This is from my own archives, posted on the GlobalEar site, now alas defunct, on March 28, 2005.
Hotel Rwanda has the same kind of aura as `Gandhi` and `Cry Freedom` and `Schindler`s List`. It is of course about recent history - a bloody and gruesome massacre of innocents that happened in our own time - and about the part that one particular individual played in saving the lives of hundreds of people caught up in it. In this case, we are also drawn into his personal life in a most empathetic way.
I was also immediately reminded of `A Sunday at the Pool in Kigali` (ISBN 1 84195 453 5 - by Gil Courtemanche - Translated from the original French by Patricial Claxton). That was a fictionalized account of the Rwanda atrocities, with graphic details of the build-up to the genocide and the attendant horrors that took place then, but there too we had a glimpse of the eponymous hotel of the film - the Hotel des Mille Collines - and of its true-life manager, Paul Ruseabagina (here played superlatively by Don Cheadle). There are also references to him and the hotel in George Alagiah`s book `A Passage to Africa` and Aidan Hartley`s `The Zanzibar Chest`, and in Jon Snow`s `Shooting History`. These hardened global journalists too were deeply affected by what they had seen. The sequences in the film of the fleeing refugees, of the soliders and others beating up and slaughtering civilians, of the army officers and generals demanding payment for lives to be spared, of the helpless captives being tossed about here and there and of the few sheltering in the nooks and corners of the hotel - these are vivid and haunting images but they are not, alas, unique, because in all similar situations - of revolutionary turmoil, of civil-war in-fighting, of persecution of minorities etc - those in power or wielding the upper hand are prone to inflict pain and suffering of the most inhuman kind upon their victims.
There have been countless other movies depicting these kinds of horrors (in Cambodia, Congo, India/ Pakistan and so on). In `Shindler` List`, there was a large dose of menace and sanitized, almost clinical, surrealism about the plight of the thousandsdespatched to the gas chambers; in `Cry Freedom` there were the marching multitudes with the hovering presence of the security forces in military gear ready to pounce on them and in `Gandhi` the episodes of the butchery inflicted by both Muslim and HIndu religious zealots were graphically captured. In all these films, as in this one, there was a note of optimism at the end nevertheless, because ultimately humanity triumphed, even if, as in at least two of them, the individual at the centre of them did perish. The common factor between them of course is the singular character whose life sustains the plot and gives it a sense of spiritual salvation.
But to get back to our hero, Paul, but for him the film would have failed to make the impact that it has. He is an urbane and educated Hutuu, happily married to an equally charming, serene and rather pretty Tutsi and they lead a happy family life with their three bright children as part of the Westernized Rwandan middle-class elite. That much is as much implied as visually spelt out, for right from the beginning we are drawn into the gathering storm with a rapidity that leaves little room for social or political nuances, except for the one overwhelming message that the film is about, ie. how the majority Hutuus turned on their hapless Tutsi minority in a `moment of madness` bent on wiping them out.
Throughout, the centrality of the hotel as the threatre of action is never in doubt, for we are in and out of it as Paul tries to keep it going on an even keel against all the pressures. From the outside entrance through the reception area to the rear of the hotel, where there is partaking of food and drink around the pool on the terrace by the expatriate whites (the press and the UN staff) and the locals (the prostitutes, the parasites and the paramilitary personnel), we are in no doubt about its status, not so much as an oasis of wealth and splendour but rather as a haven of security amidst the chaos of the world outside. Against this background, Paul has to use all his innate qualities of patience and negotiation, even guile, forever stretching his resources and pushing against the boundaries of tolerance and understanding, in order to secure safe passage, conduct, sanctuary or simple survival for all those hundreds of people for whom he had either assumed or been forced to accept responsiblity. He talks to his bosses in Belgium, pleads with men in uniform, cajoles and compromises with his own staff, plays the family man - even the romantic husband with his wife (the few stolen scenes of tenderness between them are touching) - while all the time the tragedy is unfolding and engulfing everyone around him. We fear for his life (because there are some very close nasty encounters) and pray that he will overcome the enormous odds and the mishaps that would have deterred a lesser man.
