We have immortalised an insignificant work by making it controversial: Madhusree Dutta

Interview with Film maker and founder of women's rights aid group Majlis

Controversy broke out over India's Daughter, a documentary by Leslee Udwin on the December 16 Delhi gang rape, which was aired by BBC in the UK despite a call by the Indian government to ban it. Its release was prevented in India citing, among other reasons, the fact that the case is sub-judice. Madhusree Dutta, film maker and founder of women's rights aid group Majlis, shares her views with Ranjita Ganesan on the ban and the film

What do you make of the response to the documentary India's Daughter? Is the ban justified?

I am against any sort of ban on cultural productions. Even if it is against "hate speech" or misogyny as a political precedence, the culture of banning is undemocratic. Ultimately, such action has always boomeranged against democratic rights. Dissent and debate are signs of a functioning democracy.

What is your take on the content of the film?

It is an extremely shallow and mediocre documentary. It is based on the most rudimentary sensationalism and crass polemic. It would have died an instant death if this controversy had not made it famous. What is quoted most about the film is the interview by one of the accused, Mukesh Singh, who talked in rabid misogynist language. I don't know about the technicality or legal ethics of an under trial being interviewed, but I am not surprised that he uttered the most violent misogynist sentiments. He knows no other way and moreover this is the only way he can have another taste of public life. This culture of projection of notoriety has been developed by film stars and reality show programming over a long time. Singh is only following the prevalent logic of contemporary media. Why is everybody shocked by it now? Would we have been happy if he had asked forgiveness from the god-like-public? The question is in the choice of inclusion of the accused's testimony in the film. Even after recording the testimony, the film maker could have worked on ways of representing and critiquing it in the film rather than inserting it like a prized trophy.

The home ministry stated that the case is sub-judice and the telecast could interfere with the process of law. What sort of impact could the documentary have on the process?

I find this argument of sub-judice case ridiculous. Cases run for decades, then go on appeals, then to the President for clemency. In Jessica Lal's case, public opinion made the court reopen the case. The journey of the independent women's movement began with the Mathura rape case - the tribal girl who was raped at the police station, and the lower court and the Supreme court acquitted the police officials - and against the gender bias of the courts. Of course there are many more cases to prove the opposite where public interference has gone against the victims' interest. But an active democracy is full of such checks and balances, and trials and tribulations; and I don't believe that civil society should be kept at bay from its functioning by such blanket regulation as sub-judice case.

One of the points raised was that the documentary is intended to tarnish India's image. Your views?

There is nothing called India's image, specially an un-tarnishable image. There are many things wrong and shameful about Indian state and Indian society, and I, like many other Indians, want to change that by calling public attention to that. Documentary film-making is one way of doing it. I have nothing against this particular initiative on that account -that means if the film maker wanted to "tarnish India's image" on a valid ground, I would not have any issue. It should also be made clear that the film maker's nationality should not be made into an issue for assessing the merit of the film. And she claimed that the central theme of her film is misogyny and sexual crime - so I could not have had anything against that too. But in reality she did not attend to these issues with any depth and perseverance. She only used them sensationally towards creating a spicy story.

What is your take on the view that the film undermines the work of the feminist movement in India?

It undermines feminist move-ment, civil society initiatives, political under-standing of class and gender, basic ethics of documentary film-making, development issues of developing country, complex class-race-gender relations... everything. What she (Udwin) does is a kind of "image trafficking" from the Third World to the First World - it is part of a larger network of image capitalism of the world. But these are political issues and cannot be tackled by banning the work.
Kavita Krishnan, secretary, All India Progressive Women's Association, on the documentary and its ban: mybs.in/2RtnWKG