Gender Politics and Marriage

My domestic help is getting married at the end of this month. She's a young girl of 20 years, frail, a little sickly, but extremely hard-working and affectionate. She is marrying a boy chosen by her parents, the dates and the modalities of the event are being planned entirely at the convenience of the groom's family; her father is grateful for the fact that the prospective son-in-law has a job and a roof over his head, doesn't smoke or drink and doesn't expect him to pay a dowry. The girl either doesn't have a mind of her own (which we all know is most unlikely), or doesn't want to express herself openly. After her wedding, her future husband gets to decide whether she should work or stay at home. She will probably be expected to produce a healthy baby within a year or two (if they're the decent sort they'll only rejoice more heartily if it's a boy and not blame her if it isn't) and over the next several years, it will be her duty to run her husband's house, raise kids and look after his family. If the husband needs her to supplement his income, she'll have to do all this and go out to work for a living as well. If she does, while it will put a tremendous strain on her already indifferent health, it will at least give her a modicum of financial independence (provided she isn't expected to hand over her salary to her husband or his parents, or be accountable to him for how she spends it).

I belong to an educational, social and financial bracket slightly better than that of my domestic help. Yet, the circumstances of my life weren't very different from hers. And no, before anyone starts thinking this is a personal rant, let me clarify that I am merely quoting my story as an illustrative example. It's the same for millions of women in this country and dozens I myself know, except, I don't want to talk about other peoples' lives without their permission and can speak with any level of confidence and certainty only about my own experiences. Besides, as Virginia Woolf rightly said, "If you do not tell the truth about yourself, you cannot tell it about other people."

I was 27 years old when I got married, gainfully employed (though media jobs didn't fetch the kind of fancy numbers they do today), independent and free-spirited. From the time I 'grew up' there were covert and overt signals all around me propelling me towards marriage. My mother, for no fault of hers but merely based on her own understanding of life, believed that it was important for me to settle down with a man and inevitably, once that happened, to be tied (almost) irrevocably to his destiny. My father believed so too, only he didn't say it in as many words, nor as often. Life, particularly in a society like ours, isn't easy for single women. It can get lonely and you may end up feeling incomplete without marriage and children. All valid arguments in their own right, and echoed consistently and repeatedly by family and well-wishers.

I was on the marriage market from the age of 23 with varying levels of activity depending on my resistance and pig-headedness. There were times when the process was abandoned because of my non-co-operation before slowly, but surely, the pressure would start building up. As already stated above, I am not blaming anyone for the situation, merely stating facts. On my part, while I kept reiterating that I would get married only on my terms, or not at all, I lacked the courage to be entirely dismissive of the process. Visions of a long, lonely, unfulfilled life loomed large on my imagination. Never did I pause to contemplate the possibility that things could turn out just as well otherwise. I could build a career, live alone and savour the company of family and friends, perhaps hitch a boyfriend at some point, adopt a baby if I so wanted one, and found my own happiness on my own terms.

I'd met a variety of men in the four years of match-making, and although those experiences were rich fodder for fiction (and may well be put to that use at some point), most of them were disappointing. I realised that even as there was much talk of the emancipation of men, there was little practical evidence of the same. The number of men I eventually corresponded with was about 40, and personally met at least half of them. There was one particular candidate who had lived away from home ever since he finished school, worked in the US for a few years and had done everything from adventure sports to visiting nudist camps. But he wanted a wife who was intelligent, attractive and would agree to live with his parents and look after them, since it was now his desire to settle down in India and be with his family. Fortunately, this man rejected me. He wasn't the only one. There were others who I met more than once and being my usual open self, bared my shortcomings and potentially deal-breaking traits in the first meeting itself. But it still took this other guy three rather expensive lunches (we split the tab, being the progressive sort) to realise that he found me unattractive and hence didn't wish to go ahead with the alliance. If I had any sense, I should have slapped his face before walking out. I just said a polite 'goodbye' and left.

By the time I met my husband, I was thoroughly disillusioned with the process. I met him with great hesitation and almost certain that this would be another rejection in the can, more likely from my end. Except, he accepted everything I said about myself at face value and showed no sign of disappointment or disapproval. He too wanted a wife who would live with his parents. But because he was inherently decent and willing to accept me as I was, I chose to overlook the long-term implications of this pre-condition, or then, I couldn't imagine what it would actually be like to live with someone else's family for a stretch of time. Over the years, I've often wondered, whether a woman who put such a caveat would ever find a husband willing to move in with her parents and integrate with the family. Unlikely. My husband was a product of his own upbringing and conditioning and ill-equipped to break away from it.

