Amazon Prime’s ‘Panchayat’ Is a Unique Ode to Simplicity

Even though Panchayat is not a ‘gritty’ look at rural India, it has reams of social commentary.

Abhishek Tripathi (Jitendra Kumar), a recent engineering graduate, has failed the ultimate test for which young Indians prepare their entire life: landing a high-paying job in a multinational firm. He only has one job offer at the moment, which requires him to be in Uttar Pradesh, in a village called Phulera, hundreds of miles away. The city slicker isn’t excited at the prospect. As a secretary of the village panchayat, he’ll earn a meagre Rs 20,000 per month. It’ll be a life that will have no life at all.

Amazon Prime Video’s new eight-part series Panchayat, directed by Deepak Kumar Mishra, begins on a fascinating note.

The inciting incident is very English August-like, a novel centred on a young IAS officer moving to a remote, nondescript part of the country. When Abhishek’s friend (Biswapati Sarkar) prods him to look at the brighter side, I could almost hear the novel’s memorable line: “I’ve a feeling, August, you’re going to get hazaar f*%#ed in Madna.” Unlike the book though, Panchayat’s pleasures are simpler and direct. The harshest of critics may call it “surface-level”, but even they’ll concede that it is never superficial – a much tougher feat to accomplish, and one by no means insignificant.

Panchayat does this by keeping its ambit small. The show doesn’t have a lot of characters or locations. Or complications for that matter; it’s a what-you-see-is-what-you-get world. By staying clear of the frills – at the levels of story, themes, aesthetics – Panchayat is, in a unique way, an ode to simplicity, to the spirit of rural life. What’s even better? It achieves all that without making a big deal about it.

Besides Abhishek, the show features four recurring characters: the office assistant Vikas (Chandan Roy); the deputy pradhan Prahlad (Faisal Malik); the sarpanch Brij Bhushan (Raghuvir Yadav), or “Pradhan ji”; and his wife, Manju Devi (Neena Gupta). Turns out, the elected head is Manju, but Brij gets to be the pradhan – a deceit that feels like fact. Most movies and shows hinge on a hook that is essentially a question, compelling us to watch.

Also read: Review | ‘Extraction’ Falls Back on the Only Weapon in Its Arsenal: Action

Panchayat has a similar question, too – how will Abhishek adjust to the village life? – but there’s no real urgency to it. Even the other attendant questions and their subsequent answers – will he want to escape this humdrum routine (yes, by preparing for CAT), how will he fare in that exam (not too well) – are not ‘hook-ey’ enough. And yet, we remain hooked.

Episode after episode, Panchayat journeys through a series of trivial problems, where the real joy is just staying with the characters, seeing them struggle with moles that look like mountains. So much of fictional dramas are about the grand that we’ve forgotten the mundane. A moment where nothing dramatic – nothing revealing – happens. A moment that is self-contained. A moment that just is.

Panchayat is a treasure trove of such moments. There’s an entire episode on a revolving chair (Chakke Waali Kursi), another on a computer monitor (Computer Nahi Monitor). They don’t seem planted for effect, either. Each one of them, in a wonderfully understated manner, tells a distinct story about this world and its people. Panchayat cares for those who think a fancy chair is a marker of power, who believe that a solar lamp in front of their house signifies stature, who treat time like elastic – there’s always enough of it to gossip about someone, to pry into someone’s life. And it makes sense: in a lake that has stagnant water for years, even a ripple feels like a tsunami.

Even though Panchayat is not a ‘gritty’ look at rural India, it has reams of social commentary. An episode on solar light illuminates the difficulties of achieving even small reforms in a place like Phulera. Abhishek’s fight is a story of class mobility. Vikas’s of quiet resignation. Manju’s life dignifies self-determination. Unlike many other series, where every episode intensifies in pursuit of the final answer, Panchayat has no tiered escalation. But with each subsequent episode, the writing becomes more refined, the details get richer, the subtexts begin to arrange itself in an impressive ensemble.

The show is elevated to a large extent by the performances. Kumar, the new face of Indian everyman, is excellent. His acting style, more so in this role, has no room for clutter. He has an ingenious knack of distilling ‘Indianisms’ – whether expressing annoyance or joy or exasperation – into a small moment. It could be a line of dialogue, a smile, a frown. When Kumar is in his element, it feels like he’s finishing your lines and reading your thoughts. In the Chakke Waali Kursi episode, there’s a scene where he finally sits on the revolving chair. He knows that it’s not a big deal, and yet in that moment, there’s a feeling of familiar urban comfort, and he soaks it in, and smiles. It’s a spellbinding scene.

