I would say the answer is both "yes" and "no". As in all cultures, you will find both liberal and conservative, both progressive and misogynistic, both enlightened and evil. I think with Indian culture (and with Punjabi culture in particular as depicted in the film) misogyny is in many instances a mainstream value (and when I say value, I mean it is considered of VALUE to believe that women are naturally inferior, morally subordinate creatures whose lives ought not to amount to more than a lifetime of unpaid servitude. If you watch mainstream Bollywood "Hindu Family Values Musicals" like "Hum Aapke Hain Kaun", "Dil To Pagal Hai", "Hum Saath Saath Hain" and "Maine Pyar Kiya" you will see a glamorized version of this brand of hatred of the female which celebrates women who squash any and all personal desires for their extended families, male relatives, and (of course) the religious patriarchy. Any woman who is self-motivated or interested in realizing her own dreams and desires without the help of her father, brothers, or the film's hero is automatically branded a virago, a shrew, and a conniving evil bitch.) It is also worth noting that the Punjab region of India is oft noted for the large number of honor killings committed against women and their entire families who are thought to have dishonored the social mores upon which their society functions.
This is NOT, however, to excuse the atavistic violence portrayed in "Heaven On Earth": too many who have seen the film have tried to defend the Indian culture's fundamental misogyny with the standard "Well, it happens in every culture." This is NOT the point the film is making nor is it relevant to the discussion on domestic violence.
India, like China, is a culture of vast and profound differences. The imprint of its past whose origins are untraceable and the influence of the "progressive" West in modern times are both essential to any understanding of the culture which now calls itself "Indian". This discussion is too long to be had here within the confines of an internet chat, but suffice is to say Deepa Mehta has given at least a glimpse into the wide canyon that exists between the various conceptions of women and femininity in Indian culture: she is both devi (goddess) and slave. To some she is to be worshiped, to others she is pure chattel.
I believe that the main point Deepa Mehta was trying to make is that misogyny and violence are so "normalized" in certain families that the daily beatings and mental torture they bring are almost incidental to the lives of the families involved. You can see it in the way Chand's niece and nephew react to their uncle's beating of his new bride. The nephew already knows that women are to be handled with little respect, while the niece internalizes her grief at during every beating, knowing full well that this will likely be her fate as well as an adult. It is heartbreaking to watch her young soul die a little more after each beating.
The magical realism which Mehta employs throughout the story shows the audience that there are those who will resort to outlets other than 911 and judicial courts to escape from hellacious circumstances. Like Toni Morrison's master novel "Song of Solomon", Mehta shows how the devastated are able to remain hopeful by relying on the legends of the past, legends which may not translate to reality, but which make the sufferers believe that they too may one day soar above the slave fields and transform their tormentors into lovers.
As Chand demonstrates at the end of the film, success is not always possible, but survival just might be.
reply
share