Abzee’s Thoughts on Firaaq

(thanks to Abzee for submitting this..)

SPOILER ALERT!!! Read only if you’ve seen the film
Nandita Das’s Firaaq, whether she likes it or not, whether she intended or not…whether she knows or not- is a very political film. A deeply troubling one at that! As a filmmaker, one must be very sensitive when handling subjects that deal with actual real-life incidents, especially ones that affected a multitude. The ‘sensitivity’ one expects, in other words, is an expectation of a neutral voice, of a work that highlights the ‘incident’, ruminates on it, makes you think…and leaves you with more than something to chew on. The best of narratives in fact achieve much more than this- they almost become fables and gift you with a poignant lesson in humanity. Eg. Schindler’s List, Life Is Beautfiul, etc.


But what does one do when one makes a film on an incident such as the Holocaust or the Godhra carnage(that forms the basis of Firaaq) which are disturbingly one-sided. How does a filmmaker attempt to ‘balance’, when the unevenness is mitigating in its ‘execution’? Well, cinema is a lovely art-form, and like all works of art, eventually results in catharsis of its audience. So, as artists, it becomes our prerogative and responsibility to help trigger the right emotions. Aristotle believed that plays were written about the peasant-folk and their angst so that their anger could have a ‘reasonable’ vent in the expression of the play and its characters. Great monarchs commissioned writers to write plays that were aimed at quelling possible common-folk rebellions. I will have to compare Firaaq to Mumbai Meri Jaan to elaborate on my argument, as the latter does everything ‘right’ what the former wrongs.

The face of villainy- when dealing with incidents such as the Holocaust or the Godhra massacre, incidents that were lopsided, filmmakers can very easily fall prey to ‘generalization’. When making a film on the Holocaust, one has to be very careful in not presenting the present Germans as responsible for the act or all of the Germans who lived back then as complicit to it. The manner in which this is achieved is by denying the narrative a ‘villain’. In films such as The Pianist or Life Is Beautiful, the ‘situation’, the ‘times’, the ‘madness’ become the villain. These films do not have a definite ‘face’ to their villain. Also, despite the involvement of civilians, one restrains from portraying civilians, in general, in a negative light. The acts of villainy are carried out by the state and its agents. In Firaaq, Nandita Das shockingly generalizes the whole Hindu Gujarati community as remorseless evil fundamentalists who want nothing more than to wipe the Muslims off the map of Gujarat. So in a film that is about the sufferings of Muslims in a post-Godhra Gujarat, the only Hindu characters are either plain evil, ignorant or impotent.

Nandita Das, in a dubious and poor casting decision, chooses the Hindu Gujarati Paresh Rawal to play a Hindu Gujarati- a wife-beating, Muslim-hating evil minion of the nth order. In Mumbai Meri Jaan, Nishikant Kamat very cleverly avoided the ‘easy’ casting choice of Madhavan for the south Indian. But Das is not sensitive, and she surely ain’t subtle. So the film opens to a macabre pile of Muslim bodies being loaded off a truck, topped by a body of a child nonetheless, and the Muslim gravedigger(Tamil actor Nasser) who gets enraged when he sees a Hindu woman among the pile and decides to attack her dead carcass with his shovel. The gravedigger, never seen for the rest of the film, turns up in a worrying climax to underline what has until then been the most politically problematic film in recent times. I’ll come to that later.

I was willing to overlook that Das chose to have a Hindu Gujarati play a Hindu Gujarati as the face of villainy…willing to overlook that every Hindu character in the film from a roadside omlette-vendor to an educated upper-middle-class couple seemed to either condone the state-sponsored pogrom or have an apathetic reaction towards it. It didn’t even matter that the crisis of the Deepti Naval character, the only Hindu character that was haunted by the bloodbath, was resolved more as a feminist triumph than a socialist awakening. No, all of this I was still willing to overlook. Where the film became unpardonably troubling for me was in a scene towards the end. A Muslim youth runs away from a cop and successfully evades him. A random Hindu Gujarati looks out of his terrace and asks the cop about who is running after. The cop says, “Ek miyaan”. Later, having evaded the cop, the Muslim youth comes out of hiding and takes shelter under the very terrace that the Hindu Gujarati we earlier met lives in. The Hindu Gujarati notices him, goes inside, brings out a slab of rock and throws it on the Muslim youth’s head, killing him instantly. By having a random character of one community resort to a sudden random act of violence against the other community, Das incriminates an entire community of being in on the carnage.

