindutva doctrine blocking economic progress for Muslims in India? These, and many more, questions need to be addressed.

Catch-22 situation

“More than any other country, America defines itself by a collective dream: the dream of economic opportunity and upward mobility. Its proudest boast is that it offers a chance of the good life to everybody who is willing to work hard and play by the rules. This ideal has made the United States the world’s strongest magnet for immigrants; it has also reconciled ordinary Americans to the rough side of a dynamic economy, with all its inequalities and insecurities…”
[The Economist, June 2006, ‘The rights and wrongs of the American model’]

I wonder what percentage of ordinary African Americans would share this sentiment wholeheartedly, even though they may have to reconcile themselves to it. For, even in the land of plenty, choice and opportunities are not always on the side of the African American. A quick example of this is the Black film industry. If you’ve read my previous post, ‘Black indie film… still in the red’, you would’ve realised that, for the African-American film director, notions of inequality and lack of opportunity are still major concerns.

Of course, there’s more to life than cinema, although cinema does reflect and represent life and culture. And, the goals of Black film directors are no different from those of the entire African-American population: That is, to find meaningful opportunities to achieve success – not just in industry talent awards and recognition, but in the business and economic sense. Not only should their be funds available to make films, their should be an audience large enough and a distribution network robust enough to bring in returns on investment.

Looks like a perfect Catch-22 situation.

But, let’s leave African-American cinema for a while and look at the African-American people. It’s a minority group, making up close to 13% of the US population. Although they share the same American Dream of equal opportunity, of achieving a life of prosperity based on effort and ability (as opposed to chance or birth), the history of the African-American people has been fraught with trouble. Their journey has been a continuous one, from slavery to freedom. And, even after 350 years, equal opportunity and a life of prosperity still seem to be illusory dreams.

African Americans still find it difficult to get ahead in life despite their hard work and talent. Of course, over generations, life has improved for the African American. They are no longer slaves and there is a greater acceptance of the African American by society. But, equal opportunity in the economic sense of distribution of income, health-care, housing, education, employment… is still not in their favour. What’s most disturbing about this status-quo is the fact that the future of the African-American people is being determined today.

According to a recent report, ‘Understanding Mobility in America’, by Tom Hertz of American University, “Education, race, health and state of residence are four key channels by which economic status is transmitted from parent to child.” And, when it comes to “the question of intergenerational mobility, or the degree to which the economic success of children is independent of the economic status of their parents…” it doesn’t look all that good for the African American.

Here are a few key findings from that report:

Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percent of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22 percent chance.

Children born to the middle quintile of parental family income ($42,000 to $54,300) had about the same chance of ending up in a lower quintile than their parents (39.5 percent) as they did of moving to a higher quintile (36.5 percent). Their chances of attaining the top five percentiles of the income distribution were just 1.8 percent.

African American children who are born in the bottom quartile are nearly twice as likely to remain there as adults than are white children whose parents had identical incomes, and are four times less likely to attain the top quartile.

The difference in mobility for blacks and whites persists even after controlling for a host of parental background factors, children’s education and health, as well as whether the household was female-headed or receiving public assistance.

The report goes on to say, “A higher level of intergenerational mobility is often interpreted as a sign of greater fairness, or equality of opportunity, in a society… By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults.”

Another Catch-22 situation? May not be. I’m sure something can be done about this.

Black cinema, black identity

“One of the reasons I originally wanted to make films was that I got tired of what they [Hollywood filmmakers] were doing… I knew I could do better. At least, I knew it wouldn’t be hard to do better than that… It took me ten years to get a chance to do it their way, and what I discovered at Columbia Pictures is that their way gets in my way… I just did my best and got on with my own independent career.”
[Melvin Van Peebles, African-American filmmaker]

What does Black cinema stand for anyway?

A portrait of African-American life and history: The hardships of the black man; the inequality between the blacks and the whites; the black man defying the system that incarcerates him; the narrow, racist thinking that affects – even destroys – both the black and white communities; the larger racial and cultural stories of African Americans. Black cinema is the voice of the African American whose spirit cannot be destroyed or taken away by white people or white power.