The other performances are worthy of note, too. Roy is masterful in his portrayal of Vikas. He’s the kind of guy that most of us have met at some point: someone who missed the prosperity train, and yet is not bitter or cynical, someone who has made acceptance an art form. Malik’s Prahlad, on the other hand, is cheeky and sly, a performance that makes the series entertaining. Manju is the soul of Panchayat; her resurgence is a key that unlocks several answers. But Gupta plays her boss-like, a megaphone of truth bombs. Yadav is a kaleidoscopic glimpse into the village. In him, you can see its humour, hunger, humanity, ambition, ingenuity, shrewdness – and Yadav, accustomed to shades of strivers, sails through it.

Panchayat has a constant lightness of touch, and that is reflected in the aesthetics, too. Its scenes aren’t hurried; a consistent relaxed rhythm informs the entire show. Some of the editing decisions though, especially in the earlier episodes, seem unmotivated. In a regular conversation filmed outdoors, for instance, the scene often cuts to a wide shot, emphasising the setting. It’s alright once (perhaps twice), but when that happens multiple times in a scene and that pattern carries over to subsequent scenes, you get the feeling that the makers are whispering, “Look, this is set in a village.” Similarly, a lot of scenes transition via a repeating drone shot, indicating reluctance and laziness to find intriguing segues.

Also read: Music Is the Only Transmission in the Human Chain That Can Be Safely Amplified Now

The writing, too, falters at times. The central conflict in the fourth episode is relatively contrived. These are just slip-ups though – nothing that feels jarring or particularly upsetting. But the sixth episode – Bahot Hua Samman – is a bigger misfire. This episode, like others, is still entertaining; it’s just that it fails to add value to the overall series. Centred on a frivolous fight, where Abhishek must stand for himself, it feels mismatched with the rest of the series.

But the best part about Panchayat is that it’s an accurate encapsulation of a part of Indian village. While watching the show – especially in scenes capturing the essence of quietness, of stillness, of mundane inaction – I was often transported to my own village. I went there last in November 2018.

On one night, a few cousins and I were standing near a paan shop. It was around eight, and it felt as if the entire village was sleeping. It was almost pitch dark; there were stars in the sky, and a small lantern at the shop. The only sound came from the shopkeeper’s stereo, playing an old Hindi film song. In front of us spread a beaten road, and beyond that endless fields, all still, all frozen in wait. And then there were us, doing absolutely nothing. That was the moment – just that, a small world unto itself. And then, it got over.

The ‘Burnout Generation’ – A Personal ‘Origin Story’

On fighting the need to be consistently ‘on’ all the time.

The ‘burnout’ generation, we’re called.

We are the new generation of homo sapiens. We have evolved into creatures characterised by chronic laziness, mindless scrolling and bilious behaviour specifically targeted towards parents and loved ones.

We consistently attempt to battle our deviant evolutionary course with Instagram, parties, ‘me’ time, self-care and ‘guys, let’s go for a break we deserve it’.

This is not a justification for the way we are. This is an origin story, an explanation of how we came to be – albeit with limited understanding and unprovable facts.

We start at the very beginning. The moment I uttered to my parents the three magic words, “I am tired.”

Since then, there has been no turning back. Every day, without fail, I vocalise this emotion. My father has pondered over this statement.

“You need to take Vitamin D.”

“Eat more green leafy vegetables.”

“You don’t even drink water, what are you doing?”

Valid, dearest father. Very valid. But I would like to place another argument. I live in a day and age where there is no proper time for anything. There is no proper time for meals because Swiggy can deliver whenever you want it to. There is no proper time for sleep because Netflix and Amazon Prime attract me like insects to a tube light. And most importantly, communication has no proper time because ‘if I message you on WhatsApp, why aren’t you replying immediately?’

You see dearest father, I am simply adapting to my environment as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (a French naturalist) had said we all would. I just don’t think the environment is very conducive to beauty sleep and healthy eating.

However, I would like to take responsibility for the water bit. The app on my phone does a terrible job of ensuring my hydration. 