If that weren’t bad enough, a young Muslim kid Mohsin, who has been witness to his mother and aunt being raped and killed by Hindu extremists, is witness to this act. The film closes with this kid returning to the shelter camp he earlier ran away from in search of his father. Only this time, the kid has lost his innocence. He refuses an invitation by other kids to play marbles. He sits stoically against a wall, and Das reveals the man sitting next to him- the gravedigger we met in the beginning. With nothing said between the two, and leaving a blank stare on the kid’s face, Das diegetically ties the future of this kid with that of the gravedigger. Who knows what this kid could grow up to become? He could grow up hating all Hindus, or worse get brainwashed into becoming a Jihadi. His future is most certainly bleak, and for Das sadly, it is also the only future possible.

As a Muslim walking out of this film, having seen all Muslim characters suffering and not seeing one repentant Hindu character but instead have an actual Hindu Gujarati play the ‘face’ of villainy, what is my catharsis going to be? Has my anger been given a proper, responsible and reasonable channel? Or have I been incited, and dangerously so in an ignorant and naïve fashion? Let me come back to Nishikant Kamat’s Mumbai Meri Jaan and illustrate how he gets it right where Nandita Das gets it so wrong.

In Kamat’s film, apart from the casting cleverness mentioned earlier, he also did something very admirable and responsible by having the Kay Kay Menon character. Kamat’s film was based on the 7/11 Mumbai train bombings. That too was a one-sided act of violence, innocent civilians losing their lives to an act of terror. The film could have easily been only about those who suffered in the aftermath of those attacks. It could have only been about Madhavan, Irrfan and Soha. It need not have been about Paresh Rawal’s cop and Kay Kay’s Hindu fanatic. But these two characters served as different devices. Rawal’s cop was the resigned voice of a city that had come to accept its crumbling under many variables, but Kay Kay’s character served a more important function, a function that Aristotle would’ve been proud of.

Had Mumbai Meri Jaan been just about those who suffered those attacks, directly or indirectly, I could’ve walked out of the auditorium sad and angry…at the attacks and the terrorists. Unreasonable and gullible minds could even find their hatred against the Muslim community being vindicated. In having Kay Kay’s character, Kamat tempers your anger and disallows you from jumping to hasty conclusions. So right from the beginning, in Kay Kay, he plants a surrogate for the audience who is presented as an extremist Hindu who believes every Muslim is a terrorist. The loud, exaggerated execution of the character is meant to create the Brechtian alienation so important for us to view him from afar. We get turned off by his insinuations…and if we do find ourselves relating to him, then Kamat cleanses us by having his character go through a graph where he ashamedly realizes his own folly. We walk out of the hall, feeling both heavy and light at the same time…..but more importantly, guided in our responses and reactions by a clever and sensitive director.

Nandita Das’s inert film does nothing of the sort. A narrative that pretty much ends where it begins(if not at a worse and bleaker place), Firaaq offers no hope and no respite. I’m not asking for a dance number, but certainly a more life-affirming end

55 Responses to “Abzee’s Thoughts on Firaaq”

  1. Beautifully written as always Abzee, a pleasure to read. Did not see the movie but agree with what you are saying completely.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Beautiful, beautiful review. Hats off, Abzee.
    You started off by saying it is a deeply touching film and was expecting to see you liked it a lot. But that doesnt seem to be the case.

    Like

  3. Outstanding piece here Abzee. Bold and thought-provoking. Haven’t seen the film yet so I cannot address any of the specifics but the ‘inert’ characterization doesn’t exactly surprise me.

