Haravoo began with the shooting of this film on December 4 last year, when the Delhi Chalo sit-in had just started. In the documentary, Haravoo has not only captured glimpses of the protest sites but has attempted to show the reason behind the farmers’ dissatisfaction with now repealed three new farm laws that the Modi-government had wanted to implement. Through this movie, it became clear that the farmers protesting against this law had a deep understanding of the motive of the ruling government for introducing the three “black” farm laws and the consequences that these laws would follow. This was in stark contrast to the narrative being built by the BJP ministers and those supporting the ruling government, which had accused “foreign involvement” and “political motivation” behind the protest.

The film covers the whole farmers’ protest, from the violent way that farmers were attacked with water cannons and tear gas shells on November 26, 2020 by the state police to prevent them from entering Delhi to the Lakhimpur Kheri incident. The film concludes with the visual of Ashish Mishra, the son of Union Minister of State for Home Affairs Ajay Mishra, allegedly mowing down a group of farmers in Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh, on October 3, 2021. In between these two major events, which are about a year apart, the film shows the undying strength and the strong resilience that the Indian farmers showed in the face of numerous obstacles and needless discouraging events. It also covered the January 26, 2021 protest of farmers which had turned violent.

It is essential to note that in March 2024 itself, “Kisan Satyagraha” had been barred from screening at the 15th edition of Bangalore International Film Festival (BIFFes) following “instructions” from the Union information and broadcasting ministry (MEITY). According to government officials, the screening of the documentary to be showcase as it was on a “sensitive subject.”

The three farm bills:

The All India Kisan Sangharsh Coordination Committee (AIKSCC) head, Dr. Darshan Pal, states in the film: “Farmers in this country were already fighting on two issues, one is the issue of minimum support price and the other is the issue of indebtedness.”

The movie shows the extensive efforts that were put in by the farmers to understand these laws themselves and make other farmers aware about them too. Dr. Darshan Pal had further provided in the film that as soon as these ordinances were implemented, they had requested their economists’ friends to review them. The film then showed how farmer leaders spoke with peasants at the village level and had the ordinances translated into Punjabi, helping them realize that the laws would spell disaster for small, disenfranchised, and landless farmers. It became clear then that the farmers’ protest had not just taken place spontaneously, rather much thought and understanding had been put behind these protests/

The farmers were adamant regarding the repeal of the three farm laws that were enacted in September 2020. These three laws were: The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 and The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020.

In the film, a protesting farmer from Agra had explained the issued that the farmers had with each of these three laws. The gist of the issues highlighted was that these three laws were giving backdoor entry to corporates to take over the market. Through the Promotion and Facilitation Act, Agricultural Produce Market Committees (APMCs) would become obsolete.

In India, farmers used to directly deal with traders to sell their products. However, this led to their exploitation as often they could not sell their produce at a fixed or suitable price, a reasonable rate. The traders with the bargaining power of money in their pockets called the shots. This was why the APMC Act(s) both contextual and specific to states were put in place in and around the 1960s to bring an end to this exploitation. The protesting farmer in the film also took the example of Bihar, where the APMC Act was scrapped in 2006. The farmer stated how small farmers in Bihar are now forced to sit on the roadside to sell their produce for a pittance.

This aforementioned abolishment of the Mandi system becomes all the more significant when considered with the second on Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services. Through the said bill, farmers were provided with the means and protection to create their own farming agreements by allowing the farmers to interact with the private sector and fix their own prices for goods and services. As pointed out by the protesting farmers, the said bill, without APMCs to fix prices, would have resulted in small farmers being pushed around and eventually be pushed out of the agricultural sector by corporates. In addition to this, the farmers especially expressed concern regarding those marginal farmers, unaware of their rights, who will not be able to haggle with big companies. As per the protesting farmers, this bill would have served as a death warrant for farmers. Notably, the protestors were especially critical of the ignorant logic of the ruling government to encourage online trade in rural areas where even electricity is hard to come by.

The film showed the protesting farmer then explain the third law, which dealt with the Essential Commodities Act. The ECA Act, which was originally created in 1955, prevented the hoarding of certain essential commodities to prevent manipulation of stock. It also imposed a hoarding limit to keep the prices from surging. However, the Law that was introduced by the Narendra Modi-led government contained provision that allowed the Union government to regulate essential food items such as cereals, pulses, potatoes, onions, edible oilseeds and oils under extraordinary circumstances such as war, famine, extraordinary price rise and natural calamity.

As per the farmers, the same would have allowed for traders to hoard such products and also affect food prices which in turn will hurt farmers’ sales. Consequently, the hording traders could then have refused farmers selling such products.

As the protesting farmers explained these three farm laws separately and together, it became clear that the ruling government did not introduce the same with the interest of the farmers at heart. Rather, these three laws would have brought in changes that would only benefit corporate farmers, leaving behind marginal and poor farmers.

After explaining these three laws, the protesting farmer in the film stated that this issue and the concerns being raised will not remain limited to the farmers but will also affect the common man as when hoarding of commodities will take place by corporates, the price will increase. Emphasising the same, the protesting farmer had stated that “we are not only protesting for us, but also for you.”