Moving out of one's home is, in itself, a ground-breaking event for any individual (man or woman). But walking into someone else's house and family is a different ball-game altogether. Often it is a function of economics -- young couples don't have the money to rent apartments and live separately and hence move in with the husband's family (it can never be the wife's, because a son-in-law who lives with his wife's parents is considered impotent in our society). At other times it's on a whim -- the son doesn't want to leave his parents (for various reasons) and our society gives him a license to do so. (This is perhaps unique to eastern cultures. I once watched a French comedy about parents who were anxious about the fact that their 28-year-old son refused to move out of their house and actually deviced schemes to throw him out and get him to live on his own!) The situation, in my now well-informed opinion, is entirely disadvantageous to women. Most husbands and parents undertake little or no efforts to make the new bride feel at home. Even the mothers, who must have undergone the same trauma themselves, behave no differently than their predecessors and expect the daughter-in-law to fit in as unobtrusively as possible, while the house continues to function exactly as it used to before she walked in. In such families (and there are lakhs of them in this country), the son is treated as a privileged commodity and funnily, his life continues almost uninterrupted even after a momentous event such as marriage. There is no reason for men to even attempt to change their outlook in a situation like this, which is wholly to their advantage.

Even in modern urban nuclear families, highly qualified and tremendously talented women routinely give up their careers for family and kids. They're discriminated against at the workplace because of weaknesses foisted on them by a faulty social structure, which largely absolves men of the responsibility of home-making and child-rearing. Women aren't unreliable at the workplace because they're inefficient. But because it is their primary responsibility to keep the home in order and raise their kids, while maintaining their jobs if they must, either for financial reasons or for their own satisfaction and personal growth. This isn't their choice. It is a function of conditioning and a social order which make women feel 'guilty' about fostering their own aspirations and independent of their husbands, children and families. They are born into the belief that home-making is basically their function, regardless of their professional success and individual dreams. My mother, for instance, made sure that my sister and I learnt to cook, clean and keep house, unmindful of whether we enjoyed these activities or not, and notwithstanding our educational achievements and ambitions. I don't know of any men (at least of my generation) who received similar life-skills as part of their upbringing. Instead, they are conditioned to believe that just as their mothers ran their homes and juggled jobs (I have seen my own mother do it and know just how difficult it is), their wives will continue in the same tradition without any fuss. Except, nothing stands still. Not even dogmatic social norms -- although popular culture does everything within its power to reinforce gender stereotypes and regressive values through cinema, television and advertising.

Bottomline is, women are changing faster than men. And rightly so. This change is to their benefit and necessary for their survival and growth. But if men don't try to catch up, they'll be left behind to the detriment  not just of their own future, but that of the entire social order which will be thrown into imbalance. For, the more women think, reason and act at will, the lesser the chances they'll want to get into such lop-sided alliances. I know enough women who've steered clear of the marital game realising well in time that it couldn't possibly work to their advantage, for the numbers of emancipated men are shockingly small.

I am not an advocate of the institution of marriage. It's a faulty system at best and a collosal nuisance at worst. But in this great country of ours, it's looked upon with reverence (for reasons beyond my limited comprehension). Every time I attend a wedding, the thought that's foremost in my head is, "Does this woman know what she's getting into? And does she have the courage to negotiate her space and find her happiness while being married?" I wish my maid has a good life. I hope her husband is an understanding man who will love and respect her for the person she is. But more than that, I hope she has the sense to know her mind and live accordingly.

Self Image - It's All In The Head

A couple of weeks ago I watched a film called Amal, directed by Canadian-Indian filmmaker Richie Mehta. It's an allegorical tale about a simple-minded, gentle and honest autorickshaw driver in Delhi who's surprisingly untouched by his surroundings. But that's not the point of this article. In the film, Naseeruddin Shah plays an eccentric millionaire who dresses in rags and goes around the city being obnoxious to everyone in sight. Given his bedraggled appearance, he gets insulted, ridiculed and thrown out by various people, which probably proves his hypothesis that appearance and status maketh a man. For, being offensive rarely gets the rich and the well-groomed rejected by society and, if contemporary norms are to be gauged purely on practical evidence, such behaviour may even be perceived as a virtue.