    Like

  4. A really great read, Abzee, thanks. Was hoping Das as a director would have been, at the very least, sensitive. She’s worked with a number of interesting voices from Ratnam to Gopalakrishnan. Agree with your thoughts on MMJ too, particularly in the smart casting of Madhavan and Irfan in their respective roles. It paid off big time.

    Like

  5. iffrononfire Says:

    one word only for this superb write up

    Like

  6. Rangam’ review :
    http://www.desipundit.com/baradwajrangan/2009/03/21/review-firaaq-straight/

    Interesting read. Even without having seen the film, I can see him contradicting himself. From what I have read about the film, I find it hard to believe when he says: ‘Whatever Das feels about it all is amply evident in what she chooses to show us – but never in how she shows us these things.’

    Like

  7. I haven’t seen the film, but I decided to ignore Abzee’s spoiler warning. Superb write-up here (although I do not agree with the bit about the Holocaust; since there is in fact a very persuasive and long-debated historical and philosophical question about the complicity of the “ordinary German” — i.e. not the cruelty of the “ordinary German” but his/her indifference at the time. Obviously a very difficult issue, but I did want to raise that it IS an issue. By contrast, even Modi’s Gujarat showed many signs of dissent, and of course the rest of India and its media was hardly quiet, and these views etc. did not stop at the state border, i.e. they were available and accessible within Gujarat as well. Note that even in the landslide victory for the BJP that followed the 2002 pogroms, 52% of those who voted actually cast their ballots for a party other than the BJP. So in any event the analogy with Germany isn’t a great one, although I know that isn’t what abzee is hanging his hat on anyway)…

    Like

  8. The thing is that I have little desire to see Firaaq: I find it personally unpleasant to see this sort of film, and I have to force myself to do so; and that inclination evaporates unless I have an assurance that the film is damn good.

    Like

  9. The liberals unfortunately havent been as vocal as one would have liked about the Israeli attack on Gaza which in my mind was an atrocity and there are quite a few parallels between the pogroms of 2002 and the Gaza attack.

    Like

    • I don’t know. I think for the first time an Israeli action received ‘tougher’ coverage in the US media, at least by the soft standards otherwise prevalent.

      On Gujarat, in a perverse sense I never had a problem with the coverage here. The Indian media was calling it a pogrom when the NY Times was still labeling it a riot. The pogrom that was never so labeled was Bombay ’93. Gujarat has become ‘symbolic’ the way Bombay hasn’t for the very same kind of violence. Much as Modi has received the kind of attention for the same that Thackeray never quite got.

      To an extent some would argue that there was a difference in ‘degree’ where the Gujarat authorities were possibly more complicit than those in Bombay. But I am not convinced this accounts for the difference in coverage. I think it is partly the fact that the Bombay centric media just didn’t want to pick a fight with Sena thugs. Even more importantly there was an ideological investment on the part of the same in representing Bombay as a great cosmopolitan city where this horror of ‘rioting’ happened but which of course couldn’t be a ‘pogrom’ because it would raise doubts about the ‘enlightened’ nature of the citizenry (!) whereas Gujarat could be much more easily ‘stigmatized’.

      Qalandar raises issue of numbers and the vote. But equally important is the fact that the Congress decided to run against the BJP as ‘BJP-lite’. If both parties are offering the same why not go to the authentic deal?

      Like

      • Satyam: the biggest difference between Delhi 1984, Bombay 1993, and Gujarat 2002 is that only the last took place in the sattelite TV/internet era. In 1984, 1989-90, and 92-93, there was no 24/7 news cycle, and like it or not that made a huge difference, both in terms of spreading awareness, sensationalism, etc.

        Like

        • That’s a fair point Qalandar.. but I think that the distinction in ‘classification’ perhaps transcends this..

          Like

        • I think you are right, Q.
          There was in general more hue and cry about 2002 events inspite of the fact that all the riots were more or less equally reprehensible. Plus, at an international level there is a little more interest in India these days, anyway.