A protest not in isolation:

The footage from the protest site demonstrated the fervour with which the farmers have been demonstrating at the borders of Punjab and Haryana, where they were sitting in protest after being prevented from traveling to Delhi by the state and union governments. As Haravoo put it, “When you are there (at the protest site), you become an active part of the celebration of democracy”.
A comforting image of diversity: Sikhs, Muslims, and Hindus dining together; Tamils, Marathis, and Punjabis holding hands with Kharibolis and Kannadigas; Haryanvis and Punjabis sleeping together beneath their tractor trailers, putting their long-standing river water dispute behind them. The film brings forth a picture of the farmers’ tenacity and resolve to raise their voice.

The film also highlighted the many tactics that were adopted by the Union government as the farmers’ protest were going on. From only speaking to selective pro-government groups of farmers and refusing to speak to others, and attempting to break the alliances of the many farmer unions, to bad-naming and discrediting the whole farmer’s movement. The film contained the derogatory and shameful words used by the senior Bharatiya Janata Party politicians against the protesting farmers. From calling the farmers “misguided” and “mislead”, blames were put on “tukde tukde gang”, “radical ‘khalistani’ elements”, “infiltrating Leftists and Maoists” of encouraging the said protests. A narrative that the farmers have not been able to understand the farm laws was put forth again and again.

The movie demonstrates how the protesters, who were unfazed by the hateful propaganda running against them and their Sikh community, continued with their protests. At one point in the film, a protesting farmer could be heard screaming that “Modi says that we are not farmers. We are not farmers! There is an insecticide called Lambda 5%, apply it on us and the BJP Ministers and then we will find out who are farmers? There is itching for three days when that insecticide touches the skin!” The scene depicted the indignant mood of the protesters, who were well aware of the statement being made against them by the Modi leadership nut were still willing to put up a strong fight.

In addition to the leadership, the voices of regular farmers play a significant role in the movie, demonstrating how even the tiniest landowners as well as women farmers were supporting and participating in the protests. The film showed how food was being prepared by farmers throughout the protests. The normal daily lives of the farmers from the protest site could be glimpsed through the film with scenes of a group of Sikhs praying reverently; protesters waiting in line for the food served by the langar, a community kitchen; men and women flipping rotis on makeshift stoves and such.

Dissatisfaction with the Modi government and its pro-corporate agenda was evident throughout the film. It is essential to note that criticisms and statements by experts and economists also formed a part of this film. P. Sainath, winner of the Ramon Magsaysay Award and India’s foremost agrarian affairs journalist, succinctly criticised the three legislations in the film by deeming them to further the capitalistic agenda under the guise of reforms by stating that “These laws are pretty much an extension of a process that this country embarked on in 1991 in the name of the new economic policies and economic reforms which is the worst abuse of the word reforms. These are laws that are tailor-made for specific Indian capitalist groups. In fact, I would suggest that some of their representatives had a hand in drafting [these laws] because even before the laws were adopted in Parliament, some of the groups were already building silos for storage [of agricultural produce].” In fact, Modi had stated that the laws were “essential for making of a new India”.

The infamous tractor parade and the reigniting of the protest:

The film also shows clips on the infamous tractor parade that was taken out by the farmers on Republic Day of 2021. The film showed how the farmers were given permission for the said tractor rally only on January 24, leaving the farmers with not much time to prepare for the parade. As we all remember, the said tractor parade took a violent turn when Delhi police stopped the farmers from continue with their parade on the specified path. Chaos ensued as a renegade group of farmers were then seen bursting through the security cordons at the Red Fort and hoisting the Nishan Sahib, the Sikh religious flag. One death of a protestor had also resulted.

The film showed the sombre mood that prevailed after the violent incidents amongst the protesting farmers, especially the elder farmers. An intense distrust had suddenly enveloped the farmers at the protest sites after the events of January 26. While the farmers maintained their stance about the protesting farmers not being involved in the violent incident, this gave an opportunity to many opposing the movement, especially the pro-Modi mainstream media, to question the continuation of the protest. One faction of the farmers protesting formally withdrew from the protest. The state police also stopped providing electricity and water at the protest sites. One particular instance of police forcefully asking the protestors to empty out a protesting site at night was also shown.

The movement could be seen getting scattered. The change in momentum came with one interview of Rakesh Tikait, leader of the Bhartiya Kisan Union (BKU), where he could be seen crying over the dim situation of the ongoing farmers’ agitation. One could say that his tears galvanised people, as on the next day a large number of farmers and other supporters came to the protest site at the Delhi-UP border from not just his home state of Uttar Pradesh but from Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttarakhand as well to show solidarity with the movement. The film had showed the multitude of green-and-white caps and flags of unions and tricolours planted on tractors, symbolic of the unions fronting the battle, dot the highway at Ghazipur as the farmers’ protest gained forced once again. Notably, well over 650 farmers had been martyred during the farmer struggle 2021 all over India. As provided by director Haravoo, this documentary was dedicated to all the farmers who lost their lives in the course of their gritty protest.

A victory, but at what cost?

The documentary film ends with chilling scenes of the Lakhimpur Kheri massacre that broke out on 3 October 2021, where eight people, including four farmers, were killed. The car that killed these eight people was allegedly driven by Ashish Mishra, the son of Union Minister of State (MoS) for Home Ajay Mishra ‘Teni’. Many were injured in the violence. As we all remember, the group of farmers were protesting with other farmers against the three farm Laws at a dharna near Tikunia, which is Union Minister Ajay Mishra’s paternal village in Lakhimpur Kheri. The said protest was ahead of an event were Uttar Pradesh Deputy CM Keshav Prasad Maurya was to be the chief guest. The demonstrating farmers had planned to “show flags to the deputy chief minister” and had also reportedly “staged a demonstration in front of ‘Monu’ aka Ashish Mishra’s car when he was going to receive Keshav Prasad Maurya.” This is when the Union minister’s son allegedly “ran his car over the protesting farmers” stated the farmers.

