India’s acclaimed writer, director, scholar, and voice of rebellion Girish Karnad passes away at the age of 81.
Girish Karnad (1938-2019) was an actor, film director, multilingual writer, playwright, and Rhodes scholar. He passed away on 10th June at the age of 81, after suffering from degenerative pulmonary disorder for some time. His sad demise has left a void in the abstract world of art and literature. One of the most revered personalities has left behind a long lasting and unfaltering legacy.
Born in Maharashtra and brought up in Karnataka, he began writing plays in Kannada at a time when they were heavily influenced by western literature and marked the coming of modern play writing in Kannada. Yayati (1961) was his first novel based on the predecessors of the Pandavas. Tughlaq (1964) till date remains one of his most acclaimed plays. He debuted as an actor and screenwriter in Kannada movie Sanskara (1970). His directorial debut was the film Vamsha Vriksha (1971) based on a novel, which also won him a National Film Award for Best Direction. He has also showcased immense talent in several Bollywood films, most recently Ek Tha Tiger (2012) and its sequel. Rakshasa Tangadi, a Kannada play on the Battle of Talikota, remains his final work.
Karnad is the recipient of several prestigious awards including Jnanpith Award, Padma Shri, Padma Bhushan, National Film awards and many more in the South and North Indian Cinema.
His contribution to activism remains invaluable. A champion of free speech, he was a critic of hard-line Hindutva and later the Babri Masjid incident. Further, he was also a proponent of secularism and multiculturalism, women’s rights, and identified as a liberal. He did not confine himself to films and plays, but fearlessly voiced himself for any cause. At an event at Bengaluru – which Karnad attended wearing a nasal tube, due to his deteriorating health – he wore a placard around his neck which said: Me Too Urban Naxal. Karnad commented, “If speaking up means being a Naxal, then I am an urban Naxal.”
In his biography, Aadadata Ayushya, he revealed how his mother intended to terminate her pregnancy when she conceived him. But due to delayed arrival of the doctor, his mother left the clinic. He went on to dedicate this biography to the doctor. Today the world mourns the death of this multitalented individual who could weave stories with colossal depth and meaning.
Kalrav Vashishtha, a first year B.A. (Honours) English student commented, “We had ‘Broken Images’ by Karnad in school, and I loved it. A few years later, I realised we just had a portion of it in our syllabus. It shocked me to the core to read the rest of the play. A masterful manipulator of words, he turns the whole play upside down with such haunting realism. We just lost one of the best writers in the country and the void can never be filled.”
His contributions in over ninety films in both Hindi and Kannada, thirteen directorial works, several plays and translations earned him places in institutes like Film and Television Institute of India (FTII), Nehru Centre in London, and Sangeet Natak Akademi, among many others.
The master playwright was cremated in a quiet ceremony. He is survived by his wife, Saraswathy Ganapathy, and two children Radha and Raghu.
The Pulitzer Prize, the highest American honour in journalism was recently announced. Here is a look at the winners.
The Pulitzer Prize, a prestigious annual award in the field of excellence in newspaper journalism, literary achievements, musical composition in the United States, was announced on Tuesday, 17th April. The annual prize administered by the Columbia University in New York City shook things up this year, by allowing new unprecedented entries like Kendrick Lamar making a foray into the twenty-one categories. Here is a list of some of the winners:
Public Service: The New York Times for reporting led by Jodi Kantor, Megan Twohey and The New Yorker for by Ronan Farrow: The staff of the two newspapers was awarded the honour for their impactful coverage of the allegations of sexual assaults including those against Harvey Weinstein, and thus leading to new debates and “worldwide reckoning about sexual abuse of women” as the Pulitzer website mentions.
Breaking News Reporting: Staff of the Press-Democrat, Santa Rosa California: The newspaper was lauded for its breakthrough coverage of the wildfires that spread through the city of Santa Rosa and Sonoma County by using an array of journalistic tools including social media, photography, video, etc.
