META chai party: Religion in soapland

Foucaults-qalam

@Foucaults-qalam

Voyager

15

+ 2

Posted: 12 years ago

#11

@ undisclosed. Saffronisation is, as a couple of people above have already explained, the propaganda of Hindutva, a sort of evangelical Hindu ideology. Many intellectuals consider it to be entirely misconceived, largely because it chooses to garb Hindu thought within a presciptive Abrahamic format, something which is fundamentally in opposition with the core ideas of the philosophical system.

4

Reply

Quote

bhoomi.s

@bhoomi.s

Explorer

6

Posted: 12 years ago

#12

Some points from me. This is going to be a bit all over the place, so please bear with me.

(1) This particular show - I have HUGE problems with the way the entire track was handled, with atheism being slammed and completely debunked as a valid philosophical position. As a practising atheist, the biggest difficulty I face is convincing people (read: my family) that I am not morally corrupt or functioning in a spiritual void because of my belief (or more precisely, the lack of it). The makers of this show, obviously, belong to the same paradigm I've been trying to combat.

Like priyachand said, I'm appalled/amused by the disclaimer that went on the screen when the naastik scenes were airing; has society really become so intolerant. That, and the last minute edit of the kebab-waala's name. It would have been funny if it wasn't scary.

(2) The problem, according to me is not just the excessive focus on the dominant religion, but also homogenization. Even within Hinduism, there are various subsects which have their own customs and ritual, and all of these are conveniently ignored. As earlier posts have mentioned, Hinduism is very subject to interpretation and these shows ignore that fact entirely.

(3) Religion makes for a rich visual experience. In support of this, I present the choice of communities is pretty revealing - mostly Punjabi or Gujarati or Marathi or Bengali families (add Rajasthani - slot leaders at 8.00 and 9.00 p.m.). All these communities have a major festival or a way of life that translates well on screen. By this I mean the opportunity to have decorative sets, song and dance.

(4) There is a concept called rearviewmirrorism that we learn pretty early on in media studies - every new medium copies the media it was designed to supplant. I suspect that Indian media content in today's time is so religiously orientated because of the abundance of religious narratives in our repository. The dramatic confirmations of faith, miracles, the return of the prodigal - these are all recurring themes in our mythology (leelas), and were richly depicted in our folk traditions, intially and later on, in theatre and cinema. TV is following in the same path.

(5) India's secularism - India was never secular, in the way the word is generally defined. Secularism in India doesn't imply a separation of State and Church (Religion) but a policy of equal respect to all religions. Even so, TV is pathetic. If ignoring may be understood as lack of contempt, then I suppose TV is very secular.

(6) How much is too much - The minute a particular philosophy is posited as better than the rest, it becomes too much. Everyone has a right to their own beliefs and it is supremely annoying to be subjected to conversionist zeal, especially in entertainment.

(7) @ saffronization - There definitely is a terror of offending the goons. Who wants to get into trouble? It is just easier to go with the dominant ideology. More than the content of the show, it is the disclaimers that are reflective of this.

Edited by bhoomi.s - 12 years ago

4

Reply

Quote

undisclosed

@undisclosed

Trailblazer

44

+ 2

Posted: 12 years ago

#13

Originally posted by: Foucaults-qalam
@ undisclosed. Saffronisation is, as a couple of people above have already explained, the propaganda of Hindutva, a sort of evangelical Hindu ideology. Many intellectuals consider it to be entirely misconceived, largely because it chooses to garb Hindu thought within a presciptive Abrahamic format, something which is fundamentally in opposition with the core ideas of the philosophical system.

ok...while i read ...i did not make the connection...i guess i can give my view in reply to the last question now...

Could this be seen as part of a latent saffronisation of the Mumbai film and TV industry?

from what i have seen...i would have totaly gotten the idea that there was a set of rules to follow in the hindu religion...and soapland is my main connection to hinduism as i don't come in contact with it through any other medium...from what i have seen...it does not appear all that philosophical in practice...i do see more rules of conduct than anything else...but i am not sure if said movement is to blame...

Edited by undisclosed - 12 years ago

2

Reply

Quote

parheezGM

@parheezGM

Navigator

10

Posted: 12 years ago

#14

The object of any religion is to unify not to diversify.