After the visual of the violence, the film ends by providing that the three farm laws were repealed by the Modi-led government. On November 19, the day of Gurupurab, the biggest Sikh festival, PM Narendra Modi had announced the repealing of the three Farm Laws. The announcement had come exactly a week before November 26, as the massive farmer led protest and in various forms across the country, would have completed one year. During the said announcement, PM Modi also added that the Farm Laws were passed with “good intentions” and for “welfare of farmers, especially small farmers, in the interest of the agriculture sector, for a bright future of ‘gaanv-gareeb’,” however the government has not been able to convince farmers and “a section of them has been opposing the laws, even as we kept trying to educate and inform them.”

More than 2 years later, where do we stand?

Haravoo is a recipient of the National Award for his debut feature film ‘Bhoomigeetha’ (Song of the Earth) in 1997. In an interview with the Frontline, director had provided his opinion on the protests and stated that the top leaderships of the BJP both in states and at the Centre had failed to grasp the seriousness of this peoples’ movement. The farmers’ protest is a historic movement and has many lessons for democracy. The repealing of the farm laws was a result of the sheer will power of the farmers sitting on protest, under adverse weather conditions, and dealing with infrastructural challenges while being contained behind barricading. But, as we all know, repealing the farm laws was one of the demands. The other demands are the legalisation of Minimum Support Price and the repeal of the Electricity Amendment Bill and other laws as well as exploitative labour codes.

Today, the same farmers are leading another protest in the face of same, if not more extreme, adversities. The Samyukta Kisan Morcha- Non-Political and the Kisan Mazdoor Morcha announced ‘Delhi Chalo’ march by more than 200 farmers’ unions. The major objective behind this said protest is to demand from the union government a delivery on the farmers’ long-standing demand of enactment of a law to guarantee a minimum support price (MSP) for their produce. Besides a legal guarantee for minimum support price (MSP), the farmers are also demanding implementation of the Swaminathan Commission’s recommendations which provided for safeguarding the interest of small farmers and addressing the issue of increasing risk overtaking agriculture as a profession. In addition to this, pensions for farmers and farm labourers, farm debt waiver, withdrawal of police cases and “justice” for victims of the Lakhimpur Kheri violence also form a part of the demands made. As stated by Mandeep Punia, a local journalist from Punjab and Haryana, they farmers have also raised a demand for 200 days’ daily wage and Rs 700 per daily wage for MNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act) workers.

The month of February 2024 saw the strong resurgence of the farmers’ movement in the country, accompanied by an equally repressive push-back by the BJP regime. State actions in the form of internet bans and censorship, tear gas and firing of rubber pellets, and attempts to prohibit the farmers from exercising their right to protest were once again seen.

On March 14, visual of farmers in large numbers in the “Kisan Mazdoor Mahapanchayat”, being held at Ramlila Maidan, Delhi, emerged. At this protest, almost 37 farmer unions under the umbrella of the Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) gathered in Delhi to press the union government to accept the demands of the farmers. Along with this, they also seek justice for the death of the 22-year-old farmer Shubhkaran Singh, who was killed during clashes with the state police.

Thus, the Indian farmers’ fight is far from over.

Details of the farmers’ protest 2024 can be accessed here.

Related:

Déjà vu, a film that depicts the chilling effects of corporate-contract farming, resonates with Indian farmer’s protests

Farmers protest: Documentary ‘Kisan Satyagraha’ barred from Bengaluru film fest

Extension of internet bans, suspension of social media accounts: state action on farmers’ protest focuses on suppression of voices

Farmers’ Protest: Physical repression, prohibitory orders, Delhi entry blocked – Déjà Vu?

The post ‘Kisan Satyagraha’, a visual diary of a year-long, historic struggle that forced a regime to withdraw three anti-farmer laws appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The citation of the award reads “A brave and uncompromising pulse-taking of the current crisis in Indian politics, focusing on the 2017 political assassination of trailblazing Bengaluru journalist Gauri Lankesh. A “J’accuse” docu-thriller directed and narrated with verve by Gauri’s sister, Kavitha Lankesh”.

Another documentary, an Indian entry, “All That Breathes”,  which was an Oscar nominee was also in competition and won the runner up. The documentary film “Gauri” has been commissioned by Free Press Unlimited, Amsterdam. Free press Unlimited mission stems from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights : Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas  through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Related:

Five years since we lost Gauri Lankesh

Gauri Lankesh memorialised as Journalist killed in Line of Duty

Lingering Memory, Gauri Lankesh

The post Gauri, a film on journalist-activist Gauri Lankesh wins international award: Montreal 2023 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Thanks have increased under a right wing Hindu nationalist regime led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.Mainly focussed on the murders of at least four prominent rationalists and free thinkers who were assassinated by the extremists for challenging bigotry and superstition, Reason goes into the root cause of the emergence of Hindu Right. The perpetrators of these crimes enjoy the political patronage of the ruling Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) that is trying to turn India into Hindu theocracy and continues to shield those involved in terrorist attacks directed at Muslims. It takes into account the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by Hindu fanatics in 1948. Even though his killers owed allegiance to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) a Hindu supremacist group of which BJP is a part, Modi shamelessly tries to appropriate Gandhi because of his worldwide acceptance as a pacifist leader. Modi himself is a member of the RSS. Reason goes into these complexities and contradictions to educate people about the motives of BJP.

