Millionaires of Mumbai

There is one scene in Slumdog Millionaire – perhaps only 3 or 4 seconds long – where a man on the street looks directly at the camera and utters “no filming.”

I’m not sure why the director kept the shot in the final cut, but the scene demonstrates just how real the visuals are. The movie was not filmed on sound stages or deliberately constructed sets. It was shot in Mumbai, and is an accurate depiction of a city I see everyday.

Some of the more affluent in India (who, outside of Americans, are probably the target audience) are angry at the dark portrayal of their city. Yet even one of the movie’s own Bollywood stars – Irrfan Khan – knows you can’t hide the truth.

“It's the reality. Why should it be swept under the carpet? ...Danny [Boyle the director] saw a good dramatic story on Mumbai. He came and shot that story.”

Most Bollywood movies set in Mumbai are staged. Streets are cleaned, people cordoned off, beggars sent away and camera angles conveniently block the ever-present slums. Big-budget movies show a city that never quite matches the truth.

Not so with Slumdog Millionaire. While the plotline obviously involves some characters in the city that are not always visible, elements like the beggar mafia and blinded orphans do exist. The realities of a city of 18 million are on display in raw form – both the evils of poverty and the inspiration of human ingenuity.

However, the movie is receiving mixed reviews in Mumbai for two reasons: socioeconomics and culture.

First, the few wealthy elite in Mumbai criticizing the movie don’t want to acknowledge, accept, deal with, or exhibit the poverty in their city.

Keep in mind that of the 18 million people that call Mumbai home, more than 10 million live in slums. Of the remaining 8 million, a fair amount live in dilapidated buildings that many Americans might mistakenly also classify as “slums.”

Given these figures, living in the city without encountering the mass of slums, poverty, and trash is impossible – unless one lives in a secluded neighborhood with Bollywood stars and real estate prices that exceed those in Manhattan.

The affluent minority criticizing Slumdog Millionaire appear to be vestiges of the caste system, angry that those “below” them are contaminating their country’s reputation. It’s the same reason that in Mumbai businesses, many employees won’t converse with the “help” who sweep their floors or the office “boys” that make photocopies and chai between running errands.

Yet somehow the mainstream media focuses on the criticism coming from a minor fraction of Mumbai society. Time Magazine managed to find – and quote – two:

“We see all this every day,” says Shikha Goyal, a Mumbai-based public relations executive who left halfway through the film. “You can't live in Mumbai without seeing children begging at traffic lights and passing by slums on your way to work. But I don't want to be reminded of that on a Saturday evening…”

“O.K., so there's filth and crime in India, but there's so much more too,” says Jaspreet Dua, a New Delhi–based business manager with an international luxury brand. “What they've shown is not reality.”

True, there is so much more to India – but what the movie shows is reality for a majority. A “public relations executive” (who didn’t even see the whole movie) and a “business manager with an international luxury brand” aren’t exactly representative of most Mumbaikars.

Most Indians are not living in secluded bubbles of cocktail parties and weekends in Dubai. And even among Mumbai’s affluent, there are many working to change the poverty in the city (sadly, not the movie's producers or director, though they seem to have suddenly changed their tune).

But the main reason that Slumdog Millionaire will fail at the Indian box office has less to do with politics and more to do with culture.

Bollywood seems to revolve around movies that transport audiences into another world. There aren’t many “hard looks” at serious social issues and few directors who “tackle” something controversial. These subjects are covered extensively by India’s vast print and television media.

Bollywood is about fantasy, song, dance, and escape.

Indians (of all classes and castes) flock to see Shahrukh Khan strutting to hard bass lines and swooning beautiful women in colorful love ballads. They revel in epics about the Mughal Empire with impeccable costumes or comedies that pit their favorite stars in wild situations.

Slumdog Millionaire was made with an American audience in mind.

Still, that won’t stop most Mumbaikars (especially the 10 million slumdwellers) from relating to the movie’s message: that intelligence and love isn’t the exclusive privilege of only the wealthy and privately educated.

But anyone from the slums already knows that. They are already aware of the ingenuity, entrepreneurial skills and family bonds that each of them relies on to thrive under conditions that would break most of us.

It’s Mumbai’s elite minority, aloof from the problems facing 55% of the city, that need to hear the movie’s message. Unfortunately, they’re in no mood to have their Saturday evenings ruined by a dose of reality.

Wil Robinson
International Political Will

Context is the Antidote to Propaganda

Last week, the New York Times published an article headlined “Why the Arabs Splinter Over Gaza” that was anything but a description of “why.” The story was actually just another example of observations disconnected from context that masquerades as news.

Three Arab countries (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan) refused to attend an Arab League summit on the Gaza crisis. The NY Times explained “why the Arabs splinter”:

Most Arab regimes are terrified of Islamist movements like Hamas, which represent the greatest threat to their legitimacy. Many, including Egypt and Jordan, face challenges at home from their own popular versions of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas’s ideological parent. Most Arab leaders are also reluctant to provoke the United States and Israel (with which Egypt and Jordan have peace treaties).

