8/14/2019 TEJASWANI NIRANJANA

1/3

Banning 'Bombayi': Nationalism, Communalism and GenderAuthor(s): Tejaswini NiranjanaSource: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 30, No. 22 (Jun. 3, 1995), pp. 1291-1292Published by: Economic and Political WeeklyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4402821Accessed: 17/12/2008 07:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epw.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4402821?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epwhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epwhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4402821?origin=JSTOR-pdf

8/14/2019 TEJASWANI NIRANJANA

2/3

PERSPECTIVESBanning 'Bombayi'Nationalism,Communalism and GenderTejaswini NiranjanaIs theprotestagainst Matl%tnam's newfilm, on the groundthat itoffendsMuslimsentiments,simply an expression of fundamentalism'ofMuslimpatriarchal attitudes? Could it not bet hat the liberal analysisand solution('hatred'and 'love') are unacceptableas inaccurate,simplisticand patronisingto those who comprisethe overwhelmingmajorityamong the victimsof communalviolence?MANIRATNAM'S film 'Bombayi' (theTelugu versionof 'Bombay') was releasedall over Andhra Pradesh on March 10,1995,playingto full houses ineverytheatre.On March 14, screening of the film wasbanned n the twin cities of HyderabadandSecunderabad as well as the adjoiningdistrictof Rangareddy.Newspaper reportsindicated that stray incidents of audienceviolence and representations to the homeminister from the Majlis-Ittehadul-Muslimeenand theMajlis Bachao Tehreekhad resulted in the ban order. It was alsoreportedthat leftist organisations such asthe Students' Federationof India and theDemocratic Youth Federation of India aswell as the rightwingBharatiyaJanataYuvaMorchahadopposed the ban. A statementby the SFI and DYFI declared that "thefilm depicted nationalist feelings and hadnothing communal about it".'The reaction to Maniratnam's films inHyderabadmay not be representativeof ageneral south Indianresponse to them, norof the response in AndhraPradesh either.Due to its atypicaldemographic profile (aMuslim population that is over 50 per centin the old city and over 20 per cent evenin the new city), Hyderabad's politicalscenario and the space occupied in it bythe agendas of specifically 'Hindu' and'Muslim' parties may very well be uniquin southern India. Maniratnam's earlierfilm 'Roja', first in its Telugu'version andthen nHindi,elicitedconsidewble applausein new Hyderabad for itg u9abashedpatriotismand ts categoricaldenunciationof Kashmiri militahcy. A national(ist)commonsense about what constitutes thetruly secular was articulate ere in itsconvergence with Hirid'utva.W act, as Ihave argued elsewhere, 'secularism' in'Roja' was indistinguishable (as it is inother contemporary,,cultural ormations)from the attitudesproduced by thi makinginvisibleof a 'Hindu'ethnicity.2 Bombayi'

is in many ways not very different from'Roja' in its portrayalof the secular andthe Indian. It is worth investigating,therefore, why the film seems to haveevokedfrom heminority ommunitywhichmade no public protestabout 'Roja' a verydifferent kind of response. We must alsorememberthat 'Bombayi' could have theeffects it has precisely because it comesafter 'Roja'.' What could be the alteredpolitical landscape today that makes sucha response to 'Bombayi' possible? Toanswer this question one would have totake into account multiple factorsrelatingto the national and internationalscene, anundertakingI am not presently competentto embark upon. I proffer, however, someremarksabout Maniratnam's ilm which inmy view allows us to reflect anew on majorquestionsof culturalpolitics today, my aimbeing not to produce aconclusive analysisbut to help initiate a debate on the issues.While the film follows 'Roja' in theframingof its centralproblem the questionof the nation and the question ofcommunalism (community identity in'Roja' - it is, to my mind, marked by acertainstuttering,not so evident in 'Roja',when it comes to the issue of gender. Thismight partly account for the hostilereception in certainquartersof a film that.compared to a 'Roja' which depicted theMuslim almost entirely as terrorist andanti-Indian, represents in its syrupysecularism "nothing...that hurts Muslimsentiments",4and indeed is framed as anattempt o "'[balance]he viewpoints of theopposing communities".5 "How sad",exclaims ajournalistwritingin ThleHindu,"...every time sincere efforts have beenmade towards national integrationwe end'up in protests and riots".6There appearsto be a general consensus that Maniratnamis indeed a 'nationalist' film-maker, asevidenced by 'Roja' winning the 1993award or NationalIntegration. t s perhaps

