Most long time readers know (see previous posts 1,2) of my soft spot for the SAAN Conference. If you are a college student and want to go to one desi conference this year, make this one in Ann Arbor, Michigan on January 25th-27th the one. Once again, the hard working University of Michigan students have assembled a great line up of speakers and some fascinating workshop topics (workshops are highly interactive):
Who’s the Man?Dialogue on gender rarely focuses on men’s issues. Why are Muslim men always seen as sexist? In film, why are most of the romantic leads Hindu? Where do Sikhs fall into the picture? By processing all of these questions, we will be able to see how identity, gender, and stereotypes collide in creating images of South Asian masculinity, as well as their tangible effects on individual lives.
Journalistic Justice
With podcasts, blogs, and email, we have an infinite amount of information at our fingertips. Fewer people are subscribing to paper publications, shifting the way we consume current events. Technology facilitates new forms of journalism, broadening who has access to innovative ideas.
Loans for Livelihood
An abundance of food and money are two commodities that most First World societies take for granted, but almost every continent includes regions that have an immense scarcity of these basic resources. Due to international development goals as well as the motivation of private firms and individuals, micro-credit, or lending small amounts of money to people with little or no capital, has become one popular and possibly successful way to approach poverty.
The Keynote speakers this year include Vijay Prashad and NPR guest commentator Sandip Roy. This is a great alternative to that other desi conference which I shall not even name. If you’ve attended a SAAN conference before, please leave a comment about your experience.
On the all-too-noticeable point that most romantic movie couples are hindu – I think the same logic can be used in this case as is used to explain why most romantic movie couples in Hollywood are white – The Majority can relate to them. As far as I know, Muslim couples, even if they are dating, have different guidelines all together from their parents, religion and religious scholars.. a prescribed path and things to look for. Christians are considered the more liberal of the Indian masses, therefore less conflict possibilities for a movie. Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists are pretty much treated as if they were Hindu any way and we know that every second romantic movie is about Punjabis so I guess that’s where they factor in.(Sample – Jab We Met)
In India, as far as I have observed, it is the Hindus that least follow their holy scriptures or take a leaf out of The Vedas or Gita when it comes to love and relationships. Thus, they are the most clueless. Just like white people in America who as a group,least follow their holy scriptures or look for guidelines to use when it comes to love and relationships. Clueless in nearly similar ways.
I’m sorry if this sounds too presumptuous but it’s just what I feel from what I have observed. I’m hindu and looking at my Muslim or Christian friends, I can see that we have the least discussions about how to build a relationship, a marriage, or love because all that is considered taboo to discuss with a holy person. I for one, definitely feel much more clueless because of this.
And if 70 % of the Indian population is Hindu, I’m sure the majority of Indian youth would share my complete lack of knowledge on this subject.
To exploit this very emotion, the movie makers make their romantic leads Hindu to bank on the majority’s lack of guides.
Abhi, this conference sounds like it’s set-up for some great discussions. While I can’t make it there, could those people that are going let me/us/mutinous hoard know how it went? Thanks.
1 · PK said
The Vedas and Gitas are not analogous to the Koran or Bible. Hinduism is not a scripture based religion in the sense as Christianity or Islam.
Hindus do have some guidelines in dating and marriage (caste, religion, etc). From what I see on the Indian dating websites, even diaspora Hindus follow some guidelines. Most Hindus prefer only to date other Hindus and vegetarian Hindus prefer fellow vegetarians.
I think Bollywood focuses on Hindu couples simply because the vast majority of Indians are Hindus.
ok, so…
Dialogue on gender rarely focuses on men’s issues. Why are Muslim men always seen as sexist? In film, why are most of the romantic leads Hindu? Where do Sikhs fall into the picture? By processing all of these questions, we will be able to see how identity, gender, and stereotypes collide in creating images of South Asian masculinity, as well as their tangible effects on individual lives.”
their going to deconstruct images of “South Asian” masculinity by only focusing on Indian films? This is the thing about all these “South Asia” discussions-they’re almost entirely focused on India’s social problems. No one looks at the neighbors…God forbid Sri Lanka or Nepal ever get mentioned…
Check out the SAAN Speaker Angana Chatterji ……She is kinda Hot!
