The Malayalam film industry is monopolised by a power lobby consisting of successful men, and this lobby can make or break careers, notes the Justice Hema Committee report. Released to RTI applicants on August 19, the report, which reveals power abuse and systemic sexual harassment in Malayalam cinema, is based on direct evidence collected from witnesses who deposed in person before the Committee headed by former High Court judge K Hema.
Director-producer Aashiq Abu says that such an all-controlling power lobby does exist in Malayalam cinema, as previously pointed out by several people, including late actor Thilakan and director Vinayan. He however observes that the era of the feudal patriarchs is coming to an end.
In an interview, Aashiq told TNM that the arrest of actor Dileep, accused of orchestrating the sexual assault of a female colleague, and the formation of the Women In Cinema Collective (WCC), are events of great impact that changed everything for Malayalam cinema and the Kerala society.
Excerpts from the conversation
Q. The Kerala government is under the scanner for sitting on the incriminating details in the Hema Committee report. Do you think the government is taking this lightly?
The release of this report has exerted pressure, especially in the context of how strongly the media and the Opposition have taken it up. It has definitely shaken the government, necessitating it to treat this with utmost seriousness. What emerges from this, the way I see it, is that the government cannot afford to play negotiator between opposing factions in the film industry anymore.
Let me explain by referencing how such negotiations have happened so far. The Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA) has had differences with the producers’ association, actors have been banned from working, theatre owners have had tiffs with AMMA, and so on. Such altercations were commonplace, and when they reached their pinnacle, the government would intervene and call a truce, thereby temporarily settling the problem. But this will not be possible anymore.
The Hema Committee report highlights that the government and society have been entrusting the workplace safety of those in the Malayalam film industry with associations like AMMA, which are extremely feudal and hierarchical in their structure. Until recently, AMMA did not even have elections, which means there was no democracy in the organisation. In the absence of a democratic structure, power becomes consolidated, leading to its abuse and enabling power groups, as observed in the report itself.
How can any organisation ban anyone from doing work? Banning was an accepted practice here because such organisations single-handedly sideline anyone who questions them. Their autocratic nature ensures that. If they were democratic, questions would come up among members and the leadership would have to engage in debates. There would be some kind of audit. But that never happens. In the struggle for survival, many artists and technicians simply go on with their work despite having serious concerns about the workplace. This is the nature of the organisations the government has so far trusted to make decisions for those working in the film industry. For every negotiation, it is these organisations that represent the workforce in cinema before the government. How can power-centric institutions speak for workplace welfare?
The government must take cognisance of the fact that such organisations are not equipped to take on this task. We need to democratise this workplace first and the government must ensure that it probes existing organisations to fill gaps and establish alternatives.
Q. But even democratic organisations become power-centric. So is non-democratisation the only problem?
My point is, as a state and society, who is it that we entrust the oversight of an industry that employs so many people? Let’s look at this academically. The report itself says that the film sets helmed by younger technicians and actors are fairer in how they handle things. What exactly has brought about this change?
I believe it is the shift in perspective ushered by a younger generation that insists on the democratic functioning of their workplace. We have historically overcome feudal structures through democratic exercises and that is the way ahead for the Malayalam film industry as well.
Q. There are two sitting MLAs of the ruling government who are well-known actors. Do you think this has influenced the government’s political will concerning the Hema Committee report?
I don’t think it is fair to undermine the credibility of this government based on that. The way I see it, the gravity of the report’s findings has made the government anxious about the longevity and goodwill of the industry. I agree that the government seems slightly confused about how to act, which I don’t understand.
This is a government that has taken progressive stands on issues like the Sabarimala temple entry. They put a lot at stake for the sake of their ideology at that time. I do not doubt the intentions of such a government at all. But I do think that now, the government must be proactive about the report and exercise its political will to see this through. There are options like approaching the court, initiating a probe, and so on. The Chief Minister has already expressed the government’s willingness to take this up. We will have to wait and see what course of action follows.
Q. From your experience, how does the ‘power lobby’ function in the industry? Who has the final say on a film set?
I do not doubt that a nexus exists in the industry, but I think its downfall began with the arrest of actor Dileep.
Terms like ‘caucus’ and ‘mafia’ have been used by late actor Thilakan and director Vinayan, who have consistently pointed out that a power lobby exists in Malayalam cinema. If you go back to my own interviews, I have also used these terms to underline that the men in this workplace have been fighting power abuse. However, the actor assault case of 2017 and the subsequent formation of the WCC marked the beginning of the end of this lobby. The WCC’s success in organising itself into a pressure group has contributed immensely to ensuring that today, people in the industry think twice before assuming they can commit crimes with impunity.
With respect to authority on a set, I don’t believe in such a hierarchy. The thought that the one who spends money or brings in money through sales has control over colleagues is arbitrary. It is reflective of the feudal slave-owner mindset we are conditioned to have. Individuals must all be given the same respect and value in their workplace. That is what we must strive for.
Q. Where does this entitlement over women come from?
It comes from the feudal culture that we have internalised as a society, which makes those with power, money, and social mobility feel entitled over those lesser in the hierarchy. The answer is democratisation of the workplace, as I mentioned. The influx of younger, more educated artists into the industry has brought in immense shifts to this mindset. Earlier, we did not have voices from caste-marginalised artists, or funds for women and marginalised film-makers. But now, the Kerala State Film Development Corporation (KSFDC) has initiatives to ensure inclusion. All this is part of the ideological shift in society. The government must take cognisance of this and stop entrusting archaic, patriarchal organisations with the reformation of the industry.
Q. The report says that an Internal Committee (IC) may be futile in such a power-centric workplace. You have constituted ICs on your film sets. What do you think about their efficacy?
I can say that in one of my sets, we received an IC complaint and we were able to ensure due justice to the complainant. What I think a mechanism like the IC, brought in by the interventions of the WCC has done, is that it has ensured the safety of younger women who now step into this industry for work. They will not have to go through the cycles of exploitation and injustice like the women who came before them. I can only speak from my experience in this industry since 2002, and I think when the survivor in the actor assault case decided to fight back, everything changed for us.
Q. Minister for Culture Saji Cherian has announced a conclave to discuss the findings of the report. This could be a gathering where survivors are forced to interact with their harassers. Is this a good solution?
I don’t think that is the way ahead to address this problem. But, having said that, it would be interesting to see the perpetrators get exposed, with no option other than confronting the allegations against them before a larger gathering.
I think the magnitude of the problems mentioned in the Hema Committee report has shocked everyone. I do not have the lived experience of the women who deposed before the Committee. So I can only speak from a space of political allyship and human empathy. It is definitely the women who can articulate this in all its truth. As an ally, I feel that we must also look at this as an educative process to arrive at solutions.
Q. You have often spoken about the need for a comprehensive film policy at the government level. What do you envision?
That must be a longer, more studied project that can accommodate all the facets of the industry holistically. We are now speaking about women’s workplace rights. But transgender individuals are also part of our industry, and the problems they face are entirely different. So we must begin by looking at the film industry as a workplace that accommodates people from diverse backgrounds and identities.