Like many others, I have enjoyed viewing TV drama Sar-e-Rah. For me it is somewhat reminiscent of Andhera Ujala from the 1980s where every episode had different stories on relevant social issues.
The focus in Sar-e-Rah, however, is on gender and gender expression, which is much needed in a patriarchal society. Yet, this focus comes at the expense of the pressing issues of class and income distribution, i.e., the system in which the actors find themselves. There is also the issue of having two-dimensional cardboard antagonists. In contrast, there is a move in western movies to explore the backstories of villains. This is seen in movies like Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent where the arch villain is humanised as opposed to her “all the powers of hell” depiction in the classic 1959 Disney animation. As such, Sar-e-Rah does not provide depth to the role of the main antagonists in each story.
In the first story, Rania’s phupho is shown as a greedy woman chasing dowry and her brother is depicted as unduly insensitive to the financial urgency of the household. In the second story, Dr Muzna’s mother-in-law is shown as unduly harsh to her and bent on getting a second wife for his son. In the third story, Rameen’s father-in-law is shown as harbouring an unexplained grudge against her beyond her social media vlogs. In the fourth story, Sarang’s stepmother is shown as toxic toward the child without cause. Finally, in the fifth story, Maryam’s colleague is depicted as an envious fool who laughs through her presentation on environmentally sustainable buildings. Other men are also depicted as lecherous predators.
The point I am making is that people are not evil but rather part of the system where they behave in an untoward manner. Therefore, we should always be tough on the problem and easy on the person. Far too often, many of us rail against offenders instead of the systems that give rise to such offenders. For the antagonist, perhaps, is as much a victim of the system as the protagonist.
Consider Rania’s phupho, who could have been depicted more humanely, as someone who is facing pressures from other women in the family and society. After all, in a society where economic inequality has drastically widened, the social pecking order harshly treats those who do not “keep up with the Joneses”. This means that the phupho is merely venting her frustrations on Rania’s family that she would have experienced from those higher up in the social ladder. Thus, the judgment simply flows from one class to another in the social order.
The issue therefore is not so much of a “greedy woman” than of the highly unjust society where the elite take the lion’s share of income distribution leaving others to fight among themselves in a bid to climb up the social order. This means the issue is more about having an equitable and just distribution of income than about the morality of not coveting that which others have.
Rania’s brother has also been unjustly portrayed. There are many young men from working class families who face pressures from their college colleagues to do well financially. Yet, for every rags to riches story, there are so many stories of young men who face job rejections and lack of opportunities. This is perhaps one reason that young men turn to body building to feel some iota of accomplishment. Some get into drugs to cope with the feelings of powerlessness against pressing economic issues whereas others internalise their frustrations and develop mental health issues.
Male youth who have been outperformed by female youth in examinations and the job market with low paying jobs pressingly need role models and guidance to face challenges of life. They need to be taught that it is okay to feel vulnerable and to accept their limitations. Passing judgment on them is the easy response, but to empower them to challenge the inequities of the economic system requires time, effort, and wisdom. Overall, it is less about the narcissism of young men like Rania’s brother and more about the unjust and inequitable economic system in which such men find themselves.
Dr. Muzna’s mother-in-law is depicted as someone who does not accept an orphan child. This issue is not specific to Pakistan. Even in the West, LGBTQ families do not always adopt orphans and it is becoming increasingly common for gay men to have children through surrogacy and for lesbian women to access donors to give birth to their own children. For such people, perpetuating their own genes is important. Therefore, to blame the mother-in-law for a deep-rooted universal trait and to expect her to behave warmly at an unexpected arrival of a child is unwarranted. Even in a western context of equality, such major life decisions are taken jointly and not unilaterally as done by Dr Muzna. Keeping the other partner (irrespective of gender) in the dark would be construed as uncalled for. Thus, there should be more to the mother-in-law character than a classic Hindi movie “Lalita Pawar” caricature. Additionally, an opportunity has been squandered where the classism of Dr Muzna’s colleagues could have been called out when they make fun of the “oily qorma” given as a gift by a poor woman.