Investigative reporting: Staff of the Washington Post: The Washington Post was awarded the honour for their brilliant coverage exposing the sexual harassment of Republican candidate Roy Moore, and the subsequent criticism they faced for it.
Explanatory Reporting: Staffs of The Arizona Republic and USA Today Network: The two newspapers were rewarded for their combined efforts to explain and report on the promise of the Mexico border wall by Donald Trump, heroin reporting and editorial writing in health care.
International Reporting: Clare Baldwin, Andrew R.C. Marshall, and Manuel Mogato of Reuters: The Reuters correspondents through a dint of sheer hard work and determination that included countering the propagandist narrative that was being spewed by the Filipino government, exposing “the brutal killing campaign behind the President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs”, the Pulitzer committee mentions.
Feature Photography: Photography staff of Reuters: The photo-journalists of Reuters were awarded the honour for their immense contribution in exposing the violence faced by Rohingya refugees fleeing from Myamar.
Music: DAMN., by Kendrick Lamar: The first non-jazz and non-classical recording to be given this honour, Lamar’s album hit critical as well as popular acclaim soon after its release on April 14, hitting number one at US Billboard 200. The Pulitzer admits contemporary rap and with it, the multi-faceted African-American life, into the sphere of ultimate critical acclaim.
In an increasingly globalised world where information is accessible at our fingertips, what role does ethical and responsible journalism play in ensuring the dissemination of facts?
The advent of fake news is one that is unfortunate yet undeniable. It has its own distinct definition, one that differs from satire and practical humour. This relatively new phenomenon can be described as the spread of deliberate misinformation with the intention of misleading consumers. The act may be driven by a desire to garner political or financial gains, or may simply be a result of government propaganda and/or censorship. A defining characteristic of fake news are sensational headlines, also known as “clickbait” headlines to garner more click-based revenue in the online world.
The concept of false reporting came into the global limelight during the 2016 presidential election held in the United States of America (USA), through Donald Trump branding everything he disagreed with as “fake news”. There were numerous instances of reputable personalities and sources quoting morphed information during the election. Closer to home, in November 2017, the University of Delhi’s Kawalpreet Kaur posed in front of the Jama Masjid with a poster, stating her stance against mob lynching. The photo went viral, but the one that the Pakistan Defence Forum chose to tweet to more than 300,000 followers was an edited version, which read that Kaur hated India because of its colonial tendencies.
The problem with fake news in the contemporary world is that its distribution is not restricted to its producers; ordinary citizens with social media accounts can just as easily contribute to the mass propagation of false information. As a Wired article titled ‘It’s the (Democracy-Poisoning) Golden Age of Free Speech’ states, “In the 21st century, the capacity to spread ideas and reach an audience is no longer limited by access to expensive, centralised broadcasting infrastructure. It’s limited instead by one’s ability to garner and distribute attention.”
In this context, it is more imperative that media houses and journalists in positions of responsibility make an active effort to recheck the veracity of their information and stay true to the ethics of reporting. 2nd April 2018 was celebrated as the second annual International Fact-Checking Day, an occasion that seems almost ridiculous on the surface, but is essential in the era of fake news.
Ordinary citizens may not always recognise the dire need for fact-checking before they indulge in sharing fake news on social media. However, this is a luxury that journalists cannot afford. Our national ruling party recently ordered that journalists would lose access to government events if they are accused of fake news. The order has since been revoked, but the Information and Broadcasting Ministry has set up a committee to provide a regulatory framework for online media in the country. Despite the government’s own agenda and threats to the media, journalists owe it to their audience to be principled. Whether it is national print newspapers or student-run campus publications, the ethics remain the same. Before succumbing to over sensationalised headlines and political bullies, we must evaluate our foremost responsibility: to deliver facts.
There has been a surge in the number of student-run media houses in universities recently. These outlets have an important role to play in the campus ecosystem when it comes to disseminating news and providing students with infotainment.