Yesterday, a friend mentioned on Facebook that she always feels under-dressed and unkempt when she goes to her daughters' school where all other parents come made-up to the hilt. I too have noticed the same at my daughter's school -- I find it mildly amusing and not in the least bothersome. Fortunately (I think) I was never plagued by issues of self-image as determined by my appearance even as a teenager -- which is when, I presume, most people are acutely conscious of the way they look and about how members of the opposite sex in particular and society in general, perceive them. It was irritating to find other girls landing boyfriends with alarming ease, while I had to go around proposing to all the boys I found attractive at different times and for different reasons only to be rejected by each one of them. I spoke my mind, didn't care how I dressed, wasn't coy or overtly feminine in my behaviour and was largely unconcerned about being judged for the way I looked. But that didn't mean I didn't want to be liked or loved just the way I was, for who I was. On the other hand, I had lots of friends, read voraciously, loved to debate various issues and enjoyed college life to the hilt, despite the absence of a boyfriend. In a way, it was for the best -- no relationship = less stress and greater freedom.

Increasingly, I find people spending more and more time, effort and money on grooming and trying to alter their appearance (for the better?). For instance, my husband and I observed at our daughter's annual concert that not only did none of the mothers sport grey hair (which, at least some of them must have, given that they'd be around the same age as us), many had streaks of gold, brown and assorted other colours added to their hair (often straightened artificially too) and were dressed and made-up more heavily than I was on my wedding day.

It seems the entire beauty-fashion-fitness industry, in connivance with the media is striving to alter the way we look at ourselves and our bodies. And it isn't for the noble cause of making us feel good but a ploy to increase sales and profit margins. I am no longer who I am, but how I look and how I am perceived by others. It has become particularly important to look attractive, trim and young, regardless of your natural body type, facial attributes and personality. But peel off all those artificial layers and it comes down to the basics. For instance, I'm a 38-year-old woman of strictly average looks, with unruly hair, a squint in my eye, a tyre of flab around my waist, stretch marks caused by pregnancy, facial hair, wrinkling skin and a bulky body.

The good part is, I don't dislike myself for the way I look. I accept it as a matter of fact, follow good hygiene, wear decent clothes, don't have bad body odour and comb my hair whenever necessary. I'm not ashamed to look into the mirror and even pay the occasional visit to a beauty parlour (strictly at my convenience and not as a matter of priority because the eyebrows have grown out-of-control) for basic grooming, and leave it at that. I don't colour my hair, don't wear make-up, don't buy expensive clothes or shoes and don't feel worse off as a result. It's not as though I frown upon these things. They just don't seem important enough, and certainly don't play any role in determining how I feel about myself.

One of my favourite actors is Denzel Washington. Not because he's handsome. His face radiates a glow of goodness that seems to emanate from his soul. And that, in my opinion, is the real essence of beauty, which cannot be acquired by applying a product or wearing a brand. I love Meryl Steep too. She's a brilliant actress, 60 years old and mother of four. She's also unusually beautiful. But even in her younger days she didn't try to look thin, and now that she's old, her skin is sagging just the way it should, if it isn't stretched and stapled in place to look younger and sprightlier. Contrast this with Aamir Khan's desperate bid to pass off as a 23-year-old in 3 Idiots (he's 45, and looks it, despite his best efforts to stay young). Streep and Washington are examples of actors who haven't let vanity get the better of them. Aging is a fact of life. So is deterioration of the body and ultimately, death.

I'm not a psychologist, but common sense dictates that one's self-image must be determined from within and not without. I need to know myself to like myself, and in that sense, the way I look or other people's opinion of me cannot matter all that much. It requires introspection and reflection on life and my own choices, a healthy acceptance of my weaknesses and the ability to get past them without bitterness. 

None of which can be purchased in a bottle. 

Towards a Happy Ending...

By Vidya Bal

This is not a thought about death
It is a thought towards quality living.