So undoubtedly here is a film with magnetic Oscar proportions. Paul`s wife is played, equally impressively, by the black British actress Sophie Okonedo. They both deserve a medal. The credits at the end do not point to any particular literary source, but the reference to Paul as a real life figure gives a poignant and compelling edge to the saga of the Rwandan killings. How else could an African tragedy, even on the scale of other 20th century global parallels, appeal to mass audiences in the West?
There are at least two other offerings currently on view (or shortly to be) on the same subject. One is `Sometimes in April` by the renowned Haitian born director Raoul Peck, and the other Michael Canton-Jones` `Shooting Dogs`. There has been a lot of media coverage (features, interviews and guest appearances) accompanying or preceding them and the sense that we get is that the time has come for an artistic appreciation of the tragedy of Rwanda.
What should the world`s reaction be? Well, while we are constantly urged to`learn from history`, cynics among us are forever reminding us that rhetoric and reality do not always match. I well remember expressing my own misgivings to someone about the failure of the international community to do anything at the time (in 1994) against the background of the Bosnian conflict that was then raging and making the point that perhaps we were far too concerned about the latter because it was on our door-step in Europe. But that said, let us just think: how much do we know of, much less care about, what may be happening at any given time in some obscure corner of the world that is beyond our vision or sphere of concern? Of course, by `we` I mean society in general, not particular individuals. From time to time, the barrier of unconsciousness in broken and people may stand up and protest - but to what avail? But more often than not, while history is taking place, we are often unaware either of its happening or of its significance, or too preoccupied with other more mundane or immediate matters, to take notice. Time is what we need to absorb the `lessons of history` but by then it is too late to apply them! But the human spirit cannot surely be daunted; the optimist in us will always want to leave a record of our struggle,so that future generations may do better, and that is what this film is about.
This film should indeed be seen by everyone.
Posted By Ramnik on 03/28/2005 Movies
Saturday 25 July 2009
Tuesday 21 July 2009
The Mumbai terror attack - the history and ramifications
A month or so after I had reviewed `Firaaq` (see my last post), terrorists attacked Mumbai, on November 26, 2008, which inevitably led to much chatter in cyberspace. Today, The Times carries a report of the surprise admission of guilt by the chief perpetrator under the heading "Mumbai gunman Ajmal Amir Kasab changes plea to guilty". Its opening and closing paragraphs are as follows:
"The lone terrorist gunman to survive the Mumbai attacks confessed to his role in the atrocity yesterday, dramatically reversing months of denials — and possibly paving the way for a thaw in relations between India and Pakistan".
"Kasab’s confession could help to ease relations between India and its neighbour, analysts said. It came hours after the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, used a trip to Mumbai to defend the sincerity of Islamabad’s anti-terrorism policies. “We believe there is a commitment to fighting terrorism that permeates the entire (Pakistan) Government,” Mrs Clinton said".
Whether there will be an improvement in Indo-Pak relations remains to be seen; it may turn out to be a pious hope! But it is worth revisiting the arguments that were raging in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Here is what I wrote on December 3, 2008 in reply to a post under the title "India`s new `untouchables`":
Message #31874 > Wed Dec 3, 2008 8:59 pm > Ramnik Shah wrote:
I too had been forwarded this piece and had read it with interest. Taking on board all that you say, from a clearly enlightened and liberal stance (with which I can readily identify), the fact remains that there has been a growing anti-Muslim sentiment building up in India in the last two decades (`Ayodhya`, the 1993 Bombay riots, `Godhra` etc), leading to a sense of alienation, discrimination, disaffection and victimisation and a general feeling among Muslims that they are indeed the new pariah class, lower even than the Dalits, in the Indian hierarchy of privilege and social order. I have heard or read many first hand accounts of young (Muslim) people, men mostly, being denied job opportunities, admission to universities, harrassed and habitually treated as second class citizens. More particularly, whenever terrorist type incidents occur, they feel especially vulnerable because of finger pointing, often with crude invitations to go (or even `go back`) to Pakistan. Their plight was vividly portrayed in the film FIRAAQ, reviewed here by me on 16 October (Msg #30332). All this is bound to fuel resentment and cause insecurity and isolationist tendencies.