In the recent past, a surge in the number of media platforms has been observed in the university hemisphere. The mushrooming of student-run media houses stands as a testimony to this fact. To cater to the ever-increasing demand for information by university students, a lot of student-run media houses have been integrated into the campus ecosystem, and their work of student newspapers is to provide this public service to a university audience.
Many students go through distress about not having the official information at the right time. University offices have not been very effective when it comes to disseminating important information. Moreover, help lines issued by the administration do not cater to the students’ questions satisfactorily. More often than not, they are liable to technical glitches and fail to serve the students in the stipulated time frame. A university houses a huge number of students and it gets practically impossible to reach out to every student in person. This gave way to the proliferation of student-run media outlets in the universities.
The need got coupled with technology in the form of smart phones and easy internet access, which created a fertile field for the burgeoning of media houses in the universities.
These media houses are fast emerging and students believe that it has a thriving market. There is a steep competition among student-run media outlets, with each of these outlets delivering innovative content in a weekly cycle to outnumber each other’s subscribers. These media outlets are grooming entrepreneurs, writers, marketers, designers, and artists. Today, every student seeks opportunities to acquire practical knowledge by interning at myriad professional platforms. This compensates for the exposure that our university system fails to provide.
Student-run media outlets provide necessary information and promote democratic participation of the students. These media houses instill a sense of responsibility within students and inculcate leadership qualities in them. Not only do they create narratives and make the students aware of the issues around them, but also strive to be accessible to a larger audience.
Rather than just providing high-quality content, student journalists are also dedicated to connecting students, academic departments, alumni, and the world. Universities should acknowledge and encourage the student journalists with bubbling energy and should create porous gateways for the passing of information from the administration to the student-run media outlets to sustain such an ecosystem.
The second day of Mushaira 2018 was dedicated to independent journalism, celebrating 10 years of the establishment of the largest student-run media organisation, DU Beat.
The day began with a panel discussion on “Quality Journalism for the New Age” was hosted by panellists Vinod Jose, Executive Editor of the Caravan, and Manisha Pande, Associate Editor of Newslaundry. In a vivacious discussion on quality journalism in the age of fake news and sheer propaganda, Vinod Jose and Manisha Pande enlightened the audience on the crises faced by modern day journalists. On being asked by Moderator Srivedant Kar on the apparent crisis looming upon media today, Vinod Jose held political pressure on journalists as being responsible. On the issue of distinguishing between quality and ‘fake’ journalism, Pande claimed that even the mainstream media isn’t exclusive of the phenomenon of fake propaganda; hence social media like Facebook and Twitter aren’t at fault alone.
Followed by the discussion on journalism was Dr. Shashi Tharoor’s inspirational speech on “How can the youth make a change today”. Dr. Tharoor started his speech by joking that age-old rivalry between Hindu College and St. Stephen’s is not there anymore and was nostalgic about his college days. He commented that students around his time had fewer opportunities than students of today and the youth must stay aware of the country’s politics. He emphasized the need for the youth of the country to be participative in decision making because they should not abdicate to old men for choices about their lives. He talked about India being the third country in the world with 800 startups each year, the advancement in telecommunications and advent of AI. The audience was enthusiastic throughout his speech and applauded him numerous times. He encouraged the students to take interest in various social or national issues and try to make a change. He ended his speech with the poem Tehzeeb by Gopal Krishna Gandhi and left the young minds absolutely enthralled.
The speech was succeeded by a panel discussion by three social media influencers, Sejal Kumar, Shibani Bedi and Shivesh Bhatia. The three talked about their gradual success, making good content, and to reach out to the target audience. Given the day and age we all live, and being a consumer of visual art, one’s photography skills matter but Shivesh added that one must make the best of what is at their disposal whether it is a phone, computer or DSLR. They all ended the discussion with the fact that there are no instant results and brands eventually come if one is committed fully to one’s work.
The next speaker of the session was Suchita Salwan who is the CEO and Founder of Little Black Book. She also happens to be a Hindu college alumnus. Talking about entrepreneurship, she quoted “There’s a difference between an influencer and an entrepreneur”. She emphasised on the fact that people who aspire to be entrepreneurs need to focus on forming winning companies. Also, addressing the problem of availing funds, she pointed out that it is important to find the right kind of investor for the company. A brief Q&A session followed.
