The Disappearing Poor
By Smita Dakhore
24 March, 2012
Countercurrents.org
What has been bothering me over the past few years is the conspicuous absence of the ‘poor’ from most or almost all of the latest productions of mainstream Bollywood. Another less obvious anomaly is that this is occurring in a country where 34% of the people live on less than US$1 a day and 80% on less than US$2 a day. This puts a large section of the population below the poverty line (Here, I abstain myself from getting into the long pursued debate on the latest definition of the poverty line given by the Government of India).
Could this be a conscious endeavour of the producers and directors from a nation that has embarked on the journey towards ‘progress & development’ – emulating the ways of the west? Or is this simply a phenomenon resulting out of changing aspirations of consumers in a nation projected as the next super power? Whatever the reason - it still is unsettling to know that the second largest film industry in the world chooses to exclude the representation of such a large percentage of its population in its cinema.
Let’s conduct a trend analysis by taking a look at some of the highest grossing films in Bollywood over the past 20 odd years (1990 to 2012). We can compile a list mentioning movies such as Hum Aapke hain Kaun, Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, Ghajini, Dhoom, Golmaal, Dhoom 2, 3 idiots, Dabaang, Housefull, Ready, Don (the one with Shahrukh Khan), Bodyguard, Shaitan, etc. Although this is an incomplete list, I choose this as my sample size coz each of these films amply demonstrate the point that I am trying to make. You could try applying the same logic to any film that fits the bill of being a big hit at the box office. Each of these films, irrespective of the genre they belong to, portray the protagonist or lead characters in the film as belonging to Socio-Economic Class A+, A or B+. In the rare eventuality, such as in the case of 3 idiots, if a prominent character in the film is portrayed to (I refer to Raju Rastogi) belong to a lower socio-economic strata of the society, it is done with an element of humor that renders the inherent problems completely inconsequential. I wonder, what would be different in the climax of a film like Hum Aapke Hain Kaun or Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, or Ghajini or Shaitan, were it to be the portrayal of poor, young youth in the rural or urban dwelling, trying to earn the bare minimum necessary for survival while pursuing the romantic interests of his newly found love. Intriguing?
A look at Bollywood productions in the late 1950-80s gives us blockbusters such as Mother India (1957), Naya Daur(1957), Dosti(1964), Boot Polish (1954) and Aakrosh (1980), Do Bigha Zameen (1953), Shri 420 (1955) and Awaara (1951). These were some of the highest grossing films ever and some of them continue to supersede the latest Bollywood productions in sheer numbers! Each of these movies portrays the plight of the protagonist or the central character, who is battling poverty and is representative of the millions in our country. So, where have all the poor disappeared suddenly?
I notice here that there was an overlapping period, say the 1980s to late 1990s when movies discussing issues of poverty and its impact on different aspects of life such as love, romance, food, survival, job, family, social issues and social structure of the society, were still being made. Films such as Rudaali, Ankush, Diksha, Disha, Giddh and a few more were still being made in the 1980 to 1990 period but were slowly fading away into the alternate cinema genre and away from mainstream cinema. However, step into 2000 and the incidence of such films reduced drastically till after 2005 where these themes remained confined to the realm of ‘alternate cinema’!
Some believe that this is the result of changing times where the poor are not so poor anymore. Well, let me tell you that the figures suggest otherwise!
According to poverty estimates given by the Global Human Development report 2011, 37.2 per cent of the national population, and 41.8 per cent of the rural population in India lives below the poverty line. According to United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) Human Development Report (2003), India has the largest number of poor among the countries of the world and is home to one-fourth of the world poor. Could their absence from the big screen then be the result of a conscious attempt at hiding this blatantly shaming truth about our country and our society? Or is this a deliberate attempt at stealing our eyes away and refusing to look at facts that make us squirm in our seats? Or is this a form of escapism from the hard realities of life? Coz neither of these reasons justifies the day-after-day churning out of mindless, insensitive, sickeningly humorous, nonsensical and cheap substitutes for cinema and art!
Certain film enthusiasts would be quick in pointing out that in India exists an upcoming & thriving industry of alternate cinema that still dwells on issues pertaining to this large base of the so called ‘underprivileged’. Attesting to this statement are films such as ‘Madholal Keep Walking’ ‘Matrobhoomi’, ‘Hazaaron Khwahishein Aisi’, ‘Bariwali’, and ‘Bawandar’. But what, pray tell me, is the reach of these films? A number of these films are not even heard of by the common man and are confined to viewing by film and cinema enthusiasts and proactive pursuers of this art form.
Some then say that the latest productions of Bollywood are a reflection of what people want to see. Is it therefore that the large, aspiring, bourgeois, middle class of India wants to watch films dominated by the ‘Khannas’, ‘Mathurs’, ‘Saxenas’ & ‘Oberois’ of the world? Yes! There is a certain aspirational appeal in watching the lives of the rich & famous, their capriciousness & their style. But does that mean that the Indian population is slowly moving towards a loss of social consciousness towards the poor by adopting the long operative psychological construct of ‘out of sight, out of mind’? And what about the poor? Do they revel in the glory and glamour of the onscreen presence of their favourite actors or would they also like to be a part of the narrative where, they can personally relate to the onscreen protagonist? Don’t they want their stories to be told?
The problems of the poor in India are far from disappearing. But the poor surely are. They have successfully disappeared from our lives & our minds, living their broken lives and sharing their shattered dreams – hoping for the change that might never come.
Disturbingly, the poor, out of frustration are driven to acts of rebellion that disrupt the false notions of peace, tranquillity & a semblance of balance that we perceive in society. And then are punished for it (a well deserved punishment some would say) while we still go about our lives feeling satisfied with the appropriate dispensation of justice. Latest examples of such acts of rebellion would be the rising incidence of protests against the government in different parts of the country, the growing maoist insurgency, and stand alone localized incidents of vandalism and thievery by the poor and socially deprived.
So does Bollywood – one of the two things that drive Indians (the other being cricket) – have a certain responsibility towards representation of a section of society subjected to a lifetime of humiliation, deprivation and denial. Or do films solely exist for entertainment purposes?
Smita Dakhore is a Post Graduate in Communications Management from Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad with a specialization in Market Research. Alternatively, her interests lie in Cinema & Film Studies, Sociology & related Social Concerns and Environment & Sustainability Practices. She has been associated with certain government initiated developmental projects in the capacity of a consultant.
Due to a recent spate of abusive, racist and xenophobic comments we are forced to revise our comment policy and has put all comments on moderation que.
