Last week in Queens, young Hindu-American organized a screening and discussion of an animated film called "Sita Sings the Blues," to draw other young Hindus and Sikhs into conversation about their faiths.
Rather than recap the entire debacle here, you can read what happened next in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal. You can watch the movie yourself, free of charge, at filmmaker Nina Paley's website. You can read the call for protest here.
To sum up, "Sita Sings the Blues" is based on an adaptation of the the Ramayana, a Hindu epic, and some Hindus find the film offensive. An organized (lawful and peaceful) protest caused the venue to cancel the showing, which later took place in a private home.
While I loved the film, I also felt sympathetic toward people who are hurt and offended by what feels like an attack on their faith. Hinduism has a strong scriptural tradition of commentary and debate; there is often virulent disagreement. But disagreement is not the same thing as suppression. My sympathy and understanding falter when people use their power to disrupt others' experiences. In an email interview, Paley, who is obviously familiar with the controversy surrounding her own film, said "what was different this time is that [the screening] was organized by a devout Hindu for his ... Hindu community."
While I support anyone, of any or no faith, who wants to screen and discuss the film, this is a game-changer. These are Hindus being shut down, and shut out, by other Hindus. This no longer about an American filmmaker interpreting the Ramayana, or a feminist perspective on ancient texts. This isn't about colonialism or cultural appropriation. It's about a controlling group trying to bully their opinion into being the only opinion. Not only is this distressing, it illuminates a lack of education in the very tradition they claim to uphold.
Hinduism has a long tradition of debate, and critical thinking. While there is extensive writing on that subject, a very accessible introductory book, "The Argumentative Indian" by Nobel Prize winner and Economist Amartya Sen, gives a good outline. Sen observes that we Indians have been arguing, commenting and re-interpreting for thousands of years. We talk things over. I would also point out that to place the phenomenon of criticism and interpretation in "the West" (wherever that is), is to deny our own rich heritage in debate and commentary. To suppress opinion and claim offense, rather than engage in a deliberation with acknowledged equals, is as un-Hindu as it gets. Now, I'm not saying that this is historically how Hindus behaved. But it's one of the deepest and most neglected aspects of our heritage. We need to do better by it.
Paley does not claim to be Hindu. However, she seems to have a deep respect for the tradition, going so far as to claim that the people who protested the film's screening are not Hindu at all:
It's like calling the Ku Klux Klan "Christians." Calling Hindutvadis "Hindus" is especially misleading in the U.S. where people are mostly unaware of violent nationalist groups in India. Last I checked, Hinduism wasn't a religion of hate and intolerance. Hindutvadis' motives are political, not religious, and they hide behind a religious label. Not only does this confuse many Americans into thinking they have some legitimacy, it also, over the long run, harms real Hindus, who are nothing like Hindutvadis.
I see her point, but will also admit that it makes me uncomfortable, after all my harping on about dialogue and inclusiveness. Although the Hindutva movement has been associated with terrorist activity, and I would like to distance myself from them as much as possible, I don't personally feel that I have a right to define who is and isn't Hindu. But then, unlike Paley, I've never received death threats from people claiming to uphold Hinduism. I might start drawing some lines, too.
I do not want to in any way imply that everyone who objects to the film also advocates for protest against it, has a political agenda and/or supports terrorism. I do believe that there are Hindus who find "Sita Sings the Blues" offensive but who do not advocate for or endorse suppression. I have heard reasoned, intelligent arguments against the point of view it puts forward. There are ways to disagree that are based in mutual respect, intellectual engagement and so on. I've written elsewhere about the need for, and difficulty with, dialogue within a faith. It can be educational and fun to argue. It's one way we hone and evolve our perspectives. It's one way we honor our heritage.
However, there are the hard-line objectors too: people who believe that suppression (and in some cases, violence) are part of, or justified by, their faith. As much as I would like to believe that, as Paley so generously puts it, "Hinduism [isn't] a religion of hate," people who call themselves Hindus do seem to be expressing hatred. I also believe that much of human history -- be it religious, political, or otherwise -- shows a worrying tendency toward intolerance and violence. I'm not going to stop calling myself human because of it. I can choose what kind of human I'm going to be. I can choose what kind of Hindu.
