Postcolonialism in Movies

Watching movies for entertainment and watching movies for study purposes is a very different task. Because the way we are watching it indicates our thinking ability to see any particular matter. So in this blog I'm going to discuss postcolonialism in two Bollywood movies. The first is "Lagaan" and the second is "Rang De Basanti". So let's discuss about it. 

Before understand postcolonialism in movie we have to clear our concept of what postcolonialism is. In my earlier blog I have explained what postcolonial term is. Click here.

So let's have a look at Postcolonial elements in both movies. 

Lagaan

I hope you all have watched the movie. If you haven't watched the movie I recommend you to watch it. So here I'm giving the basic information of the film. Lagaan : (translate -  Agricultural tax), released internationally as Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India, is a 2001 Indian Hindi-language epic musical sports film written and directed by Ashutosh Gowariker, and produced by and starring Aamir Khan, along with debutant Gracy Singh and British actors Rachel Shelley and Paul Blackthorne in supporting roles. The film is set in 1893, during the late Victorian period of India's colonial British Raj. The story revolves around a small village in Central India, whose inhabitants, burdened by high taxes, and several years of drought, find themselves in an extraordinary situation as an arrogant British army officer challenges them to a game of cricket, as a wager to avoid paying the taxes they owe. The narrative spins around this situation as the villagers face the arduous task of learning a game that is alien to them and playing for a result that will change their village's destiny. Now let's see how and where we can see the postcolonial elements.

 

• Postcolonial study of the film :-

So in the movie we can see that the people are growing seeds in their farm, with their hard work and the benefits taken by the King and British people. They have to give them Lagaan. It shows how British people are plundering them. 

Another important postcolonial element is cricket. The Britishers introduce the game. Indian people have to learn the game because they want to be free from tax. But the game is still very famous in our country. So why is it played and very famous in India ? Because the game is played by high cast persons ! Yes it's true. You can see in the players of cricket matches many of them belong to upper castes. And we are use to follow them without any critical thinking. That is why this game is very much famous. 

 In the movie we can see that white people have their own way of looking at Indian people. They think that we are only their servants. We were born to be slaves. As well as Indian people have their own way of looking at lower caste people. The upper class people think that they are our servants. They are untouchables. So this conflict is seen in the movie. 

The other thing which is pivotal is the character of Lakha and the character of Elizabeth. We can think that we all are good and all Britishers are bad. But it is not so, because there are some good people and things in Britishers and there are bad people and things in Indians also. Like Lakha, he helped the Britishers because he was jealous of Bhuvan. So here we can say that,

People of any caste, place, colour etc. can be good as well as bad. 

So in this way we can understand postcolonialism in this film. 

Rang De Basanti

Now my second movie discussion is about the film "Rang De Basanti". Here is the basic idea of the film. Rang De Basanti (translate : Paint it saffron) is a 2006 Indian Hindi-language drama film written, produced and directed by Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra, and co-written by Rensil D'Silva. The film follows a British film student traveling to India to document the story of five freedom fighters of the Indian revolutionary movement. She befriends and casts five young men in the film, which inspires them to fight against the corruption of their own government. It features an ensemble cast consisting of Aamir Khan, Siddharth, Atul Kulkarni, Soha Ali Khan, Sharman Joshi, Kunal Kapoor and British actress Alice Patten. 

A major point of criticism the film faced was regarding the possibility of the Indian Army attacking students in a radio station. When Rakeysh was questioned about the same in a scriptwriter's conference conducted by the Film Writers Association in the year 2008, he said the following, "So, in 2005, in Allahabad, a bunch of 4 students took the TV station there, and they were shot dead. Everything I did, it was kind of borrowed, as I said right here. Obviously, what I am also learning is the way I tell a story is not real; you can term it as a-real. For maximum impact, for the message to go through, I felt—since the story was against the establishment—let the establishment do it. After all, the establishment did hang Bhagat Singh. After all, the establishment did come down on the innocent, innocent students in the Mandal Commission. After all, the establishment did come down on Tiananmen Square. After all, the establishment did come down when the whole concept of Flower Power emerged in America. So it's all there. It's borrowed, maybe not as realistically, but it is definitely there in society. Let's see the postcolonial elements in the film. 

Here you can see the movie,

 

• Postcolonial study in the movie :-

When the movie starts we can see that Sue wants to make a documentary film on Indian freedom fighters. But her University denied funds for the documentary because they don't want  to make a documentary on Indian freedom fighters and it is not quite a good thing. 