Not surprisingly, there were attempts to stop the public screening of the film in India. So much so, some Hindu leaders openly called for physical violence against Patwardhan during a press conference right in his presence. The footage of this incident was part of the film.

Patwardhan has made similar documentaries in the past, including In Memory of Friends which was based on the murders of Communist revolutionaries who were systematically killed by the Sikh fundamentalists in Punjab during 1980s. Ironically, the Sikh militants were liquidated through extra judicial means to restore peace in Punjab, whereas Hindu extremists enjoy the backing of the Indian state. 

Talking to the Straight, Patwardhan said that he is really concerned how the current government is patronizing violence and terror even as the space for secularism and scientific temperament mandated by the Indian constitution continues to shrink. He pointed out that the problem isn’t just confined to India as far right movements are on the rise all over the world, including US. It is pertinent to mention that Spice Radio had sponsored the VIFF screening of Reason. It’s CEO Shushma Datt had started a campaign against racism in 2015. #HandsAgainstRacism as it is widely known is part of social justice movement Patwardhan cares for. He told this writer that there is a need to make broader alliance against fascism under these difficult circumstances. 

In the meantime, the members of Indiansn Abroad for Pluralist India (IAPI) – a group based in Greater Vancouver that was formed in response to the growing violence against minorities and efforts of turning India into Hindu theocracy ever since Modi became the Prime Minister in 2014, presented Patwardhan with Radical Desi medal of courage before the screening of Reason at Vancity theatre on Monday, October 7.

Radical Desi is an online magazine that covers alternative politics and has been raising these issues in the Indian Diaspora in partnership with IAPI. Patwardhan was presented with the medal by the IAPI President, Parshotam Dosanjh. Others present on behalf of IAPI at the event were Rakesh Kumar, Tejinder Sharma and myself. 
 

The post VIFF needs to be applauded for bringing a documentary that takes a critical look at Modi’s India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: @Farhan_Ahmad586 (twitter)
 

The post Six students arrested for showing a film on campus appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy:patwardhan.com

The two writ petitioners, Kerala State Chalachitra Academy, the organizer of the festival and the filmmaker Patwardhan, approached the HC after the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B) rejected its application seeking permission for the screening of the documentary on the grounds that “the theme of the documentary was sensitive in nature and may have law and order ramifications.”

The four-hour documentary is based on the rise of religious fundamentalism in India in the backdrop of murder of rationalists such as Narendra Dabholkar, Govind Pansare, M.M.Kalburgi, Gauri Lankesh among others. The film begins by looking into the murders these rationalists and the role of the Sanatan Sanstha in spreading right-wing extremist violence. It then goes on to Dalit protests and the rise of Dalit leaders in recent years, and ends in Dadri, Mohammad Akhlaq’s village. The film has won a number of awards across the world, including the award for the Best Feature-Length Documentary at the 31st International Documentary Film Festival, Amsterdam.

According to section 9 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, the films which are not certified by the Central Board of Film Certification requires special exemption from the Central government for public exhibition. Thus, the organizing academy had on May 27 submitted an application to the I&B Ministry seeking exemption for 161 documentaries, that were to be screened in the festival. Notably, on June 17 the Ministry sent back a list of documentaries which received exemption but Patwardhan’s film was absent from that list. After repeated attempts of finding out the reason for rejection, the Ministry finally responded yesterday stating that the film’s subject is sensitive which may cause law and order problems.

Consequently, the petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the HC today stating that the “mere apprehension of law and order breakdown is not a valid ground to suppress free speech.” The matter was heard by a single judge bench comprising of Justice Shaji P. Chaly.

The petitioners, represented by Advocate Sudhi Vasudevan and Jose Jones Joseph, cited the 2017 judgement of the Kerala HC which had quashed the Centre’s denial of sanction to screen the documentaries ‘March, March, March’ and ‘The Unbearable Lightness of Being’ in the same festival on the grounds that “freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to express one’s political views as well. Film is a legitimate and effective medium..” The two films were based on protests in JNU and suicide of Rohit Vemula respectively. 

Granting the screening permission, Justice Chaly stated that the “apprehension that the documentary might affect law and order was not a valid reason to withhold sanction. Even as per the guidelines framed by the I&B Ministry in this regard, the screening of the documentary is permissible.” However, the Judge clearly stated that the documentary should not be screened elsewhere except in the festival. 

Festival director Kamal told the New Indian Express that since the film is already available on YouTube and has been viewed many times, it does not make sense for the Centre to deny permission straight off the bat.

Anand Patwardhan is known for his socio-political, human rights-oriented films and has been a winner of several national and international awards. His films have sparked multiple controversies in the past as well, due to their strong and sometimes unpalatable messages (for the government). His films like ‘Ram ke Naam’ (on Babri Masjid demolition), ‘Father, Sun and Holy War’ (on post Babri riots), ‘A Narmada Diary’ etc led to protests from radical elements. 

The documentary and short film festival is being held from June 21 to June 26.