Now to my generational batchmates, my evolutionary amigos, I would like to claim something and say ‘same’ if you agree: we have the need to be consistently ‘on’ all the time. This need is not something provided by exterior stimuli any longer. The exterior has mixed with the interior and created a khichdi of confusion and exhaustion.

And for the life of me, I cannot switch it off.


Also read: Are You Burnt out at Work? Ask Yourself These Four Questions


Imagine this: it’s like there are insects in my stomach (preferably the ones already mentioned above). They buzz constantly, every day – straight up 24/7. During this buzzing, a new WhatsApp message enters my life.

Here is where the insects showcase their wrath. They begin to do a dance of sorts; not the chicken dance but the floss, at high speed. My brain begins to feel lighter, my legs feel weaker and before I know it anxiety is knocking at my door.

“It is the perpetual need and obligation to be ‘on’ that creates a sense of urgency which can never be quelled,” say the insects.

Valid, dearest insects. Very valid.

‘You should help more around the house’, ‘why aren’t you cleaning your room?’, ‘just deliver this to the post office for me please?’

I can’t. I just can’t. Simple acts become difficult. Shifting my clothes piled up on my bed to a cupboard is harder now than it has ever been. Before, it was laziness, now it is denial. Privileged, upper class and burnt out. What a conundrum I find myself in.

Without getting too deep into the social implications of my statement, I would like to ask: dear generational batchmates, what is the solution?

My mind is numb. I fall asleep in cab rides. My work is suffering, my friendships are decaying and clearly my cupboard is in a desolate space. My stomach isn’t going to be as healthy anymore if the insects decide to continue to infest it.

How do we get over this burnout? How do we turn ourselves ‘off’ for a while?

Hey, you know what guys? I have an idea.

‘Let’s go for a break. I think we deserve it.’

Eshna Benegal is a chronic overthinker, amateur writer, passionate dancer and also, she studies filmmaking.

Featured image credit: Pariplab Chakraborty

Apple, Disney and Netflix’s Streaming Battle Isn’t Winner-Take-All

Although some have dubbed the flurry of new video services coming out as a ‘streaming war,’ the reality is very different.

With the recent launch of Apple TV Plus and the imminent arrival of Disney Plus, the video landscape has never looked so competitive.

These services join a crowded marketplace of subscription streaming services that includes Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime Video – with more to come next year. For viewers, the proliferation of services means more choice in shows and services. For the companies, it means increased competition for talent and escalating budgets.

Although many publications have described the situation as “streaming wars,” these companies have different goals for each of their video services.

We have been studying the recent boom in subscription video streaming to understand the implications for audiences and industry. Contrary to all this reporting, we find little evidence of a “streaming war.”

In fact, many of these services are playing different games.

Diverse strategies

The major streaming services – both old and new – all have different catalogs, pricing and strategies. While all services seek viewers’ time and attention, in other respects they are different beasts.

Take Disney Plus. Disney’s strong suit is kids, family and its popular Marvel and “Star Wars” content. It has also invested in a few original series such as “The Mandalorian,” a “Star Wars” spin-off.

But unlike Netflix, Disney Plus doesn’t offer a full-service entertainment package. With its lowball pricing of US$7 per month compared with $13 for Netflix’s most popular plan, Disney Plus is pitched as a service to have alongside Netflix, rather than a direct replacement.


Also read: ‘Netflix Shows Defaming Hindus and India’: Shiv Sena Member


Similarly, Apple TV Plus – which debuted on Nov. 1 for $4.99 a month – has a tiny catalog of high-profile shows and stars, such as Oprah and Jennifer Aniston. Compared with Netflix’s library of 5,000 titles, Apple TV Plus is a minnow. Its purpose is to add value and glamour to Apple device purchases not to replace another service.

In other words, neither Disney Plus nor Apple TV Plus is likely to be a “Netflix killer” anytime soon.

Netflix is global

Another key difference between Netflix and services such as Disney Plus, Hulu and Apple TV Plus is the amount of global content in the former’s library.

Today, six out of every seven new Netflix subscribers live outside the US The global market is essential for Netflix’s future growth.

To support this endeavor, it is spending considerably on producing shows outside the US, and this original content is available to subscribers worldwide. Of course not every viewer is interested in series produced elsewhere, but Netflix is making the bet that sci-fi fans will turn up for a good adventure whether it is produced in the US or Brazil.

In contrast, Disney and Apple are following a more traditional US export model of media globalisation.

