NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTION 99
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

The Rediff Interview/ S Gurumurthy

'If a widow remains a pure widow, she is respected

The Swadeshi Jagran Manch recently announced that its members were planning strong protests throughout the country if Deepa Mehta started shooting her film, Water. Shobha Warrier met SJM convener, S Gurumurthy and asked him about the controversy.

It was reported that the Swadeshi Jagran Manch is planning strong protests all over India if Deepa Mehta is given permission to shoot Water anywhere in India.

I look at it from an entirely different point of view. I see a weak society and a sick mind combined together to produce something of this kind. Their first production showed that Indian women are sex starved and so they seek relief in lesbianism. How many Indian women do this?

But they did not say that all Indian women are sex starved and indulge in lesbianism.

See, they are doing it for commerce. But they act as if they are doing it as social reformers. You reform a society if people are suffering from a problem.

Deepa Mehta never said she was a social reformer.

Then what are they talking about? If it is only a matter of commerce, where is the question of freedom of expression? Where is the question of cultural aggression? If it is purely commerce, nobody should bother about it. Okay, we can brush aside by saying 'some people are making money'. Then, why are they giving the issue a higher value than commerce?

I will tell you, Sarada mata, after becoming a widow, went to Brindavan and said that the Brindavan widows are an example and illustration to her. See how Sarada mata looks at them and how Deepa Mehta views these widows. It is the difference between Yudhishtira and Duryodhana.

In the Mahabharata, Krishna asks Duryodhana to find one good man and he also asks Yudhishtira to find one bad man. Both of them come back in the evening and report to Krishna. What happened was Yudhishitira could not find one bad man and Duryodhana could not find one good man. Yudhishtira saw at least one good trait in all men and Duryodhana saw at least one bad trait in every man he met.

Sarada mata saw goodness in 98 per cent of the widows and Deepa Mehta sees only the two per cent or five per cent who are fallen. And these women would be fallen in any case, whether they are widows or unmarried or married.

Every widow who is already hurt in life will feel humiliated if she sees this film. She may feel, she will also be looked at like that. Take for instance, a film on airhostesses. If the airhostess is portrayed as a woman having extra marital affairs in the film, will not honorable air hostesses feel hurt? Are you not hurting a particular segment?

Several movies are made about people working in various professions. Films are made about widows also. Is it the fact that this lady is trying to sell an aspect of India to the western world that makes you angry?

Yes, first of all, she is from abroad. She is not a resident of India; she is a Canadian citizen. If an outsider makes such films, there will always be suspicion that he/she is doing it with an ulterior motive. You can't avoid it in any society. Number two, Deepa Mehta has already done something very bad in the form of Fire and she is doing it again.

She wants to project India as a country of lepers and prostitutes. As if in India widowhood means prostitution! I will tell you why people like me feel so strongly about this film. My mother brought me up as a widow. She worked hard and the whole family came up because of her. Widowhood, to me, is a very sacred concept where somebody lives by the memory of her husband. You may not like it. It may not be in tune with your thinking. But how can you call it wrong? Here, Mehta is attacking widowhood itself.

Why do you feel that she is attacking widowhood itself? She may be projecting a few widows who have turned to prostitution.

She is projecting widows as helpless and she says that many of them are turning prostitutes. Widowhood is a very serious tapasya and many people may fail. If you generally praise the courage of the widows, I can understand. If you sympathise with those who fail, I can understand. But do you know what is the kind of dialogue that is used in the film? 'Big breasted widows'!

Is this the way to describe widows? I don't think any decent person can even repeat the dialogues. Anyone who sees the film will think that the widows in Brindavan are prostituting. I think it is a generalisation of the tapasya of the thousands of widows who may have nothing to do with prostitution.

Why do you think the central government gave permission to shoot the film in India?

In India, let us assume that law permits many things. The government can permit what it wants to, but society need not do so. Society can say, nothing doing. These people are not making the film for a noble cause or to change society. They are commercialising an issue to make profits.

So you justify the violent protests by the social activists in Varanasi?

See. I am not going to ask, can you make a film on Muslims or Christians? That is irrelevant. In this country, the government has a limited role; the intellectuals have a limited role. The society sustains itself. The society feeds the poor, it is not the government which does so.

