Peepli [Live]: Peeping Live Through The Fake Realities On Screen
By Nishant Upadhyay
30 August, 2010
Countercurrents.org
Over 200,000 farmers have committed suicide across India since 1997. According to some reports, since 2002 a farmer commits suicide every 32 minutes in India. This is the harsh reality of shinning India that is always kept under the rugs. The state which is trying very hard to industrialize at all costs has declared an open war against agriculture and agrarian society. It is seeking to become a superpower by making cities its economic and political hub and making farmers leave agriculture (so that they can work as surplus cheap labor in the cities). It is this dismal state of agriculture and farmer suicides, that Aamir Khan Productions' Peepli [Live] is set against. In my opinion, the film fails miserably in talking about the issues insightfully and critically. I see agrarian crises as complex and mutli-layered web of relationships and processes of financial indebtedness, corporatization of agriculture, massive industrialization, trade liberalization and deprivation in farming communities, which often leads to mass migrations and displacements and suicides in many instances. The Indian state is deeply imbricated in these capitalist processes, often as the violent initiator. Struggles and resistances around land and agriculture become intrinsic parts of these processes. In the quest for realism and political satire, the film ends up mocking the harsh realities of the state of Indian agriculture and farmers.
In brief, the story is about 2 brothers Natha and Budhiya. Unable to repay a bank loan they took for farming they are on the verge of loosing their ancestral land, unless they pay interest on the loan. With nowhere to go and full family to look after, Budhiya persuades Natha to commit suicide when they learn that the government is willing to compensate families of dead farmers with Rs. 1 lakh. This “sensational” news of a farmer suicide is soon picked by national news channels. The story is less about Natha but more about how he becomes the focal point for media and politician circus. His plight becomes a tool in the hands of those with power (media, politicians and police) for personal gains. The film offers an excellent critique of media and politicians. But that is not something very novel now. What the film could have done was to give insights to the politics of suicides and agriculture. With less surprise, the film fails to do so.
Aamir Khan is touted as the new liberal, politically conscious and aware of his moral responsibilities. His previous films have to be acknowledged for raising issues like anti-colonial politics (Lagaan), “radical” student politics (Rang De Basanti), competitive pressures faced by middle class children (Taare Zameen Par) and Indian society's obsession with career oriented education aka engineering (3 Idiots). A lot could be said about these films, but I just want to say one line. Despite my strange liking for Aamir Khan and his work, these movies dealt with the issues in a very superficial ways and barely touched the surface.
True to his approach of mainstreaming serious cinema, Peepli [Live] is a big disappointment on many fronts. It is true that this is a popular multiplex film, then why should I spend so much time and energy critiquing it? For a political cynic like me, such attempts are of no worth. But I think it's important to critique it since the film and its reception collectively presents a pseudo liberal aura of political consciousness, intellectuality and morality. So a film that prides itself on being politically and intellectually driven (along with the audiences), and yet fails to go even a nanometer beneath the surface needs to be critiqued.
It would be unfair to say that the media has not covered the issue of farmer suicides. It has, but not enough to understand the issues clearly. Apart from the reports by P. Sainath and Vandana Shiva, there has not been much information available on agrarian crises. Experts and intellectuals blame these suicides on the polices of trade liberalization, corporate globalization and large scale industrialization of agriculture. The beginning of present agrarian crisis needs to be located to the 1980s when the terms of trade were going against agriculture , urban-biased policies were dominating the capitalist state policies, and farming was becoming a loosing proposition. The crises are ecological, economic, and social, each inter-linked with the other. So right from Green Revolution and its terrible aftermath in Punjab and production of Bt-Cotton, to large scale land acquisition of agricultural lands for not-so-public projects (like SEZs, malls, sanctuaries, townships etc.), introduction of GM food crops, contract farming, land displacements and many others, have led to the present dismal state of agriculture in India. Things are so bad, that the farmer can no longer sustain her family and opt for suicide as a final solution. It's not that the state is not aware of this. In fact, it is the neoliberal state that is actively working to undermine agriculture and “move” the country towards “modernity” and capitalism by adopting industries and disowning agriculture. The government's urban-centric policies are forcing farmers and agricultural laborers to quit agriculture and move to cities. This is supposed to somehow narrow the disparities gaps between rural and urban India and lead towards a “modern and prosperous” India. There seems to be very little understanding to realize how important agriculture is to Indian economy and society. How different are these issues from those that the Maoists and adivasis are fighting for in Central India. Perhaps not a whole lot different? These are also not very different from the issues in Lalgarh and Nandigram. Nor are they different from struggles against dams in Uttarakhand, or against SEZs in Haryana and Maharashtra, or against sanctuaries in Rajasthan, or many other such land and agriculture related struggles across India.