Another important postcolonial element in the movie is when Sue has come to India, at the airport all taxi drivers encircle her with excitement. It shows Indian mindset and impact toward white people. 

The other thing is when Sue speaks Hindi, DJ is shocked, because he thinks that white people can not speak and understand Hindi. This is a single story in our mind also. We think the white people can not speak our language. 

When we see in the film the scene of the bribe we can understand that Sue is very much surprised as a British. But it is common for Indian. 

Yes, the next element is the fighting scene of Diljit and Pande fighting with each other. At that time Sue patches them up. So why is there a need to white people to patch up ? It shows our division between us. We haven't had unity between us, that is why it's happened. Here is the case of patch up but it might be a case of fighting also. 

The education topic is also a pivotal element of postcolonialism here. Karan's father wants Karan to study in foreign. This is our mindset that foreign countries have the best education systems. It is quite true also, but India also has the best education system also.

Violence and separation of power is shown in the movie as a postcolonial element. When the students are shot at a  radio station. The authorities proved them as terrorists ! They said that they are the terrorists and they were shot now the public are safe. But we know the real story, that they are not terrorists, they are true students. Even they want to awaken all people to what is going wrong with all people. But they choose a path of violence. 

If they were chosen the Gandhian path maybe victory is with them. But they choose the path of violence which is the path of vir Bhagat Singh. And there is a tragic end. 

So in this way I have pointed out some postcolonial elements in both movies. 

1332 words

7561 characters

Thinking Activity : Postcolonial studies

Hello everyone.

To understand clearly what is post colonial study our teacher gives us a task to watch some videos and we are supposed to do postcolonial analysis of that particular video and to see postcolonial elements in the video. So the task assigned by our professor Dilip sir. In this blog I'm going to see the video with some interesting postcolonial point of views. 

Have you ever thought about what post colonialism is ? I have never, because there is no need to know why because there is no sense of seeing the thing in a different perspective and in a different point of view. But the sense developed while studying literature and criticism. 

So the first thing which we have to understand here is what is postcolonialism ? Let's see one video,

 

Postcolonialism is the historical period or state of affairs representing the aftermath of Western colonialism; the term can also be used to describe the concurrent project to reclaim and rethink the history and agency of people subordinated under various forms of imperialism. Postcolonialism signals a possible future of overcoming colonialism, yet new forms of domination or subordination can come in the wake of such changes, including new forms of global empire. Postcolonialism should not be confused with the claim that the world we live in now is actually devoid of colonialism.

"Postcolonialism... involves a studied engagement with the experience of colonialism and its past and present effects"

To understand postcolonialism with examples we have to watch the video of Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie.

 

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie born on 15 September 1977) is a Nigerian novelist, writer of short stories, and nonfiction. She has written the novels Purple Hibiscus (2003), Half of a Yellow Sun (2006), and Americanah (2013), the short story collection The Thing Around Your Neck (2009), and the book-length essay We Should All Be Feminists (2014). 

Here is the video :- 

 

1.The Danger of single story 

In her speech she tells about the experiences which she felt in her life. This talk helps me to understand postcolonialism. So let's see what are the arguments of her. 

She said that in her childhood she started reading at the age of two, probably four. And she read British and American children's books. And she started writing at the age of seven. Her father was a professor and her mother was an administrator. She grew up in Nigerian campus. In her stories all characters are white and blue eyed. Because she read that type of story. But in Nigeria she said that they don't have snow, they ate mangoes, and they never talked about the weather, because there was no need to. Here we can see cultural differences. 

Then she said that she took inspiration from Chinua Achebe and Camara Laye. She went through a mental shift in her perception of literature. She said that she  realized that people like her, girls with skin the color of chocolate, whose kinky hair could not form ponytails, could also exist in literature. So she proves that literature doesn't have any condition for becoming a great writer. 

She talked about a little house boy, his name was Fide. And her mother used to tell her that Fide's family was very poor. Her mother sent yams and rice, and old clothes to his family. And when Chimamanda didn't finish her food, her mother said to her that,

"Finish your food ! Don't you know ? People like Fide's family have nothing"

Here she tells one interesting experience that when they went to visit Fide's village, his mother showed them a beautiful patterned basket made of dyed raffia that Fide's brother had made. So she was really startled. Because she only listens about Fide's poverty, it is quite impossible for her to see them as they can make something except poorness. 