The fact that large sections of the Indian political leadership (from the PM downwards), media and public were so quick to blame Pakistan for the horrendous attack on Mumbai, without making a distinction between the Pakistani state and the terrorist groups operating from its territory cannot help but exacerbate this climate of suspicion and hostility towards the Muslims. Against this broad background, it is hardly surprising if some of their young folk were attracted or recruited to the terrorists` cause. But even if there was no local Muslim involvement in the Mumbai massacre, is the (majority of) Indians` myopia so short-sighted that they cannot see the utter folly of antagonising some 150 million Muslims in their midst to the point of open rebellion and even civil war? What could then happen is beyond contemplation. They chose to remain in India after partition and, after more than 60 years and two or three generations down the line, are as much an integral part of the body politic as everyone else. They are the largest and most significant single minority whose voices, aspirations and fears cannot be ignored or brushed aside lightly. This surely is a crucial turning point in India`s history when, if wiser counsels prevail, every effort should be made to win the `hearts and minds` of an important part of the population.
One or two other related points: the Pakistani government has been at pains to stress the need to fight terrorism as a common cause and has strenuously sought to distance itself from any terror groups located within its borders. Even if you take this with a pinch of salt, so to speak, can it be denied that there is a measure of genuine concern and willilngness to extend the hand of friendhship on their part? On the other hand, what the Mumbai massacre has shown, alas, is the incompetence, unpreparedness and inability of the Indian authorities to defend their country and in particular its commercial and financial capital. Their lack of resources in terms of equipment and training was exposed in their bungled rescue operation on the Jewish centre at Nariman Point, which was attacked by the commandos as if, as one Israeli commentator observed, there were no hostages there! So it suited the Indians to pour all their anger at the Pakistanis, thereby diverting criticism from their own failings.
I am sure at the more sophisticated intellectual and informed levels, Indians too are engaged in a process of soul-searching, and we know that there are already many voices demanding answers from the government, but in the immediate context of this thread, I wonder how the Muslim minority will be viewed and what their fate will be in the months leading up to the elections.
Finally, for the sake of some of our new members, let me reproduce the opening and concluding passages from my posting (Msg # 5784) of 28 January 2005 which I think neatly encapsulate where I, and I dare say many others on this forum, stand vis-a-vis India and the Indians:
"On Identity and Culture
Those familiar with my views know that I have always distanced myself from India on the basis that as East African Asians (EAAs) by birth (or by upbringing) we are not Indians but rather people with an Indian ancestry. In the current jargon, this translates as `P I Os` = persons of Indian origin, as distinct from NRIs (Non-Indian Residents) who, according to me, are strictly speaking Indian citizens resident abroad, though the Indians themselves include in this category those who may have been born in India but have since migrated elsewhere, irrespective of their current nationality. (It happened that the second `Pravasi` or Conference on Indians Overseas, had just ended as we arrived in Mumbai on 10 January). The distinction is important, not just in terms of legal niceties but because of fundamental cultural differences - `culture` here is used in the broader sense of a way of life in societal terms, not ethnic or religious heritage. Of course, our EAA identity has since morphed into an adopted and hyphenated British-Asian (or Indo-Canadian or Indo-American as the case may be) variety in the wake of our further migration to the West. And while paradoxically from a global perspective we may have thus become part of the vast Indian diaspora, in India itself we are seen as `foreigners`, which is fine with me, but taking a long view of prospective history, the `Indianness` of the `diaspora` must surely in fifty or hundred years be subsumed into another form of identity?
On Cultural / Ethnic Affinity
And finally, how do we relate to Indians? More like members of an extended clan where we left the common family home two or three generations ago. The distance is in terms of both time and space. One does not feel connected in any personal or immediate sense; only in terms of an ethnic dimension. Emotion does not enter into the equation; human empathy does. We wish the Indians well of course. Their dynamism has to be admired and their efforts have to be encouraged. We feel proud of their achievement and struggles, and to be of Indian stock - to share a common ancestry and past. But would we like to live, CAN we live there? Clearly not. This is true of even of most NRIs. Have we got India out of our system? Towards the end, we thought we had and that we would not be making a return visit again (even though we already are committed to another trip in October). Now I am not so sure. India in small doses is fine. So after a suitable interval of time, I am sure, (like the proverbial lover who does not admit to desire or the mother who thinks she has had enough of babies) the urge to go there again will return. Let us see".
RAMNIK SHAH
Surrey England
"The lone terrorist gunman to survive the Mumbai attacks confessed to his role in the atrocity yesterday, dramatically reversing months of denials — and possibly paving the way for a thaw in relations between India and Pakistan".
