‘India’s Daughter’: did India really have to ban it?
Dekey C Gyeltshen
4531009
The BBC’s film about the infamous gang rape and murder of a girl opens with the fatal night in December 2012, when the 23 year-old medical student boards a bus with a male companion at a major street in Delhi’s south. The focus then switches to the furious street protests that swept India in wake of the incident.
Street protest in India’s capital Delhi
The maker of ‘India’s Daughter’, Leslee Udwin of BBC shows intimate interviews with the parents and a close friend of the victim, defence lawyers, lawmakers, writers and social activists of India. But what gives this film a raw nerve is the interview, in the form of a conversation, with one of the accused – Mukesh Singh, the driver of the bus where the fatal attack took place.
Screening of India’s Daughter, in any form in India, was banned by the Delhi court because the film “appeared to encourage and incite violence against women”.
Moments after its release in the United Kingdom and the United States of America, India’s Daughter was released online. This not only took India by storm, but also caused a rage among online global citizens.
Horrific details of the incident angered not only Indian women but drew global attention. The only person clam was Mukesh. Sitting on a stool in the prison cell – where he is awaiting a death sentence – Singh lays the blame for that incident entirely on the victim, making derogatory comments about women and their place in the Indian society.
Mukesh is awaiting death sentence in Tihar jail
Did the ban make any sense?
Times of India on April 15, 2015 reported that the Indian government’s standing counsel Monika Arora, opposed a petition filed by a law student seeking lifting of ban on telecasting the BBC film.
“This film provided a platform for the convict to use the media to further his own case, especially when his appeal to conviction is subjudice. They also provide encouragement to anti-social elements who indulge in violent acts compromising law and order,” Arora said while referring to an affidavit filed by the Ministry in the court.
Is this argument strong enough to bypass the issue of communication freedom in the world’s largest democracy? No!
The Indian government made a blunder by ‘banning’ a film that portrayed a global issue. The real issue of government banning ‘India’s daughter’ is not because the film posed national threat. It’s not because the film demeaned Indian culture or tradition. It is solely because the permission to shoot the film was granted by the previous government. It is a serious case of political powerhouse getting back.
But the government should have been smart enough not to ‘ban’ a film in today’s techno-advanced world. This ban does not make sense. It only ‘back-fires’.
On March 5, 2015, Shekar Gupta, a senior Indian journalist tweeted, “Frankly, Govt of India best promoter of rape docu. I woke up in Johannesburg and waiter with bed-tea says he saw it on YouTube last night”.
Weather it’s a publicity stunt of the Indian government to gain global attention; or cultural propaganda of the superpowers to defame India, ‘India’s Daughter’ caught global attention on the Internet and the ban backfired.
Bigger issues than the convict
While the Indian government focuses on the convict and defence lawyers using media as their platform to argue their case, I see much bigger issues in this film.
Why did this one particular rape and violence against an Indian woman become so high profile that India got caught on global camera? Why did thousands of other similar cases (some even more severe than this) go un-noticed and unreported?
This is where the bigger issue of accumulated anger pops up. Leslee should have made this film much earlier. “But the mass protest after this particular incident gave birth to the very idea of this film,” Leslee says in an interview with NDTV India.
Leslee Udwin talks to NDTV
This particular street protest not only swept India. It swept the global world. I personally felt that India finally stood up against violence against women. Violence against women is a growing global issue. This film actually glorifies India, Indians and their gut. I don’t understand why the Indian government failed to skip this bigger picture while posing a ban. The Indian government should have in fact made this film compulsory for all to view.
Woman empowerment
Another reason why banning this film was a blunder? It degrades the very essence of women empowerment.
‘India’s daughter’ explores both the cultural and historical aspects of Indian society. It explores the ways in which Indian culture, history, policies and processes at national and international level shape media structures. It explores how a political economy-inspired approach can be used to understand both media dominance and resistance.
‘India’s daughter’ is the key to understanding the mentality of majority of men – in India and around the world.
Indian Member of Parliament, Javed Akthar argues that banning this film is a failed attempt by the Indian government to cover up men like Mukesh. He rightly says that every Indian, in fact everyone around the world, should see this film because men like Mukesh do exist. And the world has the right to know that Indian men are no exception.
The comment made the two defence lawyers of the convicts is another main reason why this film should not be banned. Without an inch of remorse, one of the lawyers says that, “India has a beautiful culture and women do not have a place in our society.”
Defence lawyer talks about women and their place in Indian society
Isn’t this lawyer making a mockery of women empowerment and Indian culture as a whole? Is it fair that an educated Indian lawyer speak of Indian women in this regard? This is the very reason why I say that banning the film is a blunder. And I totally agree with MP Javed Akthar when he said that instead of banning this film, everyone should watch it.
Freedom of speech?
Media and communication is integral to Indian democratic society. In fact communication is an essential key globally. Its role extends beyond its traditional duty to inform, educate and entertain. It fosters conditions whereby general public can make informed decision based on factual reporting and providing relevant contents. However, Indian government and Indian court makes it difficult for Indian media to function adequately.
One foreign filmmaker captures a global issue in India, appreciates the way the whole nation stood up for this accumulated anger by protesting on the streets, makes a documentary only to get it banned by political control.
Government officials argue that the film portrayed India in a negative light, with a possibility of losing financial investments and national revenue. But the global configuration of the film going viral on Internet despite the ban enforced by political control backfired the Indian government because the film was never ‘a conspiracy to defame India’. It was a voice communicating internationally, amplifying a global issue.
While some members of parliament decried the legal and ethical implications of the filmmaker’s interviewing the convict while court proceedings were still underway, some said the snippets of the interviews incited further violence against women. But many politicians, feminist leaders, and celebrities opposed the ban.
Despite a ban enforced by political powerhouse, ‘India’s Daughter’ went viral online and several private screening on projectors were initiated by individuals. While the interview and facts in the film speak for themselves, the title of the film posed more pointed questions.
Was ‘India’s Daughter’ actually posing a threat to India’s national sovereignty? I would say the film was stabilizing popular sentiments, shaping public opinion, and helping the government to implement social management. The film, in the first place, should have never been banned.
DekeyCG 