In creating this portrait, Black cinema also creates black stereotypes. The black man escaping slavery and fighting for freedom; the black man being punished for the colour of his skin; the black man as the cause of fear and suspicion (with or without a gun); the black man as the criminal and fugitive; the black man displaying extraordinary physical fitness, particularly in sports; the black man endowed with exceptional sexual powers; the black man in the service of the white.

Of course, there are strong messages of black unity, pride, determinism, attitude and challenge in Black films which are lessons for us all. In fact, there is one aspect of Black cinema which has always fascinated me. It’s the repeated theme of black identity. No matter how sophisticated or action-packed or romantic or humorous or sexual Black films tend to be, this aspect of reducing everything down to one single theme of race – race as the identity of a huge population – is an enormous strength historically and politically… as well as a masterful technique in communication.

Fascinating this may be, loaded with great historical, cultural and political meaning in the US, but how much of this affects the international film audience is perhaps a long argument.

Some questions come to my mind: Are Black American films accepted well by the international audience? How important are Black American film directors to the international film community? Do Black American actors play a special role in films which is not otherwise found in films produced by America? Should the international audience perceive – or even expect – a significant difference in a Black American film from its white counterpart?

And most important of all, outside the US, is there a large enough audience for Black cinema?

Indians not too keen on Black cinema

As an Indian residing in India, I have very little exposure to films made by African-American directors. In fact, I believe, most Indians (and I include myself in this lot) look at American films as ‘films from Hollywood’ – without differentiating and/or classifying American films as independent or Black or a combination of these categories. What I mean is, the Indian cinema-going audience does not view a film differently because of the colour of the director’s skin.

However, there is a point of distinction that Indians make. Indians find it difficult to relate to African-American culture: their lifestyle, mannerisms, language, and violent crime in particular. Black emotions, Black relationships… somehow don’t gel too well with the Indian audience. For instance, a film like ‘Waiting To Exhale’ by Forest Whitaker, which was a great hit in the United States, hardly made a dent in India.

For a Black film to become a big hit in India, the story has to step outside the deeper aspects/idiosyncrasies of pure Black culture. Like John Singleton’s 2003 film ‘2 Fast 2 Furious’ which dealt with underground car racing. It was an instant hit with the Indian audience, particularly the teen crowd. Yet, his earlier film ‘Boyz N the Hood’ – a masterpiece and one of my favourites – was appreciated by a tiny portion of the English-film-viewing audience in India.

Would a Black film like ‘How Stella Got Her Groove Back’ (by Kevin Rodney Sullivan) appeal to Indian women? Not likely. It just won’t work. Indians are not keen on Black cinema with an all-Black cast. But strangely, a film with white characters by a Black director is quite acceptable by Indians. Take Carl Franklin’s wonderful film ‘One True Thing’. I’m not sure if the film would have had as much appeal to Indians if the story was about a Black family instead of a white one.

Mind you, this viewing behaviour is true not just for films, but for TV programmes as well. All-Black TV shows on the Indian cable have a much lower level of acceptance (if any at all) by Indians compared to shows with white actors depicting white lifestyles. I’m sure ‘Friends’ or ‘Home Improvement’ would not have been as successful in India if they had only Black actors as characters.

Why is this so? Why do Indians not relate to, nor accept, Black films and culture as eagerly as they accept the white? Who knows? Maybe we are plain old racists.

Black indie cinema... still in the red

How many African-American, i.e. Black American, film directors do you know of? Can you quickly list out their names and their films? How many of these films would you have seen, enjoyed, and added to your collection?

This is no easy task. For, in India, there is hardly a market for Black cinema. Indians cannot easily identify themselves with Black culture… and/or Black sentiments. No, don’t get me wrong. It’s not racism. Indians – at least those urban Indians who watch English-language films – are neither exposed to, nor appreciative of, Black cinema. But, we aren’t alone here. There’s hardly a market for Black cinema internationally. And, that includes the United States.

According to the US census bureau, as of July 2004, the estimated population of black residents in the United States (including those of more than one race) makes up 13.4% of the total US population. Black residents of a single race, i.e. the African American, are likely to make up 12.4% of the US population. That would make it a little under 40 million Black people. Yet, filmmakers of African-American origin are unhappy about the state of Black cinema… and what the future might bring for them.