          Like

  10. Agree, it did get a little ‘tougher’ look but the Zionist control of media is such that it was never the main theme. There is persuasive evidence to suggest that Israeli forces acted with complete disregard for Palestinian lives and property.
    I admire Ron Kuby of Air America who inspite of being Jewish has been quite vocal about this.

    Like

  11. Re:But equally important is the fact that the Congress decided to run against the BJP as ‘BJP-lite’. If both parties are offering the same why not go to the authentic deal?

    The question to be asked here is why is there such a sentiment in Gujarat ?
    Is it because majority of Gujaratis are communal and just hate Muslims or they actually and may be justifiably feel insecure inspite of being the majority population?

    Like

    • But looking at that 52% stat it’s clear that the majority of Gujaratis actually did not vote for the BJP. The state does however offer the bedrock of BJP support in ways in which UP for example does not. The latter was once the dream though it has since proved illusory.

      I think a lot of this can be explained in terms of caste coding. To put it in very general terms the BJP has enjoyed the greatest support from the ‘merchant’ castes (this includes the US backing as well). These castes competed for the same economic terrain in many cases with Muslims. There is a whole history to this. Many of the Muslims then of course left for Pakistan. This forms the roots for a lot of the communal animus. Not to suggest that there aren’t other reasons including real or perceived memories of Muslim invasions and what not. the point I’m trying to making here is that communal coding is often not understood as the spectrum of perception/opinion that it is.

      I am however very skeptical of arguments of ‘insecurity’. The latter is real and felt sincerely but it is aimed at less than the real problem. So for example many Germans in the 20s did in fact feel insecure of the ‘Jews’.

      Politics can often take up real anxieties people have for all kinds of reasons and then shape these into a potent political narrative. The ‘other’ (religious, ethnic etc) is always easy to pounce on. Not least because in doing so the politics can also tap into real prejudices people have. In the Zizekian sense one kills the neighbor not because of any reason but because one had a fantasy to do this anyway! But again the Shiv Sena offers the textbook example. They started off attacking Tamilian migrant labor and ended up with Muslims. They just needed ‘an’ other. It didn’t always have to be a religious one.

      The politics of the right is always premised on such equations. The politics of the left can be so as well. We’ve seen many ‘Communist’ massacres in the history of the world. But most contemporary nation-states seem to be inoculated against the latter in ways in which they’re not so with the former. Why? I’d argue that the nation-state in its essential definition always operates on the terrain of right wing politics. If a nation is defined as one with a ‘people’ who then have bonds of blood and soil and so forth you immediately in that very moment also define the outside. The latter might have arrived centuries ago or yesterday.

      Like

      • But also getting to the specific Modi point it’s not too hard to explain. If you have a majority that doesn’t like the pogroms/riots but is also too indifferent to care very much (as most majorities anywhere are) as long as the CM and his party are seen as dynamic in economic terms and contributing to the ‘progress’ of the state they’re willing to vote for this option. Everyone who votes for Modi is not a communal bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nor are they heartless types who don’t care about violence. Because most people, including all of us, are like that. Did we have a problem with the Congress when it clearly encouraged and in many instances actively aided the anti-Sikh violence?

        Like

        • I dont know if the above comment is necessarily true. Every time an online debate of this sort arises the people from gujarat(atleast they claim to be) unanimously claim that they feel safer under modi and what do others know about what was the condition before modi. They also quote the economic prog. of the state under modi.

          After seeing those arguments, when somebody pointed out the example of people under hitler regime, I kind of saw a correlation. Though, unless otherwise I go to Gujarat I dont think I can ever find out.

          Like

  12. Aside: the other thing to note is that major riots/pogroms are unquestionably less frequent today than they used to be (certainly when I was growing up, in the 1984-1994 period, there were major bloodbaths every other year, from the anti-sikh pogroms of 1984, to Hashimpura, Meerut, Bhagalpur, rath yatra, Babri Masjid demolition, Mumbai 1993, etc.); although it seems to me that when they DO occur, the scale is also bigger.

