 "Satyamev Jayate: Does truth prevail or is it easily edited?")
Does truth always prevail on Aamir Khan’s show? S Anand says not. In a scathing Outlook column titled ‘
Silence Eva Jayate
’, he offers a behind the scenes look at the caste/untouchability episode, exposing its smoke-and-mirrors techniques. On SJ, truth is not all-powerful but easily edited. [The must-read column that has
gone viral is here
] Aamir Khan’s crimes are mostly of omission. He never says a word about violence against Dalits. No handy charts and statistics here, unlike those previous shows on female foeticide and domestic violence. More egregiously, Khan deliberately avoids all mention of either BR Ambedkar or reservations – which is inexplicable in a purportedly honest and open discussion of caste. [caption id=“attachment_378873” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]
AFP[/caption] This aversion to the R- and A-word leads to odd and glaring gaps in the narrative, as for example with Kaushal Panwar who is brought on to talk of her rags-to-middle class success story:
How did Kaushal Panwar do her BA, MA and PhD and land a job with Delhi University? What is it that facilitates access to hitherto-excluded spaces for dalits? What is the one policy that enables dalits to stop cleaning shit and reclaim their humanity? The one weapon that helps them get an education? Get a job? Reservation. And who made this policy possible? Ambedkar.
When other participants like Bezwada Wilson did bring up the taboo subjects – including criticism of the Supreme Court and Parliament – their words were carefully edited out. Wilson’s experience also offers evidence of other kinds of manipulation:
He said he had not been in the audience when Kaushal Panwar was being interviewed by Khan. I countered saying I had seen him ‘reacting’ to what Kaushal said on stage. “Even I saw myself in the audience and hence was shocked,” said Wilson. He said Kaushal had been interviewed in total isolation, in an empty studio. And yet on Sunday we saw, every once in a while, close-ups of fretful, anxious, pained and agonised faces of members of the studio audience as Kaushal was narrating her story. They even clapped on cue, like when Khan asked Kaushal her heroic father’s name. Clearly, all this had been manipulated and faked—with clever editing and splicing of shots.
Criticisms of SJ in the past have challenged either Aamir’s own “fake” personality or his middle class pandering. But if Anand is right, he is the first to expose SJ for what it truly is: an entertainment show masquerading as a moral campaign. A carefully orchestrated drama where tears are a matter of obligation. And anyone whose “lines” don’t fit the shows pre-determined script is left on cutting floor. But is this quite as damning as it sounds? Ravinar on his Media Crooks blog offers a provocative and read-worthy response to Anand, arguing that it is a fallacy to expect more from either Aamir or his show: “So while Anand genuinely talks about it from a moral point of view, given the show is treated as ‘social conscience’ program, the mistake he makes is that he doesn’t see it’s just another ‘entertainment’ show. It is just another Bollywood movie. The viewers expecting something larger is their own fault.” And like any Bollywood movie, SJ’s job is to comfort not afflict its audience. Any element that will alienate the audience or evoke ambivalence is no-no. For all his moral posturing, Ravinar argues, Aamir is an actor not an activist:
Like Anand many viewers too expect or believe Aamir Khan is some kind of activist. He is not. He is an actor, first and last. Period!… His job in SMJ is to act out a part scripted for the show. Does he act well? Does he act badly? That should be the assessment viewers should be making. As with movies, so too in a program that isn’t live, Aamir can get 17 shots, 17 retakes, 17 camera angles, thousand expressions and a few tears. To help his acting there is also glycerine and prompters that will tell the audience to Shock, Aww and Applaud. Enjoy the show!
But here’s the catch. This delusion of Aamir-as-activist is shared not just by Anand or his audience, but also our own Prime Minister who met with him today to discuss the plight of manual scavengers. The parliamentary panel who heard his testimony on foreign direct investment in the pharmaceutical industry. The Rajasthan CM who responded to his personal request to set up fast track courts to prosecute doctors who perform sex selective abortions. Doesn’t the evidence of manipulation – in a show titled Satyamev Jayate – dilute Aamir’s moral clout, and therefore any good he may be able to do? If he genuinely cares about these issues, then doesn’t he have the obligation to hew as closely to reality, however messy and controversial it may be? Does blurring the line between fiction and reality on such serious and urgent issues make a mockery of them? And turn his high-profile meetings and presentations into empty PR exercises for all concerned? Both Anand and Ravinar offer more meaty facts and arguments in their respective essays. Do check them out before you make up your mind. Read ‘Silence Eva Jayate’ on the Outlook website And ‘Satyameva Jayate: Shock, Aww & Applause’ on the MediaCrooks blog .