The biggest hurdle in the system seems to be a lack of finance. African-American directors find it difficult to get financing for independent Black films. Investors and studios are just not willing to accept that Black films can gross big earnings. Who wants to see Black films? Are Black films made with an African-American audience in mind? Or, can they attract white and coloured audiences too? What about the international market? In a January 2004 Christian Science Monitor article by Reed Martin, ‘The new voices of Black film’, director (of Eve’s Bayou) Kasi Lemmons says, “That’s the constant struggle, explaining who is the audience.”

Obtaining theatrical distribution is an even greater challenge. In the same Christian Science Monitor article, producer (of Boomerang and House Party – along with his brother Reginald) Warrington Hudlin acknowledges, “The process is complicated by race in America… Often, the people evaluating the merits of your project are from outside your community – outside your culture – and can’t recognize its merit. The lack of an even playing field makes it more difficult, since the people I have to appeal to over and over never look like me.” Perhaps this might explain why Spike Lee is often accused of showing whites and Jews in his films as evil, money-grabbing guys.

Of course, film festivals like Sundance and Tribeca have begun to give Black filmmakers a leg-up in the business by creating special forums for them. “But,” reports Reed Martin in the Christian Science Monitor article, “that doesn’t always mean money will be forthcoming or that studios will see completed movies.” Someone needs to genuinely assess talent and broker introductions to sources of financing. Thankfully, there are some agencies on this job. Among them, ‘The Black Film Foundation’ founded by the Hudlin brothers, and ‘Film Life, Inc.’ set up by Jeff Friday.

Not the usual Spike we see

I first heard of Spike Lee when I saw ‘Malcolm X’. That was many years ago. Although I must confess that I chose to see the film because of Denzel Washington’s acting and not for Spike Lee’s direction. Of course, I had heard of the African American leader Malcolm X from reading bits and pieces of Black American history – particularly James Baldwin’s book, ‘The Fire Next Time’ – but, as an Indian, I had never been influenced by any of it.

In fact, this ignorance of Black American history has always come in the way of my appreciation of much of Spike Lee’s films – not to mention the African American struggle and Black American literature. Hence, I probably have missed out a great deal of the essence of Spike Lee’s work, which deal with race, racism, class and power struggles, and media manipulation. One of these days, I hope to catch up on all this.

My re-introduction to Spike Lee happened a couple of years ago when I saw – and added to my collection – Spike Lee’s ‘25th Hour’. Once again, it was Edward Norton who drew me to the film, rather than Spike Lee. But I wasn’t disappointed. On the contrary, ‘25th Hour’ was an engaging film and, by the end of it, it had me in awe of Spike Lee’s masterful direction.

‘25th Hour’ was sombre and full of emotion – rightfully so, as it dealt with the last 24 hours of a man, Monty Brogan (played by Edward Norton), about to serve a seven-year prison sentence for drug trafficking. Regret had overwhelmed him as he said his goodbyes – and I must confess that its impact had got to me too. Monty’s ‘fuck you’ diatribe in the bathroom, where he expressed how he hated and blamed the city he lived in (New York with its multi-ethnic way of life) and everybody in it, and the fact that it was he who was leaving New York while the others stayed, was outstanding.

However, Spike Lee’s recent film, ‘Inside Man’, is another story. It deals with a bank robbery turned inside out as Mr Lee succeeds in giving it a unique twist and flavour. Of course, some of the usual Spike Lee touches are there: multi-ethnic New York City with its hustle and bustle, racism, corruption and political power-plays. But it’s all dealt with subtlety, without the usual Spike Lee outrage. In fact, the media has been kept out of it altogether.

‘Inside Man’ is a good story and an enjoyable film. It should attract the mainstream audience by the millions (well, maybe not in India). I think Spike Lee has finally got himself a commercial hit.

An intellectual treat

I’m critical of Hindi films and the Indian cinema-going audience. Formula plots bore me. Artificial love scenes through song-and-dance routines embarrass me. Bad copies of scenes taken from foreign films frustrate me. I feel insulted… because life, as I know it, is not like that. And, films are supposed to be reflections of life.

I can’t understand how a film as outstanding as ‘Crash’ can be wiped out of the Box Office in India within weeks of launch, when idiocies like ‘Pyare Mohan’ or bland entertainers like ‘Being Cyrus’ can run for months. Most Hindi films fail to deliver intellectual value – which is what I look for in a film, apart from the entertainment.