    Like

  13. Excellent points all around.
    Satyam, you when you make the point about insecurity.
    And sorry to use this argument again. But, from personal experience, I can tell you that you are way off the mark.Certainly, politicians exploit these feelings of insecurity but the feeling is very real. Most Hindus are loath to venture into pockets heavily populated with Muslims. Yes, Hindus are also responsible for disproportionate responses. But, if one looks at the history, the inciting events have always been orchestrated and precipitated by one community only. Most people loath these riots are they are terribly disruptive, most importantly for the economy. There is plenty of blame to garound. But, history of our country tells you which community has more pacifist leanings.

    Like

    • I do not agree with this comment. The history of India is not conducive to any reading quite so simplistic.

      Like

    • Rajen, as I suggested earlier I do not deny that the ‘insecurity’ is real. what I dispute is the cause. Looking at it another way Muslims comprise 9% of the population of the state. Is it really likely that a population of 9%, especially when it’s hardly the most economically advantaged could be causing such severe insecurity? I fully accept that the majority is afraid to go into those areas. I am afraid to go into the South Bronx or East NY too! But I wouldn’t blame the black population of NY for my insecurities (such as these might be and I must confess that the bourgeois desis terrify me more than any other group!). I know this is not an exact analogy but I’m just trying to illustrate the dangers in moving from a larger socio-political claim to a more ‘anecdotal’ one that relies on such ‘pockets’ of experience.

      There are parts of Andhra Pradesh where if you’re an upper caste Hindu you have far more to fear than if you’re a Muslim. There is a history of hostility either way. Sometimes it’s coded more along religious lines, sometimes along caste lines, so on and so forth. But take Gujarat again. There were so many politically assisted attacks on Christian churches and so forth. What insecurity was this population causing?

      What happens is that when there is pre-existing hostility of one kind or another the argument is always shaped to justify the latter. For example I could say that blacks are major proponents of crime, that one is afraid to go into their areas, even the police fears patrolling East NY and so forth. Each claim in itself is undoubtedly true. But each is also ‘incomplete’ for various reasons and therefore misleading. However when you thread such ‘facts’ into a narrative you create a toxic political discourse. And a political grouping can often benefit from such.

      Now if these arguments are altered just a bit these could be applied to all sorts of communities in all sorts of countries at various historical points.

      Let’s just take once again the Godhra example. To this day we do not know beyond a reasonable doubt what exactly happened. In the meantime there is an entire debate on Muslims causing the incident and Hindus reacting disproportionately. The first ‘fact’ in this chain though has never been established! The Israeli government too relies on such half-baked evidence to launch its own disproportionate responses and leaving aside the fact that conditions are first created by majorities to provoke minorities so that there can then be an excuse for ‘retaliation’.

      Take the Sena once again. These guys have been targeting Tamilians and Muslims, North Indians and even Amitabh Bachchan! Would we want to accept their version of events on anything?

      I think D6 offered a chilling moment in terms of how religious violence suddenly comes about. Many people didn’t like the introduction of such an episode but this is exactly how violence suddenly comes about and polarizes communities forever.

      And again I always argue in ‘specifics’ in any such debate for obvious reasons but really I am not really invested in oppositions like Muslim/Hindu, upper caste/lower caste. yes as a matter of temperament and perhaps training I am more likely to be sympathetic to a minority in most situations because the power balance never really favors the latter. So even when a minority might be judged responsible for something there is still no equivalence with a majority. The latter can always react disproportionately and suggest that the minority started things.

      The question of proportion is all important and should not simply be treated as an unfortunate byproduct of a situation. Or a moment of ‘excess’ that organically comes about once things are stirred. Because the ‘disproportion’ is quite often brought about in a very planned and coordinated fashion.

      whether it’s the US dropping atomic bombs over Japan, fire-bombing Dresden, whether it’s retaliatory violence in Indian against minorities that exceeds in every sense the original provocation (even assuming that the minority has been responsible in the first instance) I am always very concerned with this question.