In a nostalgic journey through memory lane, the former DU Beat members engaged the audience in a spirited discourse of their life after DU Beat. The panel consisted of Radhika, Gurman, and Brij, all ex-DUBsters. Their discussion ranged from jovial anecdotes about how Brij’s first article was rejected by Gurman Bhatia who was the Web Editor. DU Beat had played in constructing their professional lives. When asked about the prerequisites of being a good journalist, Radhika remarked, “You don’t necessarily need to do English honours to be a journalist. You don’t need to know fancy words. You just need to know how to do clean reporting.”
Speaking on “Partition Literature”, Sukrita Paul Kumar opined on the anguish and pain associated with the creative reflections of 1947. Quoting Gulzar’s “Dil Toh Baccha Hai Ji,” she asked the audience to revive the ‘child’ in them in order to prevent the rising homogenisation of society and keep alive the spirit of dynamic creativity. For her, knowledge of history combined with personal experience captures the essence of history better than history itself.
Following up next was the team of Slip of Tongue, who is a group performing slam poetry formed by the National Youth Poetry Slam winner Diksha Bijlani. Originally composed of seven members, only four could make it at the event. Starting off “Hero Syndrome”, Diksha Bijlani lifted the spirit of everyone present in the audience. Somesh Thapliyal’s “Toxic Masculinity” was the next performance. Diksha Bijlani and Cheryl Mukherjee performed a duet on female camaraderie titled “Bra Shopping”, much to the delight of the audience. The fourth member Ishaan Chawdhary performed a love poem titled “A wedding song”. Their performances left everyone snapping their fingers, which is a slam poetry tradition. A few other sets of poems followed before the team signed off, leaving the auditorium filled with the sound of snaps and claps.
In an enchanting performance by Delhi-based singers and songwriters Vishnu Kumar and Amani Kerr, the duo initiated their rhapsody with “Sugar” from Maroon 5. As it progressed to “I Can’t Feel My Face” from The Weeknd, everyone was left tapping their feet. The high-point of their rhapsody was the performance of “Attention” by Charlie Puth. They also captivated the audience with two of their originals, “Kite” and “Where the Light is Always Green”. With this, they drew the curtains of Mushaira 2018.
The Academic Council (AC) of the University of Delhi, in its third meeting which began yesterday and culminated today morning, has discussed and deliberated on the proposals which were in the pipeline. It has announced decisions which shed light on three prospective courses which should be introduced in the varsity soon: Journalism, Transnational Studies, and, Cyber Security. These courses have received the approval of the Council in principle; with the nitty-gritties of these proposals being left to be chalked out in clarity later.
Delhi School of Journalism
The Council has decided to drop the self-financing clause which had been previously planned, and agreed to send the proposal to the UGC for approval of government funding. Earlier, the Vice Chancellor also suggested that the course would function on a no-profit no-loss basis. Meanwhile, the Council will also consider other avenues for funding; like resorting to philanthropic organisations for scholarships. In addition to the monetary factor, a three-member committee will also be set up to delve into the practical aspects of the course structure, along with the other intricacies of the proposal. The Council has decided to employ teachers on deputation from other colleges to serve as the faculty of the institute, along with those working in eminent media houses to serve as consultants. AC member Pankaj Garg said that such courses are “necessary and important as they enhance the reputation of a university.” The VC proposed Rs. 30,000 per semester for the five-year integrated course, a decision which was met with resistance. The AC members have decided that the committee will deliberate on the fee structure. It will also provide reservation for SC/ST candidates, and offer scholarships to facilitate admissions from the weaker sections of the society.