"Kasab’s confession could help to ease relations between India and its neighbour, analysts said. It came hours after the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, used a trip to Mumbai to defend the sincerity of Islamabad’s anti-terrorism policies. “We believe there is a commitment to fighting terrorism that permeates the entire (Pakistan) Government,” Mrs Clinton said".
Whether there will be an improvement in Indo-Pak relations remains to be seen; it may turn out to be a pious hope! But it is worth revisiting the arguments that were raging in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Here is what I wrote on December 3, 2008 in reply to a post under the title "India`s new `untouchables`":
Message #31874 > Wed Dec 3, 2008 8:59 pm > Ramnik Shah wrote:
I too had been forwarded this piece and had read it with interest. Taking on board all that you say, from a clearly enlightened and liberal stance (with which I can readily identify), the fact remains that there has been a growing anti-Muslim sentiment building up in India in the last two decades (`Ayodhya`, the 1993 Bombay riots, `Godhra` etc), leading to a sense of alienation, discrimination, disaffection and victimisation and a general feeling among Muslims that they are indeed the new pariah class, lower even than the Dalits, in the Indian hierarchy of privilege and social order. I have heard or read many first hand accounts of young (Muslim) people, men mostly, being denied job opportunities, admission to universities, harrassed and habitually treated as second class citizens. More particularly, whenever terrorist type incidents occur, they feel especially vulnerable because of finger pointing, often with crude invitations to go (or even `go back`) to Pakistan. Their plight was vividly portrayed in the film FIRAAQ, reviewed here by me on 16 October (Msg #30332). All this is bound to fuel resentment and cause insecurity and isolationist tendencies.
The fact that large sections of the Indian political leadership (from the PM downwards), media and public were so quick to blame Pakistan for the horrendous attack on Mumbai, without making a distinction between the Pakistani state and the terrorist groups operating from its territory cannot help but exacerbate this climate of suspicion and hostility towards the Muslims. Against this broad background, it is hardly surprising if some of their young folk were attracted or recruited to the terrorists` cause. But even if there was no local Muslim involvement in the Mumbai massacre, is the (majority of) Indians` myopia so short-sighted that they cannot see the utter folly of antagonising some 150 million Muslims in their midst to the point of open rebellion and even civil war? What could then happen is beyond contemplation. They chose to remain in India after partition and, after more than 60 years and two or three generations down the line, are as much an integral part of the body politic as everyone else. They are the largest and most significant single minority whose voices, aspirations and fears cannot be ignored or brushed aside lightly. This surely is a crucial turning point in India`s history when, if wiser counsels prevail, every effort should be made to win the `hearts and minds` of an important part of the population.
One or two other related points: the Pakistani government has been at pains to stress the need to fight terrorism as a common cause and has strenuously sought to distance itself from any terror groups located within its borders. Even if you take this with a pinch of salt, so to speak, can it be denied that there is a measure of genuine concern and willilngness to extend the hand of friendhship on their part? On the other hand, what the Mumbai massacre has shown, alas, is the incompetence, unpreparedness and inability of the Indian authorities to defend their country and in particular its commercial and financial capital. Their lack of resources in terms of equipment and training was exposed in their bungled rescue operation on the Jewish centre at Nariman Point, which was attacked by the commandos as if, as one Israeli commentator observed, there were no hostages there! So it suited the Indians to pour all their anger at the Pakistanis, thereby diverting criticism from their own failings.
I am sure at the more sophisticated intellectual and informed levels, Indians too are engaged in a process of soul-searching, and we know that there are already many voices demanding answers from the government, but in the immediate context of this thread, I wonder how the Muslim minority will be viewed and what their fate will be in the months leading up to the elections.