Against this backdrop, Peepli [Live] hardly talks about the factors that may have led to Natha and Budhiya to talk about suicide. Somehow the film ends up trivializing and mocking such a grave issue. I wonder how hard it would have been to throw a line or two about this context in the middle of the whole mocking of individual media persons and politicians? How hard is it to critique the state policies, corporate houses, class/caste relations and capitalism? I guess...very! Which class and corporate interests is the film catering to?
In the quest of neo-realism and authenticity, the cast of the film is mostly unknown and new. The village was also quite “authentic” looking village. The village characters are made realistic by making them swear a few times in each line and speaking aggressively. So I guess a person is more of a real villager if s/he swears a lot. That's authentic! The film at moments is no better than some orientalist images of poor India. The circulation, operation and reception of the film is a testimony to that. Is poverty a 'show' in the show-obsessed fraternity of middle class? I acknowledge that there's a thin line between being realistic and romanticizing, but how hard is it to be a little less superficial? The film attempts to attain a self-reflexive mode through the critique of the power of the camera, and fabricated reality, which, paradoxically the film itself turns out to resort to. The film tries to critique the media portrayals of the issues and village life by shooting through the media's lens. But what is interesting is that the film itself captures the lives through the same frames and lenses. The trivializing and exotifying happens in both frames.
Caste is always downplayed in Bollywood. There's a small reference to a dalit leader hijacking Natha's suicide as a caste issue, but caste relations are not questioned or challenged in the film. What role do caste relations play in the village and farmer suicides? Many reports have shown how indebtedness and agrarian failures have affected people from lower castes and class backgrounds more than those from the upper castes/classes. There is an expected silence on the caste question.
The portrayal of the female characters in the film is also very disappointing. The English news channel reporter appears to be unconsciously chasing leads for her personal gains and pride. Natha's mother, although bedridden, is always swearing and complaining. And Natha's wife is shown to badger and assault her husband, brother-in-law and mother-in-law. She is always shouting and abusive. There is not a single positive female portrayal in the film. In the hit song Mahangai, about rising prices, inflation is the husband's other woman who is eating away all the money from the farmer's pockets, wreaking havoc and ruining lives. The song is also performed in an all-male gathering. From a feminist perspective, there is a gendered dimension to the farmer suicides and indebtedness. These dimensions are much deeper than just shouting, complaining and swearing. How women positions and interests are compromised in times of financial crises? How do these suicides affect the “left-behind” women? Many reports, like by P. Sainath, have shown that women farmers have also committed suicides in large numbers, but the official (and unofficial) records deny these claims since women are hardly the owner of the land. Thus just because women are not the legal owners or workers on land they are denied the label of a “farmer” and hence their sacrifices and suicides are not worthy enough to be accounted for. The feminist movement(s) since their beginning have always stressed on price rises and agricultural problems, and made these issues their central issues. This gender discrimination and imbalance is a major issue in rural India and agrarian crises, on the which the film is conveniently silent.
In the closing scene we see that Natha is working as a construction worker in Delhi. He is shown with all the sorrow and sadness in the world. Though it's a strong moment in the narrative, it again fails to provide critical insights to why Natha is there. It seemed to me that Natha is in Delhi, because he is escaping the media and politician circus in his house and constant threat to his life arising from his alleged desire to suicide. This ends up trivializing the massive inflow of migrant workers to urban centers fleeing the the complex problems of indebtedness, drought and deprivation. Is he in the city to escape or to survive? Why do we see so many migrant workers in the cities from rural agricultural areas? Escaping is not the real issue, people leave because they need to survive. The changed Natha with his beard gone and shorter hair is not in the city to take 'sanyas' but find ways to survive. The real-estate and industrial boom in urban India is fueled by the regular induction of poor migrant workers from the villages only. The grand 'development' narratives of the country are only through the exploitation of these workers. Behind the glamor and lights of these 'development' are the exploitation and sufferings of these urban and rural poor and marginalized people. This is missed from the narrative of the film.