Related Articles:

1. The New ‘Emergency’!
2. A Biased Media can Weaken Democracy: Justice K.M. Joseph
3. Today the basic question is not just of freedom of speech, but also freedom after speech

The post Kerala HC permits screening of Anand Patwardhan’s documentary on religious fundamentalism, “Reason/Vivek” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On 6 April, the previews of the first two chapters from Anand Patwardhan’s documentary, “Vivek” (Reason) were released on YouTube by a handle which goes by the name of Vivek Reason. So far, four videos are available for public viewing. The 13-minute-long previews are part of a 240-minute-long documentary which has eight chapters. Together, they showcase “a chilling account of how murder and mind control are being applied to systematically dismantle secular democracy” in India. “Reason” premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival in September last year, and also won the Best Feature-Length Documentary at the 31st International Documentary Film Festival in Amsterdam in November.

Patwardhan has been making hard-hitting documentaries for over four decades now. His films such as “Father, Son and Holy War” (1995), and “Jai Bhim Comrade”(2011) document the violent attacks by the authoritarian and casteist, right-wing forces in the country. “Reason” discusses burning issues such as the death of leading rationalists and thinkers, upper-caste resistance to dalit activism, the evils of manual scavenging incidents and methods of radical organisations – and links these with the right wing, in both its official and unofficial forms.

The first two chapters trace the reasons behind the death of rationalists, and intellectuals like Narendra Dabholkar, Govind Pansare and Gauri Lankesh. Dabholkar was gunned down during his morning walk in Pune in 2013. He had been at the forefront of a life-long campaign against superstition and was involved with the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti. The section on Pansare includes footage of his public speeches following Dabholkar’s killing. “Who assassinated Mahatma Gandhi? It is that very ideology that killed Dabholkar as well,” Pansare says, pointing to the involvement of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) and its affiliates.

The latter two chapters examine the recent killings of dalits and Muslims in the name of the cow. Since the BJP government came into power in 2014, lynching in the name of cow-protection has become the new normal. Mohammed Akhlaq, a 52-year-old man who lived in Dadri, Uttar Pradesh, was lynched by a group of men for allegedly slaughtering his neighbour’s calf and consuming its meat on 28 September 2015. The police investigation later found no beef in his house. Since then, attacking minorities in the name of the cow has increased. Last month, Human Rights Watch, an advocacy group based in the United States revealed links between almost all cow vigilante groups in India and the Hindutva organisations in India. The report also maintained that the lynchers enjoy political and administrative patronage.

Last week over 100 members of the Indian film fraternity issued an appeal urging Indians not to vote for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. Anand Patwardhan was one amongst the signatories which included other well-known names like Vetri Maaran, Sanalkumar Sasidharan, Deepa Dhanraj, and editor, Bina Paul. Written as an appeal to “protect the democracy of the country”, the statement charged the right-wing government for “unleashing of polarisation and hate politics; cow vigilantism; marginalisation of dalits, Muslims and farmers and increasing censorship.” Patwardhan’s film, “Reason” packs a scathing investigation of all these issues.

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum
 

The post Documentary in the Age of Modi: Anand Patwardhan’s “Reason” is out on YouTube appeared first on SabrangIndia.

With Savitri’s Sisters, filmmaker Nakul Singh Sawhney takes the camera back to women. His camera follows two women from the Rashtriya Dalit Adhikaar Manch – Laxmiben and Madhuben. He shoots the film during the Azaadi Kooch yatra, a journey that began to mark the one-year anniversary of the Una protests. 

In its intent, the film is reminiscent of Sawhney’s second documentary on the khap panchayats in Haryana, Izzatnagari ki Asabhya Betiyan, probably his best film so far. Sawhney’s ability to make the camera a trustworthy object for his subjects is commendable. Like the women of Izzatnagari, his subjects react to the camera as an object that is deserving of their trust. The most endearing moments of Savitri’s Sisters are those in which Laxmiben reacts to the camera directly. When she is traveling in a bus, singing along the way, she suddenly stops, looks at the camera, and asks, “Why are you recording my singing? I’m not a singer”. The question makes us think, what are those moments in political movements which are considered important – is it the singing, the speeches, or arrests? 

Apart from following and recording the two women, the short documentary asks this question as a kind of sub-plot. The shots of the protests, for instance, do not have any of Jignesh Mevani’s speeches, or his arrest and detention – events which received the media’s attention. Instead, a montage of motorcycles, Ambedkar’s portraits, is accompanied by Mevani’s voice, “Please settle down or we won’t be able to start our protest in time”. Laxmiben, too, is shown to make a speech, but the speech is barely shown. Instead, we see her leaving the protest site and boarding a bus, clicking a selfie in between. Several shots also focus on men and women dancing during the Azaadi Kooch. Sawhney seriously asks how a protest can be recorded and represented, but does not have the time to explore it enough, given the short length of the film.

We see Madhuben’s initial speeches, where she is not confident to speak on stage, but, later, comes across as a very articulate speaker in front of the camera. In her interviews through the film, she keeps using a word, jagruti – consciousness. In the latter half of the film, Sawhney asks her if their movement will stop if dalits get the land that has been promised to them. The Una movement began as a movement that aimed to distribute land forcibly occupied by upper castes among dalits. Madhuben smiles a wry smile and responds, “No, the movement won’t stop if we get the land… The consciousness is yet to come in several sections among dalits”. Laxmiben, sitting next to her, quips: “Yeh toh bas aangrayi hai, aage aur ladai hai” (This was but a little stretching, many more battles remain ahead). 