Finally, for the sake of some of our new members, let me reproduce the opening and concluding passages from my posting (Msg # 5784) of 28 January 2005 which I think neatly encapsulate where I, and I dare say many others on this forum, stand vis-a-vis India and the Indians:
"On Identity and Culture
Those familiar with my views know that I have always distanced myself from India on the basis that as East African Asians (EAAs) by birth (or by upbringing) we are not Indians but rather people with an Indian ancestry. In the current jargon, this translates as `P I Os` = persons of Indian origin, as distinct from NRIs (Non-Indian Residents) who, according to me, are strictly speaking Indian citizens resident abroad, though the Indians themselves include in this category those who may have been born in India but have since migrated elsewhere, irrespective of their current nationality. (It happened that the second `Pravasi` or Conference on Indians Overseas, had just ended as we arrived in Mumbai on 10 January). The distinction is important, not just in terms of legal niceties but because of fundamental cultural differences - `culture` here is used in the broader sense of a way of life in societal terms, not ethnic or religious heritage. Of course, our EAA identity has since morphed into an adopted and hyphenated British-Asian (or Indo-Canadian or Indo-American as the case may be) variety in the wake of our further migration to the West. And while paradoxically from a global perspective we may have thus become part of the vast Indian diaspora, in India itself we are seen as `foreigners`, which is fine with me, but taking a long view of prospective history, the `Indianness` of the `diaspora` must surely in fifty or hundred years be subsumed into another form of identity?
On Cultural / Ethnic Affinity
And finally, how do we relate to Indians? More like members of an extended clan where we left the common family home two or three generations ago. The distance is in terms of both time and space. One does not feel connected in any personal or immediate sense; only in terms of an ethnic dimension. Emotion does not enter into the equation; human empathy does. We wish the Indians well of course. Their dynamism has to be admired and their efforts have to be encouraged. We feel proud of their achievement and struggles, and to be of Indian stock - to share a common ancestry and past. But would we like to live, CAN we live there? Clearly not. This is true of even of most NRIs. Have we got India out of our system? Towards the end, we thought we had and that we would not be making a return visit again (even though we already are committed to another trip in October). Now I am not so sure. India in small doses is fine. So after a suitable interval of time, I am sure, (like the proverbial lover who does not admit to desire or the mother who thinks she has had enough of babies) the urge to go there again will return. Let us see".
RAMNIK SHAH
Surrey England
Monday 20 July 2009
Reviews in Retrospect: `FIRAAQ`
This follows on from my last blog. Here I reproduce my review of `FIRAAQ` posted on the Africana-Orientalia forum on October 16, 2008. I then had further occasion to refer to it after the Mumbai bombing, which sparked off a wide-ranging debate. I will cover that in the next item under possibly another heading.
Message #30332> Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:57 pm> Re: FIRAAQ - A film not to be missed!
I saw FIRAAQ this afternoon, on the second day of the London Film Festival, and cannot praise or recommend it too highly. It is a masterpiece: a rounded, probing, conscience-pricking, highly accomplished film debut by Nandita Das better known as a Bollywood star. It is set in the aftermath of the Gujarat riots of 2002, in Ahmedabad (though the name of the city is not exactly spelt out). The credits tell us that it is a work of fiction based on a thousand true stories, but as Nandita explained both before and after the show, what she and her co-writer have done is to piece together many different factual accounts - from a variety of people of what they saw or heard during the troubles that resulted in a massace of Muslims - into a powerful narrative on film.
The characters represent a whole cross-section of society, from slum-dwellers to the upper middle-class, both Hindu and Muslim. Their lives are intertwined in many different ways and on a multiplicity of levels - through incident, accident, chance and fate - the film clevely weaves them together. There is the middle-middle-class Hindu family, where the loud mouthed husband rules the household with an iron fist, which he is not ashamed to use even on his middle-aged, largely servile and silent wife, who is guilt-ridden because she had ignored the pleas of desperate Muslim women from the neighbourhood seeking sanctuary from Hindu mobs engaged on a frenzy of murderous attack and destruction. She gives shelter to an orphaned Muslim boy, called Mohsin, whom she renames Mohan (for his own protection) searching for his father whom he had last seen being attacked, again by another group of Hindu fanatics. But Mohsin runs away from her when he witnesses her husband hit her and finds the atmosphere in their house oppressive. Then there is the young working class Muslim couple, with a child, whose house has been vandalized and virtually destroyed when they had fled to save them-selves. The interaction between the young mother and her Hindu friend, who work together as henna artists, is one of the running threads of the film. There is another young couple - but upper middle-class with a `mixed` marriage, between a Hindu wife and a Muslim husband with the `neutral` first name of`Sameer` that has insulated him against the prejudice and hostility of the majority Hindus among whom they all live. To him the riots are a rite of passage to a painful understanding of his vulnerability and second-class status. Without going into too much factual detail - though this is graphically and extensively explored in the film itself - suffice it to say that the sheer ignorance and patronizing that characterise Hindu attitudes, words and actions all through towards the Muslims in their midst are truly shocking and reveal the ugly side of India`s secular society. There is also a group of angry young Muslim men who are plotting their revenge, and again we are shown a side of India that is rooted in violence and reactive posturing. Finally, the old music master, a Muslim living among Hindus, with a faithful Muslim servant who tries to keep him, as played by Nasreerudeen Shah, is a weak character who is out of his time and place, who too has to come to terms with the ugly realities of Hindu-Muslim dynamics.