The establishment of the school has, however, been met with opposition from some members of the Academics for Action and Development (AAD) and University Teachers’ Forum (UTF). Transnational Studies and Cyber Security
Both these courses have received the nod from the Academic Council. The course for Transnational Studies has been agreed to be developed in layers, with the aim of its establishment as a premier research centre. In the first phase, it will be a virtual platform where scholars and faculty can engage in discussions on a spectrum of research ideas. The University may then approach the UGC to put in money for research and create an exceptional and unique school on established lines. The Cyber Security course is facing debate on securing the UGC funding. A member of the Academic Council says, “You cannot run the specialised courses, like Journalism and Cyber Security, through a self-financing mode.” The Council has decided to approach UGC to obtain funding for the same.
The Delhi School of Journalism, which is scheduled to undertake applicants from this academic cycle, will not become operational from July 20th. It would take some time to untangle the web of decisions which are yet to be made. Meanwhile, the varsity will be releasing the first-cut off list for admission into various merit-based courses tonight. You can check the lists here.
The University of Delhi’s standing committee on academic affairs approved proposals to start the Journalism School, another School of Transnational Affairs and a postgraduate diploma in Cyber Law and Security. The proposals will now be placed at the Academic Council for final approval.
Admissions for the Delhi School of Journalism start from this year and will proceed on the basis of cut-offs like the other courses. Thirty students will be admitted this year. The five-year integrated degree will have the option to exit after three years with an undergraduate degree in journalism. Some papers will be on data journalism, investigative journalism, foreign languages, and regional languages. The process for applying for the undergraduate course is the same as for other courses. Applicants have to fill the centralised registration form and opt for the course. Admissions will be based on cut-offs. B.A. (Hons) Journalism, a popular course at Delhi University, has already received 45,000 applications from the online form.
The chairperson of the standing committee, Savita Datta, said “Students will be taught discipline-specific and elective courses. There will be a paper on data and investigative journalism along with papers on media and psychology, media and history, editing, writing, and documentary making,” while talking about the structure and syllabus for the five-year integrated journalism programme.
Here, students will have to study two compulsory languages, which will help them report from different regions. There will be four foreign language options – Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, and French. There will be two regional languages as well – Tamil and Bengali. Students will have to learn one foreign and one regional language. The journalism students will learn to read, write, and comprehend the language.
The Journalism School may adopt an entrance-based admissions process from next year. The initial plan was to admit students based on an entrance test, which failed to be feasible this year. Six colleges in Delhi University currently offer journalism at the undergraduate level – Lady Shri Ram College for Women, Kalindi College, Kamala Nehru College, Delhi College of Arts and Commerce, Maharaja Agrasen College, and the Institute of Home Economics.
A school of Journalism and Communication is likely to start from the 2017-2018 academic session in Delhi University. The initiative has been taken by the newly appointed vice chancellor, Yogesh Tyagi.
The faculty of the new school will regulate the workings of all the Journalism and Communication courses offered by Delhi University in various colleges.Concerning the New School of Journalism and Communication, Professor Tyagi said, “We are planning a new school for journalism and communication. But what we call it will depend on the outcome of the consultation that is to take place very soon with various stakeholders”.
The new school is likely to start with a five-year integrated masters course. The procedure for admission is expected to be entrance exam based, similar to other Masters courses. However, a final call about the admission procedure has not been given. The school, apart from the integrated masters’ programme, is likely to start undergraduate, a conventional masters’, MPhil and PhD programmes as well in the future.
Initially the school is expected to work from the Arts Faculty in the North Campus of the University, with a strength of 30 students in the first batch. The authorities are consulting various stake holders such as teachers, journalists and students for finalising the plans.
We demand freedom of speech but do not realise that the information we get through the mouthpieces of mainstream media reach us through a process that is not exactly free. The stories we hear, read or see are often biased. They are presented to us through the prism of the media house’s own lens created from a mixture of political, geographical, ideological and pecuniary elements that the house could be influenced by.
A journalism student who lands in any of such media houses might end up becoming another automaton programmed to work in the assembly line of the house and forced to follow a coloured thought-process. Imagine the future of journalism in such a scenario. This makes the need for a fair, free voice for everyone exceedingly important, and this is why we created SUNO.