      This is why I liked Dev so much. Because the entire politics of the narrative is also very skilfully boiled down to an essential humanistic question. Is is ever justifiable to burn a building with lots of people in it the way it comes about in the film? This is basically what happened in Hiroshima and Gujarat, and what continues to happen in so many parts pf the world in violence perpetrated by every conceivable religious and ethnic majority. I didn’t support the Sena violence in Bombay but I was equally disgusted by the supposedly retaliatory chain bombings that ensued some months later. I have a simple view about this. I am not prepared to listen to any justification for any kind of violence so horrific in scale. As a historical or theoretical matter I might be interested in studying all of this but that’s a different point. There is always an ‘economy’ of violence but no point in such an ‘economy’ can ever be ignored.

      Let’s say I live on a street in Queens where there are lots of other Indians as well or people from the larger subcontinent. every week a gang of Indians ventures into a neighboring white community and causes provocation. Every once in a while the whites then get together, come to my street and burn every house down and engage in all kinds of violence in addition to this. Would any of us believe that those whites were justified? Yes the Indian gangs would have been responsible for perhaps some terrible crimes. But would we find the retaliatory violence comprehensible or acceptable because of this? And even in this scenario I actually make an Indian gang responsible for provocation and incitement; in real historical situations it is never as simple or as one sided as this. Again in my example there is disproportion as there always is in such real life situations.

      Ultimately it is a question of minorities either way. Only a minority of Muslims or Hindus (getting back to the example) are ever interested in direct engagement in such violence. But there is a question of numbers because one minority is bigger than the other. 10% of Hindus is not the same as 10% of Muslims. The sets are different. More importantly when you then account for the apparatus of the state taking sides it becomes a very different deal.

      Like

  14. I’m a newcomer here, but I have followed many of you on Naachgaana for a long time. So I want to ask Rajen, why do you feel the need to suddenly use terminology like “community” at the end of your comment when you have used “Hindus” and “Muslims” before that? Are we all supposed to know the truth, but it is too awful to utter aloud? If it cannot even be explicitly stated in an online forum where most people are only known by usernames, does that not say something about the state of security or freedom of speech in the country?

    My thanks to Abzee for this review. I especially appreciate his perspective as a Muslim, since that is a point of view I know I don’t have, and want to know about.

    Like

    • SM: I think one sometimes does this either out of politeness (one doesn’t want to offend) or one is afraid of being misunderstood. And I empathize with this in many ways. Not referring to Rajen here..

      By the way I wouldn’t necessarily assume one is Hindu or Muslim based on their writings..

      Like

      • “By the way, I wouldn’t necessarily assume one is HIndu or Muslim based on their writings.”

        No, I don’t. But, unless I misread the original post, I though Abzee himself said something like, “as a Muslim, I felt …” That’s why I thought he was giving a Muslim perspective, just as Qalandar has also self-identified himself as a Muslim, and so I treat his posts as also giving a Muslim perspective (for example, his explanation on Saawariya — so it is not always about riots!)

        Like

        • “As a Muslim walking out of this film, having seen all Muslim characters suffering and not seeing one repentant Hindu character but instead have an actual Hindu Gujarati play the ‘face’ of villainy, what is my catharsis going to be?”

          I think Abzee is hypothesizing about the reception this might have with a Muslim audience. Don’t think he’s calling himself one (or not calling himself one!).

          On Qalandar’s responses here or before I think he might sometimes open up windows onto things that sometimes correlate with his own heritage and so on. But I would resist the idea that he offers a ‘Muslim’ perspective.

          Like

        • If your objection is that I am assuming one person’s view is representative of an entire group, I am not. I am merely saying that a person from a different “heritage”, to quote your word, and experiences than mine, will have a different and often valuable perspective, one that I cannot have.

          Like

        • And actually, I don’t see how you can interpret “As a Muslim walking out of this film, … what is *my* catharsis going to be?” as a hypothetical question about a Muslim audience. It is his own personal reaction he was writing about.

          Just to clarify, I value getting “a Muslim’s perspective” on this question, just as I value getting “a Gujarati’s perspective”, since I am neither of those things.