As a production, I could not find any faults with it. This is a must for all those who are obsessed with `Bharat Mata`. The message of the film, if one can call it that, is that violence is no answer to any supposed grievance - it merely undermines and diminishes humanity.
Nandita Das also stars in the Pakistani film, to be shown in the LFF on 20 October, called `Ramchand Pakistani`. I will write about it afterwards.
RAMNIK SHAH
Surrey, England
Message #30332> Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:57 pm> Re: FIRAAQ - A film not to be missed!
I saw FIRAAQ this afternoon, on the second day of the London Film Festival, and cannot praise or recommend it too highly. It is a masterpiece: a rounded, probing, conscience-pricking, highly accomplished film debut by Nandita Das better known as a Bollywood star. It is set in the aftermath of the Gujarat riots of 2002, in Ahmedabad (though the name of the city is not exactly spelt out). The credits tell us that it is a work of fiction based on a thousand true stories, but as Nandita explained both before and after the show, what she and her co-writer have done is to piece together many different factual accounts - from a variety of people of what they saw or heard during the troubles that resulted in a massace of Muslims - into a powerful narrative on film.
The characters represent a whole cross-section of society, from slum-dwellers to the upper middle-class, both Hindu and Muslim. Their lives are intertwined in many different ways and on a multiplicity of levels - through incident, accident, chance and fate - the film clevely weaves them together. There is the middle-middle-class Hindu family, where the loud mouthed husband rules the household with an iron fist, which he is not ashamed to use even on his middle-aged, largely servile and silent wife, who is guilt-ridden because she had ignored the pleas of desperate Muslim women from the neighbourhood seeking sanctuary from Hindu mobs engaged on a frenzy of murderous attack and destruction. She gives shelter to an orphaned Muslim boy, called Mohsin, whom she renames Mohan (for his own protection) searching for his father whom he had last seen being attacked, again by another group of Hindu fanatics. But Mohsin runs away from her when he witnesses her husband hit her and finds the atmosphere in their house oppressive. Then there is the young working class Muslim couple, with a child, whose house has been vandalized and virtually destroyed when they had fled to save them-selves. The interaction between the young mother and her Hindu friend, who work together as henna artists, is one of the running threads of the film. There is another young couple - but upper middle-class with a `mixed` marriage, between a Hindu wife and a Muslim husband with the `neutral` first name of`Sameer` that has insulated him against the prejudice and hostility of the majority Hindus among whom they all live. To him the riots are a rite of passage to a painful understanding of his vulnerability and second-class status. Without going into too much factual detail - though this is graphically and extensively explored in the film itself - suffice it to say that the sheer ignorance and patronizing that characterise Hindu attitudes, words and actions all through towards the Muslims in their midst are truly shocking and reveal the ugly side of India`s secular society. There is also a group of angry young Muslim men who are plotting their revenge, and again we are shown a side of India that is rooted in violence and reactive posturing. Finally, the old music master, a Muslim living among Hindus, with a faithful Muslim servant who tries to keep him, as played by Nasreerudeen Shah, is a weak character who is out of his time and place, who too has to come to terms with the ugly realities of Hindu-Muslim dynamics.
As a production, I could not find any faults with it. This is a must for all those who are obsessed with `Bharat Mata`. The message of the film, if one can call it that, is that violence is no answer to any supposed grievance - it merely undermines and diminishes humanity.
Nandita Das also stars in the Pakistani film, to be shown in the LFF on 20 October, called `Ramchand Pakistani`. I will write about it afterwards.
