Font size:

The real difference in India is visible in the last 20 to 30 years of economic progress along with the construction boom that has created new buildings. It is also evident in the strides taken by its agricultural sector that produces four times more food than it did in 1947 and also exports some of it. The new India is also visible in the number of smartly dressed Inland Revenue consultants in Western countries, who are graduates of Indian Universities.

So, why is India still stereotyped as Slumdog Millionaire? What is wrong with the British attitude? Do they live in the Victorian era? It is only after two world wars and the loss of prestige to the U.S. that some sense dawned in their imagination. But that has not been enough as some still live in their dreamland of a bygone era. Their media is the worst culprit. Imagine how a slum resident would feel if called a slumdog.

Making a hit movie to grab the Golden Globe, Oscars or the Screen Actors Guild Awards is any moviemaker’s dream. These acclaims fill their pockets with cash, fete them in public and give them a hero status amongst peers. The question again is why do the British still prefer to cast India in bad light. Are there no shortages of slums in Britain?

Look at Brixton or the slums and ghettos that exist in London where many recently arrived immigrants live. Why go so far to India to look for slums and cast an ambitious boy to be the story’s hero when there are plenty available in Britain. The moviemaker can definitely find a great story closer to his home and make a movie of it.

According to some reports, Anil Kapoor a principle actor in the movie is so badly stung by the criticism, which the movie has attracted that he is donating all his receipts from the movie to child welfare organizations, specifically working in slums. It is a shame that Kapoor realized its value so late. It was however, another Bollywood star Amitabh Bachchan, who first voiced concern about the movie and its bad message. By then the public had already feted the film’s Indian music director A R Rahman. Although Rahman deserves credit for his music, he could have saved his talent for a better story line.

The movie after its Golden Globe triumph has become popular with U.S. moviegoers who have poured pity on India and Indians after watching it. The Indian population in North America, numbering well over 2.5 million is also watching the movie in droves, thanks to the film bagging the Golden Globe award. Although some regret having watched the movie, other diehard pro-West Indians have praised it.

Would Boyle have made a similar movie about a poor Chinese boy with big dreams in a big city in China? The Chinese have not wiped out all their slums although some were forcibly removed last year for the Olympics. Would one be permitted to make a movie set and filmed in China similar to Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire? Perhaps, the moviemaker would be banned in China, for life, if such an attempt were made.

It is also highly doubtful whether Boyle would make a movie on the sex escapades of Britain’s Prince Charles, as that would open the highly polished lifestyle of the British monarchy to public. Rather, national prestige will prevent Boyle from doing so.

Vikas Swarup, whose novel is the inspiration for the movie, never intended Boyle’s cinematography to be as sour as depicted in the movie. A career diplomat serving in India’s Foreign Service, Swarup wrote the novel, in first person, to show life in Dharavi, Mumbai’s biggest slum. It is the movie director and the film’s cinematographers who were hell bent on showing India in bad light. As per reports, they even constructed special sets to drive home their point.

Dharavi’s resident are sore at Boyle. They do not care about his money, prestige and artistic freedom. For them, their image has been permanently damaged. How can they ever like him?

Dharavi is the same slum colony, which is home to one of the best-managed food distribution systems in India also known as “Dabbawalas.” The slum has running water, electricity and other civic amenities. It is filthy by western standards but it is not everything that India is.

If knives are being sharpened in India to give Boyle a hot reception, one cannot blame the locals. To cast India and Indians in bad light has not gone well with them. But do the moviemakers care? They have probably lined their pockets with millions of dollars, which was their goal.

Dharavi, previously a fishing swamp, came into existence at the end of the nineteenth century. It was the British who created it during the heydays of their rule in India, as they needed service providers to live in the neighborhood. Three to four generations have since, made it their home.

After the fishermen left the swamp, people from the Western Indian state of Gujarat moved in and were followed by migrants from the South. Other communities followed suit in the 1950s and 1960s. Now, their offspring’s attend schools, work in textile factories and the civil service, own businesses and tiny bits of space in the sprawling slum area.

No democratic government in their right mind would ask 500,000 residents of this slum to vacate and move elsewhere. No amount of help is enough because free money will invite more residents. Cheap housing elsewhere to relocate people in the slums has often been talked about. But this has attracted more people to come and live in Dharavi so that they too can claim any future relocation benefits offered to its residents.

As urbanization moves outwards towards new developments like Navi Mumbai or New Mumbai and jobs shift to newer parts, residents will make a choice of either commuting long distances or moving residencies to new areas. This will reduce pressure on land in the middle of the city giving welfare schemes a chance to succeed.

Britain and the U.S. had similar slums in London and New York, which existed till the Great Depression of the 1930s. In the U.S., massive transfer of population from the east coast to the west coast and Texas solved the problem. In London, schemes existed from 1890 till 1950 to relocate ghettos and slums under public works schemes. None truly succeeded until people, in modern times, started migrating to other countries like the United States, Australia, Canada and South Africa, which eased the problem.

The point is that stereotyping India with bad movie sets to overawe audiences in the West is a mistake. Boyle’s movie is a worthless spectacle, which does not deserve merit and should be denied its Oscar nominations.

--

(Hari Sud is a retired vice president of C-I-L Inc., a former investment strategies analyst and international relations manager. A graduate of Punjab University and the University of Missouri, he has lived in Canada for the past 34 years. ©Copyright Hari Sud.)