Rameen’s father-in-law is depicted as unduly hateful towards her. A brief backstory of Rameen’s father dismissing him based on class or other factors could have explained the antagonism better. Regardless, while Rameen is empowered to pursue her social media vlogs, a whole opportunity on the downside of social media (irrespective of gender) has been squandered here. We witness a whole generation whose life is so consumed by social media that their faces are stuck in their devices at the expense of forging real life meaningful connections. The moral failings of self-centredness, objectification, and consumerism are all magnified by such technology. It also leads to envy among others who see images of beauty and opulence with the privileged travelling to one destination resort after another and having one luxury experience after another. This imbues others with a lower position in the social pecking order with feelings of worthlessness. Additionally, the issues of the abuse of minors on social media and cyber bullying that have led to some suicides, could have been used as justifiable causes of concern for both Rameen’s parents and her father-in-law beyond the stereotypical “izzat” (honour) issue.
Sarang’s stepmother is shown in a weird manner. A stronger motive would have been to protect her son from the elder sibling’s influence. Perhaps, the story could have been imbued with shades of grey where Sarang explores their gender, and the younger son imitates Sarang. This could have motivated the stepmother to lash out at Sarang. Similarly, Maryam’s colleagues could have been portrayed as facing domestic issues with an unsupportive spouse or an abusive parent to explain their insecurities and untoward behaviour towards her. Likewise, the sexual frustrations of men on the streets could have been explained through the systems in which they have been taught to repress their sexuality as dirty.
All of this is not to excuse the behaviour of the respective antagonists but to allow for a deeper exploration of their behaviour beyond a simple cardboard villain caricature. Instead of black and white, we need to embrace the grey. Instead of heroes and villains, we need to understand that heroes have failings and villains can have redeeming qualities. Finally, Sar-e-Rah could have gone beyond the moral failings of the antagonists and towards the system that engendered their motive and awful behaviour. And that would have made the drama into a more realistic representation of society than the two-dimensional cardboard caricatures.
The focus in Sar-e-Rah, however, is on gender and gender expression, which is much needed in a patriarchal society. Yet, this focus comes at the expense of the pressing issues of class and income distribution, i.e., the system in which the actors find themselves. There is also the issue of having two-dimensional cardboard antagonists. In contrast, there is a move in western movies to explore the backstories of villains. This is seen in movies like Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent where the arch villain is humanised as opposed to her “all the powers of hell” depiction in the classic 1959 Disney animation. As such, Sar-e-Rah does not provide depth to the role of the main antagonists in each story.
In the first story, Rania’s phupho is shown as a greedy woman chasing dowry and her brother is depicted as unduly insensitive to the financial urgency of the household. In the second story, Dr Muzna’s mother-in-law is shown as unduly harsh to her and bent on getting a second wife for his son. In the third story, Rameen’s father-in-law is shown as harbouring an unexplained grudge against her beyond her social media vlogs. In the fourth story, Sarang’s stepmother is shown as toxic toward the child without cause. Finally, in the fifth story, Maryam’s colleague is depicted as an envious fool who laughs through her presentation on environmentally sustainable buildings. Other men are also depicted as lecherous predators.
The point I am making is that people are not evil but rather part of the system where they behave in an untoward manner. Therefore, we should always be tough on the problem and easy on the person. Far too often, many of us rail against offenders instead of the systems that give rise to such offenders. For the antagonist, perhaps, is as much a victim of the system as the protagonist.
Consider Rania’s phupho, who could have been depicted more humanely, as someone who is facing pressures from other women in the family and society. After all, in a society where economic inequality has drastically widened, the social pecking order harshly treats those who do not “keep up with the Joneses”. This means that the phupho is merely venting her frustrations on Rania’s family that she would have experienced from those higher up in the social ladder. Thus, the judgment simply flows from one class to another in the social order.
The issue therefore is not so much of a “greedy woman” than of the highly unjust society where the elite take the lion’s share of income distribution leaving others to fight among themselves in a bid to climb up the social order. This means the issue is more about having an equitable and just distribution of income than about the morality of not coveting that which others have.