Another experience she shares and says that when she went to university her roommate was shocked by her skill of speaking fluent English. Why because she had a single story of Africa : a single story of catastrophe. She included in this single story, there was no possibility of African being similar to her in any way, no possibility of feeling more complex than pity, no possibility of a connection as human equals. Why does it happen ? Because we already have a single story for any particular place, person, matter. And that's why our mind doesn't think about other aspects. 

She felt  like others in University. In U.S. Whenever Africa came up, all people turned to her. She added that people have some type of images for particular things. If she was not born in Nigeria, she has some things in her mind for Africa also. 

One of his pivotal arguments is when she spoke at a University and one student told her that it was such a shame that Nigerian men were physical abusers like the father character in adichie's novel.  And she gave answers to the student that recently she had  read a novel named "American Psycho"... and that it was such a shame that young Americans were serial murderers !!! The intention is that you can not blame all for any one person. All are not the same. Because of one we can't judge the whole community. She was able to give the right answer because she had read many stories of America, she didn't have a single story of America. This is what is happening in our today's time also. We haven't enough knowledge about anybody and we started blaming them. Why ? Because somebody tells us about them and we simply believe in them, without any inquiry we made up a single story !

Through the speech she wants to say that stories influence our understanding of  other people and places. She also state confidently that the danger of the single story is that it can result in perspectives based on stereotypes. 

Then she talked about the importance of the stories. Stories have been used to dispossess and to malign, but stories can also be used to empower and humanize. Stories can break the dignity of a people, but stories can also repair that broken dignity. 

She ended her speech with this quote,

"When we reject the single story, when we realize that there is never a single story about any place, we regain a kind of paradise".

So overall she wants to tell that there is no single story for any place, there are many sides of people, places. So we have to see them with different perspectives also.

2.We Should All be Feminist 

The video of that talk :-

 

The first thing which we need to understand is what is the meaning of word Feminist 

"A person who believes in social, political and economical equality of the sexes."

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie talks about feminism in this talk. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie also needs to be appreciated for being an advocate about educating people on the whole about feminism. Some argue that it should not be the responsibility of a woman to teach a man about treating women as humans, and not objects or those that need to be saved. Adichie does not disagree, but at the same time, she points to the imbalance that is being created. Girls are being empowered but at the same time, boys are not being taught, consciously, about equality for all.

This is not creating a balance, where people can co-exist without being discriminated against on the basis of gender. Instead, it’s probably reversing patriarchy. It is important to teach boys and young men to feel comfortable around women who are powerful, who make more money, are more talented or even more vocal. People of all genders, should be made to realise that no one should feel weaker than any other for any reason. 

In another instance, Adichie also talked about how opening the door for a woman is considered an act of chivalry and her point was to open the door for a person, irrespective of their gender.

The point which we can make with Adichie’s blessing, is that men should not be made victims for being men, because that is not what feminism is about. This happens quite a bit and we need to be a little more conscious, because we are all products of patriarchal societies. This is also not to say that people of certain genders, say women, are not to be encouraged to be given reservations, for example. While that is necessary, we also need to be careful before disregarding people’s talents  just like women have been disregarded for centuries, despite being talented and hard working. 

So we can say that the arguments which she makes are convincing with the time. 

3.Third talk : Importance of Truth in Post-truth Era

 

When we think about Truth some people fail to remain true. We are the generation of the 21st century. The Postmodern era in which people are highly civilized. So, in this talk Chimamanda said that speaking lies is speaking lies to yourself. She said in her talk that,

"Be courageous enough to accept your life as messy, your life is not always perfectly matching to your ideology." 

There is also a reference of a poem by Mary Oliver, that Whoever you are, no matter how lonely, The world offers itself to your imagination.

So, she wants to tell us that we have to be true. Not only with others but also with ourselves. So the word has significance in our life. 

4.significant changes

Here I want to say that these talks bring very significant changes in my way of looking at literature and life also. 

The first significant change is to look at others with different aspects not only based on the single story about them. From now I will trust on any matter with my research of that particular matter only. I shouldn't believe what others say. 

The second thing which I learned from Chimamanda Adichie is we have to be true with ourselves. To be true with others is the second thing. The first thing is to be satisfied and to be true and honest with yourself is very pivotal. 

1706 words

9773 characters

Thinking activity : Shashi Tharoor's Speech at Oxford

 Hello readers !

Today I'm going to talk about Dr. Shashi Tharoor and his speech at Oxford about the dark era of inglorious empire. This discussion is part of my classroom activity. Apart from that this talk is also interesting which explores the truth of our past. This task is given by our professor Dr. Dilip Barad sir. If you want to know more about activity visit teacher's blog click here .

