Pussy Riot and Art of Political Performance

What is common between performance art and political rally?

Opportunism through media gaze?!!!

Take recent two instances.
Firstly the Russian all women music band called Pussy Riot which was sentenced to jail for two years for performing a protest- art against Russian president Putin. Band argued that they have the right to express their artistic view in a democracy. Rightly so.

Secondly two major political rally performances that staged violence in the city of Mumbai within gap of 10 days ; terrorizing the city for a political motive. Both the organizing parties argued that in a democracy they have right to protest against issues close to their heart. Again Rightly so.

Who is Pussy Riot? An unknown female band came in public limelight for being jailed for two years for singing protest songs against President Putin in a Russian church. This all female member punk rock band established in 2011 conducts political protests in various parts of Russia through their music and staged art performances. Although their music is hardly to reckon with and is often called childish , amateurs and cacophonic . What Pussy riot is famous for is their bizarre ways of protest performed in public spheres. Which includes setting fires to police cars, simulating sexual acts in shopping windows , disrupting public events and finally singing protest songs in church . All their acts are documented and released in public platforms like youtube and other forums by which they generate media attention. As per wikipedia "Pussy Riot’s performances can either be called dissident art or political action that engages art forms. Either way, their performances are a kind of civic activity amidst the repressions of a corporate political system that directs its power against basic human rights and civil and political liberties."

This is an instance of art 'performed as' politics. or what is called political art. Result today Pussy Riot is recognized world wide. All so called rich and famous are supporting the band members and their art.

Lets look at Mumbai rallies. On 11th August Raza academy called for a protest rally to register their protest against killing of Muslims in Assam and Myanmar. A well scripted event went violent after some incited speeches and the crowd went violent. The crowd who had come prepared with arsenal attacked police, media OB vans and public property. 2 Persons died and many police men got wounded.

This was act no 1.

Why I call it performance?
Here clearly and cleverly 'violence' was performed '. You may take any meaning out of it. Plight or might? whatever. There was no doubt August 11 rally in Mumbai was pure political performance.









Then comes act 2. If August 11 showed people's strength on street at 12000 people. August 21st rally drew crowds estimated to be 50,000 odd people. Organised by Maharashtra Navanirman Sena (MNS) headed by Raj Thackeray. Everything of 21st August party was a political theatre at its best. Right from police denying the permission and making it illegal gathering, then granting permission last minute. Thackeray's defiance. His quintessential dramatic speech which lasted for 20 minutes, (but had all the trappings of a bollywood entertainment of 3 hour movie. Paisa vasool) . A policeman offering rose at the end of the speech to Thackeray. Everything was scripted , performed and executed to perfection. People clapped. Skeptics vowed. As columnist Shobha Dey said it was a political master stroke, and with a class entertainment.

This is an instance of politics performed as art or theatre.

Result today MNS and its head Raj Thackeray is a powerful entity in Mumbai. Raj Thackeray has achieved his goal in shunting the top cop out of Mumbai and has sent the message to masses he is the NEW boss.

What seems common in both events is provocation as a strategy. Strategy that seems work perfectly through media. I do not intend to make any judgement by saying whether Pussy Riot deserved to be jailed or MNS chief needs to be applauded or condemned for his provocative stance. What I want to point out is the 'performative' aspect of a political and artistic practice which remain at the level of 'symbolism'. In today's media defined reality, art and politics are two sides of same coin. Both work on one principle.

Pure opportunism
Stage . Perform. Enjoy.

Women, Neta and Rajneeti

Let me begin by citing a quote by a chief minster of a state. Digamber Kamat, the CM of Goa, suggested that women from his state should not bother to enter politics, because they have much larger responsibility at their hands of bringing up younger generation of the state. So they should not worry about 33% woman's quota and dream of getting into politics. Well, Mr. Kamat does not make any dent on the national politics but unfortunately he happens to be the chief minister of the state I belong to. And therefore his quote matters to me.

How and why a CM of a state like Goa known for his pristine beaches, high GDP, best health care and 100% literacy should discourage women entering politics? Why women participating in politics in India is seen as threat by the current breed of politician?

