Tattva

Recently, most of the world has been mesmerized by the movie Slumdog Millionaire. Originally intended for direct release on DVD, the Danny Boyle-directed depiction of poverty in India’s largest metropolis, Mumbai, received favorable responses at both the Telluride and the Toronto International Film Festivals, which led to the movie being released onto the big screen. The film, loosely adapted from Vikas Swarup’s novel, Q and A, has received both commercial and critical success, especially in the Western world, where it has won eight Academy Awards and seven British Association Film Awards. As of March 24, 2009, the film has grossed $290,526,218 altogether.  

However, Slumdog Millionaire has also received a substantial amount of criticism. People have objected to the one-dimensional projection of a bleak and poverty-infested Mumbai, with Shyamal Sengupta, professor of film studies at the Whistling Woods International Institute for Films, Media, Animation, and Media Arts in Mumbai, suggesting that the film is a “white man’s imagined India. It’s not quite snake charmers, but it’s close. It’s a poverty tour.” Slum residents in Patna, Bihar, have protested against the use of the word “dog” to describe their plight, and have torn down posters and ransacked movie theaters in response. Meanwhile, others have spoken out against the portrayal of Hindus as sole aggressors during the Hindu-Muslim riots in 1993 and the riveting image of the lord Rama during this scene.

Far more disconcerting were the initial reports that the child actors who had been picked up from the Bandhra slums were remaining in these slums at the conclusion of filming and screening. Newspapers have reported that Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail, playing the role of Jamal’s brother, Salim, was paid £1,700, while Rubina Ali, who played Latika, received £500 for a year’s work on the film. Both children were living in makeshift shacks, and Ismail was living with a father diagnosed with tuberculosis. Eventually, the scrutiny compelled Danny Boyle to announce that the children had been given trust funds which they could access upon turning eighteen, and had also been provided with transportation to attend school, and shortly after the Academy Awards, the children were provided housing.

While the criticism directed at the movie is certainly valid, it is, alas, not the root of the problem. We cannot dispute these facts as inaccurate. Unfortunately, poverty in the wretched slums of India’s major cities is a real issue that adversely affects millions. Hindus, Muslims, and Christians have taken turns slaughtering each other during periods of unrest (and the Mumbai Riots in particular are actual historical events), orphaning millions of innocent children and leaving scars that likely will never heal. And while the slum child actors may have been short-changed, we have to remember that there are millions of children with worse luck in the same slums who will never get such an opportunity in their miserable lives.

The controversies surrounding Slumdog Millionaire are real concerns, and as humiliated as we may feel by them, these concerns are ultimately ours to resolve. For the moment, millions of Westerners have been awakened to this squalor and are now feeling empathy for the struggles of slum children. Perhaps donations may increase from this section, but little else will come from the hype and hoopla of this film, and we will soon be reminded of the fact that the attention span of this section towards social problems is ephemeral. Already, the popularity of this movie has begun to wane as new films begin to hit the theaters.

Slumdog Millionaire will fade into lore, but poverty and religious strife will not be distant memories in the near future. Should these be the permanent stains to our motherland’s legacy? Should we be resigned to argue over the scope of such demeaning projections? Is there no way to prevent further hyper-exposure of India’s social ailments?

The only way to stop coverage of these blemishes is if we work to eradicate them. As daunting as this task may sound, nothing else will suffice. The people wallowing in the muck of the slums are our brothers and sisters, and we must take this to heart. We must be willing to take time out of our lives to spend with our extended family, in order to help them. Not only should we donate money, we need to donate ourselves whole-heartedly to rid the slums of their poverty.

Aatmeeyata (personal bonds) is the solution to India’s twin predicaments presented by Slumdog Millionaire, and it is a solution that is hard to come by due to sheer numbers. Containing over one billion residents within Akhanda Bharat itself and millions of others who have migrated abroad, the Indian Diaspora is often too vast. Every individual is focused on their own interests. There isn’t enough space to contain us all, and in the following social Darwinism, cutthroat competition leaves some people insignificant, and perhaps even dispensable. Bonds are easily shattered in such an environment.

But if we can strengthen the connections to bind us together as an extended family, we can eliminate many problems. Humanity is restored, and we are able to look at each person as a valuable part of the whole scenario. Bonds will compel us to lift the unfortunate out of their bitter pit. Unity will strike down religious discord and conflict.

As idealistic and unfeasible as this solution may sound, dismissing this solution as such will allow for more men such as Danny Boyle and companies such as Fox Searchlight to continue to make hundreds of millions of dollars off the brutal realities of slum poverty and communal violence.

 Email This Post

 

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 1st, 2009 at 6:58 am and is filed under Reflections. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.