Laxmiben and Madhuben also single themselves out. They are different from other dalit women. They are quick to point out that other women have not left behind their restricted ways of life. The consciousness is yet to spread. At several moments, Laxmiben gently admonishes a boy who says that the rules of his village do not permit women to move out of their homes. At another moment, she refuses to be garlanded by women who are veiled, and asks the gathering, “Will you have a problem if they remove their veils?” These are complexities that are only shown, but not quite unraveled in the film.  

The film is a testament to the fact that social movements may start on one premise, but that one premise gives rise to many more questions and aspirations which crop  like branches of a tree. The question of land is only the trunk that is at the centre of the Rashtriya Dalit Adhikaar Manch. There are, however, branches and leaves that crop out beyond the initial premise. The film is more like a news feature (but a very different and refreshing news feature) but does not have the depth of Sawhney’s earlier films. It would be nice if Sawhney continues with this project even though the Azaadi Kooch journey is now over.

This article was first published on Indianculturalforum.in.
 

The post They Sang through the Dark Times: Nakul Singh Sawhney’s Latest Documentary Savitri’s Sisters appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Maleh was born in 1936, the son of a high ranking army physician, and eldest of four siblings in an elite Damascene family. He studied law at Damascus University but harbored an interest in science and a passion for writing and painting. By chance he met the Czech cultural attaché, who encouraged him to follow his dream of studying physics in Prague. With no funding available, the seventeen-year-old sold one of his paintings to UNWRA, earning enough for his first few months in Czechoslovakia. An odd job as a film extra proved an epiphany; Maleh transferred from nuclear physics to the Prague Film School, joining a cohort that included Jiri Menzel and Milos Forman. While still in Czechoslovakia, his criticism of the Nasser regime controlling Syria under the United Arab Republic attracted attention from the Syrian intelligence services and earned him a reputation as a dissident that has remained a source of hardship and inspiration.

Returning to Syria upon graduation in 1964 as the country's first European film school graduate, Maleh made experimental shorts and continued to paint, holding his first art exhibitions. He also wrote a screenplay based on Syrian author Haydar Haydar's novel The Leopard (al-Fahd), a fictional depiction of Abu ‘Ali al-Shahin, legendary rebel of the 1940s. A week before shooting was scheduled to begin, the Ministry of Interior revoked permission, arguing that the film glorified a thug. In 1971 The Leopard was given official clearance, and this evocation of rural resistance became the NFO's first Syrian feature-length film.

Released in 1972, The Leopard captivated Arab audiences and introduced Syrian cinema to the global stage. The film is set in 1946, as the French Mandate forces scaled back their presence, and local feudal landlords, aghas, took their place as oppressors. The Leopard opens with, and periodically returns to, a close-up of the protagonist's scowling face set against a raging sea, as a haunting voice-over draws on Syrian folk ballads. In the second scene, shot in silhouette, Abu ‘Ali's wife, Shafiqa, asks why he has acquired a gun, now that the French have gone. Abu ‘Ali avoids the question, but the answer quickly emerges: Syrian landlords, backed by soldiers, demand more tribute than the peasants can afford after a bad harvest. The hero resists, is arrested and beaten, but escapes to the hills, staging guerilla attacks against the new forces of tyranny. Comrades from his days fighting the French try to join him, but Abu ‘Ali turns them away. This is his fight alone.

The soldiers attempt to coerce the rebel's surrender by harassing the villagers and stealing their food. After a gruesome military raid kills Abu ‘Ali's nephew, the hero's sister cries for her brother's blood. His rebellion has led to this fierce retaliation. Shafiqa visits Abu ‘Ali in hiding, and assures him of the villagers' support, despite the agha's brutality. Their passionate reunion against a craggy backdrop marks Arab cinema's first partial nude scene, as the camera caresses the length of unclothed actress Ighra’ ("Seduction," née Nihad ‘Ala al-Din) underneath the amorous rebel. Shafiqa later joins her husband in defending his position against a well-armed platoon. As Cécile Boëx notes, this depiction of female resistance subverts commercial cinema conventions, as Shafiqa is no longer merely an object of male desire, but a rifle-bearing rebel for a collective cause (2011, 135).

The peasants' conditions worsen, and ‘Abd al-Rahim "the One-Armed" is murdered for feeding his fugitive friend. Outraged, a group of village men join Abu ‘Ali in a raid on a group of soldiers dining on the agha's meat, steal their weapons, and set fire to the warlord's warehouse. Shafiqa and her son ‘Ali are arrested in an attempt to lure the rebel out of hiding, but he surprises the guards and stages a rescue. He returns to his posse and tries to move them to safety, but they have grown battle-worn; Abu ‘Ali is again alone. He takes brief refuge with a village elder, who questions the violent tactics have created a bloody cycle of vengeance. "I couldn't keep quiet," Abu ‘Ali argues. "But your gun didn't speak well for you," the sage counters, noting that the soldiers, poor men trying to feed their families, are themselves oppressed. 

