Cultures of Criticism: Filmic Views from a Different Islamic Location
14th October – 31st October
Film: Close Up
14th October at Anveshi Meeting Hall at 4.30 PM
Pretending to be Mohsin Makhmalbaf, Ali Sabzian enters a well-to-do family in Tehran on the pretext of making his next movie. He is caught after he borrows money on the pretext of financing a film and is brought to trial. The actual people involved in the incident re-enact the incidents after which the movie continues to film Ali’s trial in the court, with the camera also playing the role of a judge and the director asking a few questions.
Director: Abbas Kiarostami
Duration: One hour forty minutes
Language: Persian with English subtitles
Film: Divorce – Iranian Style
23rd October, EFLU New Academic Building, at 5.00PM
24th October, Anveshi Meeting Hall, at 3.30 PM
This film documents the everyday functioning of a small Iranian family court: of women filing for divorce, demanding meher, custody of children or seeking to threaten the husbands with divorce. While the formal family laws favour men, the court proceedings reveal a different picture – of women fighting for their due in marriage and divorce, sometimes in the face of imminent defeat. For anyone who has been inside an Indian family court, the similarities in women’s battles and the dissimilarities between the Indian and Iranian courts are difficult to miss. This documentary was made for Channel 4 of BBC.
Made by: Kim Longinotto and Ziba Mir-Hosseini
Duration: One hour fifty five minutes
Language: English voice over, conversations in Persian
Film: Leila
31st October, Anveshi Meeting Hall, at 3.30 PM
Leila is the story of a young couple whose life begins to change when they come to know that she cannot conceive. Under the pressure of mother in law, Leila persuades her much-reluctant husband to take a second wife, despite the explicit opposition of the rest of her marital family. Thereafter unable to reconcile to it, she leaves the marital home, devastated. While Reza and Leila do not take divorce, her husband’s second marriage does not last. Delicately portraying a critical social issue, Leila went on to become the most watched film in Iran in 1998.
Director: Dariush Mehrjui
Duration: Two hours four minutes
Language: Persian with English subtitles
Background Note:
Steeped in Perso-Islamic culture, Iranian films offer refreshingly interesting perspectives for students of modern democracy, contemporary Islam and Muslims. For Indian researchers and teachers seeking to understand or explain the cultures, laws, traditions, practices and institutions of Muslims in India, Iran and its films present interesting possibilities. To begin with, these films can tell us how a self-confidently Muslim culture would offer critiques of Islamic laws, societal culture, familial relations, and other national institutions. They would tell us that each of the Muslim cultures may be Islamic in a unique sense, inflected by inherited notions of culture, history and the contemporary norms governing their societies. Consequently, they may help in locating Indian critiques of Islam and Muslims - as hailing from a culture where the governing norm is secularism. Anveshi Law Initiative intends to screen a few Iranian films hoping to raise a discussion around such possible readings.
Currently engaged in researching the relationship of Muslim minorities and Law in India, for Anveshi, these films assumed importance also to explore questions such as: how do Muslim women negotiate a modern democratic theological state; how do imaginaries of Iranian cinema deal with Muslim women in such situations; what notions of justice and Islamic norms inform and animate the critical sensibilities of Iranian cinema.
To recapture the context of new Iranian cinema briefly: Iran’s Islamic revolution shook the world nearly thirty years ago in 1978, paving the way for a new discussion about democracy, modernity, revolution and Islam. Post revolutionary Iran’s attempts to institute Islamic values, culture and law, while annoying for Europe and the US turned out to be a deeply contested process with-in Iran. Even a slightly non-superficial knowledge of Iranian politics and history would tell us that neither the meaning of Islamic values, culture and law nor the question of an Islamic state as the harbinger of this process has been ever settled in Iran, including now. Iranian Cinema, along with other institutions, also became an important locus of such contestations. Several directors, script writers, actors who supported the revolution actively participated in the shaping of the post-revolutionary cinema. This included a significant number of women. Working through the censorship norms and promotional schemes, they fashioned a tradition of cinema that is now acknowledged to be immensely rich, having evolved critical philosophical filmic language steeped in the Perso-Islamic culture. Dealing with divergent themes such as war with Iraq, problems of Kurds, Afghan refugees, gender relations, issues of childhood and poverty, disability, courts or Shariat law, they have evolved a self-conscious cultural critique of the society and government, offering perspectives on justice and law, from within norms of Perso-Islamic culture.
