Opening this week

‘Begum Jaan’ review: A history lesson delivered at top volume

In Srijit Mukerji’s remake of ‘Rajkahini’, Vidya Balan plays the madam of a brothel on the Indo-Pak border.

Srijit Mukerji’s Begum Jaan is a mostly faithful remake of his 2015 Bengali movie Rajkahini – which means that the sensationalist plot, overwrought storytelling, screechy acting and tabloid account of the Partition have made it across the language divide unchallenged.

The Hindi version, which is set in Punjab rather than the Bengal region, has shed several dispensable minutes, but the central premise stays: the conflation of the woman’s body and the country. A brothel smack on the border of India and the newly formed Pakistan refuses to shut shop and move. The brothel madam, the fearsome and foul-mouthed Begum Jaan of the title, wants to stop the march of history, or at least stall it. Begum Jaan (Vidya Balan) has had the patronage of the local king (Naseeruddin Shah) for years, and her aggressive body language and profanity-laden speech disappear when he appears. Before him, this spitting tigress is a purring cat – so much for being a woman with a mind of her own.

Representatives of India and Pakistan (played by Rajit Kapur and Ashish Vidyarthi) are unable to shake Begum Jaan’s position. Ignoring the swell of refugees crossing the border on both sides, Begum Jaan rebels against a decision she had nothing to do with, stays glued to her porch, and shouts down the unwelcome visitors. It is left to the movie’s best character, mercenary for hire Kabir (Chunky Pandey), to finish off what they started.

Play
Begum Jaan (2017).

Mukerji borrows freely from Shyam Benegal’s classic Mandi (1983) as well as oral accounts of the Partition to craft a bottom-down version of history. The horrors of the division of India in 1947 are seen over the shoulders of women who have been trading their bodies, and Mukerji demands that they be taken seriously.

It sounds like a wonderful and welcome alternative to mansplaining – but perhaps it might have been more effective if the movie had opted for subtlety rather than crudeness and the women had been flesh-and-blood rather than paper-thin. The arms akimbo stance, outward jutting hips, and revealing clothing are all from Mandi, but Begum Jaan doesn’t have a single character worth rooting for. Gauhar Khan plays the madam’s helper, who is in love with the in-house entertainer Sujit (Pitobash Tiwary); Pallavi Sharda’s Gulabo lusts for the saintly teacher (Vivek Mushran) who has a thing for Begum Jaan; Mishti is the young rape victim whom Begum Jaan shelters.

Mukerji is unable to suggest a working or professional relationship between these women who live under the same roof, which makes their latter-reel solidarity unconvincing.

Begum Jaan (2017).
Begum Jaan (2017).

The usually dependable Vidya Balan struggles to make her Partition denier act work, and barely improves on the pantomime qualities of the original actress, Rituparna Sengupta. Mukerji regards the madam as an incarnation of mythic heroines such as Laxmibai of Jhansi and Razia Sultan – yet another instance of the on-the-nose writing and in-your-face characterisation – but Begum Jaan’s rebellion comes off as obduracy rather than a middle finger to the colonial and post-colonial forces who took far-reaching decisions without caring for how they would play out.

There’s a lot of yelling and cussing (some of which has been tempered by the easily shocked censor board) before the inevitable boobs-versus-bullets battle. Lost in the rumpus is the opportunity to dramatise the very real violence that women faced before and during the Partition. A sequence set in the present day, which bookends the plot, is clumsily handled but is also effective in pointing out that women often pay the price for achieving freedom. Their stories are not always told, so Srijit Mukerji takes it upon himself to do so – by shouting at the top of his voice so as to be heard all the way till the every edge of Pakistan.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Do you really need to use that plastic straw?

The hazards of single-use plastic items, and what to use instead.

In June 2018, a distressed whale in Thailand made headlines around the world. After an autopsy it’s cause of death was determined to be more than 80 plastic bags it had ingested. The pictures caused great concern and brought into focus the urgency of the fight against single-use plastic. This term refers to use-and-throw plastic products that are designed for one-time use, such as takeaway spoons and forks, polythene bags styrofoam cups etc. In its report on single-use plastics, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described how single-use plastics have a far-reaching impact in the environment.

Dense quantity of plastic litter means sights such as the distressed whale in Thailand aren’t uncommon. Plastic products have been found in the airways and stomachs of hundreds of marine and land species. Plastic bags, especially, confuse turtles who mistake them for jellyfish - their food. They can even exacerbate health crises, such as a malarial outbreak, by clogging sewers and creating ideal conditions for vector-borne diseases to thrive. In 1988, poor drainage made worse by plastic clogging contributed to the devastating Bangladesh floods in which two-thirds of the country was submerged.

Plastic litter can, moreover, cause physiological harm. Burning plastic waste for cooking fuel and in open air pits releases harmful gases in the air, contributing to poor air quality especially in poorer countries where these practices are common. But plastic needn’t even be burned to cause physiological harm. The toxic chemical additives in the manufacturing process of plastics remain in animal tissue, which is then consumed by humans. These highly toxic and carcinogenic substances (benzene, styrene etc.) can cause damage to nervous systems, lungs and reproductive organs.

The European Commission recently released a list of top 10 single-use plastic items that it plans to ban in the near future. These items are ubiquitous as trash across the world’s beaches, even the pristine, seemingly untouched ones. Some of them, such as styrofoam cups, take up to a 1,000 years to photodegrade (the breakdown of substances by exposure to UV and infrared rays from sunlight), disintegrating into microplastics, another health hazard.

More than 60 countries have introduced levies and bans to discourage the use of single-use plastics. Morocco and Rwanda have emerged as inspiring success stories of such policies. Rwanda, in fact, is now among the cleanest countries on Earth. In India, Maharashtra became the 18th state to effect a ban on disposable plastic items in March 2018. Now India plans to replicate the decision on a national level, aiming to eliminate single-use plastics entirely by 2022. While government efforts are important to encourage industries to redesign their production methods, individuals too can take steps to minimise their consumption, and littering, of single-use plastics. Most of these actions are low on effort, but can cause a significant reduction in plastic waste in the environment, if the return of Olive Ridley turtles to a Mumbai beach are anything to go by.

To know more about the single-use plastics problem, visit Planet or Plastic portal, National Geographic’s multi-year effort to raise awareness about the global plastic trash crisis. From microplastics in cosmetics to haunting art on plastic pollution, Planet or Plastic is a comprehensive resource on the problem. You can take the pledge to reduce your use of single-use plastics, here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of National Geographic, and not by the Scroll editorial team.