I must also confess that I saw this film in a posh multiplex and along with the expensive tickets also bought the the giant combo deal of popcorn and drinks. I did initially feel guilty of buying this and watching Peepli [Live] and the apparent contradictions of my social positioning and politics. But that guilt soon withered away, when the popcorn and the drink became the only way I could sit through 96 minutes of torture. Along with the disappointment of the film, I was also annoyed by the way people around me reacted to it. Somehow for most people in the multiplex the film was a laugh riot. They laughed every time any of the village character swore, they laughed anytime the two brothers spoke. In the opening scene, traveling in a tempo, Natha asks his brother what will happen if the land is sold. It is a powerful scene. Yet people around me found it super amusing. I really failed to understand that why such a film generated so much laughter. Given the superficiality of the script, it was still not a funny film.
There seemed to be a strange tribute to the protagonist of Munshi Premchand's Godaan, Hori Mahato in the film. In the novel, Hori is a poor peasant who is desperately longing for a cow, since cow is a symbol for wealth and pride. He does get the cow but ends up paying for the cow by his life. Similarly in the film, Hori, a landless peasant, makes a living by digging earth. He dies while digging earth, which was his only way for survival. Thus Hori's plight hasn't changed in more than 60 years. While making this tribute to one of Hindi literature's biggest protagonist, the film still failed to question the continuance of farmers' plight and agrarian crises. Primarily because the film cunningly takes up from the moment the real event has already taken place. In a sensitive narrative, like the works of Satyajit Ray, Shyam Benegal and Govind Nilhani, the film probably would have ended with the farmer succumbing to the pressure of the financial crisis, minimal profit (or usually loss), government extortion and feudal oppression and consequently deciding to commit suicide. But what this film chooses to portray instead is an epilogue filled with media clowns and political ring masters.
The directors Anusha Rizvi and Mahmood Farooqui worked within the theatrical traditions of Habib Tanvir's Naya Theatre for the film. Naya Theatre traditions bear a great degree of respect for the poor and the oppressed. In this theatrical space, satire and humor is used extensively to make critiques of the state policies and the capitalist system. In his plays, Habib Tanvir always reserved the space for swear and aggressive language for the most downtrodden, the most oppressed. It's meant to give them the power to make the sharpest critiques and show their anger(s) and frustration(s). His most popular protagonist under this tradition is Charandas Chor. Even in the Sanskrit Natya-Shastra (Theatre), Vidhushak played this role. He would comment on contemporary situations and thus transcend the spatial and temporal dimensions of the narrative, and speak in languages other than Sanskrit to underline his class differences and political positioning. This feature is shared by different performance traditions and characters like Shakespearean character Falstaff. Perhaps due to this reason, we hear foul language mostly from Natha and his family. But this tradition becomes humorous and comical. The language looses its anger and critique and for the audiences it becomes comical (more so when the female characters use foul language). This transition from theatre to film thus is very fractured and weak. Instead of showing respect and solidarity with the oppressed and their problems, it ends up making them humorous. The film would have been much better as a theatrical performance, but as a film it is a dismal rendition of the theatrical traditions and styles.
A farmers advocacy group in Vidarbha, the area with the highest suicide rates, Vidarbha Janadolan Samiti (Vidarbha People's Movement Committee) has asked for a ban on the film. The group has urged the Maharashtra government to ban the film on the ground that the movie trivializes the issue of farmer suicides and is far from reality. They have argued that the film is an insult to the poor farmers who have been the victims of globalization and wrong policies of the state. However banning the film can actually be counter productive, since the film will get more attention than it deserves. And within democratic spaces, banning is not the solution.
The storytelling style is different, but the film refrains from making a strong statement. It failed to highlight the real issues and concerns of farmers. The real questions and problems are camouflaged behind the media and politician circus. The attempts for a satire turns out to be a sad caricature of the rural life. The village life has much more depth and layers than what this film set out to sketch. The agrarian crises is not a myth but a harsh reality that sooner or later the country will have to face. The film didn't seem to leave people questioning and disappointed with the status quo. It lacks the anger and creativity and leaves the audience unaffected. I am quiet confident that the filmmakers and the multiplex audiences would pat on their backs for making and appreciating such a political and moral film. This is the only way for the liberal middle class mind to free itself from its guilt and apathy. But how long can these minds run away from their guilt and apathy and not ask the questions and realities that haunt India?
Nishant Upadhyay is aPh.D. Candidate, Department of Social and Political Thought
York University, Toronto
