Mother India (1957)

The exquisite sacrifice that is the life of an Indian woman is a common and moving theme upon which many great Hindi films are based, from Amar Prem to Lajja.  And the mother of all these films may be Mother India, in which an Indian woman survives an almost unimaginable series of hardships and rejuvenates an entire village with her own backbreaking work, only to face the ultimate sacrifice - one she must make not only for her family, but for the good of the entire community.  

Radha (Nargis) marries the handsome Shamu (Raaj Kumar) and settles well into life with his solid agrarian family.  She soon learns, though, that her mother-in-law mortgaged the farm to pay for her and Shamu's lavish wedding celebrations.   The moneylender Sukhi Lala (Kanhaiyalal) claims three-fourths of the farm's produce, having tricked Radha's illiterate mother-in-law into signing a usurious contract.  As the family grows - Radha has three children - it becomes more and more difficult to subsist on their meager share.  The hardships multiply, leaving Radha and her children alone, homeless, and starving.  They survive through Radha's own tireless hard work, and her sons grow into strong young men, though each is scarred in his own way by the traumatic experiences of his childhood.  The spirited Birju (Sunil Dutt) is mischievous and temperamental; he is hungry to seek revenge from Lala, who still claims the lion's share of their produce.  The solemn Ramu (Rajendra Kumar) is protective of his mother and reflects her values, relying on hard work to make his way.  The tension between the two philosophies sets the stage for the film's ultimate conflict, as Birju's rash, violent nature clashes head-on with his mother's stern, grounded integrity. 

Mother India is a beautiful film, shot in beautiful brown and orange tones that both highlight the majesty of the rural Indian landscape and bring to life the grit and heat of working the soil.  The themes lend themselves to an abundance of iconic and symbolic images - Radha hauling a plow that is meant to be hauled by an ox; Radha standing neck-deep in flood waters, hefting her young children over her head on a pallet.  And Nargis, as Radha - really as the titular Mother India - is in absolute top form.  She is the epitome of badass filmi womanhood; she is simply fierce.  Nargis has crafted a performance that is melodrama at its finest, focused and heightened emotions that magnify the viewer's sense of Radha's experience.  Indeed, the multiplying calamities that befall poor Radha can be hard to watch - there are times when the story is so bleak it seems hard to carry on. 

Still, there is a current of hopefulness as well.  Radha's story is told in flashback; the film opens with the villagers asking Radha, now an old woman, to bless the inauguration of the village's new canal.  "You are the mother of us all," the villagers plead with the recalcitrant old woman.  And so the viewer knows, from the outset, that Radha not only will survive her trials, but will come to hold a revered place as the savior of the village.  Radha shoulders the burden of rearing her family and restoring a village upheaved, in what is surely a metaphor for the construction of modern India and healing the fresh wounds of Partition.  And so the film's message is, as it must be, that once Mother India has made the difficult decisions and painful sacrifices, those of her children that remain will be squarely on the road to prosperity. 

The film's second half is as much about Radha's sons as it is about Radha; much time is devoted to developing their contrasting approaches to reconciling with the past and preparing for the future.  The hot-headed Birju thirsts for revenge and lives in the moment; Ramu is practical, methodical, and hardworking.  The film is abundantly clear in its endorsement of the latter philosophy.  And yet as much as Birju frustrates her, Radha adores him; as in Deewaar, Mother India favors her miscreant son over her honest one.  The only limit Radha sets for her indulgence of Birju is one that reflects the film's girl power subtext:  "You may do as you like and I will always love you," she tells him, "but don't you dare ever disrespect a woman."

These comments are quite long enough, but I have to add a few words about Mother India's beautiful music.  The songs encapsulate the agrarian beauty of the film and present delightful tableaux of idealized life in a farming village.  While they don't stand alone - there are no singular dances or set pieces that stand out in my memory (except perhaps the Holi song) - they add texture, and in the film's darker moments, respite, to an already lovely movie. 

Comments

[maxqnz]

I love the music in this film but will never on pain of death watch it again. Death would be vastly preferable and infinitely better for my mental health than being forced to endure this relentlessly downbeat and bleak nightmare. Try as I might, I could see no notes of positivity about it. It starts off bleak and grim, and goes downhill from there. The only real question at the end of the film is why the climactic event at the end took as long as it did to happen. The film made it feel like I was watching the events in realtime, and I would have done what she ended up doing after a month or two at most. This film makes dostoyeksy seem like dr seuss. REALLY good music, though.

[ajnabi]

This makes two blog reviews I've read of this film in as many weeks. I LOVE Nargis but I detest relentless bleakness and the whatever-it's-called when the parent favors the less-admirably-charactered child (is it a meme? whatever, it drives me nuts). Still, the combination of awesome music and Nargis might drive me into viewing it.

