The Politics of Documentaries.

“We've begun to raise our daughters more like sons, but few will have the courage to raise our sons more like our daughters,” – Gloria Steinem

These words echo the same sentiment as millions in India today.  At a time, when gender equality and women safety issues were gaining momentum the release of the documentary on the Delhi gang rape case has caused it to hit a road block.  The maker is  accused of  defaming  Indian men on the international stage by portraying their misogynistic attitudes.  A worthy cause is lost in an attempt to gain commercial mileage. Though a staunch supporter of freedom of speech and expression, this film confirms my fears of having reverse effects across sections. 

A documentary is a nonfiction film, a window into the soul of the society made primarily for the purposes of research or to shake  the collective conscience of the audience. It is an open-ended drama that leaves it to the viewers to come to a decision and does not reflect the opinion of the filmmaker. This  film, on the other hand, is a biased account of a gut-wrenching incident  and not a comparative study of various criminal minds accused of such heinous acts.  There is little or no evidence of research in the film, it is based on sensationalism of one case, that created ripples across the country and resulted in widespread protests demanding safety of women. Supporters of the film have argued that it brings out the truth about the dismal situation of women safety in the country and it is  time we embrace the truth, rather than shy away.  The question here is, did the documentary enlighten us with any truth that we didn't already know? Is the film a study on many similar cases?  No, the film centers around one  case with major flaws in storytelling. The truth must be told but in a non-commercial and unbiased manner. The barbaric act of the accused was enough to bring to light his views on women and we did not have to provide him a platform to voice his opinion.  He doesn't flinch when he holds the victim responsible for her condition. As a matter of fact, he proudly claims, “Earlier rapists would leave victims asking them not to tell anyone but now they are going to kill them.”  The film also interviews the defense lawyer who has no qualms in talking about setting his daughter or sister on fire if they were to indulge in pre-marital activities.

It is unfathomable to me how watching a remorseless rapist gloat over  his vile and violent act and a lawyer define boundaries for women helps the cause of women equality and safety. If the intended purpose of the documentary was research,   shouldn't they have handed it over to the government or specialists who study criminal minds to understand what led them to commit the crime than selling it for commercial release ? The commercial aspect of the documentary cannot be denied; the makers released the film despite the ban, cried foul on media channels and called it an international suicide for India. This research would have been better published in a book than released commercially.

The documentary does not reveal anything that’s hasn't been seen or heard before.  Mindless statements of the lawyers, a rape accused detailing how women should behave was all over the papers ever since the ghastly incident.  A death-row convict, convicted of one of the most gruesome crimes against women, instructing women on social behaviour is grossly unjust to the movement.  Under the garb of justice for women, a profitable venture has been released that is feeding on the sentiments of someone’s misery. The documentary also has certain factual lapses. A friend of the victim, who was there with her on that fateful night, has complained that there are various misrepresentations in the film. He says he has never heard of the tutor in the film who claims both wanted to watch different films and how did he know which film they wanted to watch. Details like these and many other factual instances  were unwarranted in the film. 

Advocates of free speech would argue that banning of the film was restriction of free speech. I am not against freedom of speech and the government should have  exercised caution in imposing the ban but a film that  provides a platform to a convict on a death-row to lecture women on their safety  is best banned. As a nation, we are struggling with issues relating to women safety and equality, and are trying to find ways to combat the problem.  A diktat  from someone who commits such crimes isn't helping the cause.

The ban may not have been the most potent move, and it hasn't helped in tackling the problem. Belittling hard work of the unit is not  the purpose here. It is a constructive criticism of a story that lost its plot. Equating the views of the accused and the lawyers with the broader mindset in India is misleading and  wrong in so many ways, the repercussions of which are already being felt.   A student from India was denied admission to a university in Germany owing to this broadcast, and this is only the beginning of  irreversible consequences such films could have. The only good thing that has come out of it is that an international campaign has been launched by the same name that will tackle violence against women. 

If we need to change the mindset, a film will not help. We need  change in our lives,  awareness about women safety, sensitizing children at a younger age, raise a voice at the smallest incident and launch campaigns that penetrate into those areas of society where such incidents are rampant. The crux of the problem lies in patriarchy and until that sees the end of life, we will continue to have many more Mukesh Singh's who will violate women and find a platform to narrate the horror.