Commentary:
Just as some stranger’s cancer diagnosis is less devastating than your own, reading how the Hindu right has tightened its censorship noose on Bollywood hurts less than contemplating the current right wing efforts to limit how much historical truth we admit about our own society.
India seems obvious. Of course the Indian caste system and its persistence have hurt and angered folks relegated to lower castes; and while Gandhi and Nehru sought an India where Muslims, Hindus, Christians, and others flourished, ethnic prejudices and violence between Hindus and Muslims destroyed trust, making their dream a tough sell.
There’s always tension between artists and the State. Artists are committed to what they create, and what they learn from what they create, not through jamming their characters into some Fascist, Socialist, or Christian ideology. Fictional characters may be the writer’s creations, but if s/he is any good, they then live and grow somewhat independently, often surprising their creator. Fictional characters crammed into ideological boxes die quickly, as did the fireflies I placed in Mason jars, despite numerous breathing holes in the metal lids.
Salman Rushdie is an extreme example; but Fyodor Dostoyevsky was nearly executed by the Russian Czar. Pasternak and Solzhenitzn were jailed by the Russian Communists. The U.S. jailed and harassed Howard Fast and the Hollywood Ten.
Many passionate Hindu nationalists, believing India should be for Hindus, push Indian filmmakers and writers to portray military heroics in Hindu India’s history, rather than examining the personal costs and challenges of ethnic hatreds and the caste system. They feel India is under attack. Whether or not they like the caste system, they do not want it held up to the light (or movie screen), washing India’s dirty laundry very publicly.
MAGA Republicans (like McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee before them) promote their idea of American Exceptionalism. Whatever they believe about the sprawling and appalling institution of slavery, or the pervasive discrimination it engendered, they’d prefer writers and filmmakers choose subjects reflecting the U.S.’s special greatness. Some deny historical racism, or doubt current racism causes problems, and they sure don’t want frank exploration of it.
Bollywood is frightened, as Hollywood was frightened in the 1950s. And may be again.
Teachers are frightened in Florida and Texas. Teaching history accurately (likely never the reality in our elementary schools, which stressed U.S.heroism) could cross some line in new laws. Racism is a reality. It has frequently dominated our history. But, like sex, it’s not to be discussed in public schools. (Doctors and psychologists are also frightened in those states. Outlawing abortion makes treating a pregnant woman’s cancer dicey. Treatment might affect the sacred Fetus. Helping a kid whose inner self and outer physical characteristics don’t match, could land you in jail!)
The U.S. is turning ugly again. When I was born, it was a wonderful place for many; but women and African Americans were kept in their respective places. A country that increasingly tolerated, and even valued, diverse ideas, colors, creativity, and genders was a gradual luxury. (For which many of us had fought, when young.) What a shock the current ugly turn must be for someone younger, who assumes fairness, tolerance, and justice matter! (Reminds me of realizing at 18 that our beloved country was fighting a war the world saw was as unjust and foolish as . . . Putin’s.)
Is this another cycle we’ll outgrow, or is it midnight for decency and democracy?