Kashvi Garg and Maanasi Shivakumar
Films and fiction are an amalgamation of the social milieu, competing and missing narratives, and the benefit of hindsight. This begs the viewer to fill in the gaps between mainstream history, which is taught as objective, and competing histories, which have nuances of grey instead of being plain black and white.
Why did Rabindranath Tagore regret the ending of the very controversial ‘Chokher Bali’? He says it is because he could have taken the revolutionary step of ending the story with a widow getting remarried, which the society at the time looked down upon, despite the law legitimizing the same. While he touched upon highly stereotyped subjects and sparked forbidden discussion, he still could only push the threshold of what is acceptable so far. The creative liberty that accompanies films is where social reality often lies. Following the same, this piece aims to reflect upon the film ‘Bulbbul’ and how history can be traced through it.
The film provides a vivid insight into life in nineteenth-century Bengal. The events that occur in the film raise significant questions about patriarchy, law, and the agency of women during the colonial regime. For instance, legislation such as the Widow Remarriage Act, 1856, which was introduced by the colonial rulers, was a means of gifting the natives with a supposedly better and more modern law. However, it can be said that this law was a mere continuation or repackaging of old conventions under the guise of modernity, development, and progress, thereby failing to bring about any substantial change in society. The film reflects upon these ideas of continuity and change while challenging and fracturing age-old patriarchal notions and bringing about a need for their justification. This makes the film a unique archive to study colonial history.
The New Woman – Modernity or Tradition?
The film effectively portrays the tension between tradition and modernity in nineteenth-century Bengal. This period was characterized by the rise of the new Bengali woman or the ‘Bhadramahila’, who symbolized the departure from tradition to modernity. On one hand, Bulbbul’s attire and shoes are evidence of the influence of colonial practices and modernity on the natives. On the other hand, she is still expected to stay within her limits as a Thakurain and not try to usurp the position of a Thakur.She could venture out into the public sphere (‘bahar’) of modernity, but only to the extent that it did not infringe upon her duty to uphold tradition in the private sphere (‘ghar’). Therefore, colonialism and patriarchy played out in a manner that made women’s place in society extremely ambiguous. The ascription of domesticity to a woman and the colonial ambivalence – the idea that a woman is strong but also naive and incapable of making her own decisions is highlighted in the film.
Women’s Agency in the Nineteenth Century
The passing of the Widow Remarriage Act resulted in the legalization of widow remarriages. Yet, any relationship outside the first marriage was considered a social transgression. Therefore, it can be said that no law can be enforced effectively if social conscience does not permit the same. The idea of a marriage based on companionship was alien in the nineteenth century. Any woman who sought companionship and did not abide by the social perception of marriage as an absolute sacrament, the heart of which was procreation, was punished brutally. An instance of this in the film is the grave injury inflicted upon Bulbbul by her husband because she tried to exercise her agency by desiring companionship from a person who was around her own age.
The film portrays widows with white attire and shaven heads. It is important to question whether this portrayal, showing societal mandate in nineteenth-century Bengal, was intended to make them look unattractive and reproachful. Was a widow not allowed to enjoy the pleasures of life, and was the trope of her desire disregarded? Was her identity usurped, thereby reducing her to the status of her husband? Was she robbed of her agency and prohibited from doing things of her own free will? The film answers these questions in the affirmative.
The film also displays the conflict between the agencies of two women – Bulbbul, the protagonist, and Binodini Didi, Bulbbul’s sister-in-law, who is older both in age and was married first into the household. However, the power dynamics remain subtle, as Binodini Didi is married to the younger twin, while Bulbbul, as the wife of the elder twin, holds the status of the Badi Bahu. While Bulbbul wants to challenge established conventions in every form, Binodini Didi enforces it due to her jealousy of the former and desire to become the Badi Bahu. Hence, one woman exercising her agency may undermine the other’s.
Patriarchy and its Threshold
Bulbbul’s feet are a metaphor for a woman’s free agency, something she is robbed of after being assaulted by her husband Indranil and, subsequently, by her brother-in-law Mahendra. The word Bulbbul means an innocent bird. The ring put on her toe is a symbol of captivity to prevent her from flying (crossing her boundaries) and escaping the clutches of patriarchy.
In the film, a song titled ‘Why Do You Cross the Threshold?’ is sung by Binodini, carrying a meaning deeper than what is apparent. The film is set at a time when privilege and a high social status were accompanied by expectations to conform to ‘Tradition.’ Tradition was not always fair. Binodini reminds Bulbbul that she is only a Thakurain and not the Thakur, despite fulfilling all the responsibilities of a Thakur in the absence of her husband Indranil.She is constantlyreminded to fulfill her role as a woman and a wife despite effectively taking up responsibility as the man of the house. Thus, she is never allowed to exercise her agency freely and is forced to adhere to the threshold prescribed to women by society.On the other hand, the ease and indifference with which Satya assumes his role as the Thakur after returning home reinforces patriarchal norms.
Was enforcing and preserving patriarchy and its institutions a means of self-preservation? The benefactors at the top rung of this institution preserve it because if order is challenged, the hierarchies within become blurry, which is to the detriment of agents of patriarchy. Binodini, Indranil, Mahendra, and Satya all preserve and enforce a system in their own way, without which ‘tops and bottoms of the order,’ ‘haves and have nots of agency,’ and ‘highs and lows of the ladder,’ try to come closer together to address the divide. Bulbbul rightly says, ‘You are all the same.’ This can be interpreted as even though everyone administers patriarchy differently, at the core, it is the same subjugation.
Frankenstein’s Monster – The Rebellious Woman
The film also posits the question of who has the right to rebel and who does not. A man’s resistance is honoured for proclaiming independence, but a woman’s resistance is either unacknowledged or devious. One’s biases can be traced by the lens through which a woman’s resistance is viewed. Binodini cries because the Devi could not protect her husband from the ‘Chudail’ (witch).
Who is the Chudail and who is the Devi? The non-conforming woman who is not subservient to tradition and the constant expectations projected on her, or the woman who sings so her voice is not silenced, brings justice when society denies it. The irony is that they are essentially the same woman yet different through different lenses. The difference is the mode of rebellion of the two, the Devi resists silently through only writing demon stories whereas the Chudail embodies those stories.
Further, a Devi is worshipped but a Chudail is feared. Indranil, Satya, Mahendra, and Binodini worship and cherish Bulbbul’s beauty. However, these very individuals fear her after constantly tightening her toe ring, as a means of restriction, and then cutting off her feet altogether. The rebellious woman, thus, becomes the ‘Frankenstein’s Monster.’ She is deemed Chudail, and ultimately challenges the very institution that created, cherished, and worshipped her – the institution of patriarchy.
Conclusion
To conclude, Bulbbul serves as more than just a cinematic retelling of a supernatural folktale, it acts as an alternate historical archive that brings to light the nuances of gender, power, and colonialism. It portrays the constant clash between British law and native customs during the colonial period. By weaving together the tensions between tradition and modernity, agency and oppression, and law and custom, the film highlights the lived realities of women in a society where legal reforms failed to bring substantive change.
Through its evocative storytelling, the film challenges the conventional understanding of history as an objective, linear account and instead foregrounds the importance of competing narratives. Those of the silenced, the marginalized, and the rebellious.
Finally, thefilm is a game of hide and seek, like the one played by Satya and Bulbbul. The characters hide desire, anger, and lies but seek companionship, love, and truth. However, history decides what stays hidden and what is sought out, and history is dependent on subjective lenses. Therefore, films like ‘Bulbbul’ and many more enable us to trace history in a way that mainstream archives do not.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