SUNO is a unique app that lets the user tell stories to a fast expanding readership comprising new age, educated men and women from around in the world. It won’t be an exaggeration to state that SUNO could be like the Oracle of Delphi in the hands of a journalist who has a nose for news. Its advanced features empower the user to present the story in an interactive and attractive way too.
An intern will learn the ropes of journalism better with an app that lets them at least report on whatever they think is worth reporting. At SUNO, an intern learns the two most important aspects about journalism – fairness and impartiality.
So why wait? Join the SUNO Internship Programme here.
The Department of Journalism at Lady Shri Ram College for Women kicked off its Annual Academic Meet, Juxtapose 2015 on October 7. The theme for this year’s meet was ‘Deconstructing Identities, Reconstructing Perceptions’ and shined through in the topics of the various events.
Team from LSR at Media Quiz
Panel Discussion Day 1
Hall of Panel Discussion
Aamir Bashir, in Panel Discussion
Adil Hussain, in Panel Discussion
Winners of Ad Mad
Pre Juxtapose, 7 October- All India Media Meet
The issue of freedom of expression in the light of recent killing of journalists was subjected to heated discussion at The All India Media Meet of Department of Journalism, Lady Shri Ram College on 7th October 2015. The discussion shed light upon the subjective issue of freedom of press. The major issues of whether killing of journalists is an ultimate resolution to the “offensive” content produced by media was put to discussion. The major issues addressed during the course of discussion were the need of media and government to be independent bodies, inadequate self-regulatory mechanism prevalent in media, how killing of journalists is a direct consequence confrontational journalism.
The conference finally sought to address the two major issues of implementing an ideal law exclusively for the safety of journalists and the question of the actual identification of journalists considering how the concept of citizen journalists has led to ambiguity in the definition of journalists. Other issues of media blackout,the thin line of difference between hate speech and criticism and the leading consequences of defamation of judiciary by the press were address.
The debate whether an independent body other than the Press Council of India is required for safeguarding the interests of journalists was the final question addressed towards the end of the discussion. The discussion concluded with the following recommendations by the delegates of the committee –
Creation of a committee that gives licenses to freelancers and not citizen journalists and ensures that these licenses are not misused.
Ensuring that the committee formed shall ensure legal safety of journalists.
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting should put forward these recommendations to the Parliament.
Periodic meetings like AIMM must happen frequently to address these issues.
Day 1, 8 October- Turncoat Debate, Panel Discussion and AdMad
The topic for the Annual Turncoat Debate – Vox Pop at Juxtapose 2015 was whether film certification works in favour of the state or the public. Ideas like state propaganda, state mandate, to name a few, surfaced. Speakers spoke of how the Indian government compresses its citizens into a monolithic identity while at many a times completely disregarding the plurality of the country and on the other hand, how the state’s “parental attitude” was essential and justified.
‘Kissa Kursi Ka’ was a movie cited as an example by many speakers. However, as felt by the judge, Ms. Ishita Tiwary, what happened to the movie after it was banned wasn’t talked about by the speakers. This was an integral part as it shows the lengths the state can go to, to prevent anything that goes against its interests. After drawing comic reactions to a reference by speaker Chandrashekhar to Ragini MMS and how it had a “mentally scarring” effect on children, he went on to win the debate. The second and third positions were bagged by Naman Malhotra and Kushal Mishra.
The panel discussion, the second event of the day, was on the topic, “Media’s content: A state of compromise or progression?” The panelists included eminent personalities from the field of media – Abhinandan Sekhri, Shoma Chaudhary, Ritu Kapur and Supriya Sharma. Anshul Tewari, Founder and Editor-in-Chief of YouthKiAwaaz.com, was the moderator.