In this task we have to watch a video in which Dr. Tharoor gave a speech about his book "An Era of Darkness The British Empire in India" at Oxford. He participated in the debate, so he pointed out some of the arguments about what Britishers did in India and how India became a poor country. While watching I have made some interesting points which seem in postcolonial elements. I watched the video two times, then I came to know what Dr. Tharoor wants to prove by his book and his speech. 

(Dr. Shashi Tharoor)

Before discussing the speech let's know something interesting about Shashi Tharoor. Dr. Shashi Tharoor born in London, UK and raised in India. He is Indian politician, writer and former international diplomat who has been surving as Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha from Tiruvananthaouram, Kerala, since 2009. He was formerly Under - Secretary General of the United Nations and contested for the post of Secretary General in 2006. His well known novel, "The Great Indian Novel" was first published in 1989. His other works are,

• Riot (2001)

• India : From Midnight to the millennium (1997)

• Show Business (1992) 

• Bookless in Baghdad (2005)

• Indian Sastra : Reflection on the Nation in our Time (2015)

• Why I am A Hindu ( 2018)

• The Paradoxical Prime Minister (2018)  

• The Hindu Way : An Introduction to Hinduism (2019) 

So now let's  discuss our main topic, his speech about his book An Era of Darkness The British Empire in India.

Here is the video of that discussion of Dr. Shashi Tharoor. First watch the video so we can understand it in better way :-

He said in his speech that the economic situation of the colonies was worsened by the experience of British colonialism. He said that India's share of world economy was 23% before Britishers arrived, but it was down to below 4% when they left !!! And this happened because India had been governed for the benefit of Britain. Because Britain's rise for 200 years was financed by its demolition in India. And this is the truth, the hard reality. 

Tharoor states that British started taking raw material from India and started manufacturing cloth. They buy raw material at a lower price and sell manufactured clothes at high prices. And that is why India became beggar ! 

He said that by the end of the century India became the biggest cash cow for Britain. Do you know what is the meaning of cash caw ? Here cow is not taken as meaning of animal but it is taken as an allusion to the dairy cow, which once acquired may be milked on an ongoing basis. When someone or something which is a dependable source of appreciable amount of money; a moneymaker it's called cash cow. India became enterprise for Britain that generate high net free cash flows. 

In the speech he talked about slavery. He said that in 1833 when slavery was abolished a compensation of 20 million pounds was paid not as reparations to those who had lost their lives or who had suffered, but to those who had lost their property. It means the reparations were not given to the very poor people but to those who are quite known and familiar with the government. For this argument he given an example of Mr. Gladstone was one of those who benefited from the compensation. 

Also he gives an example of the Bengal famine. In this case also British did not think about the poor people and many people died because of famine. 

There is statement known in the world that

The sun never set on the British empire !

For the answer of this statement he states that, 

"Sun never set on the British empire because even God couldn't trust the English in the dark"

This statement is quite satirical about British empire. Britishers who exploit Indian very much in the daylight (sunlight), what they will do at night ! So God could not trust them, that is why God doesn't give them night mode. 

Then Dr. Tharoor talked about World War | and World War || He also talked about the contribution of Indians in both wars. Many Indian are died, many are wounded and many remained missing or in prison also. And they didn't do it for their country, they did it for Britishers. 

Since our childhood we used to hear that British government built roads and railways. We can consider it as a good change of India's past. Some people claim that it is good to see that the Britishers made these railways and roads and when they left it's useful for Indian people also. But here we are making a mistake. Because they made up this roads and railways for their benefits for serving their government not for local people of India. And some English people and others also said that the discovery of roads and railways that British made is for their personal usage not for Indians. 

When we done such mistakes what people want from us is to acceptance, that people can accept that they did mistake. So here  at the end of all this talk Dr. Tharoor only want that the people of Britain accept that harsh reality that what their ancestors did. Because there is lot of people who don't know from where their wealth has came. Maybe it's because they don't teach their children that what their grandparents grandparent did. So this point Dr. Tharoor made here. And if Britain want to pay for what they have did then they have to pay at least one pound for the day and they have to pay for 200 years of ruling India. 

So above all discuss dicribes about the dark era in Indian past. This book reveals the reality of British people that I think they didn't think about. Dr. Shashi Tharoor received the Sahitya Academy Award for this book An Era of Darkness non fictional work. To wind up we can say that they written about the truth which all have to accept specially Britain. And this is what he wants to convey all people. 

1073 words 

6018 characters