The focus in Sar-e-Rah is on gender and gender expression, which is much needed in a patriarchal society. Yet, this focus comes at the expense of the pressing issues of class and income distribution. There is also the issue of having two-dimensional cardboard antagonists… As such, Sar-e-Rah does not provide depth to the role of the main antagonists in each story.
Rania’s brother has also been unjustly portrayed. There are many young men from working class families who face pressures from their college colleagues to do well financially. Yet, for every rags to riches story, there are so many stories of young men who face job rejections and lack of opportunities. This is perhaps one reason that young men turn to body building to feel some iota of accomplishment. Some get into drugs to cope with the feelings of powerlessness against pressing economic issues whereas others internalise their frustrations and develop mental health issues.
Male youth who have been outperformed by female youth in examinations and the job market with low paying jobs pressingly need role models and guidance to face challenges of life. They need to be taught that it is okay to feel vulnerable and to accept their limitations. Passing judgment on them is the easy response, but to empower them to challenge the inequities of the economic system requires time, effort, and wisdom. Overall, it is less about the narcissism of young men like Rania’s brother and more about the unjust and inequitable economic system in which such men find themselves.
Dr. Muzna’s mother-in-law is depicted as someone who does not accept an orphan child. This issue is not specific to Pakistan. Even in the West, LGBTQ families do not always adopt orphans and it is becoming increasingly common for gay men to have children through surrogacy and for lesbian women to access donors to give birth to their own children. For such people, perpetuating their own genes is important. Therefore, to blame the mother-in-law for a deep-rooted universal trait and to expect her to behave warmly at an unexpected arrival of a child is unwarranted. Even in a western context of equality, such major life decisions are taken jointly and not unilaterally as done by Dr Muzna. Keeping the other partner (irrespective of gender) in the dark would be construed as uncalled for. Thus, there should be more to the mother-in-law character than a classic Hindi movie “Lalita Pawar” caricature. Additionally, an opportunity has been squandered where the classism of Dr Muzna’s colleagues could have been called out when they make fun of the “oily qorma” given as a gift by a poor woman.
Rameen’s father-in-law is depicted as unduly hateful towards her. A brief backstory of Rameen’s father dismissing him based on class or other factors could have explained the antagonism better. Regardless, while Rameen is empowered to pursue her social media vlogs, a whole opportunity on the downside of social media (irrespective of gender) has been squandered here. We witness a whole generation whose life is so consumed by social media that their faces are stuck in their devices at the expense of forging real life meaningful connections. The moral failings of self-centredness, objectification, and consumerism are all magnified by such technology. It also leads to envy among others who see images of beauty and opulence with the privileged travelling to one destination resort after another and having one luxury experience after another. This imbues others with a lower position in the social pecking order with feelings of worthlessness. Additionally, the issues of the abuse of minors on social media and cyber bullying that have led to some suicides, could have been used as justifiable causes of concern for both Rameen’s parents and her father-in-law beyond the stereotypical “izzat” (honour) issue.
Sarang’s stepmother is shown in a weird manner. A stronger motive would have been to protect her son from the elder sibling’s influence. Perhaps, the story could have been imbued with shades of grey where Sarang explores their gender, and the younger son imitates Sarang. This could have motivated the stepmother to lash out at Sarang. Similarly, Maryam’s colleagues could have been portrayed as facing domestic issues with an unsupportive spouse or an abusive parent to explain their insecurities and untoward behaviour towards her. Likewise, the sexual frustrations of men on the streets could have been explained through the systems in which they have been taught to repress their sexuality as dirty.
All of this is not to excuse the behaviour of the respective antagonists but to allow for a deeper exploration of their behaviour beyond a simple cardboard villain caricature. Instead of black and white, we need to embrace the grey. Instead of heroes and villains, we need to understand that heroes have failings and villains can have redeeming qualities. Finally, Sar-e-Rah could have gone beyond the moral failings of the antagonists and towards the system that engendered their motive and awful behaviour. And that would have made the drama into a more realistic representation of society than the two-dimensional cardboard caricatures.