Having said that I do belong to a minority community BUT in no way do I feel that Ott depiction on television is in any way threatening.

For the sake of spectacle and glamor and do not forget of course the trp's the makers tend to overdo even a simple ritual or festival.

Many of my hindu friends feel that the way the festivals are celebrated on tv is quite bakwaas. 😕 they find some depictions quite nauseating and are pretty much put off and disgusted.

So I'm pretty happy that there is no tele serial where my religion plays a role too. Otherwise even I would be quite put off like them.

Take visarjan for example... A family can invest in a proper ganeshji idol and not take the temporary kind. After doing the ten days aarti and puja they can simply emerse the idol in a bucket of water. Bas that's it!! And they have the idol forever in their homes! There is no need to go dance on the road like a bloody maniac, no need to pollute the water bodies, no need to obstruct traffic and throw colors on passersby! 😡

And most importantly there is no need to get drunk after the emmersion and make a nuisance of yourselves too!!

But now a days every thing has to be shown off, everything is to be made a spectacle of.

If lord ganesh is the lord of wisdom why do we have His devotees acting like dimwits?? 😲

All this behavior is copied brainlessly by our people and of course they get this idea from tv!!

I don't know what is the solution for this but what I find funny is that come any festival all the serials look the same!! Whatever the situation or context of the show, but be it holy, chaturthi or diwali... All the serials jump onto the same bandwagon!!

2

Reply

Quote

Foucaults-qalam

@Foucaults-qalam

Voyager

15

+ 2

Posted: 12 years ago

#15

Originally posted by johnnylucky

FQ I love reading your FQ Nama. You are gifted with talent of writing with a flavor of humor. Madhubala is a love story and this show is blessed with a good team who are making us glue to it. Regarding the current track CV's are heading to take the Rishabala relation to next level and they kind of choose religious track. I know madhubala has fans throught the world from different countries, different relegions. This current relegious track might not go well with certain group of audience. The writers and CV's choose major audience for TRP purpose. I am pretty sure they will get back to the normal track next week or so. I also agree that they kind of took more time (2 weeks) focusing on Bappa(ganesh). I wished they could have wrapped it up in one week or so unfortunately they dragged to 2 weeks. So please be patient for a week or so and come back next week i am sure you will love the next track of Rishabala.

----- by fq

I am a Hindu. But I do not agree with this wholesale murder of secularism in the name of attracting the aunty brigade. If this is right then it is perfectly right for an Afghan TV channel to show a track where a Talibani throws acid on the heroine's face because she is shown to dare to go out without a burqa. Extreme? Or showing ganpatisation is not the same as extremist Islamist ideology?

That's my point. Showing religion as a plot-point opens too many uneasy questions. Who is going to be a mediator in matters of faith? This is completely irresponsible tv making. And not even clever or beautiful or moving. Talk about ticking zero boxes!

Edited by Foucaults-qalam - 12 years ago

1

Reply

Quote

Foucaults-qalam

@Foucaults-qalam

Voyager

15

+ 2

Posted: 12 years ago

#16

Originally posted by Nietzsche

Originally posted by Foucaults-qalam

My only friend, the end.

This whole thing was so horrendously bad from start to finish that I can't even make fun of it. I think my patience is exhausted. Goodbye, Madhubala.

N

Thanks for initiating a discussion on "Religion in soapland". To follow up on my previous comment, here are a few fragmentary thoughts from my end:

To go beyond my personal 'godlessness', I am cognisant of the important mobilising force religion has been in anti-colonial struggles, for example, the role played by Christianity in the anti-Apartheid stuggle in South Africa or the role of Islam in Algeria. So it would be disingenous to condemn it as being solely regressive. Furthermore, the powerful force of religious affect is a crucial factor to consider when analyzing socio-cultural phenomena, whether individual or collective, private or public.

With the promise of triumph of reason over superstition and belief, secularization guarantees modernity, liberalism, tolerance, emancipation and peace. However, state enforced secularism violently targets religion, as under fascist and communist regimes (without meaning to equate the two). Thus "the secular imperative" ushers in its own coercive agendas. I am not for purging religion from the public sphere by privatizing it, rather would emphasize the urgency of contesting the religion versus secularity antinomy.

