Shabana Azmi, is a treat to talk to. In the city to speak on Women Competing and Rising on their Own Terms at The Hilton, Embassy GolfLinks, the Padmashree winning actor took time out to speak to Metroplus on issues close to her heart.
Edited excerpts:
Is celebrating Women’s Day a marketing gimmick?
When we celebrate International Women’s Day, we recognize the contribution of those women who chartered unknown territories in demanding equality and their rights. This became a symbol of our appreciation of their struggle, which made it possible for us to demand our rights and get them.
Has activism evolved since you got involved in it?
I draw heart from this inbuilt resistance that we have as a society to fight injustice and inequality. I think the activist has an important role to play.
When a politician takes the activism route, there always seems to be an agenda. Although it is an important aspect of demanding justice, the politician today is suspect. It is the activist who has the trust of the people.
I think it is because of the activists and the brave resistance they have put up, at the risk of life and limb, that there is a robustness in our society.
Has the depiction of women in cinema changed over time?
If you look at the films of the 60s with titles such as Main Chup Rahungi, which was considered a virtue for a woman then, things have definitely changed.
In finding a truthful voice for women, with all its complexities, we have gone through several ups and downs.
There was a period where we had women on screen doing all the stereotypical things that men were doing. Obviously, that was not going to further the cause of women.
We had Zakhmi Aurat, Insaaf Ki devi, Main Jeene Nahi Doongi and all that and ended up having not just Rambos, but also Rambolinas.
It was left largely to parallel cinema to look at the complexity. Things have changed now as the girls who have come into the industry today are free from the traditional mould of what is expected from a heroine. They have learnt to appreciate the value of being in a film where they have something substantial to do.
Unfortunately along with this has come the item number, which has nothing to do with the film.
While some girls have argued that it is their body and they want to celebrate it, I feel, under the guise of celebrating sensuality, what these songs are doing is objectifying, commodifying and subjecting women to the male gaze. The business of cinema is the business of images. When you have fragments of a woman’s body — a heaving bosom, a navel or a swivelling hip, you are robbing her of autonomy and subjecting her to the male gaze.
What also worries me is that it leads to the sexualisation of children. You have a six-year-old girl dancing to lyrics like ‘Main toh tandoori murgi hu yaar, gatka le saiyyan alcohol se’. We have people applauding the child not horrified at what she is dancing to.
I am okay if people take an informed decision that this is what they want to do. It has to be a nuanced debate. I don’t want to be a part of the morality brigade that says women should wear this or that. Yet, I feel there has been a change for the better.
Abroad, people think Bollywood is Indian films. Do you feel regional cinema has been unable to break through this?
I think regional cinema is doing extremely well. A blockbuster like Baahubali has had far greater box office success than what a Hindi film has ever done.
Marathi cinema is making some interesting films. There is a tendency in some regional films to try and imitate Hindi films, which they should not do. What they should do is be true to their own culture as the diversity of India is so beautiful. Rather than have Bollywood monopolise the industry, we should give wind to the sails of parallel cinema as well.
What do you have to say about the censor-board and creative freedom in India?
We have to recognise there is no such thing as a censor board. It is a board of film certification. It actually needs to become a board of film classification, not certification. Who are you to certify? I find the whole system faulty because we have borrowed it from the UK in which a handful of people decide what the morality of the film will be.
What I suggest is, give up the UK model and base it on the Amercian one, where you have a committee from within the industry itself.
The filmmaker is given the choice to agree to what is appropriate and what is not. The choice is from within the industry. Certification puts you on a pedestal, we need classification.
I think there is a kind of visibility given to mobocracy today. There is are fringe groups that have done nothing for the community but get up and say this or that hurts their community.
I say, even if it genuinely hurts your feelings, the law of the land has cleared it by the board of certification, you have to respect it. So you can get agitated and speak up but you cannot take away my right to watch a film if the board of certification has passed it.
So anything that breaks the law has to be dealt with like a law and order problem. What use is the law of certification, if it does not defend itself ?