The story accepted this simple observation and moved on to quotes from academics and diplomats.

The article never connected the observation to context, background or history.

There was no mention that Egypt is the second largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid (approximately $1.5 billion per year, behind Israel’s $2.5 billion) and that Jordan ranks near the top ($500 million annually).

Nor did the article refer to the marriage of petroleum convenience between the monarchy in Saudi Arabia and the American government.

Seems to me that an article headlined “Why the Arabs Splinter Over Gaza” should have identified interests shared by those countries that “splintered.” Shared interests, after all, are usually the basis of a conspiracy – or at least collaboration. The NY Times didn’t even mention that the three Arab countries are all dictatorships.

In reality, it’s only the autocratic regimes – not the public – of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan that are unwilling to unite against Israeli aggression. The NY Times apparently thinks dictators represent their people…which kind of flies in the face of everything we know about authoritarianism.

The NY Times article claims groups like Hamas represent a threat to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan’s legitimacy…but provides no specifics. Readers are left to infer that Muslim Brotherhood groups – being the wild-eyed, sharia-ruling Muslims that we’ve been told they are – must be a threat because they want to kill all the infidels and institute a global theocracy.

The real reason why the Muslim Brotherhood is considered a threat is because Mubarak, King Abdullah, and the Saudi royal family don’t want freedom. As undesirable as Western media may have portrayed political entities like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, they represent choice: the first step toward political freedom.

Mubarak has been ruling Egypt since Sadat’s assassination in 1981 – and the country has remained in a state of emergency since. The emergency decree lets Mubarak imprison anyone he wishes, for any reason, for any amount of time. It has allowed Mubarak keep the Muslim Brotherhood off the ballot, assuring the dictator’s “reelection” with 90% of the vote (because he jails opposition candidates), while he ignores real reform.

Yet Mubarak has extracted more than $18 billion in U.S. foreign aid since 1999 (two-thirds used for the military). The U.S. continues to support a dictator because he’s willing to suppress an Islamic-nationalist movement (just as the U.S. sabotaged Nasser’s pan-Arabism, which similarly would have united Muslims in an oil-rich region).

Jordan, in contrast to its reputation as moderate, is ruled by a monarch. Despite his Western education and love of Star Trek, King Abdullah continues to rule his country without any sign of democratic reform.

The $500 million annual U.S. foreign aid guarantees an ally in the so-called “war on terror” and space in Jordanian prisons for rendition and torture.

And Saudi Arabia…protector of Islam’s holiest site (except when it was seized by a Muslim Brotherhood-related group in 1979 who railed against the corruption of the Saudi royal family, forcing the Sauds to hire French commandos to recapture
Mecca). Saudi Arabia is ruled by a king and
sharia law, and their record on human rights ranks near the bottom of the heap.

The Saudi Kingdom is the single biggest financier of thousands of Wahhabi madrassas across the Muslim world, responsible for turning out jihadi terrorists to fight anywhere from Mumbai to Kabul to London to New York (all initially funded by oil sales to the U.S.).

Groups like the Muslim Brotherhood are a threat – not to Saudi Arabia’s philanthropy, Egypt’s freedom, or Jordan’s moderation – but to authoritarian regimes. These groups are a threat because they are a popular movement - people that seek representation, a voice, and power that is currently monopolized by a dictator.

Given the recent history of these three countries, and the effort they have made to suppress popular movements, I have to wonder why the NY Times referred to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan as “moderate.” What interest does a large media outlet have in misinforming Americans about U.S. foreign policy?

An observation is not necessarily news. To prevent propaganda from being disseminated, journalists must put observations into historical context. Context is what empowers and informs citizens.

Once the NY Times story has historical context, it becomes clear that it’s not the “Arabs” that are splintered over the war to suppress Palestinian democracy.

Rather, the Arab street is united behind Gaza (as even the NY Times’ photo seems to suggest). The only splinter is between the Arab public and their autocratic rulers.

Wil Robinson
International Political Will

Preemptive Diplomacy - Everyone Can Play

There are a few things in life that have proved true over time:

• HDTV is not a good thing when watching news anchors that have had too much plastic surgery.

• Permanently wearing a blue-tooth earpiece does not make you richer, more professional, or more respected. It just makes you look like you wish you were a part of the Borg’s collective consciousness.

• Our most treasured gifts are not the most expensive, but are the ones that have a person behind them.

When it comes to foreign aid, we must remember that without a human face, human sweat, and human relationships, free money can become an obstacle.

Greg Mortenson, of Three Cups of Tea and the Central Asia Institute, is successful working as an American in the least likely of places for one reason: he understands money is not enough. His work building schools in rural Pakistan and Afghanistan has impacted thousands of lives only because of the personal relationships he has forged.

Anyone can dump money on a problem and hope it goes away. But without personal interaction, often the money is spent unwisely, used to feed corruption, or enhances the power of despots and dictators.