then the very composition of mainstreamnationalism - a composition whichlegitimisessomeidentitiesandmarginalisesothers - that is being contested by thosewho are demanding a ban on 'Bombayi'.And it is precisely aroundthe question ofgender,I would suggest, that thefracturingof this composition becomes visible.But first, an outline of the narrative.Shekhar, a young brahmin fromBheemunipatnam, has just finished hisstudies iu Bombay and started working asa proof-reader n anewspaper,with a viewto becoming a journalist. On a visit to hisvillage, he sees Shaila Banu, the daughterof the Muslim brickmaker Basheer, andinstantly falls in love withher. Afterabriefcourtship, and after encountering thehostility of his family and Basheer's to thepossibilityof hismarriagewith ShailaBanu,Shekhar returns to Bombay, to be joinedthere by the girl. They commence weddedlife in a chawl; Shekhar gets a promotion,ShailaBanu gives birthto twins; theboy'sfather Narayanamurthy who has tried tosend bricks marked'Sri Ram' to Ayodhyaas penancefor his son's act)comes to visit,andis overwhelmed to learn thatthe twinsare named Kabeer Narayan and KamalBasheer. Shaila Banu's parentsalso comeon a vist at the same time. The Babrimasjidfalls; the Bombay riots take place; theparentsof both hero and heroine die in afire; the childrenare lost; amidst scenes ofriotingthe chief protagonistssearch forthetwins. In the concluding scenes, Shekharmakes impassioned speeches to the riotersto stop killing each other, andthe childrenare found, even as Hindus and Muslimsdrop their weapons and hold hands. Thisbare narrativecannot possibly account forthe many ingenious ways in whichManiratnam chieves hiscinematiceffects,some of which I shall have occasion torefer to.What I earlier called the stuttering of'Bombayi' has to do, it seems to me, withthe portrayal. f the Muslim woman. Somemembers of the audignce have asked whythe protagonists could not have been aMuslim man and a Hindu woman. Giventhe logic of gender and nation inManiratnam,hisequationwould have beenclearly impossible. The (Hindu) female in'Roja',forinstance, s shown asimperfectlysecular, imperfectly: nationalist, becauseher concern is not for the security of thenation but for her husband.It is the Hindumale, therefore,who must takeon the taskof makingthe Muslim 'human'(as well assecularandnationalist,as I have suggestedelsewhere).7 Whereas in 'Roja' it is the

Economic and Political Weekly June 3, 1995 1291

8/14/2019 TEJASWANI NIRANJANA

3/3

-mal.emilitantLiaquatwho is portrayedasbeing made human, his silent sister whohelps the hero escape is shown implicitlyas already human by virtue of herfemininity. By aiding the hero. shetranscendshercommunity-identity and inthe process standsrevealed as both humanand 'Indian' (rather than Kashmiri ormilitant separatist).'Bombayi' is more subtle: Shaila Banumarriesthe brahmin Hindu hero (who isnever shown as marked by caste orcommunity) but does not give up herreligion;neitherdoes she dress like a southIndianHinduwoman, especially since shedoes not wear a bindi except in two songsequences. The secular hero is obviouslytolerant about all this, is in a sense attractedbv the very 'difference' of the heroine.While male Muslim ethnic markers n thefilIm(prayer aps.orscenes of masspraying,for example) are menacing portents ofrioting to follow, female Muslim markersof ethnicity - the burqa, primarily - areglamorised and eroticised. Shekhar's firstglimpse of Shaila Banu is when the windaccidenitally itts up her veil, and many ofhis subsequent encounters with her,including on the night when theyconsummate theirmarriage, hematisethisvisibility/invisibility as tantalising.

The 'secular' attempt to uniderstanid theethnic other, and one need not doubtManiratnam's ndeavour in this regard.isportrayed in 'Bombayi' as accomplishedthroughthe erotic gaze. It is the f'eminineotherwho is embodiment of the eroticallymysterious and unapproachable,and whothereforecompels an unveiling in the actot'makingintimate, wlhile therelationshipof thesecularnationalistwiththeethnicisedmale can only be contentious andcombative. This ethnicised male in thelogic of these films, and indeed in thedominant ultural ogic of ourtimes,cannotpossibly be the hero of a narrativeaboutthe need for national integration. The only'acceptable hero is the urbanised,'westernisedShekharwho, ikeRishiKumarin 'Roja', does not need to draw attentiontohiscaste orreligionbecause inespousingnationalism he has transcended suchidentities.1 fone examines thecompositionof the Indiancitizen-subject of the 1990s,the Hindufemale appearsas the necessarybearer of ethnicity. Thus, the initiator ofthe integrationprocess, or the initiator oftheromantic elationship n thefilm, cannotbutbe aman fromthemajoritycommunity.One does not need to belabour the pointthatthis kindof agency is gendered male.'Bombayi', then, could not have had aMuslim hero and a Hindu heroine.This inevitability is also related to thesharp demarcationof gendered 'siecular'