Death is the last stop on the road of old age. 'Exit!' It's a sudden, permanent exit from worldly dealings and the business of life. If you continue on the metaphor of a journey, it can be said that, generally, we can't control or know when and where our life's journey begins. And perhaps, in the same way, we don't know when and where this journey will end, nor is it within our control. Even so, it is certain that every person who's born will die. The one thing that's inevitable and definite after birth is death. Despite this fact, we don't often think about death, nor very easily. We don't like to talk about it and generally avoid any discussion on the subject.

Today, however, I wish to speak about death. For the last 25/30 years I have been reading and talking about this subject. At that time I was about 50 years old, and today I am past 70. In a way, I feel I got introduced to this topic at the right time. V R Limaye of Sangli, sent me his own book 'Sanmanane Marnyacha Hakka' (The Right to Die with Dignity) as a gift. The idea of that tiny little book seemed very important to me. Thereafter, I continued discussing the issue with Mr. Limaye through letters and personal meetings. Since Mr. Limaye was ruminating and reading about this subject all the time, I got introduced to several books on 'willful death'. If he came across anything on the subject in newspapers around the world, he used to send me those clippings. Last year Mr. Limaye passed away. Since it was he who introduced me to this topic, and now that I feel even closer with it, keeping his memory alive, I feel like spreading his message with diligence to many. Therefore, it is my wish to draw the attention of those who are old, and more so, those who have not yet reach that stage.

At this time, there are many such 'old' people in our family or amongst acquaintances; those who can't move around on their own or their faculties are not functioning properly, or have an illness which causes great discomfort to them and their families; due to lack of manpower in the house, it is difficult to take proper care of them. There is a lack of finances to hire help to look after them. The house is not large enough to spare a room for them over a prolonged period. Due to all these circumstances, that person is somewhat neglected. Therefore she is hurt or angry.

Regardless of whether that person had behaved harshly, egoistically or selfishly with others in their younger days, or was very popular in the house, in the grip of this situation, neither can she live with dignity, nor can the family get enough strength to continue to behave affectionately and empathetically with such a person.

There are bound to be some exceptions who are able to surmount the stifling circumstances. One such example is that of Meena Gokhale's family (who looked after her Alzheimer's-affected mother for 14 long years). Yet, ordinarily, an old person in such circumstances wants to find a way to escape this predicament and to admit candidly and honestly, the family too is fed-up of this prolonged illness. When I see such people around, I start thinking to myself, "My god! I too can end up in this situation at any time." There's no point in denying what is today's reality. Hence it is necessary to think about it from this very moment, to accept it and to change our thinking and actions accordingly.

As I mentioned in the beginning, I was introduced to the idea of 'willful death' when I was about 50. Since then, as I started getting older and saw the intolerable suffering of old people around me, my ideas about this concept started getting clearer and firmer.

Today I am 73 years old. So far, I haven't had a serious ailment afflict my body. I am mobile. I am independent. My head is screwed in place. But this happy state can change suddenly or gradually. I can get anything from heart trouble, cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, to paralysis. And instead of thinking about "what to do" after something happens, I have done it while I am mentally and physically fit. So I have spoken or written down my wish that if any such thing happens to me, there should be no treatment given. I don't want to be operated for anything. I have no wish to continue living with the suffering of sickness, pain and dependence. I don't want others peoples' lives, money, time and establishment to get disrupted because of me or my illness. The good life I've lived so far is comfortable enough for me. I want it to end on the same note. It shouldn't be prolonged by artificial means. Especially, if due to an accident or some other reason, I go into a coma, I shouldn't be treated and should be helped to meet my end speedily. Stating one's desires in such a manner is called a 'living will'.

After the age of 60, the chances of illness increase. Hence I am proposing this thought for people beyond this age limit. I've given a sample draft of a 'living will' at the end of this article.

I don't believe this thought process means being afraid of illness. Rather, instead of facing illness and the circumstances which accompany it I would prefer to die. For this, I must express this wish, while I'm physically and mentally fit, to persons who are concerned with my death. I have to be able to convey to them the honesty behind my wishes. Once I identify the person who accepts my wishes and agrees to carry them out, I must give them the right to take decisions and implement them on my behalf. Again I want to reiterate that I am not suggesting this route for those who want to continue living with joy. Nor is it my intention to put pressure on people over the age of 60 to accept these ideas. I would not like to compel anyone. Nor do I have any right to do so. But this is an appeal to those who are thinking along similar lines or those who are wavering and can't make up their minds.