[carla]

max, I know you don't like this one much. What can I say? Despite the bleakness, I found it completely engaging. The cavalcade of misfortunes in the first half was certainly over the top, but it kept me fascinated to know what was going to happen next? and how would they recover? The second half was in some ways a completely different film - romance, banditry, Mother India kicking ass and taking names. Maybe the subtext was part of what made it more palatable to me.

ajnabi, I waited a long time to watch it, because, I think, I was afraid of the trauma-drama-o-rama (royalties to Beth) - I just thought it would be too much to bear. I won't unconditionally recommend it, although I thought it was lovely over all - I think you're just as likely to find folks, like max up above you, telling you to stay away.

[maxqnz]

Thanks for introducing me to "trauma-drama-o-rama", carla, and thank you Beth for coining it. For what it's worth, I did not and would not tell anyone to avoid this film. I may prefer unaesthetised root canal performed with a blunt teaspoon over the idea of watching this one again, but it is an important classic and a well-made film that deserves to be seen. The only films I would tell people to avoid are the truly dire, like Dhoom:2, Girlfriend, and Baghban. :)

[bollyviewer]

All power to you for having managed to see the whole movie - I have only managed to see it in bits and pieces and the experience was traumatic enough! What makes it worse for me though, is that for all its woman-centric story, the message of movie is extremely sexist. The movie glorifies all the expectations that a patriarchal society has of women. A woman should be a "good" mother, a "pure" woman and make the most horrendous sacrifices in order to be considered valuable by her community. This is exemplified by some of the lyrics lip-synced by Radha in the song "Duniya mein hum aaye hain":
aaurat hai woh aaurat jise duniya ki sharam hai,
sansaar mein bas laaj hi naaree kaa dharam hai.

They translate as:
A woman is a woman who has some shame
In this world, only modesty (or shame) is a woman's religion (or prime duty).

I find it ironic that a movie that propagates such obnoxiously anti-feminist sentiments is promoted as a feminist vehicle and a classic to boot!

[carla]

Bollyviewer, I wouldn't conclude that the utterance of a particular sentiment in a film is the same as the film's endorsement of that sentiment. That song is something of a lament, picturized on Radha pulling the plow that was supposed to have been pulled by the dead ox. The fact that she takes that moment to lament her role in life doesn't make the entire film anti-feminist.

Having said all of that, I am also somewhat less critical of antiquated sentiments when they are expressed in old films. I just can't be all that critical of a 1957 film for failing to exactly match my personal post-modern sensibilities.

[maxqnz]

"I just can't be all that critical of a 1957 film for failing to exactly match my personal post-modern sensibilities. "

THANK YOU for this. That's how I feel about many oldies, like Jab Jab Phool Khile and others. Not just Indian films either. The hubris of expecting art from a different time and place to conform to one's sensibilities, and contemning it if it does not, is a real bête noir of mine. It's delightful to see thta others also make the effort to avoid falling into this trap.

[bollyviewer]

"I am also somewhat less critical of antiquated sentiments when they are expressed in old films. I just can't be all that critical of a 1957 film for failing to exactly match my personal post-modern sensibilities."

I try, I try.... but its hard when being hit on the head by a shovel of said sentiments! I am more forgiving of such ideas in masala flicks like Jab Jab Phool Khile, as Max mentions. From serious movies I tend to expect more and the general doom and gloom that pervades this movie makes me a lot more unsympathetic, I guess.

[Greta]

I saw this a long time ago, and am glad I saw it, and glad it was made. But I will probably never watch it again. As maxqnz says...a root canal with a blunt teaspoon is more fun!

[carla]

Bollyviewer, the more I think about it the less I can understand what you think is unfeminist about *Mother India*. I see a story about a woman who is ten times stronger than any of the men around her, who is willing to shoulder the burdens of the entire community so that the men in it can thrive, and even faces the challenge of obliterating her own son to protect the village. She's not subservient to anyone; she's the protector and the strength of the whole village, and she's revered as such once they've managed to sustain some prosperity. That actually strikes me as pretty feminist, especially in the context of its time.

There is the problem, I suppose (and I'm just guessing here at what you might be seeing as unfeminist) is that the film is holding up that unattainable level of self-sacrifice as the standard for the ideal woman. Perhaps. But that's where I tend to be a bit more forgiving of older films for not having the same standard of "ideal womanhood" as I do - though again I think the tough-as-nails Radha is a pretty impressive standard. At any rate, *Mother India* is called *Mother India* for a reason - it's an allegory, and her sacrifice and strength stand in for the those of an entire nation.