Often the change we seek is only possible through human relationships. Money is the essential starting ingredient, but without a human heart behind development aid, the original sacrifice is lost. And the original intention – generating goodwill toward our nation – is lost with it.

Mortenson spent years showing – not telling – the people of northern Pakistan what his intentions were. There were no radio shows regurgitating talking points to convince the people of his values; there were no fliers dropped from airplanes with illustrations to show his objective; there was no generic building erected with a signboard in front bearing his insignia or nation’s flag.

There was only Mortenson – an American visiting, living, respecting, learning and talking with the very people he aspired to help.

As events over the last 8 years have shown, America ignores the rest of the world to the detriment of its own security. Our future foreign policy needs to revolve around development assistance. Foreign aid – if handled appropriately – can act as preemptive diplomacy. Yet just as we would never appoint a bag of money as an ambassador, how can shipping suitcases of cash with only a sender’s address hold any meaning for the people we aim to help?

By successfully combining these two agents of change in American society – those people that can donate money, and those people that can donate time – we can create a new era of American foreign policy that truly will make our world more secure. We have spent the last 8 years sending money abroad as a sign of our good intentions, but have accompanied that aid with soldiers, guns, torture, and air strikes.

We need to stop sending conflicting messages and show the world a human face to go with our human charity. We have to stop sending our military out on diplomatic errands to deliver briefcases of cash without knowing the names, lives, trials, and needs of the people we claim to be helping.

In the slums of Mumbai, Akanksha, an Indian-based NGO, organizes classes of young teenagers for two-and-a-half hours each afternoon to help with their studies.

[...inside an Akanksha classroom in Mumbai...]

Akanksha students stand out from their peers, and not just because they do better in school. Akanksha children have high self-esteem, are not afraid to practice their broken English, are less likely to acknowledge religious differences with their friends, and even stay healthier and cleaner (though some still refuse to wear shoes).

Akanksha has many donors, foreign and domestic (but as with any non-profit – not enough). They also have dozens of teachers who devote their time – some of them Westerners, some of them Indians with experience living in the U.S.: wealthy housewives who teach an after-school class everyday; under-grads from the U.S. that volunteer their spring break; mothers in the slums that find paying jobs at the centers, thereby earning respect in their communities; Indian engineering graduates who spend months tutoring math before starting a career.

I have seen firsthand the impact that personal relationships can have between the first and third worlds. I have seen the smiles that make you want to cry, the hope that grows with each sign of friendship, the confidence that builds with each word of praise, and the future that brightens with each passing day.

As we set out in 2009 with a new president – and hopefully a new foreign policy – we have the necessary resources to succeed in preemptive diplomacy. There is no shortage of Americans who want to be the face on the front line, and neither is there a shortage of those who want to donate money or supplies. At some point, we must separate war from diplomacy; we need to distinguish between real humanitarian aid and bribes.

To really have an impact, we must focus on establishing personal relationships alongside monetary donations – relationships between different cultures, religions, and people. We need to make sure we have American faces on the ground to devote the time, energy, and love necessary to show – not tell – the rest of the world what real American values are.

There are those Americans that volunteer their time. And those Americans that volunteer their hard-earned money. It’s a team effort. If the two are linked so that development aid recipients can see this connection, we’ve already done more for world peace than any armed “liberation” ever could.

Anyone interested in Akanksha (or who would like to donate), they have a New York office website at www.akanksha.org. I can personally vouch for the great work Akanksha does, and even the smallest donations go a long way in India.

Let It Begin...

My (unofficial) slogan is "Advocating change in a globalized world,” and it means exactly that. Not fighting the irresistible force of globalization, but embracing it in all its aspects.

Globalization doesn’t simply mean economic ties between all corners of the earth as a means to increase personal wealth, but international connections like the world has never seen. If we truly are to be global neighbors, than we must communicate with our neighbors and treat them as equals. Antiquated ideas about colonialism or economic advantages based on force cannot survive in such a world.

There are solutions, but they lie between opposing poles. Gathering together liberal-thinkers angry with contemporary imperial foreign policy perpetrated by their government will not provide an answer. Conversely, groups of religious right-wing hawks will equally fail to present workable solutions. There needs to be a unification of opposing ideas - not agreement that one is wrong and the other is right - but finding an answer in the middle. One side will never be able to impose their ideas on the other, and as such, compromise and negotiation is the best way to move forward.

Therefore, this international section hopes to engage people from all walks of life in intelligent discussion and conversation. The site endeavors to generate provocative questions and answers; and needs detailed explanations of what logical basis views are held. I will opine, and I will offend. Yet I attempt to make no accusations that cannot be supported by fact. Opinions are valuable, but only if reasons are given. To simply voice your opinion without support is to ignore the power that the individual possesses. So voice your opinion. Disagree or agree. Have passion, anger and hope. But always say why.

Wil Robinson
International Political Will