“Digital media has really shot up in the last 7-8 years. Though it has received a fair share of criticism but it has emerged as a powerful tool for people to speak up,” said Anshul Tewari. “Yes, digital media is limited there is no denying but I think over the next few years it will go deeper,” said Ritu Kapur, co-founder- The Quint. They further went on discussing the impact of digital media to which Abhinandan Sekhri’s stance was very unambiguous. According to him it’s a screen and it doesn’t really matter whether it is NDTV or News Laundry or Scoop Whoop. Also, he said that he believes that the number of views is not a yardstick to judge whether something has impacted people or not, rather, it’s the time they are spending in reading it which speaks.
On comparing the online media with print, Supriya Sharma, recipient of the Chameli Devi Award, given for excellence in Journalism, pointed out that online media is an interactive media with young readership and a sense of feedback. For her it is really very exciting to be able to influence the young minds of the country.
Towards the end the panelists discussed free speech and reasonable restrictions to which Abhinandan responded by saying that he is an absolutist and does not believe that any restriction is reasonable. His opinion was seconded by Ms. Shoma but with two caveats, which were – factuality and incitement to violence. The session concluded with a question and answer session with the audience where in issues like gate keeping, hate speeches and corporate ownership were discussed.
The AdMad competition was judged by Professor Shikha Jhingan and Professor Vibhushan Subba, from the Department of Journalism at LSR. One team that stood out was the one given a “mind reader” to sell. Their mind reader was a pair of flashily lit glasses. Team 4, consisting of Khushwinder and Dhruv, from who advertised an online grocery store bagged the first position, followed by Team 8, Manan, Akhil, Ishan and Vikas from Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology. The second runner up was Team 10, consisting of Manan Batra and Tushar Singh from Sri Venkateswara College.
Day 2, 9 October: Paper presentation, Panel Discussion, Media quiz
“Media presents to the audience what the audience wishes to see.” A paper presentation competition, Samantha vs. Savitri, organized by the Department of Journalism at LSR, kicked off the final day of their Annual Academic Meet – Juxtapose 2015. This platform acted as a podium where speakers presented their papers, on the question of representation of gender identities in 21st Century Sitcoms. The five participants present here had been shortlisted on the basis of their abstracts submitted much in advance. The event was judged by Ms. Abhija Ghosh, a student of Cinema Studies at the School of Arts and Aesthetics, Jawaharlal Nehru University.
The presentations highlighted how women in particular are stereotyped as being submissive, prudent, and emotional with lack of strength. While the debate concentrated move over the roles of women, reference to other genders were also brought in by speakers. They mentioned how genders apart from the males and females are hardly mentioned as they are considered “unnatural”.
One of the participants, Sukanya, from Daulat Ram College, said, “Ironically, the small screen acts a harbinger of change”. But what change are we talking about if the whole concept of sitcoms dwell on reinforcing stereotypes in just a “funny or new” manner. Indian television serials show mainstream drama projecting the relationship between a mother-in-law and a daughter-in-law as being manipulative and competitive to gain the sympathies of the son/husband.” Another participant, Azra Qaisar, who also happened to be the winner of this event, quoted Naomi Wolf, “Women are allowed to have a body or brain but not both”. A student of LSR itself, her paper focused on the women characters in the famous American sitcom The Big Bang Theory.
The title of the panel discussion of Day 2 was Alternative vs. Mainstream Cinema, will the spectrums ever converge? The panelists on board were Mr. Pankaj Butalia, an award winning documentary filmmaker known for his films like Moksha and Textures of Losses; Mr. Aamir Bashir, a renown Indian actor and filmmaker, known for his work in films like Harud and A Wednesday; Mr. Adil Hussain, an Indian stage, film and television actor most known for his work in Life of Pi and English Vinglish; and Ms. Shohini Ghosh, is the Zakir Hussain Professor of media at the AJK Mass Communication Research Center, an essayist on popular culture and a documentary filmmaker. The discussion was moderated by Ms. Abhija Ghosh, who is a student of Cinema Studies at the School of Arts and Aesthetics at Jawaharlal Nehru University. The discussion began with the moderator asking each panelist to define what mainstream and alternative films are to them.