I am curious about popular culture and thus my interest in a soap like "Madhubala", an excellent example of heteronormative coding of desire, fantasy and pleasure (although there are unintended homosocial interventions in this staging, for instance, through Bittuji). Similarly, when I first started watching the soap, I was pleasantly surprised that the Hindu woman (Padmini), who is fleeing from feudality (her zamindar husband, Balraj Chaudhary) is shown to find refuge with a Muslim family (Shamsher Mallik). Her 'rescuer' is none other than a single woman, who enjoys her drink after a hard day's work, namely, Roma. An unconventional potrayal of gender, class and religious identities.

I completely share your frustration and can only hope that the show interrrupts its own normative agendas. In any case, it would be a great loss if you were to discontinue your posts as I really, really look forward to my daily dose of laughter thanks to your razor-sharp wit.

P.S. The "How to share a bathroom w/a superstar" was inspirational!

Edited by Foucaults-qalam - 12 years ago

1

Reply

Quote

Foucaults-qalam

@Foucaults-qalam

Voyager

15

+ 2

Posted: 12 years ago

#17

Originally posted by Foucaults-qalam

Originally posted by Nietzsche

Originally posted by Foucaults-qalam
F
My only friend, the end.

This whole thing was so horrendously bad from start to finish that I can't even make fun of it. I think my patience is exhausted. Goodbye, Madhubala.

N

Thanks for initiating a discussion on "Religion in soapland". To follow up on my previous comment, here are a few fragmentary thoughts from my end:

To go beyond my personal 'godlessness', I am cognisant of the important mobilising force religion has been in anti-colonial struggles, for example, the role played by Christianity in the anti-Apartheid stuggle in South Africa or the role of Islam in Algeria. So it would be disingenous to condemn it as being solely regressive. Furthermore, the powerful force of religious affect is a crucial factor to consider when analyzing socio-cultural phenomena, whether individual or collective, private or public.

With the promise of triumph of reason over superstition and belief, secularization guarantees modernity, liberalism, tolerance, emancipation and peace. However, state enforced secularism violently targets religion, as under fascist and communist regimes (without meaning to equate the two). Thus "the secular imperative" ushers in its own coercive agendas. I am not for purging religion from the public sphere by privatizing it, rather would emphasize the urgency of contesting the religion versus secularity antinomy.

I am curious about popular culture and thus my interest in a soap like "Madhubala", an excellent example of heteronormative coding of desire, fantasy and pleasure (although there are unintended homosocial interventions in this staging, for instance, through Bittuji). Similarly, when I first started watching the soap, I was pleasantly surprised that the Hindu woman (Padmini), who is fleeing from feudality (her zamindar husband, Balraj Chaudhary) is shown to find refuge with a Muslim family (Shamsher Mallik). Her 'rescuer' is none other than a single woman, who enjoys her drink after a hard day's work, namely, Roma. An unconventional potrayal of gender, class and religious identities.

I completely share your frustration and can only hope that the show interrrupts its own normative agendas. In any case, it would be a great loss if you were to discontinue your posts as I really, really look forward to my daily dose of laughter thanks to your razor-sharp wit.

P.S. The "How to share a bathroom w/a superstar" was inspirational!

F

Thank you for bringing up the issue of religious mobilisation and struggles against colonialism. I have argued this often-- in academic fora as well as in slightly bemused company who just wanted to watch a good ol' 19th c adventure movie-- I DO consider such mobilisation to be deeply regressive, exploitative and ultimately, extremely harmful to the society that fosters it.

I had thought that I might point out the antecedents of the Bappa cult in Mumbai over the weekend, but somehow never got round to it. If the mass-hysterical, rabble-rousing qualities of religion are to be used to garner fevered and ill-reasoned mass support for ANY movement, however noble it may be, I will oppose it most strongly. Because the question once again is that of intellectual exploitation: the priests do it to foster status quo ( opiate of the masses) and the new Mahdis use exactly the same tools to take away the power of informed decision-making to get bodies ( not minds) behind their causes. The faceless masses are exploited in both scenarios.

Ergo: strongly oppose. If possible, exterminate religion from the public sphere. If impossible, trivialise.

