Follow up

Posted by Syantani Chatterjee (71.80.169.48) on October 14, 2006 at 21:23:02:

In Reply to: Wondering about Ramaa Bharadvaj's Review posted by Dancer on October 13, 2006 at 20:03:59:

First amendment rights apply as much to artists as they do to journalists. Just as a reviewer is free to choose the battles she wants to fight, so is the artist. I think it is, perhaps, a little unfair to censure the artist for choosing her battle while at the same time commending the reviewer for choosing hers. Sometimes, the artists fail at their endeavor, at others, journalists fail at theirs. As both a young aspiring dancer and journalist, I must admit that I am loathe to unreasonable censorship.

Ramaa Bharadvaj’s article/review/commentary reminds one of the famous Indian actress, Nargis’s, scathing attack on the acclaimed filmmaker, Satyajit Ray for “exporting images of India's poverty”. No one who has experienced his art can be blamed for being bewildered at such a comment. Even in those days when India was viewed as a land of snake charmers, elephants, famines, and child marriages. India is no longer seen as a third world country where women are constantly dehumanized. Since we are talking about perceptions, let me add that other nations have replaced India in that stereotype. There are too many representatives of smart, strong and successful Indian women for that stereotype to linger on. We no longer need to be so insecure about our past. The average American who comes to watch a Bharatanatyam performance does not need to be convinced of the position of Indian women. Our insecurity to deal with problematic narratives suggests, we, as Indian women, need to be convinced of our own place in the Indian society.

This relegation of certain narratives as ‘base’ for a classical art to deal with reminds me of a problem I face everyday in my profession: Which stories are newsworthy? A story of war in Iraq is “hard news”, but a feature story on the rising farmer suicides in India is “soft news”! There is no doubt that the Iraq war story is important. There is no doubt that the farmer-suicides feature will not project an image of an emerging regional super-power. But it will tell an important story. A newsworthy story.

I am well aware of the criticisms dancers and connoisseurs level against Padams and Javalis. However, I do not feel that the narratives the Padams and Javalis explore are completely irrelevant today. How can we sit on our high-horse claiming that the frailties of human relationships and people’s characters are not important enough for an art form to explore? If the answer to that is the family entertainment point, then I think I the other two posts on this forum by other readers have resonated my feelings very clearly.

I want to point out that complex and multi-layered narratives were chosen for the performance. One could easily view the Padams and Javalis selected to be depictions of women taking charge of their lives and refusing to be passive receptacles: they question their lover’s infidelity, they urge their lover to make love to them, they claim their lover as theirs, they refuse to put up with their beloved’s infidelity, and so on. These are women who are in control or attempting to be in control of their sexual selves. Sexual confidence is understood very well in this country. In the end, different viewers will take different things from the performance. Some will view the depiction of women as denigrating while others will view the same as empowering. Pitching your art to a mixed audience is a risk every artist must gladly take.