In film, why are most of the romantic leads Hindu?
Most Indians are Hindus so it makes sense. Can any Bollywood fans enlighten us on whether the Muslim/Sikh represenation as romantic leads is in proportion to their population in the country?
Actually, the right question should be who is portrayed as a “hero”. Hindu is a very generic term. The vast majority of the population are Dalits + lower caste hindus. But generally the movies make sure that there is no explicit reference to the caste of the hero and if at all there is, it is mostly ‘upper caste’ Hindus. The term “South Asian movies” is misleading. Does that mean Pakistani movies have Hindus as heroes?. looks like another “progressive South Asian” conference. 🙂
Yup, these “progressives” seem to forget that South Asia includes other countries besides India, especially when they are offering social critiques. The only worthwhile talk from my perspective is by Kiva. The funny thing is that groups like Kiva are usually founded by big bad MBA types, not “activists”. I am almost broken hearted that Biju Mathew is not listed among the speakers 🙁
I don’t know, it’s pretty hard to rival SASA for hookup opportunities. Isn’t that all these SA”X” conferences amount to anyway? 🙂
Yeah, isn’t that a “pet peeve” of “South Asian progressives” that other countries are ignored when people talk about “South Asia”. Now aren’t they committing the same mistake while talking about “South Asian masculinity” and just pointing out that the “majority of romantic leads are Hindu”. I never knew majority of Bangladeshi/Pakistani movies portray “Hindu romantic leads”
Added Bangladesh to my earlier comment lest I’ll be called a “Hindu fascist/nationalist/chauvinist” (by the “South Asian progressives”) who is only thinking of India as South Asia. 🙂
Don’t worry, you’ve already earned the rep of being Hindu Fundie #1 on this site. There isn’t a close second since we’ve banned most of them over the years.
I’m not a Bollywood fan, but as PK said, it might be difficult to have a Muslim lead in a romantic role…the Muslim community itself could get upset to have one of their young men portrayed in that manner. But wasn’t there indeed a movie a while back (Bombay?) in which the female romantic lead was a Muslim, portrayed by Manisha Koirala? With a Hindu boyfriend? I never actually saw the movie but the songs were nice. That was a very risky move and in fact I do think there were a lot of protests.
As for turbanned Sikh men in a romantic role, there are probably Sikh religious leaders who would protest that too. In any case it’s not going to happen…even Punjabi movies never depict that. I guess it goes against popular notions of what romatic lead is all about.
I do think the depiction of Sikhs in Bollywood and Indian television is problematic and certainly worthy of discussion. The one exception I’ve noticed is advertising and commercials, in which Sikh boys with patkas are used very often and usually in a nice way.
I do agree with Jiyo and Ponniyin that it’s a bit of a stretch to analyse INDIAN movies and then make statements about SOUTH ASIAN masculinity…sorry Abhi.
My comment had nothing to do with their point. I just like giving Selvan his due.
Worry.. No. I think it’s a honor to be termed Hindu Fundie #1 by the “progressives”. I also know that “progressives” like to ban anything contrary to their opinion. 🙂
8 · louiecypher said
Yup. I think India standing in for South Asia would make a damn good workshop topic.
Also, in addition to the points already made about the problems with the film workshop – what man’s character of any depth ISN’T sexist in Hindi film (I assume the discussion will revolve around Hindi film)?
I forgot to add this to my earlier comment. It would be interesting to know the reasons why I’m called the Hindu fundie #1 in this site. Is that because I call the “bluff” of the “progressives” ?. Is there anything factually wrong in my comments?. I’d be willing to accept my errors if I made erroneous statements.