N

But we have had historical instances of purging religion from the public sphere in the name of protecting the masses, and look at the trail of violence it has left. Think of the thousands who died in the Soviet Gulags for their religious beliefs.

Take the case of Ambedkar (a great fan of the American pragmatist philosopher John Dewey), who nonetheless aligned himself with Buddhism to further the Dalit cause against the hegemonic Vedic religion.

Terry Eagleton warns us: "As with bad breath, ideology is always what the other person has"

I am completely with you on the critique of saffronisation, but unfortunately history provides us with counter-intuitive examples on the complex dynamics between religion, secularity and violence.

Edited by Nietzsche - 09 October 2012 at 3:53pm

Edited by Foucaults-qalam - 12 years ago

1

Reply

Quote

Foucaults-qalam

@Foucaults-qalam

Voyager

15

+ 2

Posted: 12 years ago

#18

Originally posted by Nietzsche

Originally posted by Foucaults-qalam

Originally posted by Nietzsche

Originally posted by Foucaults-qalam
F
My only friend, the end.

This whole thing was so horrendously bad from start to finish that I can't even make fun of it. I think my patience is exhausted. Goodbye, Madhubala.

N
Thanks for initiating a discussion on "Religion in soapland". To follow up on my previous comment, here are a few fragmentary thoughts from my end:

To go beyond my personal 'godlessness', I am cognisant of the important mobilising force religion has been in anti-colonial struggles, for example, the role played by Christianity in the anti-Apartheid stuggle in South Africa or the role of Islam in Algeria. So it would be disingenous to condemn it as being solely regressive. Furthermore, the powerful force of religious affect is a crucial factor to consider when analyzing socio-cultural phenomena, whether individual or collective, private or public.

With the promise of triumph of reason over superstition and belief, secularization guarantees modernity, liberalism, tolerance, emancipation and peace. However, state enforced secularism violently targets religion, as under fascist and communist regimes (without meaning to equate the two). Thus "the secular imperative" ushers in its own coercive agendas. I am not for purging religion from the public sphere by privatizing it, rather would emphasize the urgency of contesting the religion versus secularity antinomy.

I am curious about popular culture and thus my interest in a soap like "Madhubala", an excellent example of heteronormative coding of desire, fantasy and pleasure (although there are unintended homosocial interventions in this staging, for instance, through Bittuji). Similarly, when I first started watching the soap, I was pleasantly surprised that the Hindu woman (Padmini), who is fleeing from feudality (her zamindar husband, Balraj Chaudhary) is shown to find refuge with a Muslim family (Shamsher Mallik). Her 'rescuer' is none other than a single woman, who enjoys her drink after a hard day's work, namely, Roma. An unconventional potrayal of gender, class and religious identities.

I completely share your frustration and can only hope that the show interrrupts its own normative agendas. In any case, it would be a great loss if you were to discontinue your posts as I really, really look forward to my daily dose of laughter thanks to your razor-sharp wit.

P.S. The "How to share a bathroom w/a superstar" was inspirational!

F

Thank you for bringing up the issue of religious mobilisation and struggles against colonialism. I have argued this often-- in academic fora as well as in slightly bemused company who just wanted to watch a good ol' 19th c adventure movie-- I DO consider such mobilisation to be deeply regressive, exploitative and ultimately, extremely harmful to the society that fosters it.

I had thought that I might point out the antecedents of the Bappa cult in Mumbai over the weekend, but somehow never got round to it. If the mass-hysterical, rabble-rousing qualities of religion are to be used to garner fevered and ill-reasoned mass support for ANY movement, however noble it may be, I will oppose it most strongly. Because the question once again is that of intellectual exploitation: the priests do it to foster status quo ( opiate of the masses) and the new Mahdis use exactly the same tools to take away the power of informed decision-making to get bodies ( not minds) behind their causes. The faceless masses are exploited in both scenarios.

Ergo: strongly oppose. If possible, exterminate religion from the public sphere. If impossible, trivialise.

N

But we have had historical instances of purging religion from the public sphere in the name of protecting the masses, and look at the trail of violence it has left. Think of the thousands who died in the Soviet Gulags for their religious beliefs.

Take the case of Ambedkar (a great fan of the American pragmatist philosopher John Dewey), who nonetheless aligned himself with Buddhism to further the Dalit cause against the hegemonic Vedic religion.