The Ramayana is especially sacred to many of us. But there is not only one Ramayana -- there are dozens, if not hundreds, of versions. It is not only scripture, but a living, verbal tradition. It is handed down through the lineages of warriors and priests, cleaning ladies and shopkeepers. Ram Leela (an often informal stage production) is performed in countless villages: there is no script; it is different everywhere. When it is recited, there are often countless interruptions and arguments, because everyone has their own lineage, their own opinion. I have seen it performed live with bewildering, blaring Bollywood music; observed politicians and community leaders squirm during a version that included current events and pointed satire; heard it recited on a lonely road by a semi-nomadic shepherd, the only soundtrack the wind. I have watched Ram strut in sunglasses and Sita wave a sword (she chased Ram off the stage, amid gales of laughter). But I have never ever seen it shut it down. Until now.
I started out feeling sympathetic and seeing all sides of this debate, and I still struggle to. But I have a message for the people who shut down the public showing of "Sita Sings the Blues": You do not own this story. The Ramayana is of the people and for the people. You cannot take it from us. Either join the conversation, or be quiet so we can talk in peace. If you're Hindu, you don't need me to tell you this -- it is the nature of forms to flow, move and change. The essence remains, inviolable.
Follow Saumya Arya Haas on Twitter: www.twitter.com/nsomniasaum
A Filmmaker's 'Blues' Prompts Traditionalists To See Red – Forward.com
Ban “Sita Sings the Blues” from the Internet! « Nina Paley's Blog
Sita Sings the Blues Sparks Controversy in Queens: Chicagoist
Sita Sings the Blues - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sita Sings the Blues - Trailer - YouTube
Sita Sings the Blues (2008) - IMDb
Sita Sings the Blues : Nina Paley : Free Download & Streaming ...
wait, it does go back to pre-indstrial periods. hmmmmmm
Free speech and debate are fundamental parts of Hindu dharma and culture. But they are not fundamental parts of the christo-islamic-communist mono-ideology. When the rich (who stole their wealth from the poor) stand and say they want a fair fight, though you have been starved to death, it is simply a manipulation of truth to their ends. Christianity (and note that I refer to the ideology not the person) uses such an argument. Having benefitted from violence and stolen wealth, it markets for open discussion. To fight fair against a crook is to gamble with someone holding loaded dice.
We aspire personally to transcend maya, but we must participate as per our nature in this maya. It is not clean and easy to choose sides and pat our selves on the back for that choice. As Hindus, we know both sides are loved by the Supreme. I aspire to that. hariaum
Here is the law
"Section 153A of the penal code says, inter alia:
Whoever (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, . . . shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.[3] "
There are many shads of gray between black and white.
But stopping, disrupting the event, is wrong, no matter what shade of grey you want to paint it.
There are loads of people on this planet who may not be beating-heart liberals, but who are amenable to logic and reasoning. Closing the doors on such discourse is the first sign of accepting defeat. And a talented artist who has a fine story to tell should not give up so easily.
Please note that I do understand Nina, and how she could have got tired of arguing with thousands of half-crazed people. But frankly, it is expected when an artist takes liberties with religious figures of a community.
Enacted in 1927, section 295A says:
Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of [citizens of India], [by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to [three years], or with fine, or with both.[4]
Either Take this out of the books, so others can draw Mohammad or whatever or live with this law.
IS that so hard to understand?
But curbing the creativity of one extremely talented artist in the name of offended sentiments is wrong. Would we listen to Christian fundamentalists and not watch the Life of Brian ? The latter is a completely independent story, obviously inspired by the story of Christ, but not claiming to be representative of mainstream Christian belief in any case. The same is the case with this lovely story on the sufferings of Sita. It is true that the character of Rama is presented in a comically one-dimensional way, and one might argue that too in a wrong fashion. But why is Nina Paley obliged to follow somebody's interpretation of the story ?