So, at the risk of adding fuel to the fire, I’ll tell you how disappointed I was last night when I went to see Spike Lee’s ‘Inside Man’. There were only nine of us in the cinema hall and there was a brief talk of cancelling the show. However, somewhere, wisdom prevailed and the nine of us were treated to one of the best films of this year.

‘Inside Man’ seems to be a typical bank robbery which turns into a hostage situation. The police and the hostage negotiators are called in. The bank’s owner volunteers, eager to speed up the negotiation process. When that fails, he solicits the services of a beautiful power-broker in order to protect something mysterious, and important to him, which lies in the bank’s vaults. The city Mayor gets involved too, by default. The detective in charge of the hostage negotiation takes advantage of all this to get a jump-up in his career. That’s on the outside.

But inside? Inside, something else is happening. The bank robbers don’t seem to be too interested in robbing the bank or making demands or killing the hostages or, for that matter, in any specific hurry to leave the bank. On the contrary, the chief bank robber not only seems to be an educated man, but a man with a heart. What’s going on? Have the bank robbers outsmarted everyone in the game?

If you want to know what’s going on or what happens finally in the film, go see ‘Inside Man’ and you’ll never regret your decision. It’s a real treat, intellectually. You’ll also enjoy a very famous Bollywood (Hindi) film song which is used in the film.

‘Inside Man’ stars British actor Clive Owen as the chief bank robber, Denzel Washington as the hostage-negotiating detective, Jodie Foster as the beautiful power-broker, Christopher Plummer as the bank’s owner with a past, and Willem Dafoe as the police chief in charge of staking out the bank.

Not just 1, but 100

While celebrating the first 100 years of cinema, the American Film Institute (AFI) has nominated its best 100 film heroes and villains (i.e. 50 heroes & 50 villains). The best from this lot will be announced this month on the CBS Television Network.

Among known pure-American film heroes, you’ll find Indiana Jones (‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’), Rocky Balboa (‘Rocky’), General George Patton (‘Patton’), Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (‘Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid’), Superman (‘Superman’), Batman (‘Batman’), and Atticus Finch (‘To Kill A Mocking Bird’).

You’ll also find a host of foreigners like James Bond (‘Dr No’), Mahatma Gandhi (‘Gandhi’), T E Lawrence (‘Lawrence of Arabia’), Robin Hood (‘The Adventures of Robin Hood’), and General Maximus Decimus Meridus (‘Gladiator’).

These, and many more, male heroes will compete with their female counterparts: Clarice Starling (‘Silence of the Lambs’), Erin Brockovich (‘Erin Brockovich’), Thelma Dickerson and Louise Sawyer (‘Thelma & Louise’), Norma Rae Webster (‘Norma Rae’), Ellen Ripley (‘Aliens’), Karen Silkwood (‘Silkwood’), and Marge Gunderson (‘Fargo’).

There’s, of course, Lassie the dog (‘Lassie Come Home’).

You’ll also find The Tramp (‘City Lights’), Moses (‘The Ten Commandments’), Tarzan (‘Tarzan the Ape Man’), Zorro (‘The Mark of Zorro’), Terminator (‘Terminator 2: Judgment Day), and Obi-Wan Kenobi (‘Star Wars’).

These are some of the 400 film “characters who have a made a mark on American society in matters of style and substance.”

For voting purposes, a ‘hero’ has been “defined as a character(s) who prevails in extreme circumstances and dramatizes a sense of morality, courage and purpose. Though they may be ambiguous or flawed, they often sacrifice themselves to show humanity at its best.”

The list of villains includes another 50 names: Dr Hannibal Lecter (‘Silence of the Lambs’), Norman Bates (‘Psycho’), Darth Vader (‘The Empire Strikes Back’), Nurse Ratched (‘One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest’), Michael Corleone (‘Godfather: Part II’), Count Dracula (‘Dracula’), The Alien (‘Alien’), and The Shark (‘Jaws’) among others.

For voting purposes, a ‘villain’ has been “defined as a character(s) whose wickedness of mind, selfishness of character and will to power are sometimes masked by beauty and nobility, while others may rage unmasked. They can be horribly evil or grandiosely funny, but are ultimately tragic.”

And, there you have it. Go here for the full list.