Terry Eagletons warns us: "As with bad breath, ideology is always what the other person has"

I am completely with you on the critique of saffronisation, but unfortunately history provides us with counter-intuitive examples on the complex dynamics between religion, secularity and violence.

F

Failed communist states, as Hobsbawm put it (rip), are not a good example of secularism in practice. Totalitarian states are aware of the mobilising power of religion and do everything they can to expunge it as a variable in statecraft, using, as the Soviets and the Chinese did, extremely badly thought out and always ill-executed plans to do so.

Anti- religiousism is not the same as secularism. I am more in agreement with the kind of secularism practised in what is, on paper, an overtly C of E state, i.e the UK. Religion here is crassly commercialised ( which allows us to see its true face) has few hard-core adherents, and people keep it in the house where it belongs. Except for the recent incursion of fundamentalist Islam into our enlightened multi-cultural society. In my eyes: total win.

Edited by Foucaults-qalam - 12 years ago

1

Reply

Quote

Foucaults-qalam

@Foucaults-qalam

Voyager

15

+ 2

Posted: 12 years ago

#19

IOriginally posted by Foucaults-qalam

Originally posted by Nietzsche

Originally posted by Foucaults-qalam

Originally posted by Nietzsche

Originally posted by Foucaults-qalam
F
My only friend, the end.

This whole thing was so horrendously bad from start to finish that I can't even make fun of it. I think my patience is exhausted. Goodbye, Madhubala.

N

Thanks for initiating a discussion on "Religion in soapland". To follow up on my previous comment, here are a few fragmentary thoughts from my end:

To go beyond my personal 'godlessness', I am cognisant of the important mobilising force religion has been in anti-colonial struggles, for example, the role played by Christianity in the anti-Apartheid stuggle in South Africa or the role of Islam in Algeria. So it would be disingenous to condemn it as being solely regressive. Furthermore, the powerful force of religious affect is a crucial factor to consider when analyzing socio-cultural phenomena, whether individual or collective, private or public.

With the promise of triumph of reason over superstition and belief, secularization guarantees modernity, liberalism, tolerance, emancipation and peace. However, state enforced secularism violently targets religion, as under fascist and communist regimes (without meaning to equate the two). Thus "the secular imperative" ushers in its own coercive agendas. I am not for purging religion from the public sphere by privatizing it, rather would emphasize the urgency of contesting the religion versus secularity antinomy.

I am curious about popular culture and thus my interest in a soap like "Madhubala", an excellent example of heteronormative coding of desire, fantasy and pleasure (although there are unintended homosocial interventions in this staging, for instance, through Bittuji). Similarly, when I first started watching the soap, I was pleasantly surprised that the Hindu woman (Padmini), who is fleeing from feudality (her zamindar husband, Balraj Chaudhary) is shown to find refuge with a Muslim family (Shamsher Mallik). Her 'rescuer' is none other than a single woman, who enjoys her drink after a hard day's work, namely, Roma. An unconventional potrayal of gender, class and religious identities.

I completely share your frustration and can only hope that the show interrrupts its own normative agendas. In any case, it would be a great loss if you were to discontinue your posts as I really, really look forward to my daily dose of laughter thanks to your razor-sharp wit.

P.S. The "How to share a bathroom w/a superstar" was inspirational!

F

Thank you for bringing up the issue of religious mobilisation and struggles against colonialism. I have argued this often-- in academic fora as well as in slightly bemused company who just wanted to watch a good ol' 19th c adventure movie-- I DO consider such mobilisation to be deeply regressive, exploitative and ultimately, extremely harmful to the society that fosters it.

I had thought that I might point out the antecedents of the Bappa cult in Mumbai over the weekend, but somehow never got round to it. If the mass-hysterical, rabble-rousing qualities of religion are to be used to garner fevered and ill-reasoned mass support for ANY movement, however noble it may be, I will oppose it most strongly. Because the question once again is that of intellectual exploitation: the priests do it to foster status quo ( opiate of the masses) and the new Mahdis use exactly the same tools to take away the power of informed decision-making to get bodies ( not minds) behind their causes. The faceless masses are exploited in both scenarios.