Everybody appreciates a story in the best possible way they can. Not everybody might obtain the same level of wisdom or understanding from it. And one should remember that deep stories of wisdom have multiple layers of meaning, and only by repeated study and criticism can one fathom these depths.
We do live in a world where a Theo Van Gogh paid with his life, so its good to revisit where things are at, so that no one moves in that direction.
Lastly, according to the film maker's website, she has received more positive than negative feedback from Hindus.
I don't agree that a show like Nine Paley's film be bullied to shut down. A better means of engagement would be to require a debate / dialogue with the artist on the various points after the screening of the film. It is true that the protests against this film have happened mostly in a non-violent manner. But I don't think it is far-fetched to imagine that some of these protests might degenerate into violence, if the very film is screened in a place where the hand of the law is not strong (like in certain places of India) and where political bullies can ransack the theater. Such things have happened ample times, including protests from right wing Hindus.
Now I should make a disclosure. I saw this film 4-5 years ago, and have even corresponded with Nina Paley. She was very forthcoming in her responses and I had a nice dialogue with her. Later I published our correspondence on a blog (http://sitayana-correspondence.blogspot.com/), It was a long time ago, and my writing was rather immature. So please be kind to that.
Hindutva organizations main aim is to stop the conversion of Hindus by missionaries using inducements and reversing the colonial laws of giving sops to Muslim and Christian religious organizations while taxing the Hindu religious organizations. Also they want a uniform civil laws for all citizens in which muslims shall no longer be allowed to have 4 wives and their divorce shall be according to Indian law.
If you want the reader or public to actually care about this story, explain what's in the film and who made it, explain who protested it and why.
In an essay of this length, you can spare the two brief paragraphs that would be required, and can still link to more detailed accounts elsewhere.
But that's the only way you can hope to ensure that folks are interested enough to read the essay.
I have read a few interpretations myself. Like the organizer, I am moved again by the story and want to hear the tale anew. This movie has brought the tale to new audiences, many whom have never heard the story before. It has brought a great Hindu epic to new masses, new generations and caused many to go and learn it from other places for the first time. Others, to re-read it with new awe and wonder, as if the old story is brought to new life.
It's too bad certain people and groups want to shut that down. The story has done well to present an old tale in a new modern interpretative light. People will want to learn more and see what there is to see. It's such a great story, both the Ramayana and Sita Sings the Blues.
This film caused me to write about it myself: http://bit.ly/pHu3bx. This controversy is reminding me, I need to see the film again. I hope it causes others to see it, where if the controversy never existed, it would have been missed.
"On the far left, there are some very, very privileged people in academia who have reduced all the wondrous complexities of racial relations into, "White people are racist, and non-white people are all victims of white racism." Without actually looking at the work, they've decided that any white person doing a project like this is by definition racist, and it's an example of more neocolonialism. So politics makes strange bedfellows -- they're in bed with the Hindutva nationalists."
@ http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/faq.html
Freedom of religion includes freedom to watch films, read books, read essays, hold talks and discussions, draw cartoons, make and listen to music, etc. that takes every position and no position on the subject of religion.
We really ARE the home of the free. No one should be engaging in religious censorship.
Is NO ONE a hard concept to understand? I think not.
It's booooooooooooring.
The film maker strikes me as self-indulgent to the point of narcissism and has made the Ramayana trite by making it "hers". Thankfully, this is a non-event in the long history of the Ramayana. The whole concept seems so shallow to me that not even a faint interest to watch the film arises. If I'm missing something, I hope someone will let me know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mahabharata_(1989_film)
fundamentalists of any religion or tradition (whose egos are heavily invested in the absolute truth of their religions) will have a hard time watching or reading anything that isn't straight down the line. but i thought this movie came from a humorous viewpoint of someone with a strong connection to the original story, and a modern sense of humor. that's a great combination in my opinion.
Paley has entered a mine field, and she will have to deal with it.