Room for other players?

Many questions remain about the future of Hulu now that its owners – Disney and Comcast – are launching other services.

Hulu provides a distinct service as a source of current series produced for Disney and NBC. Viewers that are cutting cable and satellite service – a trend that has increased in the last year – may find Hulu a good replacement.

And more change is coming. Comcast announced a service called Peacock for next year. Peacock will draw heavily from the library of shows Comcast owns as the corporate parent of NBC and Universal. It will be free to Comcast subscribers and possibly to everyone.

Meanwhile, AT&T will launch HBO Max – the new direct-to-consumer portal for HBO content, some original series and titles from the Warner Bros. library such as “Friends.”

What winning means

In other words, the question of who will “win” the streaming war is more complicated than it appears.

Rather than one service to rule them all, there may be many winners because most are playing different games. Netflix is the only “pure” subscription video-on-demand service – meaning its only business is streaming video. It wins when viewers subscribe or keep subscribing. Apple and Amazon are playing another game entirely. Apple wins if you buy a new iPhone, and Amazon wins if you start buying more from its online retail service. Similarly, Comcast and AT&T are likely angling to increase internet subscribers.

Disney also wants viewers to pay to subscribe, but it has other ambitions too. Launching its own streaming service allows Disney to collect valuable data about who is watching and what they like. This kind of data is useful for driving viewers to theaters as Elsa and Anna return in Frozen 2 and enticing families to buy lots of stuffed toys and maybe even visit its theme parks.

In other words, this is not a single war so much as a collection of different media and technology businesses that are using video streaming to accomplish different goals.

Amanda Lotz, Professor of Media Studies, Queensland University of Technology and Ramon Lobato, Senior research fellow, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Featured image credit: Unsplash

Why Netflix Has Received Little Competition From Hollywood Houses

By allowing Netflix and perhaps Amazon to develop such a commanding lead in this space, the Hollywood majors may not now be able to catch them.

The long anticipated battle royale over TV streaming is finally becoming real: Apple TV+ has just launched in over 100 countries, kicking off with broadcast news drama The Morning Show starring Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon, and dystopian sci-fi series See.

Later this month Disney+ will enter the fray, initially in the US and then further afield in the early months of 2020. It will be leveraging everything from the Star Wars back catalogue and The Simpsons to that other Aniston series that some may have heard of – Friends. Meanwhile, WarnerMedia and Comcast/NBCUniversal are to follow in 2020 with their own respective platforms, HBO Max and Peacock.

Much has already been said about this challenge to Netflix, which has dominated the market for almost a decade. Netflix entertains an audience of almost 160 million subscribers around the world, while second placed Amazon Prime is now slightly shy of 100m. But while analysts try to second guess how these platforms will be affected by new arrivals, the launches also prompt another question: why has it taken so long for this challenge to finally emerge?

Birds in the hand

Apple’s hesitation is understandable given its outsider status to the streaming industry. The delayed entrances of Disney, Warner and NBC are more puzzling, though: these multi-billion-dollar giants have extensive knowledge of the entertainment business and lots of capital to support aggressive entry. They also saw what happened to the music majors when upstarts iTunes and Spotify took charge of downloads and streaming.

Also Read: ‘How Many Indian Users Can Netflix Really Scoop up With Its Small Screen Discount?

The behaviour of the Hollywood entertainment giants can be explained by an old, sometimes forgotten theory that describes disruptive technologies: the innovator’s dilemma. It was documented as early as 1997 by Harvard professor Clayton Christensen in a book of the same name that has become one of the seminal titles in the economics of innovation.

The dilemma refers to the choice that established firms must make between investing in their existing products and innovating to create new ones. For years, Hollywood chose the former. The most likely explanation is that these companies postponed going down this innovation route into TV streaming because they were afraid it would cannibalise their existing businesses.

Cannibalisation is where an established company has to destroy some of its sales and even partnerships to make room for a new product or service. Take the example of Friends: WarnerMedia, which owns the classic sitcom, has received formidable income from Netflix for the past few years for the rights to rerun the show. For 2019 showings alone, Netflix reportedly paid WarnerMedia US$100 million (£90m).

This is the sort of offer that is hard to refuse for a show whose last episode aired 15 years ago. It will be a big revenue loss to Warner when it switches Friends to its HBO Max platform in the new year. Netflix has instead struck a deal to rent Seinfeld, another 90s favourite, from Sony Pictures Television.