One particular analogy given by Shohini Ghosh, was that of “the king’s highway and the detours” referring to the mainstream and alternative films, respectively, was used extensively througout the debate. Ms. Ghosh looked more towards the intersection of the two ways, and the ways in which each has its own importance. She quoted the example of Christopher Nolan, as to how he converged the king’s highway and the detour to completely redefine film form. She said, she prefers the term ‘independent cinema’ over alternative cinema. Documentaries, she believes, create the ground for content based movies in the mainstream cinema and have an invisible network of screening and reaching the audience.
Mr. Aamir Bashir wondered where the “dung on the detours” would go with the “swachh abhiyaan” happening. He said that the problem was of appropriation of alternative into the mainstream and how the mainstream tries to proach the alternative. He questioned the distribution system and market economy and how these forces were not willing to back alternative content. He also clearly mentioned, how he wasn’t very optimistic for the future of alternative films in India.
Mr. Butalia was concerned with documentaries and the lack of importance given to them in conversations about films in general, saying that it was “almost as if they do not belong to the category of films“. In the words of Mr.Batalia, we look at the “content” and “form” to distinguish between alternative and mainstream cinema. As the content gets more and more acceptable, it gets appropriated into mainstream media. The demands of commerce do not constrain the alternative film whereas a formula is literally laid out to govern the mainstream cinema; while the alternative cinema experiments more with the form. According to him, creativity is the defining factor in alternative media.
Adil Hussain said that all people who act, make or criticise movies are only human. Human nature and tendencies lead to mainstream media to be more widely accepted than the alternative, simply because it is more familiar and more acceptable to the masses. According to him, the greatest flaw in the medium of film is the need for money to begin making it. While comparing films to theatre, he mentioned how theatre needs no such investment. He defined alternative or more artistic films as those which put the characters and content under an electron microscope, giving them a completely new perspective rising from extreme curiosity and respect towards the arts.
The final event of Juxtapose 2015, was the media quiz. This year’s quiz was conducted by QuizCraft Global Knowledge Solutions. The Quiz Master was Mr. Adittya Nath Mubayi, Director of QuizCraft Global.
The quiz began with a preliminary round of 25 questions. A total of 65 teams participated out of which 6 made it to the final. Each team consisted of two members. To break the ice, Mr. Mubayi interacted with each of the final teams and asked them which journalist they would become, if given a chance, for 60 seconds.
The teams that made it to the final quiz had some really interesting names like Inter Galactic Hanuman Sena, Merry Pranksters and Bazingaa to cite a few. In the first round, each question was backed up by 2 hints. Each team had to recognize a person. First the audio was shown then the first hint would be a fact and the second would be the photo. Answering without using hints meant 60 points while it came down to 40 and 20 with the use of the first and the second hint respectively. The second round had direct oral questions. The third round was named Look here, Look hear which included audios and visuals. It covered questions right from the iconic interview with Princess Diana to who the voice of the Delhi Metro is. The fourth round again had direct questions. The last round was the buzzer round. This was a +40 and -20 round and had eight questions. The interesting part about the quiz was that each round began with a question from the audience and ended with the same and also when no team could answer, it was passed on to the audience. For every correct answer from the audience Amazon Kindle e-vouchers were given as gifts.
Team Chapter 11 which had Sreshth Shah of Amity University and Raletim of IGNOU won the quiz with a total of 440 points, they were given a cash prize of Rs. 5,000 and gifts from Support Foundation, Muskaan the NGO and Print Octopus. “The quiz was quite tough and interesting and we are lucky to win it,” said Sreshth Shah after his victory. They were followed by Merry Pranksters which had Gokul and Arunav, students of Atma Ram Sanatan Dharm College and Aryabhatt College. There was tie between LSR’s Bazinga and Gulabbo for the third position and with a tie breaking round, Team Gulabbo grabbed the third position. The runner ups were awarded with cash prizes and gifts from the sponsors.
Compiled by: Sakshi Jain Megha Kalia, Maitreyee Misra, Tanvi Jalan and Saloni Singla
