Post-Truth

I am a votary of comprehending divergent views on any issue before drawing conclusions. Family and friends who surround me say that the word 'perspective' is my favourite word in the English language.

I consider myself to be a left-leaning liberal on most issues but I have shunned being labelled as a conformist to any party's ideology. Even if a party or a party leader's ideology and actions are detestable to my mind, I try not to jump to conclusions. But people I consider left liberals are seen ever-so-often falling into the trap of jumping to quick conclusions and labeling people and acts based on their existing prejudices. (Hmm, I have lost count of the warm relations/friendships I have 'lost' because I have taken views contrary to those of my loved ones, friends etc, and I am not scared to stand all alone!)

I am writing here because of two recent instances that have made me terribly uncomfortable.

1)      I read rants and rants on my timeline about Hima Das' caste being among the top searches on Google following her tremendous achievement at the WJAC 2018. I read two articles in 'non-partisan' media about this fact. I am quoting from the two articles to suggest what my problem with the argument is:

a.       "Do we need more proof of who is more bothered about Hima Das's caste? It's not the "rural, illiterate" bunch whose lack of awareness is often blamed for the continuing caste system. In fact, it is the urban drawing rooms and high-tech smartphones from where such caste consciousness arises." Sorry! How did the writer come to this startling conclusion saying "in fact..."? It would be great if we had specific data. Else, the writer must say, "past experience suggests" or some such phrase for the story being woven.

b.       "If people are searching caste, it means a majority of them use it as a reference to judge anyone’s performance. But what explains this obsession despite tall claims of exorcising the demons of caste long ago? Does the new right-wing assertion with vigorous pursuit of controlling roti-beti (food and daughter) have anything to do with the renewed obsession with caste affiliations?" I agree that a majority of those using caste in the search are trying to use it as a reference point to judge performance. But how did this lead to the question that follows? At least this writer is being less cocksure and camouflages his opinion with a sceptical-sounding question, albeit a rhetorical one.

Both the writers referred to above make a case for transcending caste barriers and avoiding caste labels and yet they have names which bear references to caste. So, should we blame these writers for being casteist, as they bear names with distinct caste labels in the year 2018, when we should have erased caste out of our society with a magic wand?c.        I will also refer to a good friend of mine who was taken aback at my comment on his post (about this Google search on caste) suggesting that caste is a reality in today's India.

Could we have drawn the wrong conclusions from the propensity of searches about Hima Das' caste? Is not every Dalit and others belonging to the disadvantaged castes always reminded of their caste. In fact, there has been a movement towards assertion of their caste identity as a form of hitting back. Given this situation, to assume that most people who Googled about Hima Das' caste are casteist 'upper caste' members may not be factually correct. Could it be that many of the disadvantaged groups searched for her caste identity both in order to liken the enormity of her effort with theirs as well as to be able to pay even greater tribute to her for her achievement, which would be even more if she belongs to a disadvantaged one. Many of the liberal-minded people from the non-disadvantaged castes could also have the latter intention in their search. To deem every search as a vicious one is opinion bordering on prejudice and I don't like to condone it however convenient it may to the liberal cause.

2)      The other instance is of a friend from college who is clearly left liberal, and shared a post with two pictures in it, both based on the Pussy Riot protesters that appeared on the football ground during the final - one with Mbappe (French team) giving a protester a high-five and the other with Dejan Lovren (Croatian team) "dragging down" one. In the ensuing discussion, several possibilities arose on why there was a difference in the response of the two players - the fact that the protesters were in police clothes, one was winning while the other was losing, etc. Clearly, my friend wasn't interested in these facts, even though he thought they were 'valid to some degree'. 'What truly matters' though, he said was the instinctive response, and the fact that one treated people with dignity and the other did not. 

Both these strands of ideas mentioned above lead me to the same conclusion and I am uncomfortable with that. Are left liberals guilty of the same post-truth that they accuse the right-wing conservatives of? How much more impactful and deep the message would be if we stop jumping to conclusions based on stitching together a clutch of opinions and passing them off as a fact!

I ask fellow liberals to introspect about this and see if we can create a cogent argument and a movement against the upsurge in the mistrust of 'the other' and daily incidences of killing human beings for flimsy bases and rumours...

Disclaimer: My apologies to the friends I allude to here, for bringing you here. You are free to 'comment' here.