RAMNIK SHAH
Surrey, England
Sunday 19 July 2009
Reviews in Retrospect: `RAMCHAND PAKISTANI`
The film `RAMCHAND PAKISTANI` is currently having its first public showing in London at the ICA (Institute of Contemporary Arts). Here is my review of it that I first posted on another forum on October 21st last.
Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:33 pm Ramnik Shah wrote Re: Ramchand Pakistani`
This is another of London Film Festival`s offerings that I saw yesterday afternoon. Like `Firaaq`, it too is a brilliant production and one not to be missed. To all of us and others who are familiar with the Indian sub-continent`s mix of cultures, ethnicities religions and geopolitics, the name `Ramchand` is a giveaway of course, and so its juxtaposition with Pakistan has to be intriguing, which it is at face, but I have no doubt that the title must have been deliberately chosen, to make the point that it is about a Hindu Pakistani!
The eponymous Hindu Pakistani is a mere child, aged 8, of a family belonging to the low-caste Hindu community of `untouchables` who eke out an almost nomadic existence as landless peasant farmers on the Pakistani side of the Thar Desert very near to the border with India. The film is based on real events. One day the child stupidly and accidentally crosses over into India and is immediately seized by Indian border guards, and so is his father who goes looking after him, and the two are held prisoner by the Indians. The film is based on real events that happened in the early part of 2002, at a time when tensions between India and Pakistan were at boiling point, following the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament. And so it was hardly surprising if the Indians thought the father and son were some kind of Pakistani spies. They were also of course part of a much bigger number of innocent border crossers, from either side, who have been a constant feature of Indo-Pak `neighbourly` relations ever since Partition. Many of them have languished in the jails of their respective captors for decades, and so after the two had settled down to a prison routine, their only hope lay in being amnestied as part of prisoner exchanges that take place from time to time.
But that is only one aspect of the film. A large part of it focuses on the human elements - how the mother left behind on her own copes with her loneliness and vulnerability, how the 8 year old child grows up in the harsh prison environment, how the father is at first tortured by the Indians and has to fight his fellow inmates to protect himself and his son, how hope turns into despair, at both ends, how officialdom treats them all, how attitudes slowly change. That is as far as one can go without divulging the plot too much (Bhadra please note).
The female lead part is played by Nandita Das (who directed `Firaaq`), the only Indian in the whole cast in fact; the rest are played by Pakisani actors and indeed the entire film was shot in Pakistan, though as the producer Javed Jabbar explained, both before and after the show, once the project had got under way, there was a great deal of cooperation between the Indian and Pakistani authorities. In particular he mentioned that the production team were allowed to visit Bhuj jail in India and so they were able to replicate its conditions and physical layout and secondly that the Pakistanis allowed Nandita Das full access into the border regions on their side, both of which were `firsts` for the two countries film-makers. The film has already opened in both India and Pakistan to favourable reviews.
Javed Jabber, then, is the producer, but the film is directed by his very able and accomplished daughter Mehreen whom he described as an independent minded person and artist in her own right. She was also present at the showing, but did not stay long because of some other commitments and so it fell upon him to explain the background to the making of the film. He said he had first of all to convince his wife to put up the initial finance, and then negotiate with other contributors. Javed Jabbar came across as such a lovely man - a highly articulate, very moral, dignified and civilized person, that it was little wonder that he and his family could have been the force behind such an impressive film. He said he had learnt about the displaced family while working with a charity in the area and concluded that the world at large too needed to be told about them. The film is a beautiful and sensitive rendering of their story. The part of the husband (Shanker) is played by Rashid Farooqui and that of the son in the second half of the film, when he had become a budding teenager, by Navaid Jabbar, another member of the Jabbar family. All the acting is superb.
My only regret is that though I did ask a question in the Q&A session after the show, I did not stay afterwards to have a word with Javed Jabbar, if only to shake his hand - that is the kind of respect and warmth he engendered among the audience.
RAMNIK SHAH
Surrey, England
Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:33 pm Ramnik Shah wrote Re: Ramchand Pakistani`
This is another of London Film Festival`s offerings that I saw yesterday afternoon. Like `Firaaq`, it too is a brilliant production and one not to be missed. To all of us and others who are familiar with the Indian sub-continent`s mix of cultures, ethnicities religions and geopolitics, the name `Ramchand` is a giveaway of course, and so its juxtaposition with Pakistan has to be intriguing, which it is at face, but I have no doubt that the title must have been deliberately chosen, to make the point that it is about a Hindu Pakistani!