The peasants accuse Abu ‘Ali of fighting an unwinnable battle—and bringing the village to ruin—yet evade the authorities' demands for the hero's whereabouts. In the end, a weary Abu ‘Ali is betrayed by his uncle, whom the rebel strangles before the arresting soldiers can pull him away. The hero is tied up and dragged through the village, then shackled in a web of chains and beaten. The seaside refrain shot widens to reveal ‘Abu ‘Ali’s manacle-bound figure walking along the shore to the gallows, where the villagers, along with the agha and his henchmen, wait in glum silence. As Abu ‘Ali hangs, an aerial shot scans the countryside, and a hazy silhouette of revolting peasants emerges on the horizon.

The Leopard represents his first sustained effort to explore, through narrative example, what has gone wrong in, and continues to plague, Syrians' revolutionary endeavors. Politics enhances rather than overwhelms film's form.  Maleh identifies with his protagonist, a lone and often lonely rebel fighting for true independence, "motivated by dignity, self-esteem and the will to go to the limit, carrying his own cross with no regret." In telling Abu ‘Ali's story, as in his other efforts, Maleh strives for a new cinematic language, and claims no affiliation to schools of cinematic style:

I've never felt that there is a school that I can follow, but rather try to find my own methods. Sometimes I'm successful; but an unfolding of what we don't know about ourselves seems to me more important than following a cinematic movement . . . there are no forms to be resurrected, only forms to be created and discovered. I avoided pre-established schools and tendencies.

Yet The Leopard employs techniques of neorealism, including themes of poverty and oppression, the use of non-professional actors, and location filming in black-and-white. The film arguably set the stylistic tone for the following decades of Syrian fictional media production. The Leopard reflects a dark aesthetic that has become the hallmark of Syrian visual style; the current uprising's dissident cultural producers draw, wittingly or not, on a gloomy aesthetic introduced in The Leopard (Salamandra 2012; 2015).

Lovingly framed shots of the countryside and its traditional stone houses reflect careful attention to authenticity of décor and clothing. Maleh sees the film as part cultural documentation, a form of salvage anthropology, tracing what remained of "the real environment of the countryside." Scenes of rural harvest show everyday practice under the soldiers' threatening watch. Maleh describes the motivation behind his realist techniques:

The harsh environment demanded harsh solutions. I hated and still hate pretension. Color, for me at that time, felt like a false bleeding over the originality of things, characters and emotions. With The Leopard, I scouted for locations and people. The authenticity of both [in Syria's coastal region] amazed me and corresponded exactly to my conception of the film. I even rejected makeup. I told everyone that the sunrays were the best makeup artist. Working with people from those villages who had never been to a cinema brought me an ecstatic joy.

The film's rich local authenticity stops at language; dialogue is delivered in generic Syrian idiom. This, Maleh argues, reflects the political ethos of its era; films of the 1980s and television dramas of the 1990s onward employ local dialects—with their attendant sectarian and regional associations–often to controversial effect (Salamandra 2004). Yet the late 1970s still carried the hope of Arab unity: "I didn't give particular attention to the dialect, because for me The Leopard was a pan-Syrian or even a pan-Arab symbol. At that time, the dialect of the Syrian coast didn't have the same political or social connotations that it does today. I didn't predict the apparent transition from a dialect to a position."[ii]

The Leopard was awarded the Locarno International Film Festival's Special Leopard Prize in 1972, a level of European recognition that few Arab filmmakers have achieved. The film also enjoyed unusual local success. In the paradox-ridden Syrian film industry, most productions financed by the NFO are either banned from or simply fail to achieve distribution within country (Salti 2006). The Leopard screened in cinemas throughout Syria despite its implicit message: foreign colonialism is dead, but oppression lives on. The film and its maker occupy a privileged place in the Syrian artistic community’s collective memory, inspiring generations of media makers. Cherif Kiwan, a member of the Abu Naddara collective of dissident filmmakers, cites Ighra'’s love scene as formative: "Seeing the body of a woman on film was my first feeling of freedom, of having crossed boundaries. It influenced me more than anything directly political."[iii]

The film is remembered beyond the Middle East: South Korea's Pusan International Film Festival of 2005 chose The Leopard as one of the "immortal masterpieces of Asian cinema."

Maleh embodies the Syrian cinema paradox: despite receiving NFO financing, the filmmaker is often treated as a dissident, a distinction he bears with honor. State funding has enabled him to forego foreign sources, permitting, he believes, a greater local authenticity. Unusually for an Arab film, The Leopard, like Maleh's other major work The Extras, is both internationally acclaimed and locally popular. Screened in more than twenty Syrian theaters for over three months, the work established its creator's formidable reputation in the Arab world and beyond.

Despite sporadic interference from the state representatives who, as Maleh puts it "acted more like mukhabarat (intelligence) agents than owners and administrators of cultural projects," the 1970s proved fruitful for a nascent Syrian industry. In 1972, Damascus held its first annual international film festival, promoting an alternative Arab cinema. During this time Maleh produced numerous experimental shorts, including the ninety-second Napalm, linking the Vietnam War to the Israeli Occupation inspired by wars in Palestine and Vietnam, and winning first prize at the Toulon Film Festival, and Rocks (Sakhr) exposing the perilous labor conditions of Syrian quarry workers.

He also directed Labor (al-Makhad) the first third of Men under the Sun, a triptych exploring the Palestinian situation released in 1970. His privately financed spoof, Ghawar James Bond, brought Durayd Lahham's comical television character to the big screen in 1974. Mr. Progressive (al-Sayyid al-Taqaddumi) of 1975 follows an investigative journalist's attempts to expose middle-class corruption. For its negative portrayal of a regime figure the film was banned in Syria.

