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.
