In the past couple of weeks a number of channels [I watched Sahara and Aaj Tak] provided elaborate and vivid footage of celebration of Chaita by the two brothers in law of Laloo Yadav in Patna. The footage showed a number of hired women performers dance with vigorous abandonment while a large crowd of supporters and friends riotously cheered them. In fact, it was difficult to believe this was real life – it seemed like a seedy version of a B grade Bollywood film. There were other appendages that disturbed the press – menacing characters strewn all over playfully fired their guns in the air. Dotting the crowds were the inevitable silk-clad and gold-chained roughnecks whose fingers twitched over their pistol triggers in the close ups. The hosts in both cases were the brothers in law of Laloo Yadav – Sadhu and Subhash – the two humourless criminal stalwarts, unleashed by the Laloo-Rabri regime, who nevertheless lack Lalu’s panache and sense of timing.
In all the reports including the Times of India [13 April, 2007, Patna edition] I found that the descriptions and the comments invariably carried a strong sense of disapproval, derision, disgust, and even downright condemnation. At least in one case the newscaster kept grinning coyly and implyingly, probably wondering over the unspeakable barbarity of it all. At least Subhash Yadav himself seemed somewhat self-consciousness when he asked a journalist – ‘vulgar, what?’, making a feeble attempt to distance himself from the general merriment. Imagine Subhash in a Fabindia suit and a Tilonia leather bag defending Bihari folk culture in the environs of Mandi House or Prithvi Theatre.
Having made the context clear let me discuss reasons for my own disquiet. I found that our middle class educated journalist were trying hard to paper over their own snooty incoherence and confusion – in the sense they didn’t seem clear if they were disgusted by the bad ‘taste’ reflected in the raw display of sexuality or the moral corruption of a decadent durbar. In brief, I wondered if the disapproval was esthetic, moral, or both. I wondered too if the journalists left this distinction deliberately ambiguous. I also wondered if the same commentators would like to look within and give us a clearer verdict on the source of their disgust. I feel a journalist should be sufficiently self-conscious to answer my query with some clarity or admit the lack of it.
Having posed the above question, I would now like to present a series of interpretations discrete or overlapping, for the above orgies.a. The Yadavs as the rulers are making a symbolic attempt to gain ascendancy not simply through modern democratic politics, but also through feudal gestures monopolized earlier by the upper castes.b. The two leaders are trying to appeal to their essentially rustic and pastoral origins in defiance of Patna’s urbanism.c. The two orgies were meant to cure the depression of the forlorn party cadre reduced to tinselly fantasies after their spell in power.d. The Yadavs as the rebels are making feudal gestures associated with bandits – dancing girls, guns, disruption of ‘peace’ in a posh urban neighbourhood – all equally telling. Bandits from Bollywood force their women to dance and sing a la Hema malini in Sholay. [remember the great scamster Telgi dispensing his millions in the Topaz dance bar in Mumbai?]e. A political caucus in decline is making a desperate attempt to commune and connect together .These are by no means the only interpretations possible. It is quite likely that they are all valid to different extents.
But to go back to my question – is the commentator in his disgust referring to esthetic taste or moral badness? Is the commentator uncomfortable with the naked display of gun power and its illegality or immorality, or an equally naked and ribald display of rented female sexuality?In case the cool-headed journalist is bothered by the technical-forensic issue of ‘unlawful carrying of fire arms under political patronage’ I can understand the objection. However, I fail to comprehend the accompanying angst. Any number of Hindi and Bhojpuri films show the same items albeit with greater production value. Do our commentators find occasion to show a similar disgust for them? I don’t remember. I don’t think so.
But if the orgies on the Yadav premises are fantasies very difficult to forgive and ignore, why? Why does the sweet syrup of Hindi films suddenly turns vinegary?My explanation for this for the time being is as follows:While we have come to accept the fantasies plied by our cinemas, we expect that they will remain confined to the celluloid screen. It is very disturbing for us when a reckless hood comes hurtling to implement all such fantasies as part of wide awake daily life. We find the idea of commandeered and incarnated fantasies disturbing. We feel esthetically disturbed by it. But we only have a moral language to express the disturbance. [Also, often when we see an actual hero and heroine sitting in the park and crooning a song, we begin to want to banish them. remember Operation Majnu from Meerut last year?]
I don’t pretend to be aware of the rules of translation between the real and the fantastic. My intention here was twofold – first, to bring to the surface a categorial problem [moral and esthetic] that we need to be aware of and second, to be better aware of how we relate specific fantasies to their daylight versions.
[earlier published in sacredmediacow]
No comments:
Post a Comment