spaces in 'Bombayi'. While the hero'ssecularism (read, tolerance) does have adomestic aspect to it, it is manitested inthis sphere only as playfulness, as in thescenewherearelay of littlechildrenconveyto his bride his question - 'Shall I changemy religion?', orthe song sequence ('hallagulla') in which he briefly dons Muslimheadgear. His publicly secular acts, on theother hand, are shown as acts otconsequence. when during the riots heberates his two colleagues for claiming tobe Hindu and Muslim instead of sayingthey are Indian. or in the climactic sceneswhen he splashes petrol on his body andurges thc rioters to burn him in order to'shamethemintothrowingdown theirarmns.Incontrast.when ShailaBanu makesa rareappearance outside the home. it is mostvisibly when she and Shekhar are lookingfor the children during the riots, and sheis called upon only to express distress andhorror.In fact. the domestic space is constantlydefined in the film as a counterpoint tocommunalism: the increasing f'amilialharmony (the birth olf the (wins, thereconciliation of the grandparenits.Shekhar's desire for more childreni) ismatched against increasing communaltension in the city. Integration. the filmseems to suggest. can be accomplishedwilhin the family.' In the domestic space,Shekhardoes not have to untdergo ny sortof transformation o prove his secuilarism.In any case, his 'religion' is not cenitral ohis identity. Also. by virtue ot being thebread-winner, hereare otherconventionalasymmetries n relationto maleandfemnatleroles that he nceed never challenge. It iscrucialto the narrative hat thecouple havechildren, for the film's logic suggests thatit is theurbanisednuclearfamilywhichcansolve the problem of communalism. Thisproblem. indicates the film, is one ofsenseless hatred.Communalismis imagedhere;,as in some analytical accounts ofrecent-events in India, as the restirgenccpf ancIient,hates, primt)ordiallostilities.Communalism thus become.s' a residuel, a'mark the non-modern, fbackwardness.'"SecuIa'ism or nationalisnm,herelore, a'sGyanendraPandey ha.S.hown, appearsasthe 'other' of communalism: ' however, inthe 1990s. in a historical space where theprivatisation of secularism seems to betaking place, this nationalism need not hepart of a political agenda. 2 If the problemis one (ot hatred. the solution has to helocated in the pos'sibility of' love.Humanism, too, becomes a questioni of'good individuals,happythimilies.Andlovein its modern form, as 'Bombayi' shliows,achieves its most exalted and exemplaryexpression in romantic love, the love

between individuals. It might. then, beworth asking whether the demand for thebanning of 'Botnbayi' (on the basis thatit oltfendsMuslimnentiments) is simply anexpression oft fundamentalism' or olMuslim patriarchalattitudes. Is it perhapsan indication that the liberal analysis andsolution ('hatred' and 'love') areunacceptable- ais inaccurate, simplisticand patronising - to those Arho omprisethe majority amongst the victims ofcommunal violence? Could it point to theneed to rethink whose tolerance thedominant notion of secularism embodies.and whether 'love' aid 'tolerance' can berecommended n equal measureto both themajority and minority communities'?

NotesI Report in NewL2iwime.arch 1.5. 1995.2 Tejaswini Niranjanta.'Integrating WhoseNation? Touri.s and Terrorists in Roja',E'conondc anlldPolimatil WeekI. XXIX:3f

January 15. 1994. pp 79-82.3 1 wouildlike to comimirlenitere only on thefilimi's reception, in Hyderabad., ThecontroversysurroundIinghe film in Bomtbayeven heforre ts release has to (lo not with"audience perceptions but with the then-imminient lection victory of the Shiv SenaandSena leader BalThackeray'sobh etionstothe way in which the Thackera -characteris portrayed n the tilmin.f we seek toe quateThackeray's ohjections with those of theMuslinti eaders. we woild bh inaking thekind of analytical (and political) mlstakethat is evidenced in namiling as 'casteist'violence by both (lalits antidUppercaste:.4 Nasreen Suiltlanat.Lift Ban on "Bomihay"

I. Ieter to the editor. Newtihme. Marcih2.01995,5 Initerviewer Lens Eye) in 'Truthor D)a'reinterview with Maniiratnatti.T' Triaws(eIndia. April 2. 1995.6 BhawnaSomaya, 'The"Bomhay"Prohlemil'.The Hi-linda.March 31. 1995.7 Niranjana. op cit.8 It is not cntirely fortuitous tha;t he actorArvind Swatny plays oth Rishi Kumar inRoja' and Shekhar in 'Bombayi'.9 In an interview. Maniratnam says: "Thefamnilys the most invincible institution ofour country. We lead our entire lives in thefainily's fold." 7'1teTimiles#JhInfdia.pril 2,I995.It) This depiction muakesnvisihle the large-scale participation of the 'modern' middleclass in the Bombay riots.I I Gyanendra Pandey. 'The constrructiin ofConintuntlisnmtin Codlnitil aVorthiIdiai(Delhi: Oxford Uni'versityPress, 199t)).Seeespecially Chapter-7. "Nationalism versusCotntnunalis:m'.12 Thenewnationalisimisof ne cessitydetachedfrom anti-imperialism. the differencesbetween the BJP and the RSS over the

swtadeshi cainpargn notwithstanding.Nationallsm. then.becomiies purely nternalquestioni. obe asserted againstnon-Hindus.

1292 Economic and Political Weeklv June 3. 1995