As far as I know I don’t remember claiming Hinduism is the greatest or Hindu fundamentals are the strongest and have often times ridiculed Hinduism like I do for other religions/Gods. I consider myself as an atheist/agnostic who was born into a low caste Hindu family. That’s the identity I have and can you let us know why I’m called a “Hindu fundie”. I’d like to know the mindset of the “progressives”.
Ponniyin Selvan,
I don’t know if you’d pigeon-holed me as one of your “progressives,” but if I were to pigeon-hole you, it would probably be as an Indian Nationalist. Your comments generally run pretty contrary to anyone’s whom I’d be likely to call a Hindu Nationalist.
ptr_vivek:
I’m not pigeon-holing anyone. My question was directed towards the general “progressives”. Thanks for your response.
I don’t know whether Ponniyin Selvan is a Hindu Fundie or not, because I’m not familiar enough with the volume or general trajectory of his comments to make that judgment. However, I do think that the people who object to Ponniyin Selvan being labeled a Hindu fundie are making the same mistake by using the label “progressive” pejoratively. These labels promote only ad-hominem arguments and make it impossible to ‘play nice’ and engage with someone’s opinions. How about we stop dismissing people’s assertions based on their politics, but rather on the truth/logical/descriptive content?
Bollywood heroes might be Hindus (of unnamed, but probably, high caste) probably because the producers and moviemakers may want to appeal to the audience by evoking identification. So the implications of including that question in that description does seem like a bad idea. It, however, seems worthwhile to see how Bollywood affects South Asian men through its stereotypes – given than it is popular throughout the South Asian region (survey the barbers in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal and you’ll know what I mean) and also influences regional cinema through remakes. Also, other non-desis, who know South Asia through the lens of Bollywood might presume some things about all south asian brownz (given that we all look alike) and that might also be worth investigating in such a forum.
Then I can’t answer you. If anything I support autocracy on SM which isn’t very progressive.
Now folks, can we get off the name-calling and back to the post which has to do with the SAAN conference.
This Bangladeshi Muslim American will be speaking on a couple of panels about South Asian youth voting at SAAN! I’m stoked and hope to see some of you mutineers there! If you go, please stop by and say hello!
Taz
Not really — that this was an incorrect fallacy and was pointed out in several places following the Supreme Court Rulings after the AIIMS stir
Again, most of the Caste based heroes in Tamil movies today belong to the so called OBC castes — the Brahmin lead role is present in only a few movies. (please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the same is true of Telugu movies as well )
I am not sure what caste modern Hindi movie lead roles are based on –(I am guessing it is because of the amnesia from the trauma caused by the ‘acting’ / ‘story’ / ‘direction’ 🙂 )
I think there should be a space to discuss things like conflict in the subcontinent in a sane manner, South Asian groups can play a useful part here. But what I find is that the dialogue is always dead end because the Indian participants are most always at the fringes, e.g. Gandhians or Marxists. I’m not using these identifiers as a pejorative, just stating that they are not numerically significant and can’t speak for the mainstream that needs to be compelled to realize change. It’s kind of like having interfaith dialogue between Quakers/UUs & Buddhists, it’s not a serious attempt at bringing Christians and Buddhists together but rather a giant group hug among people who are in violent agreement :-). I think a progressive is a respectable thing to be, it’s when I doubt the equanimity of an organization that I refer to it as “progressive”. The strange thing is that much of this conflict is completely unecessary. If you were to have a conference on human rights abuses in India, it would be absolutely appropriate given the current state of affairs that the better part of the sessions would highlight abuses against Muslims. It’s when a group purports to be South Asian in scope but neglects to address the situation of minorities in Pakistan & Bangladesh that I get all upset.
Can you point out the percentages or the Supreme court rulings?. This is relevant here because the represenation of so called “Hindus as romantic leads” riled up the “South Asian progressives” (sorry portmanteau) so much that they are having a panel/discussion forum to discuss and debate how to include Muslims/Sikhs/Parsis/Christians etc.. I’d like to add Dalits/Tribals to the list. Being called a Hindu fundie #1, I could also ask if Pakistani/Bangladeshi Hindus are allowed as “romantic leads” in their respective movies and if it is up for discussion.
