Posted:
1. How can you take an article seriously when there are obvious and blatant discrepencies in the "information" given and reality? I'm hard-pressed to take someone's opinions with an open mind when they can't even present the facts accurately.
2. Get your facts right. First and foremost, Kama Sutra is sub-unit of the body of text known as Kama Shastra. This literature is spiritual in nature, having been a recording of Lord Shiva's sacred bull, Nandi's obvservations. In overview, the text is supposed to be about human sexual behaviour, guidline for yoga and some practical advise on sex. Remove decades/centuries worth of misconception and the Western misrepresentation of Kama Sutra from your mind, do some actual research on the web, then make any statements if you want. If you don't know what you're talking about, and you're going to repeat stereotypes and biases, you are only spreading ignorance.
3. Salsa, and other Latin dance forms, are sensual in nature. These dance forms are an expression of sensuality for the culture. Anytime Salsa, Rumba, etc. is shown on Indian TV, the performers are applauded for trying something new and performing well. Does that mean the tight clothes, the close body contact, the placement of hands, the movement of chest, pelvis and head is alright because it's Western?
4. Sensuality is centuries old in Indian culture. In fact, if you do some research and reading, you'll see that as far as sensuality was concerned, Indian culture was far more open-minded and forward thinking hundreds of years ago, in comparison to present-day culture. There was a lot of reverence and respect shown for the male and female bodies, and the idea of sensuality.
5. Dance has been an integral form of Indian culture. It is an expression of joy, sorrow and a gammut of other emotions, including sensuality. Do pay more attention to the statues outside your temple, the next time you visit.
6. Should this be shown on TV? Why not. Indians pay 100s of rupees to watch films, most of which have at least one sexual (not sensual) item number, as well as any number of other vulgar acts. And children are usually in tow for such films. Or they sneak out and watch it on their own or on TV when it's finally released on air. Then there are the serials which depict immorality in every form from cheating to murder to lying to affairs. How is depicting sensuality through a dance performance that lasts mere minutes once any worse than week after week and hour after hour of the senseless serials?
7. Children shouldn't be exposed to this. Well maybe you're right. And I think the parents should have enough sense to censor that for their own children by telling them to leave the room or changing the channel. Certainly they've had enough warning at this point thanks to the media-hysteria. And if they don't censor for their own family, then that's their perogative.
8. Urban vs. rural. I just want to pose a point...just something that came to mind when I read a couple of comments regarding that. You really think rural societies don't know about sex, sensuality, etc.? Consider this: most rural families can't afford 2-story houses with a bedroom for each person. And yet their families are typically, substantially large. Just how ignorant do you think those kids are about where/how their siblings came? I'd say they probably have a better idea about sex and sensuality than children who grow up in urban societies. IMO, rural sex education is probably more simple, spiritual and normal. In contrast, urban sex education typically has an aura of taboo, and whatever children learn is probably a highly sensationalized version.
9. Sensuality, IMO is far less dangerous a thing to show on TV than people setting themselves on fire, dancing on needles, hanging from hoops, or jumping off structures. Kids are far more likely to try out these stunts than to try out sensuality which they won't fully understand or pay attention to. How many kids do you know who sit glued to a screen when a somewhat intimate act is being depicted. They usually hide their eyes, make faces or have their parents distract them. But jumping off a table would certainly attract them, just so they can be as cool as Salman. The lesson that Mangya broke his arm trying the same won't stick with kids.
In summary, no, I don't think there's anything wrong or dangerous about showing a sensuous dance on Indian television. We've been subjected to the vulgarity of Mithun C. doing the pelvic thrust, Rakhi Sawant sashaying in next to nothing and Salman Khan riding his own shirt on a musical show. If a traditional dance form can show that sensuality offers a lot more respect between two people, then I hope the current generation of Indians learns something.
Though this point has been made, I'd just like to reiterate that Hai Rama is not a religious song but a movie "item number" from the movie Rangeela. Don't be fooled by the mention of "Rama" in the song. Bollywood music is notorious for forcing a Lords name in the song... apparently there aren't enough words in Hindi, Sanskrit, and Urdu combined and Rama, or Allah, or some other God just has to be mentioned.
Lastly, obviously there's going to be competition amongst the choreographers as well as the contestants. That's the nature of the show as well as the industry. However, I want to remind all the members that each of the 3 choreographers has their own forte, one better in a particular form than the other two. The three are also established industry personalities. I think it's highly unfair to say x is better than y or y is better than z. Respect the fact that all 3 came from different backgrounds and experiences and have different talents to show, share, and teach. Enjoy what each has to offer.
Anupamaa