Disrupt and be damned

The innovator’s dilemma crops up in all businesses where there is substantial technological change. It can be characterised as a choice between the two types of technological innovation: sustaining, where technology improves existing products or services; and disrupting, where it creates a new market.

Also Read: Our Brains Seem to Love Instagram. Why?

Sustaining innovation is the path commonly followed by established firms, since they already have the experience, the market share and often the capital to invest in improving current products. An example would be smartphones, in which market leaders Apple and Samsung lead the way in improvements from one generation to the next.

Contrast this with disruptive technologies, where the new entrants are usually the innovators. This might sound like a case of incumbents failing to follow consumer demand – in other words, they have stopped listening to their customers. Instead, they are listening maybe too much. They prioritise defending their existing audience rather than leading these people towards the change that they will inevitably embrace.

Why, then, is Hollywood now changing tack? The answer is presumably that they believe the market has changed, and is moving towards a new equilibrium. This will be partly due to improvements in household internet speeds, and partly from the new supply of customers created by the disruptor, Netflix. WarnerMedia, for example, is betting that streaming has reached the stage where it can earn more from Friends on its own platform than by licensing it to Netflix.

Yet this is not the way that an established company should have approached this decision. Instead they should concentrate more on the future: once you accept that each product or service has its life cycle and will eventually come to the end, the only way forward is to try and disrupt the market yourself.

As Apple’s Steve Jobs once said, “If you don’t cannibalise yourself, someone else will”. To this day, Apple aims to prioritise disruptive innovations regardless of whether it will damage the sales of some of its other products in the process. By doing this wherever it is appropriate, you avoid the innovator’s dilemma entirely.

The TV streaming business – like all other businesses going through technological change – is a game of winner takes all, in which only a small number of players will come to dominate. According to the theory of the innovator’s dilemma, it is the innovator that tends to win.

By allowing Netflix and perhaps Amazon to develop such a commanding lead in this space, the Hollywood majors may not now be able to catch them – even with their huge production budgets and content libraries. Either way, it is going to provide a fascinating case study for this whole area of research.

If this is more of a cliffhanger than you can stand, let me end with a consolation: viewers can expect to pay rock bottom prices for all this content until the battle is over. This means that there will be no shortage of distractions in the meantime.The Conversation

Stavros Poupakis is a postdoctoral researcher in economics at the University of Oxford.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

‘Sacred Games’, ‘Lust Stories’ and Radhika Apte Nominated for International Emmys

Amazon Prime Video’s ‘The Remix’ also received a nomination.

Netflix India Original series Sacred Games, anthology film Lust Stories and Amazon Prime Video’s The Remix have been nominated for the International Emmy Awards.

The first season of Sacred Games, starring Saif Ali Khan and Nawazuddin Siddiqui, has been nominated in the best drama category alongside Brazil’s Contra Todos (season three), Germany’s Bad Banks and the UK’s McMafia, which also features Siddiqui in a key role.

Director Anurag Kashyap and Neeraj Ghaywan directed the second season of Sacred Games while Vikramaditya Motwane served as a showrunner. Kashyap, who shared the news on his Instagram page, was also one of the directors of Lust Stories with Zoya Akhtar, Dibakar Banerjee and Karan Johar.

Kashyap, who had quit Twitter last month citing threats received by his family, posted the news on Instagram tagging Emmy, Netflix and other collaborators.

The movie has been nominated for the best TV movie/mini series with Brazil’s Se Eu Fechar Os Olhos Agora, Hungary’s Trezor and Australia’s Safe Harbour.

Actor Radhika Apte, who features in the segment directed by Kashyap is competing in the best performance by an actress category with Jenna Coleman for The Cry, Marjorie Estiano for Brazil’s Sob Pressao 2 and Marina Gera for Hungary’s Orok Tel.

The Remix is competing in non-scripted entertainment category with nominees from Argentina, Belgium and the UK. Nominees this year span 21 countries across 11 categories with Brazil and the UK leading the list. Other countries with more than one nod include Germany, Australia, Belgium, Argentina, Hungary and India.

“The diversity, geographic spread and quality of this year’s nominees is a testament to the increasing wealth of outstanding television being created on a global scale,” Bruce L Paisner, president and CEO of the International Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, said Thursday.