There has been no poverty in Punjab for 300 years thanks to religion! Will anybody accept this fact? There is not one man who has died of hunger or felt hunger in Punjab in the last 300 years. Hunger has been removed by the Sikh religion. How many intellectuals will have the courage to accept this truth?

You are saying that what we witnessed in Varanasi was a natural response of the people of the city and was not instigated by religious fanatics?

Yes, you are 100 per cent correct. If I were in Kashi, I too would have agitated against the filming of Water. You can call me communal a million times; I am not bothered. Who are you to give me a certificate? My conscience should give me a certificate. It is actually intellectual terrorism. Tell me, how many widows can defend themselves?

That is why I said, go and ask the Lijjat papad people, they will tell you how widows live. You can make a film on those kind of widows who toil hard to bring up their children, their brothers's children etc.

But is it not the film-maker's prerogative to choose the subject? Deepa Mehta says you are questioning her freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression and commerce are different. Admit that your motive behind making a film like this is purely commercial. Why do you call it freedom of expression? You are hiding behind the term 'freedom of expression.'

Mehta maintains it is Hindu fundamentalists and not the people of Varanasi who are fighting against her.

The word Hindu itself is communal. Wh do you call Hindu communalists? In this country, Hindu means communal. Christians and Muslims are always secular and the most secular people are the leftists!

Do you feel that had an Indian been making a film on the same subject, s/he might have looked at the issue of widowhood differently?

That's why when Mayo wrote about this, Mahatma Gandhi said, Indians can draw some lessons out of it. The book was not written for Indians, it was written for foreigners. Likewise, this film too is made for foreigners. If you want to portray the plight of widows to the Hindus, to the Hindu religious heads, the Hindu social thinkers, I can understand. But you are making this for foreigners, so you can make money.

Do you feel an Indian would never have viewed the problems of the widows the way Deepa Mehta has done?

An Indian will never look at the issue the way Mehta has. If he does, there is something wrong with his Indian-ness.

Shabana Azmi is an Indian. Nandita Das is an Indian.

I am not questioning their Indian-ness. I am questioning their approach to India. I am questioning how they should project India to the outside world. Today what the Indian lacks is a sense of pride. You must build it and not destroy it.

Do you feel this is pure commercialisation of the darker side of India?

First, it is perversion and then it is commercialisation. It has very little to do with freedom of expression.

Is it not true that a Hindu widow lives a terrible life in many parts of India even now?

It is their choice.

But do they have a choice?

Please understand that the English educated Indian cannot understand India. Self-denial is one paradigm in India -- I can have it, but I won't have it. A widow has an option.

I don't think she has an option.

Please listen. If a widow remains a pure widow, she is respected. If she wants to lose the respect, she can remarry. Nobody goes and burns a widow if she remarries. But if she wants pleasure, naturally she will have to give up name and opt for pleasure.

Does an average Indian woman have an option?

Who prevents her? Tell me.

Family, society, people around her.

Which family? In fact, she (Deepa Mehta) has been talking about the widows who are thrown out of their families. She is not talking about the widows in a family.

Now, many state chief ministers are vying with each other to welcome Deepa Mehta to shoot the film in their states.

They think it is the best way to get the minority votes. Abuse the Hindus, the minorities will vote for you. The climate in India now is, you denigrate Hinduism, Hindu methods, Hindu beliefs, Hindu approach to life, proclaim that Hindu life is the worst life and it is not worth living such a life and you become a secular person. You can say that a Hindu's belief is correct or wrong but the belief of the others is sacred, their books are sacred and their Gods are sacred.

Most of the widows in Brindavan are from West Bengal, but Jyoti Basu wants Deepa Mehta to shoot her film there. Do you feel the Bengalis will protest?

Yesterday prostitutes have agitated in favour of Water. This only confirms my view that all widows are being projected as prostitutes! So, the communist party organises the prostitutes in thousands to come and say, yes, we want Water.

Till 1947, most of the English newspapers were opposed to freedom for India. Do you mean to say they were right?

Likewise, it is only a sick mind, which will think of this. It is Mayo's mind at work.

Will she be able to shoot the film in India?

I am not worried whether she shoots or not but I will state my views. She cannot stop me from expressing my mind.

The Rediff Interviews

Tell us what you think of this interview