Dangal, the recent box office hit starring Aamir Khan, has already grossed over 700 million INR,becoming the highest grossing Indian film. Based on the life story of Geeta Kumari Phogat and Babita Kumari Phogat, winners of gold and silver medals in wrestling in the Commonwealth Games 2010, the movie claims to portray ‘female empowerment’ in a male dominated sport.
But how
long do we have to see women grow and succeed under the protection of men?
The film
sparks such questions of patriarchal control at multiple instances. The first
and foremost is the way the father, Mahavir Singh Phogat played by Aamir Khan,
imposes his dreams on the reluctant daughters. This imposition—which includes
restricting their favourite foods to cutting their hair—is made after the
girls, Geeta and Babita, beat up two boys. Physical supremacy of the girls is
determined through the emasculation of the two boys who cannot even compete
with ‘girls’. Thus, their identity as girls does nothing to their father’s
decision of training them as wrestlers.
Their
continuous protest against the rigorous training given by their father goes in
vain as they are made to believe by their friend who is a victim of child
marriage that at least their father thinks of their futures. This scene
validates the task given to the two sisters. The father is accepted as the
obvious benefactor who withstands protests and taunts of the society and makes
his daughters wrestlers. In the entire movie no one asks the girls what they
want to become.
Man is
considered the touchstone of power. Hence, to prove their prowess, Geeta and
Babita subsequently fight against their cousin brother and the strongest of the
male wrestlers rather than any girl. The hypermasculine location of the
wrestling ground is controlled by Mahavir Singh Phogat, the ultimate patriarch.
In order to belong to this place, it is not only the sisters who have to
struggle, their lanky tall and weak cousin brother also becomes a victim. From
a punching bag to a cook, this brother undergoes the eventual emasculation in
the hands of Mahavir Phogat. It shows how both men and women are subject to
patriarchal control.
Critique
of femininity is evident in the film in the portrayal of Geeta’s life in the
hostel. At the training centre she goes out with her friends who tell her that
it is OK to keep long hair, eat what she wants, and watch late night romantic
comedies. But these ‘funs’ are nipped at the bud as they are seen responsible
for her successive failures at international matches. It is only when she cuts
her hair and goes back to her usual routine that she succeeds.
Apart
from the physical conflicts on the wrestling mat, the biggest emotional tussle
of the movie is shown through disputes regarding Geeta’s life choices, as well
as her choice of technique-oriented wrestling as taught be her coach.
Interestingly, this is perhaps the only instance in the entire film where Geeta
exercises her choice and speaks out. But she is quickly shunned for hurting her
father and her repeated failures prove that her ‘choices’ were indeed
wrong. Geeta’s failure is almost necessary to retain the balance of
control of a single man. The gendered aspect of this evident is striking. In
Indian society women are supposed to perform three roles in their lifetime—as a
daughter, a wife, and a mother. And in all three stages she is controlled by
the father, husband and son respectively. By making Geeta, the daughter, submit
to her father’s wish and proving that her own good lies in this submission, the
male control is reestablished. Geeta in the end is shown as a good daughter who
obeys her father in every way possible.
The film
thus appears with more dungeons than dangals. During the final match at the
Commonwealth games, Geeta feels confused and disconcerted without her father
who used to shout instructions from the audience seat. Although she wins gold
with her father absent during that game, there is subconscious presence of the
father in Geeta as she hears his advices in her mind. Ultimately then, it is
the victory of the father who surpassed the criticisms of the villagers to make
his daughters wrestlers. In such scenario one wonders what would have happened
if their mother wanted them to be wrestlers. How would the society treat her
then? What would have happened if the girls wanted to be wrestlers? Would they
succeed to defy gender norms and norms of masculinity and femininity without
the help of any man? Would Mahavir Singh Phogat have supported their ‘choice’?
The film only forces us to raise these questions, and as of now they remain
unanswered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anandita Pan
Research Scholar,
IIT Kanpur
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------