“We congratulate the nominees for their outstanding achievements,” Paisner added. The 47th International Emmy Awards will be held on November 25 at the Hilton New York.

‘Harmony With A.R. Rahman’: A Series in Which Music Is a Visual Experience

The five-part Amazon series is rich in detail, with powerful story-telling and music that instantly draw the viewer in, while treating folk and classical music as equals.

“I don’t think, as a musician, you can be very religious. A liberal philosophy is very important for music to thrive,” says Ustad Mohi Baha’uddin Dagar, in the second episode of the five-part series ‘Harmony with A.R. Rahman’, on Amazon Prime. Dagar, whose ancestors converted to Islam seven generations ago, plays Rudra Veena in the Dhrupad tradition. Music is a very visual experience, he tells Rahman, sitting next to him in his gurukul in Navi Mumbai. “When we’re learning, our ustads tell us ‘Look at the swar’.” They did not say, ‘hear the swar’, he points out. Director Sruti Harihara Subramanian has managed to bring this quality into all the episodes: a very visual musical experience.

Promotional poster. Credit: Special arrangement

Subramanian’s first film A Far Afternoon, a documentary on Krishen Khanna won two National awards. She was approached by Kavithalayaa Productions to make a documentary on rare musical instruments and rope in Rahman. After months of research, Subramanian and her team identified four artistes: Mickma Tshering Lepcha from Sikkim who plays Pangthong Palith, a bamboo flute; Lourebam Bedabati, from Manipur a champion of Khunung Eshei, a rich and colourful tradition of folk song; Kalamandalam Sajith Vijayan from Kerala, who plays the Mizhavu, a temple drum; and Ustad Mohi Baha’uddin Dagar from Maharashtra.

Director Sruti Harihara Subramanian. Credit: Special arrangement

Since she didn’t want to be constrained by the stereotypes often associated with documentaries – heavy on facts and appealing to a niche audience – Subramanian went for the human element. A visual communications graduate, she spent several years in front of the camera as model and actor before she moved behind it. “I worked as an assistant to directors of mainstream, commercial cinema. Because I come from a fiction film background, I wanted to make sure that it finds a larger audience. I focused on human emotions, which is the common point for all of us,” she says. Three other things she was keen on were to include a woman musician, getting a musical balance (vocal, percussion, wind and string instruments) and lastly, geographical diversity.

Her instincts were correct. The episodes are rich in detail, the story-telling powerful and the music, including Rahman’s original score, compelling. They instantly draw the viewer in. The images linger in your mind long afterwards: Sajith drumming over the surface of a river as he swims, a bathing elephant, a scurrying ant, the sun lighting a singer’s face, the sun setting while Baha’uddin plays raga Malkauns.

But it is not just nature that inspires music. In Mumbai, Rahman acknowledges that it’s a ‘gift’ when a musician, despite the ‘dirt and clutter’, can ‘internalise and produce beautiful music’. As if to prove him right, Dagar plays the veena and the single note is so meditative that Rahman sits as if in prayer, his eyes half-closed.

Revealing a different side of Rahman

The episodes are also interesting as they reveal a very different side of Rahman: we see a jovial, relaxed man, cycling, flying a drone, describing Pongal and Upma as “government of India tiffin”. At some level, they seem to work as travelogues too, presenting each state’s heritage. Chennai, where the last episode is shot, is just a cameo, but the temple, the sea, jasmine strings and the old album cover with M.S. Subbulakshmi make it memorable.

The four stories also contain social commentaries – they explore community, tribe, gender, geography and their relationship with music. They do so without romanticising India, particularly the rural. Subramanian says she didn’t set out to do this with a specific agenda. “The research was extremely intense and the narrative arcs emerged from multiple rounds of interviews,” she says.

But with the composer, her work was already done. “I’m a hard-core, obsessed Rahman fan,” she smiles. The rock-star musician is well known, she points out, so she decided to highlight “the human side, the humorous side and the boyish charm. When I met him for the first time, I was blown away by his simplicity”. Rahman is also genuinely interested, she adds. “He wants to learn. In the Rudra Veena episode, he says ‘I’m going to try playing a bit, so don’t laugh at me.’ He’s human like you and me!”