I’m amused by the subset of “romantic leads”, I wonder why the “progressives” left out the “non romantic leads”. 🙂
Masala movies have romantic leads. Kalai movies have non-romantic leads. The conference is about the former only.
I think the problem with using Hindi (I’m going to take a wild guess and assume that Hindi films will be used as the basis for this, prove me wrong if not so) films and applying it to ‘South Asians’ as a whole is that it fails to take into account regional variations, e.g. south Indian films and models of masculinity may be completely different. I have no problem with second-generation South Asian Americans taking what interests them and creating a mishmash, but I just wish they would recognize that these biases DO exist as a result of demographic realities such that our idea of what is ‘South Asian’ is very north Indian/upper-caste Hindu/Hindi-speaking/Gujarati/Punjabi-centric, and also generally takes a very liberal bent. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to explain to northies and Pakistanis and even Bengalis (both West and East) that NO I don’t speak Hindi (well I do, but very crudely), or how I’ve seen the efforts of south Indians to bring their regional culture into the SASA mold is discouraged and looked down upon.
And then there’s this assumption of a Lahiri-esque ‘shared experience.’ True, there is the unique experience of being a child of immigrants, but it fails to take into account class factors and how that may totally change things. I mean, honestly, how many of the brown kids that go to Hunter College will have the money to fly to some conference in Michigan?
I think Ponniyin Selvan is more conservative than average here, but I don’t think he’s a Hindu fundie. I remember he made a statement once like, ‘These people who want payback for what Muslims did in the past are hypocritical because they won’t apply the same logic to caste-based atrocities,’ and based on what I’ve seen he refrains from essentializing Islam and Muslims. I find it telling that instead of countering his points you just slander him as a Hindu fundie. Also, I think it’s MUCH worse to throw the ‘Hindu fundie’ label around and slander someone as that than to be called “progressive,” because in general it’s much worse to be a ‘Hindu fundie’ than it is to be “progressive.” portmanteau, you say Selvan is an Indian Nationalist, and I guess I’d agree with that- but aren’t many of the commenters and bloggers here American Nationalists? Is nationalism wrong regardless of the country, or is it just when it become blind patriotism?
louiecypher– this is one of the workshops:
I wonder what the religious focus is in Sri Lanka? The LTTE conflict isn’t really a religious one, as you were saying on the other thread. And when it comes to Pakistan I wonder if it will about the persecution of the Ahmadiya community.
I agree, but it’s not just non-desis, it’s also desis in the diaspora who do this. That’s what I’m talking about when I mean inspecting the biases inherent in the ‘South Asian American’ identity.
25 · Ponniyin Selvan said
I don’t know about you PS, but why settle for second-fiddlin’, when you could have yourself some nice diddlin’? Also some stats on SC/STs, OBCs, and other castes in India. There seems to be a range of estimates on the numbers in each subset.
27 · nala said
Nala, I said no such thing 🙂 I may be a “progressive,” but unlike Bill Clinton my denials are quite credible.
Are you talking about the Tamil “kalai” movies ?. For people who don’t know “kalai” movies are “Art” movies or using the American term, “indie” movies. hmm. I would expect the “progressive” crowd to worry more about “indie” movies than the run of the mill “masala” movies.
oops! sorry portmanteau, I confused you and #18. i guess i need to stop looking at the world through these saffron-colored goggles. 😉
I think my objection to the cultural biases inherent in ‘South Asian American’ is different from the one that louiecypher is making, which is that ‘progressive’ politics don’t cover all bases when it comes to criticizing South Asia. But I think it’s still similar in the sense that there’s a narrow definition of what ‘South Asian’ means in the American context, both culturally and politically, the ones who don’t fit in per the former are ‘whitewashed’ and the ones who don’t fit in per the latter are either Hindutvadis or sell-outs. 🙂
btw, I’ve seen Vijay Prashad speak a few times, and he always (in my experience) gives the same ‘there are five kinds of people in the economy, we should work to overturn it’-type speech.
