Ardh Satya

Something about Aamir Khan’s weekly show, Satyamev Jayate, has been nagging me for a while. He has received wide praise for it and much criticism, too, on all kinds of counts. His fans — and this goes beyond his normal filmi fan base — say that he has done signal service by bringing social issues to the forefront.

True, we do know all about pre-birth sex selection and domestic abuse, but the manner in which this programme has done it has shaken us up, they claim.
The critics — and there are many — have taken potshots at him for all kinds of transgressions — from being naïve to taking a big fee (reportedly Rs 3 crore per episode!) and also for getting corporate sponsorship, though why that should matter one way or the other is difficult to fathom.
The high viewership during the first couple of episodes, aided no doubt by the hype and the star’s presence, has now begun to settle down and the TRPs are said to be falling, or at least stagnating. However, given that the show is broadcast over several channels, there is no danger of it turning into a flop.
Watching a couple of episodes gave me a feeling of déja vu; where had I seen something like this before? The producers claim that this is an entirely new concept on Indian television and yet it seemed familiar. Then the penny dropped. Satyamev Jayate is a programme straight out of the old days of Doordarshan.
Before the gentle reader protests, saying that boring old DD would never come up with something so imaginative and well-produced — besides, which big film star would appear on DD? — let me explain.
Get past the production values and the bells and whistles and one will realise that Satyamev Jayate has a lot in common with DD. It has the same earnestness that DD used to bring to “social issues” — dowry, child labour, widow remarriage... On DD, more often than not, such subjects were tackled in a boring panel discussion with a grim moderator and three serious-looking experts who spoke with utmost solemnity. The tone was sober, the sets dull, and most important, the approach was reformist, in keeping with government policy. Given its mandate, the government broadcaster was doing its bit for social awareness and upliftment.
In Aamir Khan’s show, there are tears, case studies, statistics and a heart-rending song, but whatever the embellishments, it is the reformist mindset at play. Aamir identifies the problem, makes us all feel guilty and then tells us, “Something must be done.” He himself has some solutions or rather nostrums to offer, along with the right homilies (girls are precious to a family), but he also wags his finger at us and tells us that we must change our ways.
In Hindi films of yore, there was often a lecture in the final reel wherein the distressed heroine or the virtuous hero preached about what ailed “samaj” and how we needed to change our attitudes. They did a lot of finger-pointing at everyone who looked suitably chastised and promised to change their ways. The villain used to fall at the feet of the family elder, after which there was reconciliation and redemption, the lights went up, the curtain came down and we went home and got on with our lives, satisfied at the way equilibrium had been restored.
The processes that created a certain situation, the complexities of social and cultural structures, class, caste or anything that was complicated, did not figure in the proceedings. Catharsis was more important than analysis. We needed to feel released of our burdens; that society had been reformed.
Social reformers are of two kinds. There are those who identify a problem and give it an airing. There are others who understand that these problems arise out of intricate sociological practices that are deeply embedded and have to be attacked at the root. This is a long and hard route to take. Child remarriage or sati, both part of the “Indian tradition” for centuries, did not disappear overnight; even today there are places where girls are married off at a very young age. It is a scourge that flies in the face of everything we know. Yet, for all our modernity we cannot get rid of it.
Aamir Khan cannot be faulted for trying to at least talk about these things, even if the tenor can be grating. The close shots of teary people, too, appear manipulative. But that may well be just the tricks of good television. Any conversation about the ills of our society is welcome.
But ultimately, just like those Doordarshan discussions were, it is a cop-out. Notwithstanding its slick presentation and even with all its stats-mongering, Satyamev Jayate fails because of its sweeping generalisations that do not go beyond the surface.
We know about child abuse, sex selection, female foeticide and domestic violence and one day we would also like to talk about pollution by factories, large-scale corruption by big companies and the rights of tribals hurt by mining companies. Television programmes discuss this nightly. But we want robust discussions that are no holds barred and that give every point of view. Indian doctors may be protesting a bit too much when they say they will “boycott” Aamir Khan because of his show on medical racketeering, but yes, we want people from the Indian Medical Association on the show to talk about what they have to say. If a family wants only sons, however repugnant that point of view is, why not hear them out? Complex issues need to be addressed in their entirety, allowing the viewers to see every shade of opinion and then make up their mind. Otherwise it becomes sermonising.
Aamir Khan is an intelligent man and, unlike his peers, has chosen to stay away from game shows and the like. He is carving out a persona — the support for the Narmada Bachao Andolan, the appearance at Anna Hazare’s fast, the careful selection of films like Rang De Basanti — they all seem part of a pattern, even a plan. Satyamev Jayate is no accident; it fits in with his worldview and objectives. But he must also know that the questions raised about it are not all frivolous. If Satyamev Jayate is not to become one more TRP-gathering exercise and he really wants to make a difference to the public discourse, then he needs to take a hard look at it. Otherwise it will remain the facile and glib programme it is.