Ustad Mohi Baha’uddin Dagar. Credit: Special arrangement

Directing Rahman was ‘surreal’, says Subramanian. When she suggested the title track could begin with a tuning sound, he immediately agreed. Rahman gave 15 days of shooting time, not including the travelling and composing the musical score. Did he listen to her, I ask. “Of course! There was a bit of nervousness, but he made us feel comfortable. He trusted me fully. He is so open to collaboration. When I gave an idea, I would prefix it with ‘I know it sounds stupid…’ but he would jump at it. Even when he said no, it wasn’t a put down. There was a lot of back and forth with the last song. He said he liked my musical sensibilities and to go ahead and edit. When someone like him says it, you jump with joy!”

The final episode features ‘Mann Mauj Mein’ (Heart is in Ecstacy), a 22-minute song composed by Rahman and includes all the four artistes, plus musicians from Rahman’s music school, KM Music Conservatory and others. The indoor set, with spinning colours and shapes, is evocative of the outdoors; and the music is classic Rahman.

Democratisation of music

The series’ highlight was treating folk and classical as equals, showcasing the travails and beauty in both. To the director’s credit, at no point does pop-culture or a musician of Rahman’s stature eclipse the music or lives of the others. In these polarising times, it is also refreshing to see frank conversations about democratisation of music. As the grandmaster of Mizhavu P.K. Narayanan Nambiar (who brought the instrument out of the temples and made it accessible to all communities) tells Rahman in the first episode: “If we confine something to one place, it will only get ruined. If we free it and make it beneficial for others as well, that art form will exist forever.”

The five episode series, Harmony with A.R. Rahman, is available on Amazon Prime.

Aparna Karthikeyan is an independent multimedia journalist. She documents the vanishing livelihoods of rural Tamil Nadu and volunteers with the People’s Archive of Rural India. You can contact the author here: @AparnaKarthi.

Why is Amazon Playing Uncle-Ji in the Indian Rollout of Prime Video?

Self-censorship by Amazon comes at a time when the company is worrying about regulatory and legal obstacles on the e-commerce front in India and when our political atmosphere is going through a particularly prickly phase.

Self-censorship by Amazon comes at a time when the company is worrying about regulatory and legal obstacles on the e-commerce front in India and when our political atmosphere is going through a particularly prickly phase.

A screenshot of the Amazon Prime Video India homepage. Credit: The Wire

A screenshot of the Amazon Prime Video India homepage. Credit: The Wire

New Delhi: Amazon Prime Video – the online retailer’s TV-and-movie streaming service, positioned globally as a competitor to Netflix – launched in India this week with a heavily censored offering. Or, paraphrasing from a statement put out by an Amazon Prime spokesperson, the streaming service has been made more palatable to the Indian audience.

Movies which have scenes with frontal nudity are blurred out. Vulgar profanity in various movies and TV shows is largely missing in the accompanying subtitles.

Amazon’s censorship also goes beyond the realm of the moral and extends to India’s supposed cultural sensitivities. The Grand Tour, a British motoring show with popular host Jeremy Clarkson which was produced exclusively for Amazon’s platform, has a huge chunk of content missing from its fourth episode. The missing content includes Clarkson driving a car made out of animal (including cow) carcasses. As film critic Raja Sen notes, “the hour-long episode has, absurdly enough, been shortened to half its length and there is no meat-car in sight.”

Tortured history

The history of online censorship and censorship by technology companies in India stretches far back. Putting aside overt political censorship in the form of Section 66A and other largely misused acts of legislation, Silicon Valley companies have almost always engaged in some form of censorship or the other; some of their own accord and others after violating specific rules.

The first clear case of a technology company violating Indian laws and bowing down to government pressure was Microsoft in 1995. Microsoft’s Windows 95 software, when released, as part of its time zone selection control, allowed Indian users to choose their specific time-zone by clicking on a country-specific map. For India, it showed only a partial Kashmir state, with clear demarcations for Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. As a Microsoft press release noted at the time, “although this was a minor oversight on the part of the product group, which used United Nations maps not officially recognised by India”, the Indian government was extremely upset…and demanded that the problem be fixed before Windows 95 could be distributed in India”.

Over the years, online censorship became more tricky with the advent of the Information Technology Act 2000 and eventually extended to a whole new gamut of censorship with overzealous copyright claims by India’s movie industry and socio-religious censorship by touchy politicians.

Crawling without being asked

Self-censorship by technology companies in India, done without prodding or carried out even though the content isn’t specifically violating any Indian laws, is also not new.