          Like

        • SM: I am not ‘objecting’ to anything. All I am suggesting is that one must be careful with biographical info.

          Like

        • SM,
          It is understandable i.e the assumption you made. But given Satyam’s response, reading between the lines and rereading that sentence, you will get the idea what Satyam was implying.

          Like

  15. ideaunique Says:

    “In Firaaq, Nandita Das shockingly generalizes the whole Hindu Gujarati community as remorseless evil fundamentalists who want nothing more than to wipe the Muslims off the map of Gujarat. So in a film that is about the sufferings of Muslims in a post-Godhra Gujarat, the only Hindu characters are either plain evil, ignorant or impotent.”

    very well said abzee – i agree with you. Here is what i wrote to sandy’s review of firaaq…..
    ““she’s taken a bold stand against the Hindu fundamentalist faction in Gujarat” – sandy, i haven’t watched the movie yet – but i think this so-called hindu fundamentalist faction in Gujarat is not true – people outside of gujarat start making so much ho-halla without getting to the root of the matter….remember last gujarat election? entire media was against modi and kept giving the picture to entire nation that modi is this and modi is that and he is gonna loose…..result? Modi won with a thumping majority and it showed the man’s popularity with the people of gujarat….so i guess if nandita is simply juming on the bandwagon and taking a side against hindu fundamentalism (which is not there i guess) – then she is just a biased person and nothing more……recently, i was deeply touched by a woman’s remark….she said “almost everyone in india jumps at the idea of making a film which shows atrocities on muslims but why and why on earth no one wants to make a film where millions of Hindus are also subject to atrocities?????????????????????????””

    Like

  16. ideaunique Says:

    let me add to that that i have many muslim friends and none of them have these fundamentalist tendencies and where are these hindu fundamentalists also??? if a few people make such absurd statements from a state – whole community or whole state doesn’t become fundamentalist…..i learnt that when aamir’s film fanaa was banned in gujarat – it’s pirated dvd/cd sales soared like anything and when TZP was released in gujarat – it was welcomed with wide arms…..so, i hate these people like nandita and others who simply jump at this very idea of one community getting ill-treatment and then make some disturbing political movies……tell her to go out in the backward areas of gujarat – there people have so many other sufferings, survival problems etc. – and they are hindus, muslims, and people from all other communities…..so pl. nandita and co. – stop this done-to-death political gymnastics….

    Like

  17. Guys,

    Thanks for your responses. I’m deeply touched to have received such a warm welcome. Let me just clarify a few things. My review of Firaaq must in now way be read as an endorsement of the Godhra pogrom, neither do I condone any of the state’s activities during the said period. Most importantly though, I have always been the harshest critic of Narendra Modi and continue to do so…and would like to stress that no amount of financial reparation and/or commercial advancement of the state can justify and/or suffice to gloss over the human rights violation and genocide that the state and its agents indulged in 2002.

    My concerns about Firaaq are a strictly secular one. I forgot to somehow mention Govind Nihalani’s Dev in my review, but that film, based on the Gujarat carnage as well, wondefully struck a balance(leaving aside my reservations about the theatricality of the film, and its lack of cinematic aesthetic) in its argument. So you had Kareena even out Fardeen and Om destablize Amitabh. Also, the film maturely realized the role of the state, and never once resorted to knee-jerk generalisation that Das’s film sadly does. The only thread in Das’s Firaaq to receive a balanced closure is in the story of Shahana Goswami and Amruta Subhash. Shahana’s Muneera, upon returning to her charred home post-Godhra is helped by her Hindu friend played by Amruta, only to learn that her friend may have been party to the burning down of her house. She confronts her, and after exchanging slap, both of them hug each other. Ravi Chandran cleverly captures this moment- we see them hugging on the extreme right of the frame, their reflection in the mirror to the top right, reflected two-fold in the mirrors to the bottom left and the top left. In all we see five images of them in one frame- at once bringing to fore the uneasy nature of having more than one truths to such incidents. One can never see civilian actions at such times in simple black & white…there are many facets and many variables that come into play.

