| torilaure |
Posted
on 29-Apr-04 01:14 AM
This is taken from the Nation Magazine website. The link is:
http://www.nation.com.np/report_4.htm
As Long As you Flim It
The success of “Bhedako Oon Jasto” proves that it’s okay to plagiarize indigenous resources and get away with it
By Samuel Thomas
Bhedako Oon Jasto,” Kiran Krishna Shrestha’s documentary about a group of people searching for the origins of a folk song, was recently screened by the Inter Cultural Film Society at Bhrikuti Mandap. This is a space that hosts some of the best movies from around the world. Most have been subjected to scrutiny, unlike the celebrated documentary in search of a song. Amrit Gurung, one of the protagonists, released another music video two weeks ago at Baggikhana, this one set in Dolpo. He shared the stage with the usual suspects. Now for the killjoy observations.
“BOJ” received good press largely because of the sociology of the protagonists, including the presence of a leading journalist, Narayan Wagle. The presence of the star-cast helps deflect attention from the process by which a lot of indigenous products, including fabric, music, lifestories, and folklore have been exploited for commercial gain or for personal profit.
This is not new to Nepal. It is the same all over the world—West Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the American South. In a holier-than-thou, closer-to-the-original-than-thou, statement to the press, the filmmaker was quoted as justifying how Nepathya’s rendition was the “original” and that the rival Dipesh Kishore Bhattarai could not even get the geography straight (confusing Mustang for Langtang) as if that were the true measure of an “original.” The message: it is okay to plagiarize as long as you get the geography right and make a documentary, something that did not strike the other plagiarist as being necessary.
Over the last few years the international community has been greatly concerned over the theft of resources, traditional knowledge, skills and technologies. The debate has resulted in several declarations, and in accepted codes of benefit-sharing. It is possible that there is no specific code on taking folk music from the goths north of the Valley and not paying for it, not even asking for it, but ignorance is not an excuse. “BOJ” is the proof of the co-opting, where brazenness passes for, or is attempted to be passed off as, a certain transparency.
There is amazing ease with which some privileged people have access to traditional folklore, knowledge and resources. There is very little explaining in the documentary; the outsiders are never shown the door. It is this hospitality that is exploited, although that trust and the ready sharing that follows in scene after scene is never repaid even by the sharing of full information. This violates the principle of informed consent: we are taking your music for commercial gain. Do we have your permission? Ideally, it should be ‘We are taking your music for commercial gain. We’d like you to participate in the commercial dissemination of this music. You can participate as musicians, and you can participate in enjoying the sale of proceeds on an equal basis.’ What do we have instead? No permission, and not even any royalty.
For example, check out this sound-bite from the documentary. Daniel Karthak: “These guys in the goth have achieved harmony. Considering that they do not even know what harmony is [a western concept], it is amazing…it is amazing.”
The condescending tone, reminiscent of the writings of a lot of foreign researchers, is a serious problem in itself. Then, since when did Nepali musicians have to wait for certification from a music hall chap about achieving or not achieving harmony—validation by an external knowledge hierarchy?
The making of music of this kind best illustrates the impudence of repeat offenders. It will only take limited research to show a history of blatant plagiarizing, of no recompense and of free media promotion. Nepal’s own media community is guilty of promoting this. It took the death of Jhalak Man Gandharva for people to wake up to his contributions. Jhalak Man died in penury, like many of his illustrious peers and forebears.
The journalist, the music hall chap, the singer and the filmmaker never pass up an opportunity to promote themselves. The journalist never fails to mention that this is his fourth visit to Langtang (he wants to go to all 75 districts like the eminent Dr Harka Gurung); the singer uses the opportunity to insert a clipping of an earlier song (no doubt popular but here in this narrative a clear promo clip); the music hall chap does not pass up the opportunity to bring to the narrative his western music training, his condescending tone.
Why have the Nepali media, and the other sponsors—their names all appear before the screening—never been so generous with indigenous musicians? Why have none of these donors ever supported an oral history project that takes into consideration issues of copyright and benefit-sharing models and serve as a document of ‘prior art,’ so that inappropriate claims like this can be challenged?
Film South Asia and ICFS could do better than promote Kathmandu’s movie-makers with handy cams making personal accounts of plagiarism a national event. This is too much of a personal trip, there is too much banter, there is self-promotion; no one in Langtang is ever told that Nepathya is bringing out a commercial music album based on their music. The journey—of a senior journalist—back to the place where he first heard the song is passed off as the reason for being there, and to the viewers of the documentary, as justification enough. The Tamang/Sherpa introduction to the song is neatly excised in the final.
Amrit: We learn from you...you learn from us...It should be like that.
Girl: You have understood our song...but we have not...
The end sums it all up. The plagiarists are in their practice room and singing—the exploitative, extractive hurrah, the distortion. The message is clear: go and pinch a folk-tune, and put a copyright on it. Pinch the tune, pinch the song, give nothing back, sell your cassettes, show this film as a promo and make your name, all at other people’s expense.
(Thomas works with the IUCN Nepal Country Office. The views expressed are his.)
|
| HahooGuru |
Posted
on 29-Apr-04 09:08 AM
Ashu writes:
[This is the kind of disconnect in our public discourse I was talking about when I said
that people in Nepal (again, myself included) are against corruption but end up
tolerating corrupt people in our midst.]
Understandable. I remeber when I was criticizing my fellow engineers in
Nepal for corruption, a fellow engineer who worked several years in
different departments when I told him that I quitted the job
when I asked to accept GHUS and do what Hamik wants, he charged
me that "sano tino rakam bhayera po liyenou guru, silently
ghar suitcase bhari paisa aauna thaleko bhe thaha paauthyou". What
actually, happens in Nepal is that even if you don't indulge based on
your consciousness in those misdoings, our society has gone too far,
and is not ready to accept you that your attempts were genuine and
another reason might be that was a way to justify their wrong doings
as that my fellow engineer friend was accusing me of not receiving because
it was simply a small amount. He was not in postion to accept that had
I interest on that work, that could be not less than a year's salary of mine
at that time.
K garne?
If you refused to be a part, you will be made a refugee. I am not talking
about living in excile, but, being refugee withing the society. I wonder
whether we "the refugees" are enough in number to fight back for
justice? Those on other side of border will abuse you if try to do so.
HG
|