If Ponniyin is a Hindu Fundie – then I am Brad Pitt. P Selvan normally makes valid points – not necessarily to everyone’s liking but to smear his name……. In this case Selvan was on the money.
Nala – your points about Hindi movies being taken as the standard for all Indian movies is true. I have had a few spats with mates who claim to be great fans of bollywood. Mainstream Malayalam Movies have long mixed art with masala rather successfully. Often ideas were borrowed from Oscar winning movies but many are highly localized. I have said this before – to understand communism in kerala watch ‘Lal Saaalam’.
34 · melbourne desi said
Melbourne Desi, you may not be Brad Pitt, but if reports of your conquests are to be believed, you might be at the very least be a modern-day Genghis Khan. 🙂
Ponniyin is a Hindu fundie.
36 · Brad Pitt said
Don’t you have a kid to adopt or something?
That’s what I keep Angie for (psst, she’s a lesbian (nsfw), which is why she is into this whole adoption thing). I’m on a Nawleans kick, myself.
To borrow from Avis – I am not #1 – I try harder 😉
I am on the wrong side of 30 – Genghis Khan would be ashamed of me – at my paltry conquests 🙁 🙁
1 · PK said
This is an obvious point. Every Bollywood movie is about Punjabis. They even use non-Punjabi actors/actresses to depict Punjabis, and then, they “Hinduify” these characters. For example, Ashwarya Rai is a Kannadiga, and she played a Punjabi in a movie several years ago whos surname was “Grewal”. Now everyone who is familiar with Sikhs know that “Grewals/Garewals” are Jatt Sikhs. In this film (I forget the name), she is praying at a Hindu Temple, which I find odd. I don’t know of a single Jatt Sikh who prays at a Hindu Temple, since they tend to be the most nationalistic of all Sikhs. In other films, they have Kajor or Rani playing Punjabis. What’s up with that? I have NOTHING against Punjabis. But I also have NOTHING against any communities within India. Why can’t Rani Mukherjee , Kajol Mukherjee, or the Kapoors depict themselves as Bengalis?
Punjabis are only about 4-5% of the Indian population, however, they represent ~95% of the heroes/heroines of Indian films.
I think that this (glorifying all things Punjabi) is a bigger issue than Bollywood films depicting Muslim men as sexist. To tell you the truth, Muslim men are more sexist than non-Muslim groups within India or the world for that matter.
So you like to watch?
It’s really pointless to try to quantify who is more sexist. It’s more useful to look at societies (regions, countries, states, local communities, etc.) and their particular problems (e.g. female foeticide in India, especially the northwestern states) than to essentialize an entire group of people.
Perhaps this attitude is why Muslim men are depicted as more sexist in Bollywood films? 🙂
Back in the day Muslim actors in India often changed their screen names to Hindu ones. Then later, Hindu actors changed screen names to Muslims ones.
Now, if we are talking about romantic leads in films being portrayed as Hindu, most actors in Bollywood films play roles of Hindus because that is the majority of movie goers in India are Hindus because the majority of citizens in India at this time are Hindus. I don’t think it’s because Hindu men are considered more sexy or romantic or less sexist as leads. Time to time you do get a romantic Muslim hero.
Punjabis are a large percentage of not only the actors/actresses, but also the directors and producers and people behind the scenes. Bollywood is full of Punjabis (mostly Hindus). So that comes through in the movies.
And to some extent I think Punjabis physically come closer (on average) to what the Bollywood-watching Indian public is looking for in terms of a certain ‘look’ or appearance. A type of complexion and features. And so that’s market forces at work.
Historically, Punjabis may have entered the film industry (I’m talking in the really early days, the 1920s-1940s) more than other ethnicities did, because of a certain cultural openness to doing so…while people from more conservative cultural backgrounds found the film industry to be too disreputable to get involved with. That’s just a theory, I don’t have research to back that up.
