Circa 2013. Date January 20. Place Singapore. I had just finished my meeting and was having a cup of coffee in the lounge of the hotel. I observed an old Singaporean gentleman staring at me. As I acknowledged his presence he came a little closer and asked “Sir, are you from IndiaIJ” As I said yes he put another poser. “Can I ask you a questionIJ” As I nodded, he in a very hush hush tone asked, “How do you explain that rape incident of Delhi on December 16IJ” The initial reaction on my part was shock followed by disturbed silence for a few moments. But an answer had to be given.
I asked him a counter question: “What is the population of SingaporeIJ” Around 5 million was his reply. I put another question: “And that of IndiaIJ It is some 120 million,” I replied to my own question. I then added, “It was a stray incident that took place quite late in the evening in a remote area in a moving bus which only had the victim, her companion and the culprits. And in five days every culprit was arrested. What more do you wantIJ” Though doubts seemed to persist in his eyes, he could perhaps read my disapproval as I closed the conversation by stating that in Singapore too such incidents could be happening.
But the Nirbhaya story fails to die down. If the horrendous incident of 16/12 left an ugly scar on the face of humanity, the recent attempt “to provide a revealing insight into the horrific crime” through a harrowing documentary brings out an equally undesirable side of human face. To capitalise on the misery of others, a hidden sadistic disposition of mankind, which many are not able to restrain. It may sound old fashioned or even harsh for many a liberal elite, but the good reason given by the filmmaker for making the documentary may not be real.
It is proclaimed that it was to throw light on the attitude towards women. Do we really need itIJ Can’t say. But it does tries to sensationalise the incident that can happen in both the East and the West. And whose attitude are they talking aboutIJ Of a handful of perverts and criminals who do not represent society. Filmmakers must realise that they are narrating ‘a story’ and not ‘the story’. India’s Daughter is trying to make ‘the story’ out of ‘a story’. And this is in bad taste.
The way the content has been exhibited reeks of the intent. The so called ‘social purpose’ behind India’s Daughter needs to be defined. The debate over constitutionality or contemptuousness is a different matter. The issue is mens rea. There could have been better ways of enlightening society about misogynists or misanthropes.
Male mindset, if there is such a thing, is the same everywhere. Moreover, as a student of psychology for some four decades, I have learnt that there are individual mindsets. Human beings, though similar are not the same. And then of all those things that happen from streets to closets, some are undesirable and people know they are happening. So, do we need to publicise all thoseIJ Societies today are informed. They need to be educated. All information is not education. What are the filmmakers trying to prove — holier than thouIJ Whatever is legally or socially tenable may not always be ethically tenable. Even documentaries.
The views are the writer’s alone. He teaches management at Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad (Jharkhand). He can be reached at ppathak.ism@gmail.com