Indian Journal of Medical Ethics Vol VIII No 3 July - September 2011
from human subjects. Its use must be regulated and cannot
be left to the goodwill and largesse of corporations which are
driven by profits. What about pharmacogenetic information
based on DNA collected from subjects in trials? This is of value
to pharmaceutical companies.
A myriad possibilities exist and we can only address the issues
by building trust and sharing among scientists, society and
industry. And we will have to travel some distance to reach that
state of affairs. Unlike in the USA during Henrietta Lacks’ period,
we have no racial divide in India, but this is offset by economic
and educational deprivation.
The book is a ‘must read’ for physicians, researchers, corporates
in healthcare, social activists, and those engaged in medical
ethics.
Talking reflections
ANOOPKUMAR THEKKUVEETTIL
Head, Division of Molecular Medicine, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Trivandrum, Kerala, INDIA 695 011 e-mail: anoop@scimst.ac.in
Peepli [live]. Aamir Khan Productions, 2010. Directors:
Anusha Rizvi, Mahmood Farooqui. Hindi. 95 minutes.
When Anusha Rizvi, a journalist who had no previous
experience of movie making, came out with a movie on farmer
suicides in Indian villages, the first reaction among many was
surprise. It is not the sort of story one usually takes up for a
career change. Neither is it part of the mainstream approach
to Indian film making these days. In earlier times, meaningful
stories were discussed by serious moviemakers like Shyam
Benegal, Ketan Mehta, Goutam Ghosh, and others. As the
intellectual middle class in our country has become more
affluent, storytelling has moved from social issues to interpersonal conflicts. Still, with the change in focus we have had
movies like Firaaque (by Nandita Das) with a serious discussion
on social injustice.
Cinema has the power to remind us of the plain absurdity of
our lives, and stimulate debate on how to deal with social
issues. Anusha Rizvi’s decision to present the subject as a
satire and to underscore the callousness and hypocrisy of the
media and political class in handling the plight of the poor in
the country has worked perfectly. One reason for Rizvi’s taking
up such an approach could be because she herself knows the
murkier side of Indian journalism. The race of journalists to get
exclusive news for their channels and to accelerate their ratings
is never ending. I remember BBC journalist Nik Gowing talking
about the absurdity of television journalism, and the dangers
of breaking news often without verifying facts. Satire is indeed
the best way to bring out that dark side of journalism.
The movie Peepli [live] tells the story of two farmers, Natha and
Budhia, living in a remote village, who are about to lose their land
because of an unpaid bank loan. An easy solution to the problem
was to avail of the government aid for families of farmers who
have committed suicide because they are unable to pay off their
debts. One English television channel picks up the story and,
as expected, it becomes a national debate. Natha becomes a
national symbol and every television channel anchor poses the
question, will Natha actually commit suicide or not? Declaration
of by-elections in that village also gives an extra insight on how
our government machinery works. Gradually, Natha, Budhia and
family become just a backdrop and the whole scene is taken
over by television journalists and politicians. Television anchors
discussing farmers’ suicides with politicians become the ‘daily
show’ with ‘breaking news’ focusing on Natha’s suicide threat. At
once, we comprehend the striking similarity with our day-to-day
prime time television viewing.
The advantage of satire is that one can extend the story to
any level possible. Woody Allen uses satire to expose issues
dealing with morality in man-woman relationships by creating
characters that talk about whatever enters their minds. Chaplin
used satire in his classic movie Modern Times to depict the
plight of the working class in an industrialised society more
vividly than any documentary film could have done. Here,
in Peepli [live], Rizvi has also tried to take it to the extreme.
Besides all the laughs, the director is able to make the viewer
think about the pathetic situation in which our country is.
The brilliance of storytelling is in its details - like bringing in
the deep-well pump into the house as one of the characters;
the dream sequences of Natha; and the scene where all the
characters are running around in circles trying to find Natha.
The movie works by maintaining a hectic pace.
Besides, the music is a logical extension of the theme in the
movie. The song Des mera rangrez hai babu almost summarises
what present- day India is. (“Arre India sir, ye cheez dhurandhar,
Rang rangeela parjatantar” Sir, this India is a great thing / This
is a colourful democracy) A colourful democracy indeed!
When the people are satisfied with the conclusion of the story
(Natha’s presumed death), all is quiet. The festival is over and
everybody leaves the ground, except the people who live there.
The character in the movie, digging the land as if to bury his
own body, is a reminder that Natha’s story never ends, because
his life in the city could be another disaster in the making. Until
he takes an unusual decision we never actually see people
like him or worry about how they live. Peepli [Live] stands
up as excellent art apart from being a mirror for our social
conscience.
[ 191 ]