The eponymous Hindu Pakistani is a mere child, aged 8, of a family belonging to the low-caste Hindu community of `untouchables` who eke out an almost nomadic existence as landless peasant farmers on the Pakistani side of the Thar Desert very near to the border with India. The film is based on real events. One day the child stupidly and accidentally crosses over into India and is immediately seized by Indian border guards, and so is his father who goes looking after him, and the two are held prisoner by the Indians. The film is based on real events that happened in the early part of 2002, at a time when tensions between India and Pakistan were at boiling point, following the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament. And so it was hardly surprising if the Indians thought the father and son were some kind of Pakistani spies. They were also of course part of a much bigger number of innocent border crossers, from either side, who have been a constant feature of Indo-Pak `neighbourly` relations ever since Partition. Many of them have languished in the jails of their respective captors for decades, and so after the two had settled down to a prison routine, their only hope lay in being amnestied as part of prisoner exchanges that take place from time to time.
But that is only one aspect of the film. A large part of it focuses on the human elements - how the mother left behind on her own copes with her loneliness and vulnerability, how the 8 year old child grows up in the harsh prison environment, how the father is at first tortured by the Indians and has to fight his fellow inmates to protect himself and his son, how hope turns into despair, at both ends, how officialdom treats them all, how attitudes slowly change. That is as far as one can go without divulging the plot too much (Bhadra please note).
The female lead part is played by Nandita Das (who directed `Firaaq`), the only Indian in the whole cast in fact; the rest are played by Pakisani actors and indeed the entire film was shot in Pakistan, though as the producer Javed Jabbar explained, both before and after the show, once the project had got under way, there was a great deal of cooperation between the Indian and Pakistani authorities. In particular he mentioned that the production team were allowed to visit Bhuj jail in India and so they were able to replicate its conditions and physical layout and secondly that the Pakistanis allowed Nandita Das full access into the border regions on their side, both of which were `firsts` for the two countries film-makers. The film has already opened in both India and Pakistan to favourable reviews.
Javed Jabber, then, is the producer, but the film is directed by his very able and accomplished daughter Mehreen whom he described as an independent minded person and artist in her own right. She was also present at the showing, but did not stay long because of some other commitments and so it fell upon him to explain the background to the making of the film. He said he had first of all to convince his wife to put up the initial finance, and then negotiate with other contributors. Javed Jabbar came across as such a lovely man - a highly articulate, very moral, dignified and civilized person, that it was little wonder that he and his family could have been the force behind such an impressive film. He said he had learnt about the displaced family while working with a charity in the area and concluded that the world at large too needed to be told about them. The film is a beautiful and sensitive rendering of their story. The part of the husband (Shanker) is played by Rashid Farooqui and that of the son in the second half of the film, when he had become a budding teenager, by Navaid Jabbar, another member of the Jabbar family. All the acting is superb.
My only regret is that though I did ask a question in the Q&A session after the show, I did not stay afterwards to have a word with Javed Jabbar, if only to shake his hand - that is the kind of respect and warmth he engendered among the audience.
RAMNIK SHAH
Surrey, England
Updating the blogs
Dear All
I am conscious, and have again been reminded, of having neglected this site and so propose to put that right straightaway. How? Well, as my writings elsewhere are all scattered here and there, as a first step I will work to bring them together, selectively, under one roof here, beginning with a series of my "Reviews in Retrospect" (of films, plays, books etc) in no particular order, followed by or interspersed with other postings. That will also help me to clear my own thinking about the book I have in mind, which is a longer term project. So watch out for them as they come! Thanks.
RAMNIK SHAH
I am conscious, and have again been reminded, of having neglected this site and so propose to put that right straightaway. How? Well, as my writings elsewhere are all scattered here and there, as a first step I will work to bring them together, selectively, under one roof here, beginning with a series of my "Reviews in Retrospect" (of films, plays, books etc) in no particular order, followed by or interspersed with other postings. That will also help me to clear my own thinking about the book I have in mind, which is a longer term project. So watch out for them as they come! Thanks.
RAMNIK SHAH
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)