This to me seems to be the key to understanding much of the opposition to the song.īecause historical accuracy would also demand then that the film show that the Mahars were not allowed within the gates of Poona after 3 pm as their long shadows would defile people of ‘upper’ castes, that they were required to carry an earthen pot around their necks to contain their spittle and also sweep off their defiling footprints, that a Sonar who performed religious rites according to the Vedic mantras had his tongue cut off for ‘defiling’ the sacred verse (Chakravarti, 1998). It has as much to do with seeing Kashibai doing ‘lavani ’like steps as with Mastani partaking in the song and dance associated with the mangalagauri pooja.Īs Uma Chakravarti argues, in Brahmanical patriarchy the relationship between caste and gender is crucial: ultimately the degree to which the sexuality of women is controlled is the degree to which a caste group is regarded as maintaining the purity of blood and can thereby establish its claim as high. The problem as it comes through in these writings seems to be much more about seeing the ‘married’ Kashibai dancing with the ‘courtesan’ Mastani, than with historical accuracy. Much of the opposition to the song seems to me to come from a discomfort with the transgressing of these boundaries. The Lavani/ zimma-phugadi binary stand in for a set of oppositions – public, erotic, sexualized, lower caste female body on the one hand and the private, ‘pure’, fecund, Bramhin body of the other. As against this, the phugdi/zimma are typically games played during the mangalagauri pooja, a ritual performed by married women for the long life of their husbands. The Lavani marked for its eros and the erotic performance is also performed as caste-based labour by women of the Kolhati caste, their body and their art appropriated and exploited for the pleasure and enjoyment of the upper caste men.
What the authors of these posts seem to have forgotten is that the Lavani and phugdi/zimma though arguably both ‘Maharashtrian’ are linked to each other in a hierarchical manner. The criticisms have a problem with what they perceive of as the stereotyping of Maharashtrian women, who are supposed to have danced not just the Lavani, but also ‘many other folk forms like the phugdi and zimma’.
#THE PINGAS SONG SKIN#
Which Maharashtrian women are we talking about? There is also a distinct racist tinge to the criticisms, with a few posts commenting on Priyanka Chopra’s ‘dusky’ skin as unsuitable for Kashibai (with her fair, delicate, ‘Chitpavan’ looks)! One of the posts even talks about how “no Maharashtrian lady would be caught bobbing her head like that” (emphasis mine). While accusing the director of stereotyping, much of this writing is working from an assumption that equates Maharashtrian to Bramhin. While I am in no ways arguing that the song is historically accurate and I can understand the discomfort of those arguing against the song, the tone of much of that writing is troubling to say the least. Much of the criticism is aimed at what is perceived as the lack of authenticity of the song – that it is unlikely that Kashibai and Mastani would dance together, that the costumes worn by the actresses in the song are historically inappropriate, that a queen would not wear such revealing clothes and dance like an ‘item girl’ along with a ‘courtesan’ etc. Recently the song ‘Pinga’, from Sanjay Bhansali’s ‘Bajirao Mastani’ went online on YouTube and the song has given rise to a tide of criticism, mostly from self-professed ‘Puneris’ and ‘Maharashtrians’.
0 kommentar(er)