Star Power

Source: http://www.quotehd.com/Quotes/marcus-aurelius-soldier-everything-we-hear-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact-everything-we-see

I watched two biopics almost back-to-back. One in the clamour and buzz of the movie hall and the other in the silence surrounding my phone on Prime. The movie hall one is a Bollywood 100 Crorer based on a current star, who had terror charges on him, and the Prime one is a Kollywood-Tollywood hit based on the first female superstar of the South. I cannot but help draw parallels.

Both stars have gone through waves of stardom and setbacks in their careers and also faced great personal tragedies. Both stars faced addiction issues one with alcohol and the other with drugs. I was motivated to watch both films because of reviews written by students on Facebook, both raving about the respective films they wrote about. Interestingly, both films have sub-plots about writers – one is a renowned biographer Winnie Diaz who hesitatingly accepts to write the biography of Sanjay Dutt and the other is a novice journalist whose dream is to get her by-line on the front page of a newspaper. Both the films have these writers doing their research and the audience getting a peep into the star’s life through this research.

My heart, admittedly, was tugged at, at several moments in the two films and the directors have hit the right chord to move the audiences to empathize with the lead characters.

My head, however, was left deeply perturbed by both the films. While I heard Gemini Ganesan’s daughter crib about the false portrayal of her father and the over-glorification of Savitri, I read about the gross glossing over of the criminality involved in hoarding explosives and AKs in Sanjay Dutt’s house during the troubled Mumbai years of the early 1990’s. Both films are examples of how cinema can make or mar popular opinion, in that sense.  So, I am not going to discuss these issues.

There are other common traits that are somewhat discomfiting for me:

1. The films portray the male film stars’ penchant for sexual liberties rather casually. While Sanju coolly announces to his mildly-shocked, awestruck prospective biographer in the presence of his acquiescing wife the number 308 and rounds it off to 350 for greater ‘historical accuracy’ as the number of women he has slept with, discounting those he refers to as ‘prostitutes’, ‘Gemini’ Ganesan, fondly called ‘Kadhal Mannan’ (King of romance) is portrayed as equally casual in his flings, overtures and extra-marital affairs. Manyata Dutt laughs this off as ‘harmless’ acts and Savitri is expected to do the same when Ganesan reminds her of having fallen in love with her even as he was married then.
2. The films show both Sanjay and Savitri failing as parents, and this is conveniently attributed to their own troubled childhoods. While Dutt is crushed under the weight of expectations to live up to a charismatic father, Savitri is shown as constantly yearning for the absent affection of the missing father. The audience is cajoled into forgiving the two for being bad parents.
3. Like most actors with personal setbacks, both stars are shown to be vulnerable and try to escape the harsh reality using alcohol/drugs or even attempt suicide. Alcohol for Savitri is what drugs is to Sanjay Dutt – debilitating, career-destroying addictions. While the former drowns her sorrows in drinks, the latter uses drugs to numb his pains and fears. Both stars are shown to heroically overcome this otherwise insurmountable hurdle.
4. While the audience is introduced to Savitri with the title ‘MahanaDi’ (great actress) and ‘Nadigaiyar Thilakam’ (title of the film), Sanjay Dutt is fondly referred to as ‘Sanju’ (title of the film) or as Baba (young boy; son). Aww, how endearing!
5. Both stars are shown as being prone to being manipulated by friends and acquaintances and being financially unwise. While Savitri loses millions and comes to penury due to her brash investments and financial management decisions, Sanjay, who is even manipulated into drugs by a wicked peddler is shown to be equally dim-witted when it comes to money matters.
6. Politics and gangsters find their way into both films differently. In ‘Sanju’, the director couldn’t have ignored the fact that gangsters are closely associated with the functioning and financing of Bollywood. Sunil Dutt had to meet Mastan don before he weds the Muslim Nargis, and Sanjay has to hobnob with gangsters during the Ganesh Puja. NTR’s Telugu Desam and the Tamil-Telugu questions of language identity find mention in the film ‘Nadigaiyar Thilakam’, which is technically a Telugu film dubbed into Tamizh.
7. In the films’ focus on the central characters, exciting aspects of the siblings and children are downplayed and even biographical facts merely mentioned and not elaborated, all this probably for cinematic clarity.

However, one thing was clear from both films. It is the person who speaks that colours the listener’s perception. The creators paint the films’ facts with their own brushes. The painter gets to decide what you get to see. Do the real and troubling, political issues of gender, terror, corruption, sexual promiscuity etc get shadowed by the excessive focus on the bright glamour of the cinematic lights? The troubled head is left reeling with the question.