Movie: Gender Bender
Date: 7th October, 2009
Time: 3:30 p.m. – 6:15 p.m.
Venue: Seminar Room, Deptt. Of Social Work, Jamia University campus

The second day of the film festival saw the movie Gender Bender. Titled thus for the changing roles of women, the movie forced a re-look on the traditional definitions of gender, and gender-specific roles. To get the audience thinking along the same lines, a teaser was organized – a mind jog where the participants were asked to delineate various jobs into male/ female. It was deliberate on the part of the facilitators (Nishu and Sonal) to not give them time to think – we wanted to record their first responses. With this activity, the movie started.

After the movie, the discussion touched on multiple issues, and an effort has been made in this report to record all of these, and the interconnections between them as well.

Perceived gender roles – The audience was asked to revisit the jobs that they had categorized into gender definitions and say if they wanted to change some of those responses. Through this discussion, we also tried to check if these roles were assigned because of some intrinsic gender-specific qualities, or were they just part of a stereotype. It was decided that although roles were necessary, it was also important to allow individuals to make their own choice – and that their choice be respected. Also, the roles, though different, should not decide the gender dynamics; the status of a male/female should be the same.

Reservation for women – With equal status, the question of reservation for women also came up. Here there was a divided opinion. Some were all for reservation in educational institutes, while some felt that an opportunity should be provided to girls to allow them equal access, but admission should only be on merit. From this, the discussion moved to reservation in public transport, like buses and the metro. Members of the audience thought that this was not justified.

Eve-teasing – From buses, the discussion progressed to eve-teasing – reasons for it, possible consequences, and who, if any, is to blame. This discussion was intense, and had to be carried on from the seminar room to the garden, due to non-availability of time. There was no closure here (and neither were we aiming for it), but the participants realized the role they had to play in it, and thus took the first step towards being active citizens.

The discussion came to a close with a vow to take back some learnings from this space into personal lives, and to be the change they want to see.

Movie: A Narmada Diary (57 mins.)
Date: 6th October, 2009
Venue: Seminar Room, Deptt. Of Social Work, Jamia
Time: 4:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.

Subject Association, along with Pravah, held a screening of the movie – A Narmada Diary, as a part of the ‘Movies for Thoughts’ film fest at Jamia Millia Islamia University campus. The movie explores the question of development, from the perspective of the Sardar Sarovar Dam. Set in the early 1990s, when the dam was still under construction, it documents the early stages of the said project and the Narmada Bachao Andolan. It touched upon such pertinent issues as rehabilitation, traditional vs. modern irrigation techniques, transparency and disclosure, and the like.

With this in mind, the actual screening was preceded by a question for the audience – What development meant to them?? The responses ranged from sustainability, positive and need-based growth to freedom, a high HDI, and the decentralization of decision-making to the rural villages and towns. With this background, the movie commenced.

After an hour or so, the discussion began by asking the participants to revisit their parameters for development, and apply the same to the movie. While some people said that the movie could promote vested interests and bank on it’s emotional quotient, a majority felt that everybody saw development with a different perspective, and what one sees as development might not be that for another. In this context, the question of need-based growth came up, and the participants were forced to question the aims of the dam, in light of the expectations of the rural poor.

A cost-benefit analysis was also considered necessary by a few, since the benefits were to come only after 30 years, while the costs could even be borne by the displaced forever. This naturally led to the question of the stakeholders, and who was bearing the costs without reaping the benefits, and vice-versa. The issue of adequate compensation (in kind and cash), and how much is necessary for sustenance, and whether it is even measurable, was also brought up in the course of the discussion. With regard to this, the participants came up with other examples, like thermal power plants, and SEZs, where the same situation was prevalent.

Due to time constraints, the discussion could not continue further, but it proved to be a very healthy interactive space for all. The discussion did heat up at some point, but the facilitators were able to bring decorum again. It was agreed by all that there was a need for active citizenship, and understood that even having an opinion on such issues, and being confident to take a stand, is a vital part of active citizenship, and of what Pravah does.