Shirly Mary Joseph, 24th September 2009
Shirly Mary Joseph spoke on “Writing for Tribal Children: Reflections from Kanavu Educational Initiative”. She narrated in a thoughtful manner how she and her husband, K.J.Baby founded Kanavu, a school for tribal children in Cheengode, Nadavayal of Wayanad district in North Kerala. Working with students to overcome a history of bondage, Kanavu stressed on education that enhanced tribal children’s sense of self and their cultures. Learning through practice, example and experience has been given emphasis in the school. Students got trained in music, painting, dance, theatre or martial arts. They also got equipped to sit for competitive exams as well. Kanavu students now work for organizations outside Kerala and have earned a formidable reputation as performers of traditional tribal dances and folk songs in Kerala. The school is run on income from students’ performances and is now managed by a board consisting solely of ex-students.
Round Table Discussion on Gram Nyayalaya: The New Face of the Judiciary, 19th September 2009.
This round table was organized by Anveshi Research Centre for Women’ Studies and Human Rights Forum. The following note was circulated in Telugu and English to all the participants.
The Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008 An Introductory Note
The Gram Nyayalayas Act received the assent of the President in January 2009. The Act proposes to set up a court for every panchayat or a group of panchayats across the country. The objective of the Act is twofold. One, to provide ‘access to justice to the citizens at their doorsteps’ and two, to ‘ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of social, economic or other disabilities’.
Salient features of the Act:
1. The judge presiding in this court is designated as a Nyayadhikari, and the court itself called Gram Nyayalaya, a move quite novel to the judiciary. The Nyayadhikari will combine the judicial functions of both a Junior Civil Judge and a Magistrate. It is explicitly stated that the Nyayadhikari in addition to her regular adjudicative functions, will wherever possible, assist, persuade and conciliate the parties in arriving at a settlement. There will be a panel of official conciliators to help the judge in such mediations.
2. The functioning of this court has been planned differently from that of the existing courts, in terms of its objectives, procedure and jurisdiction.
· The Nyayalaya will be a mobile one and will conduct its proceedings in close proximity to the cause of action.
· The proceedings will be carried out in the local language.
· The court fees for any of the civil claims will not exceed Rs 100 irrespective of the worth of the property involved.
· In civil cases, in execution proceedings, the court will not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure and will be guided by principles of natural justice.
· The Nyayalaya may accept documents that may not be admissible under the Indian Evidence Act.
· All the orders (except consent orders) of the Nyayalaya can be appealed in the District Court and no further.
3. The Gram Nyayalaya’s jurisdiction has been expanded presumably to suit the litigation arising in villages.
· Claims and offences arising under the Payment of Wages Act, Minimum Wages Act, Equal Remuneration Act, Protection of Civil Rights Act, Bonded Labour System Act.
· Domestic Violence Act and Maintenance cases under the CrPC.
· Civil disputes which covers rights of use of pastures, water channels, shared cultivation, forest produce and other disputes regarding right to purchase of property and use of village and farm houses.
· On the criminal side all those offences which are punishable upto a period of two years; theft and retaining stolen property where the value of the stolen property is not more than 20,000 rupees; criminal intimidation, breach of peace and attempts and abetments of the foregoing offences.
· Additionally, the state government can also append its own list of offences and claims to the schedules of cases tried by the Magistrate.
How did this Act come about?
The concept of the Gram Nyayalaya was proposed by the 114th Law Commission (LC) report in 1986. Such a proposal is made, the report argues, keeping in mind the long history of customary dispute resolution in villages which was local, speedy and inexpensive. The Nyayalaya is proposed as the statutory avatar of these existing practices. The LC report also explains there are two objectives backing this proposal. The first is to introduce a participatory forum of justice and the other is to address the backlog and ever increasing arrears of the District and High Courts. In the LC’s recommendations the judge was accompanied by two lay judges in order to combine the legal expertise with knowledge of local practices. But this aspect has been set aside in the current Act and the Nyayalaya now has a single judge.
