|
A Perspective on the Kannada Film Crisis of 2004 The Indian Express of December 23, 2004 carried two op-ed pieces under the title ‘The Nataka in Karnataka’ with contributions from Sujatha Srinivasan and Vijay Nambisan. The analysis of the film crisis in the state in both articles is, in my opinion, over simplified, unnuanced and is not reflective of ground realities. First off, some disclaimers. I am not an expert on Kannada culture, film or language, nor am I an easy candidate to be labeled a Kannada ‘chauvinist’. I only speak the language ‘passably’ well (I am not a native speaker & it was not the first language I grew up with) and I can read and write it only with a great deal of effort. I am, however, intimately familiar with life in Bangalore and the dramatic transformation that the social, cultural, economic and linguistic landscape this exploding (some of us would say ‘already exploded’) city is experiencing. In an overcrowded urban center where people seem to be getting busier & more self-absorbed by the day, the controversy kicked up by the Karnataka/Kannada Film Chamber of Commerce has been treated as something of a curiosity and an irritant by the more ‘pre-occupied’ (should we be calling them ‘productive’ and ‘important’?) classes. It, however, seems to be a more serious matter for those who have taken to the streets. At the least, it demands that we sit up and ask if there is a simple ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ judgement that can be applied to the issue. Sujatha Srinivasan suggests in her article that there is terrible hypocrisy embedded in the position of the protestors that it is ‘okay’ to have foreign jobs outsourced to Bangalore but also to oppose non-Kannada films being screened in the city. This seems to be both a misrepresentation of their position as well as a gross ‘linearization’ of the multi-dimensional reality of the situation. It is a misrepresentation simply because the protesting voices, such as Dr. Chandrashekhar Kambara’s, also oppose the entry of multi-national corporations and their jobs into the city. Whether one agrees with their position and methods, or not, is a different matter. One has to recognize the protests as a dissenting voice, and as providing an alternative discourse to that of the ‘globalization is salvation’ camp that Ms. Srinivasan seems to belong to. To my mind, therefore, Kambara, rather than being ‘chief nut’ as Ms Srinivasan would have us believe, actually represents a view that is different and opposite to her own. Scarcely reason enough to merit the ‘chief nut’ label. The KFCC led ‘protest’ has ended up (perhaps unintentionally) fronting many different diverse agendas & voices. These voices undoubtedly include some that are expressing narrow ‘protectionist, chauvinist’ sentiment; also some voices of plain-sloppy industry ‘freeloaders’; but they also extend to what seem to be expressions of real concern about the appropriation of the city by a new ‘global’ culture, and at the exclusion of everything ‘local’. These voices deserve, at the least, better treatment rather than flippant dismissal. The challenges faced by Kannada language, culture & identity in Bangalore are apparent to anybody familiar enough with the city and with any level of sensitivity to such matters. These are probably not even unique or different from challenges that many local cultures feel in times of transformation & change. However, they are nevertheless ‘real’ and need to find their expression and resolution in their own contexts. The present conflict must be seen in this light. Ms. Srinivasan suggests that she is proud of her own mother tongue but ‘also adores’ Kannada literature. Almost by implication she suggests that Kannadigas do not (and therefore should) reciprocate such sentiment. Anyone with any personal experience of life in Karnataka knows that this is utterly untrue. If anything, Kannadigas have been, by and large, a liberal, un-interfering people and have been accepting & absorbing influences from outside their own cultural orb with less resistance and greater openness than many other more culturally self-possessed regions of the country. This, in fact, has been one of the rallying points of the pro-Kannada movement – that Kannadigas have been doing so blithely and unconditionally, and often to the ‘exclusion’ of their own culture. Suffice it to say that there may be deep issues of cultural ‘self respect’, ‘self confidence’ and identity involved here that I am neither qualified to nor intend to visit. The issue is also often simplified as being just a debate about the quality of Kannada films. I do not believe that the support that the KFCC-initiated protests have inadvertently been receiving from some pretty unlikely quarters in the Kannada literary and intellectual world has to do with defending the poor quality of mass-market Kannada films. Voices such as that of Girish Kasaravalli’s and Kambara’s are most certainly not suggesting that the film going public should have poor quality films, in a language they do not understand, thrust down their throats. They seem to be speaking from a different (and real) concern about the linguistic & cultural alienation that seems to have taken root in cities like Bangalore and are using the example of the Kannada film industry’s apparent ‘un-viability’ on its own home ground, to make their point. Another aspect of this issue that people more knowledgeable with the business of film production & distribution in the state have been bringing up, and is certainly worth a hearing, is that factors such as the financial muscle of film theater owners & distributors, the vastly greater size & reach of the film industries from other states and the multi-linguistic demographics of the state often end up stacking the odds against Kannada film makers. So could there be more to this ‘unviability’ than just poor quality? Vijay Nambisan’s parallel article also bunches together issues. He mentions the attack on Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets in Bangalore - but overlooks the fact that the agitation against KFC was launched by the Karnataka Rajya Raithara Sangha (KRRS) under the firebrand M.D. Nanjundaswamy and had a far wider ideological basis than just a narrow linguistic-chauvinistic one. Again, I am neither qualified to nor intend to take sides, here, on the globalization debate. The point is merely that these ‘conflicts’ are about things that run deeper than what they are being assumed to be about. Whether Vatal Nagaraj also participated in the stone throwing is beside the point. Also, it does get tiring to hear arguments such as the one Vijay Nambisan makes, that Kannadigas resent the fact that Bangalore’s wealth is being controlled by non-Kannadigas and are therefore resorting to unreasonable behavior in the form of ‘protests’. This is very superficial drawing roomanalysis of real social situations and smacks of ‘colonial’ reasoning to me. Even if one accepts this highly questionable position, for just a moment, one has to ask why those who could be potential beneficiaries of wealth creation, would resent it. Or are we saying they are not going to be beneficiaries? In which case who is this wealth creation benefiting? In summary, it seems to me that there are very good reasons to examine the situation more carefully and to pay a little more attention to ground realities before one becomes hastily dismissive or superficially judgemental about what has been going on in Bangalore. Just to set the record straight, I do not believe there is a tenable defence for thrusting poor quality Kannada mass market films on unwilling audiences, just as there is no tenable defence for the same with any other poor quality product. I do not therefore condone or support the ban on films in ‘other languages’ in the state. But I do believe that deeper issues are being raised by some of the voices in this ‘protest’ and these are not about defending poor quality films. The sane (and some very erudite) voices who have spoken up in the context of the recent ‘protests’ need to be heard because they are talking about something entirely different – globalization & its effects on local culture, a deeper sense of the term ‘right-to-expression’ that goes well beyond that which is supported by ‘free markets’, etc. There may also be a genuine case to be made about the difficulties Kannada Film Producers are facing in producing & distributing Kannada films, especially in the context of much more financially powerful film industries in other languages. Are there dynamics of unequal financial might, distributor reach and misuse of tax sops going on that are making Kannada films less ‘viable’ as well? The methods that were resorted to by the KFCC in their recent ‘protest’ are definitely open to question & criticism. However, there is a real sense of alienation that has crept in (especially in the state’s ‘showcase’ city of Bangalore) among those whose only language of expression is Kannada and who have been left out of the globalization celebrations. This is fertile breeding ground for violent protest and it would be thoroughly unhealthy to brush this under the rug. There is perhaps a strong case here for the state government’s department of language and culture to begin to play its role and to do everything necessary to work with the cultural & intellectual leadership in the state - in a creative & consultative way – if we are to avoid seeing a real consolidation of powerful illiberal, fascist forces. Vijay Kundaji kundaji@yahoo.com |