Netflix’s ‘A Suitable Boy’ & Modi era

Safiyat Naseem
November 9, 2020

suitable.jpg

Recently binge-watched a six part mini series directed by Mira Nair on Netflix, titled “A Suitable Boy”, an adaptation of Vikram Seth’s novel of the same title. And while I am neither a movie critic or reviewer, nor a fan of watching series with a backdrop of the post Independence era, I was still moved to write about it. To lay down my emotions on paper with nothing but words. It isn’t extra-ordinary, or brilliantly amazing, neither the characters are made to grow on you nor the plot is meticulously twisted, then what was it, you may ask.

It was Relatable, I would remark.

I usually don’t prefer series or movies that lay down the post Independence India theme with 1950s timeline because I don’t relate to it’s story or characters, and I don’t know if I watched it for Tanya Manikalata who played the character of Lata in the series or the fact that this series was on number 1 on Netflix, but I know for sure that I don’t regret watching it.

Being an Indian Muslim Women, it was shocking or rather depressing to relate to the newly Independent India even after 73 years. The political clashes, the Hindu-Muslim riots, the hatered based on religion, the stigma layed down on love between hindu and muslim, lack of women empowerment and discrimination, what was there is still here, now and growing more than ever.

It’s been 73 years and we as a Nation are still dealing with the same issues, we haven’t grown together, the lack of secularism is till there, the hatred and fear still reside or worse, it’s reoccurring.

When in the first episode the issue of Mosque was depicted, where the muslims demanded a peaceful place to pray, for those who still stayed in India, and the Raja started establishing a mandir in its direction to make them deprived of this right, I remembered the recent demolition of Babri Masjid and the Supreme Court’s judgement and acquittal of the accused.

As Maan went to the village with Rasheed, and acknowledged the miseries of farmers and labourers, the atrocious behaviour towards womens and workers, it wasn’t surprising or new. I thought about the Farm Bill 2020, the egregious condition of the working class amidsts pandemic, the walks they took barefoot and with empty bellies to go back to their hometowns as they were dealing with unemployment, lack of resources and ignorance of the Government and society. I remembered the Hathras case and other numerous sexual harassment as well as domestic violence cases. How I wish to get shocked by the problems of 1950s shown in the series, but unfortunately I was’t, I am rather acclimated to it. I have been there, heard it, been a part of it…even after 73 years, I have still seen it.

And as Rasheed told Maan “Aur bhi dukh hain Zamane mai mohabbat ke siva” (There are many other sorrows in this world besides love)… Indeed Rasheed, Indeed.

In the later episodes, as a communal riot emerged as Muslim and Hindu mobs were crossing roads, and one of them pushed the other, my mind instantly went towards the Delhi Riots. As Maan and Firoz were running together to save their lives, I connected with them and my eyes filled with tears as I remembered the misfortunate event that took place in Jamia Millia Islamia on 15th December 2019. Being a Jamia Student I remembered hiding under the table in the old library of my campus where Delhi Police showered us with tear gas shells.

When Maan and Firoz gets caught by the angry mob, and one of them asked Maan to say Gayatri Mantar to prove he’s not a muslim, and Maan obliged and did the same to save his and Firoz’s life, but Firoz couldn’t say it being a Muslim. I remembered the viral video on the internet that showed two people in the car, forcing a Muslim man to say Jai Mata Di, and were constantly abusing him.

As the main plot evolves, we see Lata falling in love with his schoolmate whose name’s not known up until the time when Lata’s friend warns her to not meet the guy, as he a Muslim, named Kabir Durrani. But Lata follows her heart and as predicted her mother took her away from the city to find her a suitable boy, and definitely not a Muslim. Tanishq’s advertisement flashed across my mind, the controversy revolving around how it depicts so called ‘love jihad’, whereas all it does is showcase communal harmony, and how they had to shut down the ad because apparently it hurts the “sentiment” of people. It’s been 73 years, and communal harmony still hurts the sentiment?

In the first episode, as the establishment of the mandir was taking place, it was already mentioned that there were bound to be protests regarding the same, still the government didn’t uphold the security levels and gave direct orders to shoot if the protesters didn’t stop. Not shockingly, it was a peaceful protest until the police started shooting, 20 people died. And as we see later in the Parliament meeting, the government was nonchalant to this action of police. Remember again, the attack on Jamia Millia Islamia, peaceful protest, tear gas shells and bullets… similar isn’t it? Potato-Patato, same thing…no?

Well, I believe nothing much has changed, the situation in 1947 and Modi era are almost the same, one way or the other. Except that in 1947, India was a newly democratic and independent country where freedom of speech was introduced, Jamia was a symbol of resistance and nationalism and people were the priority of the government. Whereas in Modi era, India is a newly non-democratic country, where freedom of speech is a myth, Jamia is an anti-national University, Islam is terrorism, people are least of the priority and Modi is God.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 10,2024

kartikbhat1.jpg

Mangaluru: A heart-wrenching tragedy unfolded in the quiet Bellayuru village on the outskirts of Mangaluru as a man’s life ended on a railway track following an apparent double murder. Authorities from the Mulki police station identified the man as Karthik Bhat, 32, whose lifeless body was discovered on the tracks with his head positioned on the rail, indicating a tragic suicide.

Nearby, police recovered keys to a scooter and a house, which eventually led them to uncover a series of chilling events. Following the trail, officers located Bhat’s scooter parked near Mahammayi Temple. Inside the vehicle, they found documents confirming his identity, including an RC, insurance papers, and his driving license.

Their search continued to Bhat's home in Pakshikere, Kemral village, where they discovered a locked room. With the keys retrieved from the tracks, police unlocked the door, only to be confronted by a horrifying sight. The bodies of Priyanka (28) and her young son Hriday (4) lay in a pool of blood, pointing to a brutal murder that occurred just hours before Bhat’s suicide.

Initial investigations suggest Bhat, beleaguered by ongoing family disputes, committed the murders of his wife and son on the evening of November 8 before tragically ending his own life. A death note found in his diary hinted at his mental state and tragic intentions.

Priyanka’s family, residing in Shivamogga, was informed of the incident. The couple, married for six years, now leaves behind grieving relatives and unanswered questions. Police have initiated formal proceedings, collecting statements from family members as they continue their investigation into the tragic sequence of events.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 13,2024

buldozerjustice.jpg

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 14,2024

srirang.jpg

Bengaluru: The Prime Minister Narendra Modi led union government has requested the Karnataka High Court to direct the Mandya district administration and the state government to clear a madrasa operating within the premises of the historic Jama Masjid in Srirangapatna.

The Waqf Board, opposing this move, has claimed the mosque as its property and defended the right to conduct madrasa activities there.

The matter was brought before a division bench headed by Chief Justice N V Anjaria following a public interest litigation filed by a person named Abhishek Gowda from Kabbalu village in Kanakapura taluk. The petition alleged “unauthorised madrasa activities” within the mosque.

Representing the Central government, Additional Solicitor General of India for High Court of Karnataka, K Arvind Kamath argued that the Jama Masjid was designated as a protected monument in 1951, yet unauthorised madrasa operations continue there.

He noted that concerns over potential law and order issues have so far prevented any intervention. Kamath urged the court to direct the Mandya district administration to take action and vacate the madrasa from the mosque.

In defence, lawyers for the state government and the Waqf Board contested this request, stating that the Waqf Board had been recognised as the owner of the property since 1963 and, thus, conducting madrasa activities there is lawful.

After hearing both sides, the bench adjourned the case for further arguments, scheduling the next hearing for November 20.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.