The LC also observed that a Nyayalaya would be ideally suited for the villages as the nature of disputes coming before such a court would be ‘simple, uncomplicated and easy of solution’. Such being the nature of dispute, the LC recommended that the Nyayalaya ‘should not be enmeshed in procedural claptrap’. Accordingly the new court is being asked to use its discretion, to conciliate, to depart from the Codes of Procedure and Evidence and to follow principles of natural justice.
What could be the implications?
In Andhra Pradesh, there are 1,124 Mandals covering 21,807 Gram Panchayats. Each district in the state has about 40-60 Mandals. As of now the lowest tier of judiciary, Junior Civil Judge/Magistrate courts, exist in the district headquarters and select Mandals. For instance, in Warangal district there are 51 Mandals of which only 6 Mandals have courts. At the other end of the spectrum is Guntur district which has 57 Mandals and has 25 courts at the Mandal level. But, on an average there are not more than 10-15 courts in Mandal headquarters per district. If the new Act is actually going to set-up these courts at every panchayat level, it will be gigantic in terms of the thousands of courts that will be established in each state.
Undoubtedly, the proposal that courts should be closer to the litigant has been a long standing demand of several movements in the country. Simplification of procedure, a non-adversarial resolution and sensitive dealing of cases are also familiar demands. Even as there is a popular context, one is also a little anxious about the agendas underlying the establishment of these courts. Now that it is legislated, there are several questions being raised about this new court:
· What would be the practical difficulties for the Nyayadhikari in being ‘neutral and wise’ when she is so close to the cause of action?
· How will ‘proximity’ affect the trial processes?
· What will be the nature of adjudication or conciliation if it begins with the assumption that village litigation is simple and capable of being resolved on the spot?
· Is the setting up of these courts more a mechanism to manage and filter the disputes in villages and thereby reduce the institution of cases in the higher courts.
· How will ‘simplification of procedure’ be deployed in adjudications which draws litigants of unequal resources?
· Would the founding of such courts invalidate existing customary dispute resolution forums in villages?
Anveshi- Centre for Regional Studies, University of Hyderabad collaborative workshop on “Towards a Critique of Development Thinking”, 7th to 11th September, 2009.
This is a report about the workshop called “Towards a Critique of Development Thinking” that Anveshi did with Centre for Regional Studies at HCU from 7th to 11th September. It was organized around the readings from the Development Reader manuscript edited by R. Srivatsan, Senior Fellow of Anveshi. There were five sessions in all, with Srivats presenting five selected components from the Reader, followed by a detailed response by a discussant from HCU, and discussion with the research scholars. The faculty and the scholars were drawn from different departments of social sciences.
The first session was on Indian planning models (Lewis and Mahalanobis) and the discussant was Dr. Ramana Murthy, from Economics department. Second session was on the Mode of Production debates in the seventies, the discussant being Dr. Purendra Prasad from Sociology; third was on Dependency theories, the discussant being Dr. Vamsicharan from Economics dept; fourth was on Indian state, discussant being Dr. Janardhan from Sociology; fifth was on Boserup and Amartya Sen, response was from Prof. Omkar from Economics. Discussants in general agreed with the analytical commentary of Srivats' headnotes; drew attention to the broader context of analyses, models, histories in which these selected readings need to be placed; had a few questions why these, not others were selected. More substantially, the discussants were keen to know the standpoint from which Srivats was offering his critique; wanted him to elaborate his framework and objectives; wanted to know whether he is offering an alternative or rejecting development.
Scholars attended in large number, 40 to 45, drawn from economics, sociology, political science and a small portion from history. Anthropologists were not represented well. The inquiries of scholars (only a few of whom had read the readings that were circulated in soft copy form) was towards clarifications on issues raised in the course of lectures; selections of readings; opinions, agreements or disagreements about Srivats' analysis of debates or thinkers. Some, of course, were trying to test Srivats' knowledge.
