The opponents of the ban on Nirbhaya documentary are of course, free to agitate for the reversal of the ban. If they succeed, it will establish a ‘healthy’ precedent for making similar specifics-laden documentaries about heinous criminals of all manner, writes ADHEER SOM
The documentary, India’s Daughter, is by a one-time small-time television soap opera actor, now fair to middling time, a semi-Indie film producer leslee Udwin. And, before any umbrage is taken, I submit that the descriptors used for Ms Udwin are not meant ad hominem-ly but as a mere statement of facts.
The documentary has been co-produced by the BBC, which, of course, is incapable of reproach and venerable beyond repair; like the song goes in Austin Powers movie: “BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, BBC4, BBC5, BBC6, BBC7, BBC heaven!” Again, lest I be misunderstood, I submit that I come from a long line of BBC admirers.
As per the Government of India, this documentary was made under false pretence, through a misrepresentation of intent and purpose. More importantly, it also facilitates, under false pretences again, the public airing of grotesquely criminal views. Ms Udwin’s, BBC’s, and NDTV’s stated position is that the purpose behind making and showing this documentary is “to create public awareness”; that such grotesquely criminal mindsets exist (read: in India); and that we (Indians) “must know and understand” these mindsets before we can “change” these mindsets and make (Indian) society safe for women.
This stated position is, of course, ridiculous. The public at large, worldwide, is aware that these mindsets exist because grotesque crime is routinely reported in the media along with the particulars of the grotesqueness. Yes, after coming to know of a particular dastardly crime, certain members of the public are prone to ask: “What kind of a person would do something like thisIJ”
I assure Ms Udwin and the BBC that the question is rhetorical, because anyone, with half a brain, can infer the general ‘sort’ of person, from the freely-willed actions of the said person. Find an averagely reasonable person, Ms Udwin, who knows of the Nirbhaya case but hasn’t seen your documentary, or better still, even heard of it, and I can bet they’ll tell you more or less what ‘sort’ of a person would be party to a thing like that, and how this sort of person ‘thinks’ in general.
On March 5, in an interview to Reuters India Insight, Ms Udwin gave the following response to the above criticism: “Excuse me. You don’t know what they think. You have never sat with a rapist. I have sat with several rapists for 31 hours. I have bothered to find out, and it’s important to find out. It’s important to know what the specifics are.”
Ms Udwin assumes as Gospel the following: That there is a ‘they’; that to know how ‘they’ think one needs to ‘sit’ with ‘them’; a total of 31 hours of such ‘sitting’ with several of them (or is it 31 hours with eachIJ) is sufficient to know how they think. As for knowing the ‘specifics’, that’s certainly very important, but for forensic scientists, investigating officers, courts and court-appointed psychiatrists. Or, are the specifics of the mindsets of all (Indian) gang rape and murder convicts to be the subject of future works in the (indian) public interestIJ
For surely, such ‘specifics’ shall vary from case to caseIJ You’ve bothered once, Ms Udwin, out of the kindness of your heart. You know you’ve got a good start. Why not bother some more and make a career of this artIJ In fact, the UK alone had 4,00,000 sexual assault cases last year, of which 85,000 were of rape.
The native freedom of expression-based opponents of the ban on the documentary are of course, free to agitate for the reversal of the ban. If they succeed, it will establish a healthy precedent for making similar specifics-laden documentaries about heinous criminals of all manner: Bride-burners, acid-throwers, human-sacrificers, honour-killers, terrorists et al.
If Mukesh Singh has the right or the option to air, uninterrupted, his philosophy of life, death and gender, these other gentleman of his gentle ilk too must have the same right or option, rightIJ And surely the public needs documentaries on them all for knowing the specifics and for being aware and for understanding etc etcIJ
I would go so far as to suggest that these liberal champions of liberty make the next sensitive, moving documentary on Surinder Koli, the paedophile, rapist, murderer, cannibal of Nithari. Call it“India’s Children”. let Koli hold forth and enlighten us poor blighters on his views about kidnapping, violating, killing and eating kids. Seriously, we’re dying to know the ‘specifics.’
In conclusion, I absolutely must mention that in the same interview, Ms Udwin masterfully counter argues the argument that her documentary provides a platform for the at-length airing of grotesquely criminal views without objection or intervention. She says it is “stupid” and “uneducated” to make this argument, and, out of the greatness of her mind (which is only exceeded by the kindness of her heart, no doubt) considers the argument refuted.
(The author, by his account, is a logician. Sort of)