I've also just noticed that you call *Jab jab phool khile* a "masala flick." I wouldn't describe it as a masala film at all! So maybe we aren't speaking the same language; or at least we're not looking at these films through the same lens.

I'm sorry, Bollyviewer, I don't mean to call you out here - it's fine if you disagree with my reading. Actually I'd like to thank you, because your comments have made me think and I love getting discussions like this one going here.

[bollyviewer]

Just re-read my comments and realised that they may be interpreted as a criticism of your review which I found excellent. So let me clarify that my comments were a reaction to the movie and the ire it invokes in me, not to your review.

You have put your finger on why I find the movie's message terribly conservative. Radha's strength lies in the fact that she suffers and sacrifices - first for her family and then for the village (there is no sacrifice for self). As an Indian who was brought up in India, I have had to endure several older relatives telling me that "women have to suffer and sacrifice to attain [any measure of] respect and prosperity". So a movie that seems to exemplify this, sets off all my fuses! And yes, I know its an allegory to India's suffering but its still driving home its point through a woman's sacrifices.

Also, though social ideas and practices change with time, is it really fair to assume that all our modern thinking is the product of *our* time? There was progressiveness even in Bollywood of 50s and 60s. For e.g., there was the excellent "Guide" (1965) where a woman was allowed to break the bonds of matrimony to follow her freedom. There was B. R. Chopra's "Dharmputra" (1961) where Nirupa Roy explains to a rabidly traditionalist Shashi Kapoor that Indian culture has suppressed women and a Westernised woman isnt all bad. I even recall a 1937 movie by V. Shantaram - Duniya Na Maane - where a woman refused to sacrifice her happiness on the altar of marital duty and eventually steps on the threshold of happiness. Admittedly the conservative faction dominated in the movies, but that is no reason to expect less of movies from that period, especially classics.

As to "masala" movies, any movie that involves an entirely unrealistic story and is meant to entertain rather than be a piece of art is in my opinion a "masala" movie. And Jab Jab Phool Khile is one such movie (an unlettered poor man consummating his love for a rich, educated woman in India's class-ridden society is about as realistic today as the Queen of England marrying one of her servants would be 100 years ago) which judging by its commercial sucess, met its objective of entertaining people. The fact that some of us dont find it very entertaining but do appreciate its technical excellence and the acting skills of the principals involved, doesnt make it any less an entertainer.

[DG]

Lovely review. I too found Radha totally 'fierce' and I loved her beauty and strength. Such a great performance by Nargis.

Interesting debate on whether this film is truly feminist, and I can certainly see merit on both sides of the argument. It does start to look, at a point, as though Radha is just allowed to suffer endlessly with no respite, for no real reason other than her goddess-like womanhood. It's true that women do have to undergo sometimes extreme hardship just because they were 'unfortunate' enough to be born women, and therefore 'expected' to shoulder the trials and tribulations of their families and even their entire communities. But (and perhaps I am missing some subtext) this film doesn't accept or endorse that prejudiced view (or social reality or whatever one may choose to call it), in fact I think it challenges it.

There is certainly a gap somewhere between Birju's mindless, unbalanced, violent reaction and Radha's stoic, silent resilience. This is one real flaw of 'Mother India', I think - that there is no real, proactive, level-headed voice engaging with the prejudice and speaking out against it (Ramu could've filled this gap but I don't think he did - I was appalled at his reaction to the incident between his wife and Birju). I also think, though, that it's a gap that the viewer can fill in for his or herself (although I fully appreciate that some may not have the 'tools' to fill in that gap). And it's probably more 'realistic' to have that gap and to let it speak for itself. (As you can probably tell, I'm a bit conflicted on this one and will have to think about it a little more.)

That said, I think Radha's strength really came not from her suffering but for her firm and defiant endurance - her determination to grit her teeth and go on, and not to lose her sense of self and her dignity for any man. This was a woman with, above all, a strong sense of self (and not just of community), and she would not let all the grossly unfair attacks of society upon her sex change her or break her. I thought that was a very strong, and positive, and feminist message.

Thanks, Carla, for a great review and to Bollyviewer to raising some very thought-provoking points.

[DG]

And, I just have to ask , didn't you just love Birju as a kid? I loved little Birju so much that I missed him when the character grew up. I think the child actor did a great job.

[Veena K]

First of all---first time long time.I am an avid reader and admirer of your blog(s).If you ever get a chance do watch the the Tamil Movie 'The Terrorist' w/Ayesha Dharker and directed by Santsoh Sivan.Roger Ebert featured it as one of his 100 Greatest films of all time.It was prduced by John Malkovich.Check out this link.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050717/REVIEWS08/507170302/1023

Since the discussion has been centered on Feminism or lack there of this 'comments' sections seems as good a venue as any to ask you about the following.I am an Indian woman now living in the U.S.Not working by choice(In another life I was an IT professional).I don't have kids(not by choice) and am pretty much stay-at-home.I recently read this article and it really shook me.Not because my story is v.v similar to the authors but because it is something that women often never address.