At the end of the workshop, a feedback form was circulated in which most of the participants gave 7 out of 10 for the workshop. Most found the Mode of Production debate session difficult to follow. Others found the lack of debate on environment and development stark. But in general, they said that they found the workshop very useful. Sudha, an ex-Anveshi Short Term Fellow was there too, along with many of her colleagues in the department. She and her friends, she said, had difficulty following the first two sessions but by the fifth day began to follow where the discussion was going.
The faculty who were discussants also found the workshop to be useful, saying that they now have new insights into the old debates; that Srivats' analysis filled in some gaps in their own understanding of development debates. Also they found this idea of a workshop on development quite interesting,
Prof. Sheela Prasad anchored the entire programme, not only for the arrangements, but pulling in the faculty, persuading them to be discussants, encouraging students to register for the workshop; and being there all through - to see to it that the scholars participated in the discussions; giving feedback to Srivats about whether the scholars were able to follow what was happening in the session or to tune the lecture so that they could follow. While Srivats and the discussants focused on the actual readings, Sheela saw to it that the discussion was inclusive and useful, going beyond economics and Marxism!
Some Anveshi members attended a few sessions. It felt good to be going back to the University, doing the kind of workshop that I wish somebody had done for me when I was there! It is a useful experiment, which one can think of repeating with a different audience.
Book launch of Streevaada Rajakeeyalu: Vartamaana Charchalu
14th March 2009
Book launch programme of Streevaada Rajakeeyalu: Vartamaana Charchalu was held on 14th March 2009. Dr.Vinodini, well-known Dalit writer (Vemana University, Cuddpah), Dr.Katyayani Vidmahe (Kakatiya Univeristy, Warangal), Dr.K.Lakshmi (Osmania University) and Dr.K.Chenna Basavaiah (Osmania University) spoke at the meeting. Dr.Vinodini highlighted the importance of caste to discussions of dalit women’s issues in feminism. Dr.Katyayani Vidmahe said that the book will not only be useful for researchers working on women’s issues, but for political scientists, historians and other social scientists. She highlighted the problems of lack of resource material in Telugu for researchers from vernacular background. Dr.Chenna Basavaiah discussed how this book would be useful for those thinking about issues in political science and Indian politics. Dr.K.Lakshmi drew attention to the paucity of thinkable material on women’s issues in Telugu. The meeting was well attended.
Dr.Sanal Mohan spoke on
“Ethnography of a ‘Civilizing Mission’: Situating the Missionaries and Dalits in the twentieth century Kerala” on 10th March 2009.
This presentation addressed the interface of the missionaries and dalits in colonial Kerala. Stepping aside from the ‘modernization’ framework and reading the missionary archive against the grain, it tried to analyze the multiple ways in which dalits struggled to evolve new subjectivity and claim agency. By bringing together the archival and the ethnographic data, it attempted to open up dalit experience of modernity in Kerala, analyzing the multiple ways in which such experiences have been narrativised and discusses the dimensions of power involved in them.
Dr.Sanal Mohan is an ethnographer-historian whose path-breaking research has brought into focus Dalit history and identity formation in colonial and post colonial Kerala. He is currently a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Department of History, Atlanta.
Dr.Ram Rawat spoke on
'Reclaiming a Past: The Formulation of a Dalit Agenda by Chamars in Early 20th Century Uttar Pradesh' on 10th January, 2009
Dr. Ram Rawat gave a brief talk on Chamars and the public sphere in the United Provinces in the early twentieth century. His talk uncovered an unexplored layer of political action among the Chamars in that region. Tracing the widespread network of political activism in the districts, in contestation of the claims of the nationalists over specific issues during the freedom movement, Rawat subtly explored the genealogy of the contemporary Dalit movement in the ‘anti-national’ struggles of the subaltern castes during the early Twentieth Century. In the process, he uncovered for the audience a surprising perspective on the way in which these castes fought their battles. The talk also made for a sobering understanding of the blind spots and suppressions of mainstream Indian history. The role of the subaltern castes is an interesting ‘new’ domain which is being explored by Dalit thinkers today.