There is no legal sanctity to a 'living will' in our country. Suicide is a crime as per our laws. But a person who makes a 'living will', isn't committing suicide. A sick person's mind may drive her to suicide out of dejection. In this case we are talking about bidding adieu to life with a balanced mind. To stop treatment, or to not start treatment and take the path to inviting death willfully is rational thought. To achieve this it is necessary to have the co-operation between the person who is making the will, her family or any one person from the family and her family doctor. Its effectiveness or success depends on that.

Willful death is different from mercy killing. In the case of willful death, the individual herself takes a decision about her death, while in the case of mercy killing, it is a decision made by someone else. Besides thinking about willful death after the age of 60 is more a thought about living a quality life than about dying. Having faced life's small and big battles, taken good and bad experiences in your stride, this would be a decision to exit not with dejection or defeat, but bidding adieu after living a contented life.

Let's look at it this way -- we've had a full delicious meal. We've appreciated the food, burped in contentment and are ready to get up from the table. At that juncture the cook has put some more food on the plate, after hearing our words of appreciation and praise. So our stomach is now heavy and ready to burst. Instead of getting the pleasure of leaving the table at the right time, in economic parlance, the law of diminishing returns has now set in. The original experience of enjoying the food is lost. Similarly, in old age, there's a joy in dying while there's some joy in living.

Jo Roman, the author of 'Exit House' says just as you give finishing touches to a painting and are about to put down the brush, it is in such a state of mind that you should invite death. She had herself planned her death and bid goodbye to life in 1979. For this, three years before her death, she initiated a dialogue with her husband, son, daughter-in-law, daughter, son-in-law and some 300 friends. Because this thought wasn't just a personal experiment, but had social ramifications. It was her firm opinion that although an individual can't decide about her own birth, everyone should have the right to take a well-thought-out decision to end their life on a note of contentment. This is where the concept of willful death differs from suicide. A willful death is a thought about retaining the dignity of mind, body and life. It is not about running away from life, but about facing death.

Jo Roman finished the book 'Exit House' before she died. Not only did she delineate the concept of willful death in detail, but also emphasised the need to create a system for people who want to adopt this concept. Farewell House is the highest point of that system. This is a facility to ensure that willful death is beautiful, safe, and happens in joyful company.

Jo Roman drew a complete map of this Farewell House in her book. A map of the concept and the building itself. Basically, this Farewell House should have a supreme committee, comprising of doctors, psychiatrists, counsellors, advocates and people who have achieved respectability in society due to their own achievements. An individual who wants a willful death has to apply to this institution. Subsequently, if she is firm about her decision after a specified period of time, the facilities of the Farewell House will be made available to her. If, during this time, she changes her mind, or admits that she had taken the decision under duress, her application will be cancelled. If she needs any help about the disbursement of her wealth and assets or any other matter after her death, the Farewell House will make it available. Once her decision is made, she will be allowed to choose the surroundings in which she'd like to die. In that beautiful Farewell House, there will be several halls displaying the best paintings, wonders of nature and music. Plus there will be the option of enjoying the company of loved ones. Once everything is finalised, the concerned Farewell House will provide the individual with an 'exit pill', or an injection. This medication will be available only under the aegis of the Farewell House. V R Limaye too has propagated a similar concept of 'maha nirvaan'.

The concept of willful death can be one major support on the road to old age, though not the only one. There must be dialogue, discussion, debate on this subject. Jo Roman's book, 'Exit House' (publisher Bantam Books, 666 5th House, New York, 10103) should be procured and read. It is also important to read other books on the subject published around the world. It is also essential that young and old people interested in this concept should get together and discuss it. If, we reach a stage of evolvement where we can gift a book on this subject on a person's 40th birthday, it'll be a great day.

The Akshar sparsh library in Pune (020-25424915) stocks many robust books on the subject of a good death. Also, the Society for Right to Die with Dignity (022-22843416) is another institution operating in Mumbai.

Those who wish to discuss this article should write their name, address, telephone number and write to the office address of the magazine 'Miloon saryajani' -- 40 1/B, Bhonde Colony, Karve Road, Pune - 411004, Tel: 020-25433207. We can organise a meeting of like-minded people through such correspondence.

(Translated from a Marathi article published in the October-November 2009 issue of the magazine 'Miloon Saryajani' by Leena and Deepa Deosthalee)

Mumbai is Burning. Again!