If you could read it and let me know if it disturbs you as much as it did me.Part of me wants it to not be true but another can't fault the argument.Am I missing something?

http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=136763

[memsaab]

Veena, I think the man who wrote the article you've linked above just simply doesn't get it. He quite clearly cannot put himself in a woman's place or see a woman's point of view. He probably doesn't believe that women are murdered for dowry, or for betraying their husband's honor, and that the man who murdered her gets away with it (this happens in many parts of the world). He probably doesn't believe that women aren't paid the same amount for the same work (this is true even in the US). He's probably never been treated like a secretary by his male peers just because he's a woman (I have, and I work for a Fortune 500 company which is lauded for being a great place for women to work---which by and large, it is).

He refuses to acknowledge the long history of repression of women which still affects women's lives in many ways today.

In short, the woman in the article is lucky he walked away.

[Veena K]

Hi Memsaab,
Wow!What an excellent blog you have too!I think I'll have to become a regular reader of your blog too.

My point about the article(which was written by a woman not a man, I must point out) was that I've never faced/or needed to endure the hardships that you talk about.I have never wanted for anything and received the same treatment that my brothers and cousins did through out my life.In fact if anything, I was more spoilt by my dad than they were.

I just want to know---How come it's o.k for me to choose not to work and not for my Husband or brothers?And does ill-treatment of women in other parts of India and the rest of the World really justify this inequity? The one thing this article opened my eyes to were the men in my own life------whom I've never really appreciated all these years for working hard and 'providing' for their families.

I guess I was just a bit stunned by the tone of the article.I already wrote the author an e-mail both criticizing her generalizations and praising her audacity of honesty.I feel much better now.Thank you for responding.

Confused in Greenville
Veena Krishnaswamy

[memsaab]

Yikes, a woman wrote that? She appears to have been brainwashed somehow. Poor thing.

It IS okay for men to choose not to work, as long as they can afford it (same for women---a great many women would rather not work and be home with their kids, but can't afford it). I know a man who stays home with the kids while his wife (a lawyer) works, because that's how they both wanted it. I think men for the most part (and this is not a criticism, because I wouldn't want to either) don't want to stay home with the kids and would rather work.

Anyway, don't mean to hijack this Mother India post :-) A lot of women are still like Radha, though, working to provide for their families and taking care of their kids and home without any help---and not complaining about it, just getting on with it.

[Shalini]

Enjoyed reading this review, Carla. Looks like "Mother India" really resonated with you. Wish I could say the same, but unfortunately Mother India belongs to that category of much-loved, much-acclaimed Indian film classics that I can't abide.:-(

The reasons are similar to ones mentioned by others but my primary dissatisfaction with "Mother India" arises from the fact that I've seen it's "original."

Yes, "Mother India" is a remake - of Mehboob Khan's own earlier film "Aurat"(Woman). Even thought the plot and the director are the same, there are discernable differences between the two movies. "Mother India" has always struck me as rather "filmi" while Aurat seems grittier, more intensely and organically rooted in rural India.

[carla]

Thanks for the comments, everyone. Too sleepy to address any substance now but I didn't want to let another day go by without acknowledging the great discussion. Thanks so much!

Shalini: I am definitely going to keep an eye out for *Aurat* - it sounds fantastic, just the kind of film I love.

[Shalini]

Hmmm, then you'd probably appreciate "Godaan." This 1963 film starring Raaj Kumar and Kamini Kaushal is a brilliant adaptation of Premchand's epynomous literary masterpiece. I posted a song clip of it on You Tube not long ago that gives you a flavor of the film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs9O7apX8kk

[Amit]

Or you could try "Do Bigha Zameen" - directed by Bimal Roy, about a peasant family losing their land and displaced from the village and forced to move to the city to earn a living, and their trials and tribulations. Comparatively, it's less melodramatic than MI, but IMO has a greater impact.

[plaintalk]

Just watched this film and though heavy, I admired it a great deal.

@Shalini
I think you are mistaken. Aurat is not an earlier version of Mother India at all.
It is based on the biblical story of Samson and Delilah.
It isn't the 'original' of Mother India at all.

I'm also a bit amused by all the feminist talk.
She was sacrificing etc not because she was a woman but the sole provider of her children, their mother.
What should she have done in her position?

She was a feminist (if one does want to bring that in) because she refused to give in to an easier life as the mistress of the money lender but stood up and managed all.