By the end of the 1970s, Syria faced rising tensions, with militant challenges from Islamists, culminating in the brutal suppression of the Hama uprising in 1982. The Ba‘thist state consolidated its control of creative expression. Maleh "collided with a cultural environment ossified in false slogans of progress,” but continued working. The year 1979 saw the release of his second masterpiece, Fragments (Baqaya Suwar), a realist treatment of the autobiographical novel by Hanna Mina, acclaimed chronicler of social life in rural Syria.[iv] Maleh was attracted to Mina's richly drawn characters and feel for his rural environment, one evoking a "fragile human existence and search for life with dignity." Shot in color and set at the end of the 1920s, the film recounts the hard-drinking Abu Salim's struggle to reclaim his wife's land—usurped by a Turk—and his foiled efforts to sustain his impoverished family. A grounded sailor reduced to odd jobs in a coastal village, Abu Salim regales his neighbors with tales of seafaring exploits—"Oh Egypt, the women!"—and botches the menial work he is offered. Life on land suits him poorly; he turns to smuggling but is hijacked. His wife, Umm Salim (actress and theater director Naila al-Atrash), forages for food and begs from neighbors, including the beautiful widow (Samar Sami) with whom her husband is having an affair. Hunger sets in; the couple's three children are forbidden to eat until the afternoon shade hits a certain rock.

The family moves to the mountains, where Umm Salim's Uncle Barhum finds Abu Salim work with a village leader (mukhtar), a pernickety miser who washes his own clothes. But the seaman quickly tires of working the land and peddling proves equality disastrous. The couple's eldest daughter, barely a teen, is forced to join the mukhtar's household as a servant to help support her family. Sericulture promises salvation; joyous scenes show villagers coddling silkworms on mulberry leaves. But India floods the international textile market with cheaper synthetics. The family's debt to the mukhtar, who controls the village food supply, grows, and a younger daughter is sent to work in the house of an agha in the plains near the Turkish border. The family joins her after Uncle Barhum has the eldest daughter released from the mukhtar's service.

The village is in turmoil, as the ahga's warehouse has been robbed. No one seems to know, or care, about Abu Salim's promised job and housing. The family witnesses a confrontation between the lord's men and the cowering villagers. The fearless Zanuba (a triumphant Muna Wassif), named for Syria's ancient warrior queen, strides in with a bitter laugh, accusing the village mukhtar of stealing the grain on the agha's behalf. "You're a dog," she taunts, "wag your tail for the agha and he'll give you a bone." Abu Salim approaches the lord but is rebuffed. ‘Abdu, a soldier supporting the agha, recognizes his cousin Abu Salim and finds the seaman a job guarding the lord's warehouse. He is given a rifle, earning the suspicion of his new neighbors, except for the marginal Zanuba, who befriends the family. She takes the hungry son Salim on lengthy journeys to the local version of a soup kitchen, and bathes the little boy's infected eyes in the sea.

‘Abdu tries to attack Zanuba, but Abu Salim protects her. Tensions between the two men emerge over the over the soldier's attitude toward the peasants, who, he argues, "don't come out to work unless threatened with a rifle." They escalate after the hungry farmers are accused of stealing food from the agha, and the cousins find themselves on opposing sides of a battle between villagers and soldiers. The sharecroppers gather to storm the warehouse to "take what's rightfully ours," the soldiers try to stop them, and an exchange of gunfire ensues. The outraged sailor kills his cousin. Zanuba, laughing wildly, sets fire to the lord's warehouse, and is shot off the roof. A wounded Abu Salim delivers the film's final line, in earshot of his terrified son: "A wasted life."

The film plays on shifts of weakness and power. Though a secondary character, it is the tall, strong, justice-seeking Barhum, rather than Abu Salim, who embodies the heroic masculine ideal. Zanuba emasculates villagers and soldiers alike with her aggression. The film widens the novel's intimate domestic landscape to emphasize themes of domination and oppression. Maleh transforms Mina's Abu Salim—a dissolute, womanizing drunkard—into a thwarted but dignified romantic: "Honestly, I didn't like the idea of an alcoholic. Abu Salim had something noble and honest about him, and sought dignified existence. I could not let that go. I didn't like the experience of the author, so I opted for what I love in people: that hardship and poverty create nobility."

[This article is a condensed version of “Nabil Maleh: Syria’s Leopard,” in Ten Arab Directors, edited by Josef Gugler (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2015).]
This article originally appeared on jadaliyya.com

[i] Unless otherwise noted, biographical details of and quotations from Nabil Maleh are drawn from personal correspondence with the author, 22 June and 7 September 2011.
[ii] Maleh here refers to the association of costal dialects with the ‘Alawi dominated regime, and a growing sectarianism and regionalism in Syria more generally. Syria’s Arab nationalists long held the use of dialect in literature, and the teaching of the colloquial to foreigners, as divisive practices. See Salamandra 2004 on the intersection of social, political, and religious distinctions in Syria.
[iii] Interview with the author, 13 February 2012.
[iv] Translated into English as Fragments of Memory: The Story of a Syrian Family (2004), the story draws on Mina’s impoverished childhood. American readers will note the novel’s striking similarity to Frank McCourt’s Angela’s Ashes (1996).
 
 
 

The post Leopard: Fault-lines in Syria’s Revolutionary Endeavours on Film appeared first on SabrangIndia.