The Two Indias

Its often been said that there are two Indias. Its taken to mean that there is an India of the cities and an India of the villages, of prosperity and poverty, of mall goers and cattle grazers. But in a different sense, there are, in fact, two Indias. For the term India has come to mean two things. One is the Indian nation, comprising of all its people and the government. The other is the Indian cricket team or Team India as its fondly called.

While the two Indias in the traditional sense co-exist despite being in continuous conflict, the two Indias in this sense is supportive of each other. This is because Team India has, over the years, come to represent and symbolize the Indian nation. And nothing and nobody symbolizes Indian cricket like Sachin Tendulkar. Cricket and hence Tendulkar (or is it the other way around?) has had a significant role to play in the formation of the idea of India, at least in the last couple of decades.

The very mention of the word India is often assumed to mean the Indian cricket team. I still remember the days when as I young boy I used to listen to Doordarshan news to check whether India had won a particular match. Whenever the newsreader mentioned the word India, I would get excited for I assumed she was speaking of India;s match. It was confusing and disappointing to realize that she was in fact speaking of some agreement India had entered with another country or how India was planning to eradicate polio.

The pre-match show in Times Now had the headline “India for India”. It might appear confusing for others but every Indian knew what the two Indias meant. It simply meant that India (the nation) was rooting for India (the cricket team).

After the world cup victory, LK Advani was on the phone line in CNN IBN speaking of how the match would help Indian nationalism and patriotism and develop respect for the national anthem and national flag. (And perhaps convert such passionate nationalism into Hindu nationalism)

That Indian cricket has contributed to national unity and integrity is a fact that no one would contend. War would perhaps come a close second to cricket when we list out the things that unite India. Most cricket fans hope that IPL will not join the politics of religion, region, caste and class as the things that divide India.

Its ironic that despite inherent connections between Team India and the Indian nation, the Indian cricket team is by law not playing for India. Its playing for a charitable society registered in Tamil Nadu under a colonial legislation. BCCI has no affiliation to the Sports Ministry or the Government of India in any way and hence the Supreme Court also felt that it cannot be held to be part of the Indian state.

But what the Supreme Court says or Government thinks hardly matters to the public as there is nothing more representative of India than its cricket team. Saturday was one of those rare moments in which the Indian team was not merely representative of India but came to define the will of an entire nation. The two Indias had become one. And many other competing ideas of India had also become one. India had become India.

The Lives of Others

Kiran Rao’s Dhobi Ghat is everything that Bollywood isn’t. It’s slow, largely silent, nuanced and indeterminate. Its also not a classy Hollywood-like picture one always wished Indians made. Even those who enjoyed off-beat Bollywood movies like Peepli Live and Taare Zameen Par coming form the same production house many not like this film. There is no clear plot to speak of let alone the classic three acts of a movie. Its not entertaining, exciting or even very engaging. Yet it is beautiful.

That the masses, fed with the regular masala flicks, will not like the film is now a truism. Call it what you want- an art film, avant-garde cinema or parallel cinema- but any person who wishes to watch cinema beyond its entertainment quotient will be interested in the movie even if the person may not completely enjoy it.

What strikes you most about Dhobi Ghat is the realism involved in the film. All the characters and their attributes seem completely real. The characters aren’t filmy nor is the story. In fact, almost throughout the movie, the viewer may forget that they are in fact watching a movie and not merely the actual lives of four people.

The movie is not fast paced. Awkward silences and acts of character that have no real effect on the story are not edited out. Towards the end however, the movie becomes more engrossing as it gets more dramatic. Whether one laps up the unexpected drama or not, it is the ending of the film that will linger in your minds long after you leave the cinema. However, what takes away the realism of the film is that its chief protagonists keeps bumping into each other all through the movie.

The movie is perphaps an ode to Mumbai born out of the director’s love for the city. But its much different from other romanticized, exoticized, impoverishized or gangsterized takes on the city. Its almost a nonchalant and platonic ode. For it shows that life in Mumbai need not be as lively and vibrant as its said to be. It can be very lonely- like any other big city in the world. It may be the city of dreams, but many of these dreams and aspirations remain unrealized.

It captures the life of 4 individuals from 4 different social backgrounds living in the city. A rich NRI on a sabbatical (Shai) or a swanky but lonely artist (Arun) may not represent Mumbai as much as a housewife (Yasmin) or a dhobi (Munna) does. But through the story of the intermingling lives of the different protagonists, the story of Mumbai is told.

At least, the story of different people who come to Mumbai with different aspirations is told. Mumbai being the 5th character in the movie wasn’t mere publicity hype. At many instances, especially through the camera of Shai and camcorder of Yasmin, Mumbai becomes the focus rather than the backdrop of the movie.

There are multiple themes running in the movie. A prime concern is how people from different classes interact. The unlikely bonding between Shai and Munna is hence mocked by Shai’s friends while her maid‘s reaction is worse. It also shows how the various attributes of the city touches the life of the characters in different ways. While from his plush balcony, Arun stretches his arm to capture the rainwater in his whiskey, the same rain causes Munna to climb up his tentament and fix the leak it caused.

Another aspect of the film is how each character is an object of obsession or desire for another. Yasmin for Arun, Arun for Shai and Shai for Munna. There is hence a sense of voyeurism in the movie. Yasmin’s interest in the life of others forms an object of interest for Arun who apparently is in object of Shai‘s interest- all of which is watched by the ultimate voyeur- the audience. The audience watches how Shai, through her camera watches how Arun is capturing in his art what Yasmin captures in her video.

The movie’s strength lies in the portrayal of the four diverse characters by the actors. Prateik (as Munna) delivers the most memorable performance of the film as the guileless yet ambitious dhobi. Monica Dogra (as Shai) delivers a convincing and appealing portrayal of an NRI on a break. Kriti Malhotra (as Yasmin) appears most comfortable in her role as a housewife turning disillusioned with her life. Aamir Khan (Arun) though appeared to be miscast in the beginning, delivers the role of a sombre artist to near perfection.

The background music is sparingly used in the film. But wherever its used, Gustavo Santaolalla score adds more intensity to the film. Tushar Kanti Ray’s cinematography captures the lives and moments in Mumbai in a real yet captivating way. What makes Dhobi Ghat so beautiful is of course the screenplay and direction of Kiran Rao. Whether you love it or not, Dhobi Ghat is a cinematic experience which one rarely gets to witness.