    Like

  18. Great stuff, abzee!

    Like

  19. The very fact that Abzee feels obliged to disclaim any approval of the riots by his review of a *film*, shows how skewed and poisonous the public discourse on this issue has become.

    Like

  20. Interesting responses and appreciate all.
    I have always felt that no solution is possible to this question unless one is prepared to look at this in the right spirit and even then it is most likely to be elusive. But, if one is not prepared to do even a little bit of introspection ( not personal but of us as a society ) and accept some inconvenient truths, no headway can ever be made. Acknowledging what leads to events is not an exercise in apportioning blame. But is the first step towards a reconciliation. Next step is to try and understand what motivates the initial actions and events. Is it years of oppression and injustice? Is it a feeling of deprivation and social injustice exploited by community/religious leaders ? Is it economic inequalities? Or a combination perhaps. And if so, what can be done to address this? The ‘solutions’ proposed by acted upon by the Congress for decades have not worked and have only lead to worsening of communal tensions and have reduced Muslim community to a vote bank, instead of addressing their needs. The Hindu fundamentalist movement has remained a little truer to its cause, however tainted the cause might be. But, it has also succumbed to political compulsions. The common man in the interim has born the brunt of this and allowed himself to be reduced to simply an instrument of either of those parties or sides.
    Even the so called intellectuals are waylaid by the temptations of assuming a morally superior (and strangely intellectually fulfilling ) position and denouncing the majority instead of a clinical dissection of ground realities. It is not about denouncing a community but about just solutions. Not one community is morally or ethically superior or has a greater or lesser right over independent India. It is about behaving responsibly and not resorting to use either the majority or minority status to gain greater rights or rewards.
    Someone raised the question about using the word community instead of Hindu or Muslims. I believe, I have made it clear which community I am referring to and have enough credibility in the bank to avoid the charge of cowardice in naming the community.

    Like

  21. Well Rajen is a good friend of mine, and has all the credibility in the world as far as I am concerned. We have differing viewpoints on some issues, but have both felt secure enough to disagree. And Abzee, why the need for such a disclaimer? Nothing in this review would suggest you are a Modi supporter, even if I weren’t familiar with your progressive inclinations!

    Like

  22. Re: We have differing viewpoints on some issues, but have both felt secure enough to disagree.

    Agree and will even concede, on those occasions where we disagree yours is the more thoughtful, refined and considered view point while mine is more the ‘street’, instinctive and (for lack of better word ) jaahil opinion.

    Like

  23. In all sincerity, I needed to say it Q because in spite of the wide leeway accorded to me by Satyam and yourself, my responses have a tendency to be intemperate on occasions.

    Like

  24. Q bhai gracious as always.

    Like

  25. Sounds like a heavy movie, creating some ripples across the net – its even getting rajen to write more than 3 paragraphs!

    Like

  26. “Firaaq to receive a balanced closure is in the story of Shahana Goswami and Amruta Subhash.”

    Nice review. I liked Naseer’s very sensitive performance in this movie…as always…very controlled and well acted…nice character. Apart from the two neigbor girlfriends (shahana and Amruta’s characters) Naseer and his hindu students also portray the bhai chara at grassroot level. Something didn’t seem right and didn’t suit me while watching this movie (and being the aam janta…opps….I did it again….) which I couldn’t quite pinpoint and articulate it so eloquently as you have done in the review.

    Nowadays I only watch hindi movies for some good acting and don’t worry about overall product/plot/logic etc (leave the brain behind at home). I went to see Naseer’s acting in this movie and loved it. As far as hindu-muslim stuff goes, I loved Deepa Mehta’s Earth with Aamir Khan (kya performance tha)…the last scene I believe and Aamir acted only with his eyes…it was throw-your-hat-in-air type of …absolutely wonderfully acted out scene…one of aamir’s rare one. There was a TV serial, forget the name…on partition…that was quite awesome too!

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.