It seems we’re finally tired of singing paeans to the resilient spirit of Mumbai, which, simply put, actually means nothing more than a daily fight for survival. We can glorify it all we want, but for a large number of people in this city, living from day to day itself is such a huge struggle, the threat of terrorism seems only like an occasional blip on their already busy radar. Last year, an office boy who worked with me in a fashion magazine lost his life falling off an overcrowded local train just outside Kandivali station as he was heading to work. He left behind a wife and three little children and it didn’t take any ammunition to snuff out his innocent existence. Life and death is mostly a matter of chance in this heartless city – now, not only for the teeming masses who can do little to determine their destinies, but also the privileged, who may put themselves at risk merely by stepping out for a five-star dinner.




There’s no logic to survival, beyond the realm of accidental choices, or the presence of a supreme force orchestrating our lives, depending on your personal line of belief. Ask all those who miraculously escaped the terror attacks and warded off death by mere seconds entirely on account of random decisions that somehow took them away from the war zones at the Taj and Oberoi-Trident hotels or kept them safe even in the face of extreme danger. Others paid the ultimate price for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.




It’s only at times like these that we take a pause from our robotic existence to reflect on our inherent vulnerability. And naturally, it frightens us. For a long time to come, many of us will be looking over our shoulder wherever we go and will never feel safe no matter how much reassuring rhetoric flies around. We already know that our political system inspires absolutely no confidence, although we now have renewed faith in our security forces and brave police officers. Yes, the very same who, until days ago were being maligned for their communal bias, but were the first to go in and face the fire with their pathetic safety equipment.




Our politicians, on the other hand, are treading the thin line now it seems, and one hopes it is they, and no one else (especially not innocent citizens), who bear the brunt of the public backlash. Maharashtra’s chief minister Vilasrao Deshmukh’s single largest achievement in office so far has been to hold on to his chair for as long as he has managed. He is, arguably, the least effective chief minister this state has ever known and it boggles the mind to imagine that such an uninspiring man is at the helm of affairs in times of crisis. Home Minister Shivraj Patil believes nothing that happens in the country has any reflection on his role as Home Minister, and hence, he can’t really be held accountable for such frequent and sustained terror attacks in several different cities. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh hasn’t been able to assuage the citizens with his muted rhetoric summoning the ISI Chief to Delhi. L K Advani keeps threatening to scream POTA, POTA , and only just stops himself. Narendra Modi goes around making a nuisance by meddling around in Mumbai when we all know it didn’t take any terror attacks to eliminate thousands of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002. Raj Thackeray, meanwhile, has either been hiding at home, or lauding the brave ‘Marathi’ policemen who lost their lives in the gun battles. The rest can go to hell for they’ve no business defending lives on his ancestral territory. Already, various politicians have put up hoardings around Mumbai saluting the policemen who lost their lives in the encounter – for a change, we don’t see their own smug mug shots plastered all over these unauthorized publicity hoardings.




We Mumbaikars have lived with the threat of terror for nearly two decades now, apart from innumerable other equally ominous situations like say, the annual rains or overcrowded public transport, or rash driving. Trains and buses have been targets of terror attacks at regular intervals. We all know that the country’s largest city is totally ill-equipped for crisis management of any sort and after each successive emergency situation, we’ve heard hollow promises from two-faced politicians, riding on the belief that people will forget all about what happened and get on with their lives in a matter of days. We’ve always proved them right by not asking questions, by not raising our voice, by not coming together towards a constructive citizens’ initiative to make the system accountable to us and not just in times of crisis, and actually getting on with our lives as though what has happened may never be repeated, or in fact, doesn't concern us at an individual level at all. It is up to us to make our elected representatives, the bureaucracy, the judiciary and the media accountable for the way they function, because everything they do, does impact our everyday lives in some way. If we, the educated and privileged don't do it, who will?




Lighting a candle in the window is merely another variation of the tokenism we’ve seen from our political brass. For the candle is sure to burn down long before the scars and the wounds of the hundreds wounded and bereaved even begin to heal.

Cinematic Integrity

Is there such a thing as cinematic integrity on the Hindi screen? It's a question worth reflecting on with some seriousness. When did we last watch a film that challenged the boundaries of the medium? A film that blended a crafty yet intellectually honest narrative with depth of character, visual finesse, effective editing and pathbreaking performances? In effect, a film that has the strength to stand the test of time? Something that can at least aspire for visions of greatness?