Ergo: strongly oppose. If possible, exterminate religion from the public sphere. If impossible, trivialise.

N

But we have had historical instances of purging religion from the public sphere in the name of protecting the masses, and look at the trail of violence it has left. Think of the thousands who died in the Soviet Gulags for their religious beliefs.

Take the case of Ambedkar (a great fan of the American pragmatist philosopher John Dewey), who nonetheless aligned himself with Buddhism to further the Dalit cause against the hegemonic Vedic religion.

Terry Eagletons warns us: "As with bad breath, ideology is always what the other person has"

I am completely with you on the critique of saffronisation, but unfortunately history provides us with counter-intuitive examples on the complex dynamics between religion, secularity and violence.

F

Failed communist states, as Hobsbawm put it (rip), are not a good example of secularism in practice. Totalitarian states are aware of the mobilising power of religion and do everything they can to expunge it as a variable in statecraft, using, as the Soviets and the Chinese did, extremely badly thought out and always ill-executed plans to do so.

Anti-religiousism is not the same as secularism. I am more in agreement with the kind of secularism practised in what is, on paper, an overtly C of E state, i.e the UK. Religion here is crassly commercialised ( which allows us to see its true face) has few hard-core adherents, and people keep it in the house where it belongs. Except for the recent incursion of fundamentalist Islam into our enlightened multi-cultural society. In my eyes: total win.

N

I sincerely hope this is an instance of your razor-sharp wit when you cite UK as an exemplary secular state. Are we forgetting that Britain allied itself with Bush in bombing innocent Afghanis and Iraqis in the name of protecting 'our' freedom and liberty from religious violence. I hope the irony is not lost on you. The 'poor' Muslim woman was conveniently instrumentalized as an alibi. Spivak's "white man saving brown woman from brown man" is alive and kicking in postcolonial Britain. I can only recommend having a look at Peter van der Veer's Imperial Encounters: Religion, Nation, and Empire for an insight into Britain's shameful track record.

To reiterate, I unequivocally critique at once coercive religiosity and secular fundamentalism and hope against hope that our daily soaps make an effort to better represent the ambivalences of these struggles without pandering to our xenophobia.

Edited by Foucaults-qalam - 12 years ago

1

Reply

Quote

Foucaults-qalam

@Foucaults-qalam

Voyager

15

+ 2

Posted: 12 years ago

#20

Originally posted by Nietzsche

Originally posted by Foucaults-qalam
F
@ nietzsche Again the subject of very long diatribes, so perhaps this is not the best forum. State-sponsored interventions by the UK and all othe nations ( including India) are all, without exception, led by real politik than any moral, altruistic code. But society is not equal to state. if it makes any difference, the civil protest against the war during the Blair years was one of the largest the country has seen.

Does this highlight the problems in representative democracy? Yes.

But does this disallow us to conflate state with society? Again, yes.

Societies are not made by states, not even in democratic systems. UK society, ever since the Magna Carta, has taken on board, accidentally, organically, and perhaps unintentionally, the best ideas of the Enlightenment, without its naivete. It is conflicted and imperfect and flawed, but evolving.

Did it allow Empire to flourish and perpetuate a diseased ideology that still has hold over billions? Yes.

But it also allowed for protest against Empire within itself at a time when in most societies this would have been impossible.And most importantly, relies on encouraging the primacy of individual thought. Very weirdly, it is more similar to Buddhist doctrines re the individual than Protestant or CoE ones.

So what I am saying while being extremely sleep-deprived and on my stupid touch screen keyboard is that human societies have been pretty horrible till now. We haven't got a successful model to follow. We've got to make one. And I have come to the conclusion that organised religion cannot be a state or media-supported component of any civilised society.

N

I wish I could share your optimism about British society being the 'true' inheritors of the best of Enlightenment. My hope lies elsewhere, with those who were hindered from making a claim to it (like the Haitian revolutionaries).

All the best for your work and try and get some sleep!

F

Certainly not the sole inheritors. All societies are an eternal experiment and we should learn from whoever cracks it best. Otherwise what is the point of knowledge being cumulative.

The following 3 member(s) liked the above post:

DovesView, latekate, 0-SD-0,

Edited by Foucaults-qalam - 12 years ago

1

Reply

Quote