Who is to Blame?

After news hit last week that the two child stars of "Slumdog Millionaire" were back on the street due to the slums in which they continued to live were torn down, there was an uproar in certain communities regarding whether or not these children had indeed been exploited as so many claimed. The father of Rubina Ali, who several weeks ago had been accused of trying to sell his daughter to prospective adoptive parents, apparently stormed out of a news conference recently complaining that the filmmakers had not done enough for their children after the enormous success of the film. Now perhaps had the children been from a middle class family, the amount they had been paid could have been better but it seems to me that the real exploitive people are those who are using these children as pawns in their own devious games.

Shortly after the success of the film there was a massive effort by many of the political parties of India to gain rights to use AR Rahman's "Jai Ho" as the theme song for their political rallies. There were attempts by these same political parties to take these children and use them as symbols of what they apparently stood for. There was talk and rhetoric about how the responsibility of India is to take care of these children and the thousands of others like them who live on the streets yet after victory or defeat in the recent elections there has been silence. No one has come forward to say that they are willing to take up the cause and no one has even seemed to mention these children at all except to complain that the filmmakers have 'not done enough' to help the children out.

In all honesty, I think that because the film was made by non-Indians there is greater demand for support to these children. I grant you that with the exchange rate where it is at present, even $100,000 will go a long way to making a difference for these children. Multiply that by around 40 and you'll get an idea of about how much in Indian rupees that much money is. Sure there is a difference in the buying power of the rupee but what the filmmakers have done for the children cannot be termed as paltry. They have set up trusts and funds for the children that is being protected so that it cannot be finagled away from them. Over $700,000 has been donated to charities to help children like these get off the streets and help them learn a better way of life.

But none of this is generally acknowledged. The constant chorus that is always heard is that what they did 'was not enough'. So then I wonder what would have been enough? What would have been the point at which the public would feel that these children have been justifiably compensated for the work that they did? I can think back to the original "Star Wars" films. Forward thinking people like George Lucas decided to forego some of their fees in order to get a share of the box office profits and earnings from merchandising. It helped turn them into millionaires overnight. I'm not saying that the children or their parents should have known that the film would be as profitable and famous as it has become but then again at the time I'm sure they never imagined this would mean more than a few thousand rupees for them.

To argue that these children have been denied something more or that they deserve more than they have gotten reeks to me of hypocrisy and I say that for the simple reason that if India and Indians are so ashamed of the way the slums and slumdwellers have been 'exploited' in the film then do something about it. When the government of Maharashtra and Bombay set up subsidized housing for slumdwellers in the largest slum in Asia the housing was given to them at cost or free in many cases. But rather than moving out of the slums, the new owners of these apartments found that it was more profitable for them to rent out their apartments to the continuing influx of people coming to the city rather than move off of the streest. So then what was the point in building it in the first place? Doesn't it then lead one to believe that those who should be helped are those that want to help themselves better the situation they find themselves in?

Now again when Danny Boyle and Christian Colson (the filmmakers of "Slumdog Millionaire") came to Bombay to meet with the children and talk to their families, people started to again claim that the children were being exploited. There were again complaints that not enough was being done to help them. This again despite the fact that the filmmakers continue to give money to their familes. It seems that the father of Rubina Ali feel that the amount they have been given (close to 400,000 rupees) is not enough for a good flat. Perhaps they'd like millions so that they can live next door to Bollywood stars as they feel they have earned? Perhaps but then who is to blame for the fact that these children are caught in a Catch-22? That catch-22 being that people feel these children have helped exploit and shine negative light on India through the depiction of slums yet want them to earn millions for the work that they did in a multi-million dollar (and multi-Oscar winning) film.