I happened to watch 'Sophie's Choice' made by Alan J Pakula in 1982 and 'Bachna Ae Haseeno' made by Siddharth Anand in 2008 on the same day for no specific reason. Unfortunately, I watched the former first and was firmly under the spell of Meryl Streep's astonishing turn as Sophie when I started viewing the other film. I forced myself to sit through this piece of trash just to reaffirm my belief that great cinema is not possible in Bollywood until filmmakers start feeling shamed by their collective debauchery. We cannot continue justifying our contemptible mediocrity in the name of commercial pressures and popular demand. Nor can we keep harping on our uniqueness to avoid unfavourable comparison with the rest of the world. 

Cinema is the same medium everywhere and its exponents are all trying to attract audiences to their work. Nobody makes films for themselves and nobody works in isolation. Hence weighing our work against others in the field is not just inevitable but absolutely essential for the healthy growth of our cinema. I pick out 'Bachna Ae Haseeno', but all of Yashraj Films' dozen-odd productions of the last three years (with the possible exception of 'Chak De India', which had some spirit, even though it took jingoism to the extreme and works, at best, as a genre film) are symptomatic of the callousness and blatant disrespect for cinema that's plaguing the entire Hindi film industry, it seems. You run through everything from 'Bunty Aur Babli', 'Dhoom', 'Fanaa', 'Kabul Express', 'Laaga Chunri Mein Daag', 'Aaja Nachle' to 'Bachna Ae Haseeno', and you see a uniform indifference towards plot, character, screenplay, visual texture and direction. Yes, they were all films catering to the masses. They all were meant to be pulp entertainment and hence weren't expected to leave a lasting impact on anyone. But what about integrity within the form of popular entertainment? Many of Yash Chopra's best-known films were true to the mainstream format with a formulaic plot, melodramatic exposition and just about serviceable visual language -- from 'Waqt' to 'Chandni', via 'Deewaar', 'Kabhi Kabhie', 'Trishul' and 'Silsila'. 

Yet, all of these films had characters who've stayed with us down the years, plot devices that kept audiences hooked at every turn, dialogues and music that lent depth to the drama and a sense of cohesiveness to each work that didn't make it seem like a replica of something else, nor like a showcase for some star’s antics or a circus of assorted scenes and songs thrown together haphazardly. Why just the Yashraj Films banner, everything of Hindi cinema I’ve seen in recent years is largely indifferent work (barring notable exceptions like 'Lage Raho Munnabhai' and 'Johnny Gaddaar') either put together as a marketing project or then, presupposing its own grandeur without any justification. 

Even in well-made films, there’s little emphasis on the film form, scripts are routinely unimaginative and worse, plagirised versions of older works or of foreign films, actors are entirely out of tune with the demands of working into a character (‘Dil Chahta Hai’ did improve their attention to physical detail, but there’s no such thing in Bollywood as building the ‘emotional graph’ of a character – I haven’t even seen the so-called ‘thinking’ actor Aamir Khan do it in any film), and directors are first, and above all, merchandisers trying to sell a product at any cost. From Vinod Chopra, Sanjay Leela Bhansali and Ashutosh Gowariker to Karan Johar, Farah Khan, Vipul Shah, Aneez Bazmee, Rakesh Roshan and Subhash Ghai (apart from everyone making films for Yashraj), none have produced a work of any notable measure. 

Filmmakers working with smaller budgets are either too conscious of their limited resources to really try something different or just aren't allowed the freedom to do so. It's shameful to learn that films like 'Bheja Fry' and 'Aamir' which have, in some sense, provided an opening for off-mainstream cinema are themselves derived from foreign sources.  Yet, we march along, scratching each other’s backs for sub-standard work that wouldn’t stand any critical evaluation, slam critics for not understanding cinema and being dismissive without a cause and pay actors salaries and attention they don’t deserve. Neither the Oscars, nor Cannes, Berlin, Venice or any other international film festival of any repute is likely to honour a Hindi film, leave aside finding it award-worthy, anytime in the future. So let’s just continue jumping in our tiny little puddle and pretend we’re splashing around in the ocean. And let others around the world celebrate cinema in all its glory and create works of art that’ll vindicate the medium, over and over again.