When Apple Music was released in India, customers were in for a rude shock. Initially at least, in iTunes for Indian iPhone users, restrictions for the ‘Musics and Podcasts’ section’ was set to “Clean” – which meant that users couldn’t listen to explicit albums, listen to non-explicit songs in an explicit album or listen to explicit podcasts. Many of these restrictions were later rolled back.

Although many of these country restrictions and general viewing and listening restrictions can easily be gotten around, the end result is the same: for India, technology companies engage in self-censorship.

It’s quite clearly self-censorship for there is no specific law that prohibits online services from serving up content with nudity or profanity. Amazon’s decision to dabble in self-censorship is all the more puzzling after the results of a recent RTI (by online publication Medianama) were made public.

The RTI query, filed by Aroon Deep, specifically asked whether the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting was “empowered to regulate/censor cinema or TV shows distributed online” and whether it was “pursuing the creation of any regulatory framework that would allow censorship of films/documentaries/TV shows online”.

To which the ministry replied: “At present, the ministry is not pursuing the creation of any regulatory framework for censorship of content appearing on the Internet”.

To be clear, censorship of online content still does happen in India,although its mostly because of some external pressure. In 2012, the controversial film ‘Innocence of Muslims’ , which sparked protests in Chennai, was removed off YouTube in India, although it wasn’t clear whether it was done because the Indian government asked the search engine to do so.  Nevertheless, this form of censorship is on a reactive, case-by-case basis.  Self-censorship is a different beast.

Why did Amazon sanitise its India content? In a handful of cheeky tweets last night, as well as through a more formal statement released to the media today, the company believes that it is “respecting customer preferences” in India. “We will keep Indian cultural sensitivities in mind while offering content to customers,” a spokesperson said.

Sliding smoothly into Indian culture

Curiously, rival Netflix, which was launched earlier this year with a far more expensive subscription tag, does not engage in any form of censorship. When it was launched earlier this year, it was one of the few streaming services that did not blur out nudity or edit out profanity.

In media interviews at the time, Netflix vice president Chris Jaffe points out that the “service encourages self-selection”. “Nothing on the service is censored at this point. Our goal is to comply with local rules and regulations but at this point there’s no censorship of anything on the service,” Jaffe said.

There are two broad and potential reasons why Amazon is self-censoring and why Netflix isn’t (although if pressured or controversies are created, it may too fall into line).

First, Amazon Prime Video isn’t the company’s primary play in the Indian market.

The Seattle-based technology giant is fighting battles in various sectors, the most important and potentially controversial of which is its e-commerce platform. It has poured in billions of dollars to capture a share of the online retail market and is facing multiple regulatory and legal struggles. Amazon is almost certainly wary of the concerns raised by the RSS surrounding foreign direct investment in e-commerce, the legal battles it may have to fight for allegedly violating FDI norms, and the very many tax disputes it is involved with various states such as Karnataka. In more recent times, domestic competitor Flipkart has called it out for “capital dumping”.

How these concerns eventually pan out is yet to be seen, but it’s clear that Amazon needs political capital. It needs the Modi government on its side. It doesn’t want to fight a censorship struggle at this point; another way of putting it is that fighting for freedom-of-expression isn’t at the top of its list of India priorities. In fact, in the worst-case scenario, sticking up for nudity, profanity and cow-meat could cost it quite dearly.

Second, Amazon Prime Video’s entry comes at a time when the political atmosphere in India is definitely more charged and hypersensitive. Cow-slaughter assumed centre-stage in India throughout 2016, with so-called cow vigilantes or gau rakshaks committing a number of acts of violence throughout the country. As Amazon’s streaming service comes just a few months after large-scale protests and counter-protests over the issue of cow meat, it makes good business sense to censor out images of dead cows in Jeremy Clarkson’s TV show.

Ultimately, Amazon simply doesn’t want to upset the increasingly upsettable apple-cart. If self-censorship means viewers can’t watch TV shows as they were meant to be watched or have to put up with blurred out images, it’s a small price to pay.

This is a pity, because online streaming services also serve as the only legitimate way of getting around India’s cinema censor board. When Bengali rap film Gandu was banned in India, Netflix picked it up, allowing Indian viewers to watch it without illegally downloading the movie.

The self-censorship of Amazon and Apple make it clear why the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting isn’t contemplating regulating online content. Streaming companies are doing their job for them.