Looking back in time in 1930-40s large number of Indian women from every social strata participated in social reforms and political struggle of India. From grass root social worker to party president to military out fit women participated on their own merit and with their free will. This was possible only because the leaders of that time, like Gandhi, Nehru, Bose and others who encouraged women to participate in the political struggle had recognized the power of woman in politics. Probably most of these leaders who were educated abroad had realized that for a democratic process to flourish and strengthen, educating women and participating them in the political process is the only way ahead.

However this vision went missing in free and independent India. Women in general disappeared from the positions of power and eventually from the political scenarios soon after local governance began to rule. Only few women who had powerful dynastic connection could come to power and were accepted as leaders by male politicians. Ironically, although these few women who occupied the most powerful positions in Indian politics did not try to influence masses to encourage woman's participation in politics.

On the one hand, India falls in the lowest quartile with respect to the number of women in parliament (9.1%). Even the UAE, with 22.5%, has more women representatives, according to the UN's 2008 survey of women in politics. However the situation is changing gradually, as we see many woman chief ministers ruling the Indian states today. It would be wrong to suggest that all the woman politicians have come to power through dynastic linkages, but one cannot deny that political mentor ship has certianly played a big role in some of these woman's career.

The question is has these women politicians made any significant difference in the quality of governance?

According to the study, the rise of Indian women as panchayat leaders is a spectacular achievement given that India has one of the worst records with respect to the way it treats the female sex. Malnourished, suppressed, uneducated, violated and discriminated against, Indian women have the odds stacked against them. Even birth is a hurdle, thanks to widespread female infanticide in rural areas. In short at the grass root level women leaders have made significant difference to the society by changing the quality of life of the family and community at large. Although same cannot be said with woman who are at the helm of power, but there are examples like the chief minister of Delhi, who I beleive has been voted to power for three consecutive tenures because of her quality of governance and the changes she brought in the state.

Let me come to my third point of the subject which is the portrayal of women politicians in movie Rajneeti directed by Praksh Jha . Considering that Indian viewers do not patronize political thrillers nor do the political parties take kindly to realistic portrayal of Indian politics, a genre of political thriller is almost missing in Bollywood film making. To avoid the controversy as well the harassment of censorship from the political power, Jha thus shields himself behind the story Mahabharata to make a covert comment on the current political scenario.

The whole movie revolves around the male characters who are the main controllers of political power. However, there are three female characters in the movie who are directly/indirectly connected with politics either because they are part of the family that is ruling the state or by her own ambition to be part of the political process.

Firstly, character of Bharati ( based on Kunti) is a daughter of a politician but ideologically inclined to politics of left . Bharati's political ambitions get cut short when she gets accidentally pregnant. Her rebellion is thus subverted to submission when she is married into a powerful political family and turning her into a helpless matriarch watching her family members disintegrate before her eyes.

Second female character appears in the movie is of a ambitious grass root level woman worker, who wants to climb ranks of political power, played by Shruti Sheth. This woman who has neither any political mentor, nor dynastic heritage to support her ambition has to subjugate herself to all sort of abuse which includes sexual favours in order to achieve her goals.

The third character is of Indu , played by Katrina Kaif, is a vivacious daughter of a industrialist who lands in the corridors of power not by her own choice but by fate and dynastic heritage as her husband gets killed in the political vendetta.

Jha's portrayal of all the three women /politicians mentioned above, comes across as weak, and helpless women who succumb easily to male coercion and are mere puppets in the hands of men who are deciding their fate in politics. Although Jha explains the woman's characterization in the movie as fictional and based on the Mahahbharat( i.e. kunti ( Bharati)and Draupadi( Indu) one cannot escape similarity of Indu's mannerisms with that of current Congress president Sonia Gandhi. Also the character of Shruti Seth seem to have no resemblance in the original epic.

To conclude, in Rajneeti, Jha carves a stereotypical characterization of women in politics. Which only strengths the perception that politics is a male bastion ,steeped in violence, revenge, treachery, corruption etc. Is Jha like Mr. Kamat trying to tell us look, if you get into politics this is what your life is going to be . Used and abused by male politicians who are very powerful, conniving, violent and full of deceit and deception. Is Jha trying to tell us politics is not the space for woman?

My point is if we want to change this perception( Politics = Violence and corruption) than we need more women to enter the politics and make the difference, by changing the face of politics from violence to development and progress.

Question is are we ready to make that change?