But you’re right, the hinduification of Sikhs is quite common in Indian media (Bollywood and television).
back to the original topic…
I am looking forward to my (final) SAAN conference as a Michigan student. The workshops are thought-provoking, mostly because of the phenomenal speakers, but also by the level of discussion reached afterwards. I missed Abhi’s 2006 appearance, unfortunately, but I have not been disappointed by the speakers I’ve heard and workshops I’ve attended.
SAAN tries to ensure that every participant truly learns during the weekend. To that effect, attendees get to hear from nearly every speaker, along with keynote addresses, group activities, and networking opportunities. Saturday features 3 workshops, two keynotes, and a formal (an actual formal, not a sasa-esque affair as post #9 assumes). For a conference to focus on providing opportunities to interact with speakers as much as this is impressive and applaudable. I strongly encourage anyone able to attend to do so!!
24 · louiecypher said
lately, sepia is getting so risque. Even a fuddy-duddy like Miss Marple shares the annotations on her well-thumbed Kamasutra.
I would love for the south Indian film industry to raise standards of attractiveness for its male leads. I would also love for ‘spicy’ ‘dark’ ‘exotic’ (a la Bipasha Basu) types to become more popular.
hmm interesting point. The South Indie hero looks like a regular bloke on the street. This is a prime reason for their hold on the unwashed masses. I would aver that it is good. Think Kamalahasan or Arvind Narayanswamy (a bit before your time) who dont have the same pull as a Rajnikant or a Chiranjeevi. Or are you saying that the average Southie hero is fugly as compared to the heroines?
Boston Mahesh,
You state the following:
This seems more than a wee bit off thread, but I wanted to respond briefly. I think your statement about all Bollywood movies being about Punjabis is a matter of perception. I know plenty of Punjabis who feel that Bollywood a) doesn’t depict them enough b) doesn’t fairly depict them and that in fact Bollywood negatively portrays Sikhs and/or Punjabis. In general, their perception is that Punjabis are depicted as being either boorish, simple or criminal kingpins. Their perception would differ from yours. As for Jat Sikhs, you can do an informal poll of NYC cab drivers, many of whom are Jat Sikhs and I would venture to guess that 3 out of 10 have visited a hindu mandir in NY. When your a stranger to a strange land, you’ll seek community and help wherever you think you can find it. Some of their neighbors from India who are now in the U.S. may go to the mandir and so they go with them, as a sign of respect and community. I’ve seen many Hindus at gurdwara as well. You also neglect to consider, there are some Jat Sikh families that have family members who happen to be practicing Hindus. In my own experience, I have distant relatives who have visited Haridwar and Badrinath (Hindu religious sites) and who also visit their local gurdwaras as well as Sikh temples. I ask you to consider that the generalizations you make in your quote above are a matter of your perception and not necessarily accurate.
As for Jat Sikhs and nationalism, I’ll tell you what I think is their two biggest concerns: 1) finding decent opportunities for their sons and daughters in Punjab and Haryana, where they feel the quota system in India hurts them more than other groups (true or not) 2) the drug culture that has started to invade some Punjabi communities. Most Jat Sikhs in India I know do not maintain a nationalistic fervor for a separate state, it’s more about the simple desire to take care of their families. That’s my perception.
Why can’t Rani Mukherjee , Kajol Mukherjee, or the Kapoors depict themselves as Bengalis? Maybe they don’t have the acting chops to pull it off or if your perception is correct, it may have something to do with DVD sales overseas. As repeatedly mentioned on this site, a portion of the diaspora are Punjabi. It would seem to make sense to cater to this market. But once again, I believe your perception would differ from those of the Punjabi community or at least, the Sikh community, that may not feel that it is being depicted properly in Bollywood.
Rather than derail the thread any further, if you wish to continue the discussion off site, I would be happy to speak with you about it further.