Slumdog Hundredaire Part II: Child trafficking
By The Elahater
Another twist in the Slumdog Millionaire saga broke out this week when dad of 9-year-old actress Rubina Ali reportedly tried to sell his daughter for $300,000.
“On Sunday, Rubina’s mother Khurshid complained to us that her ex-husband was trying to sell her daughter, saying she saw some reports on television to that effect,” Deputy Commissioner of Police Nisar Tamboli told Reuters.
Here’s some background to this: in February I discussed the compensation of two of the child actors in the hit movie compared to how much the movie made. The $15 million budget film (funded in part by the European Union) grossed more than $60 million in sales. Two of the child actors (the poor ones) were paid about $900 and $1,000, which is more than standard wage earners in Mumbai slums, but comparable to what domestic workers in India make. Director Danny Boyle + producers set up trust funds for the kids and said they didn’t want to swoop in and drop tons of money on them because it could disrupt their lives in a drastically negative way. Kids can get to trust fund money once they finish school.
Which I hear is easy to accomplish while living in a slum
So this is what the dad told the undercover reporter who found all this out:
“We’ve got nothing out of [Slumdog Millionaire],” Qureshi told the News of the World reporter. “They gave some money at the start, but they gave nothing afterwards. They gave us around 150,000 rupees [$3,000]. I have to consider what’s best for me, my family and Rubina’s future.” Rubina’s father is a day laborer who earns around $5 a day. He insists he wasn’t trying to sell his daughter.
Now, at HateOnMe, we’re vehemently against child trafficking (bold stance, I know). It’s a huge and very serious problem in India as in other parts of the world. And if Rubina’s father is actually doing this, he is likely acting out of a situation of utter poverty (and there may be some gender inequality issues thrown in there for good measure).
An underlying issue is ironically mentioned and condemned in the film itself. (Potential spoiler:) In the movie, orphaned kids were taken in by a man looking to basically pimp them out as beggars. They were put into this circumstance because of factors beyond their control (poverty, war, violence). Some of these kids were mutilated to get more money since disabled kids garner more sympathy. More sympathy = more money. And in real life, poor cute kids = more sympathy/heart-rendering plot = more successful movie. Just sayin’.
I saw Slumdog Millionaire and I won’t lie, the movie was entertaining. But as more and more reports surface, I’m starting to feel mad uncomfortable with the film and premise. I don’t think it necessarily glorified life in the slums (getting your hands cut off and being blinded by acid is no picnic even with a MIA-heavy soundtrack), but it did capitalize off the cuteness of the kids and it feels kinda like exploitation to me when they aren’t being compensated properly for it.
"Big smiles, kids, but don't hold onto those statues too tightly."
If nothing else changes in our global economy, how do we then expect impoverished people to climb out of poverty when they aren’t, at the very least, compensated for their work?
On "Who Wants to be a Millionaire," dumbass.
And here we are, audiences of the world, dropping $10 to see cute poor kids and their struggle to triumph against the odds. I don’t know about you all, but I felt inspired and powerless at the same time.
Actually, I think what Danny Boyle did by setting up a trust fund for when they finished school was the right way to do it. I’ve worked with kids in slums for years and the only way they will ever finish school (and yes, it’s possible even in the slums) is if they have some incentive at the end of it.
As for how much they got paid, we don’t actually know how much they got paid and wage inequality is one of the reasons outsourcing even happens. Instead of comparing absolute wages, the thing to do would be to compare it with a standard of living calculator. And if the kids had been paid huge amounts up front for the movie, more often than not they would not have seen a single rupee of it. Their parents would have spent the whole thing.
Oh and domestic workers definitely do not make $1000 in India. More like $25.
yeah i’m with you sangi. you said it much better than i could have…
What the Indian girl above me…no not you thebee..the one ABOVE you…the real one…said. I agree with that.
The following things are clear:
If a person or child makes an above average wage relative to the standards of living in a particular country, it does NOT follow that they are being given a fair wage for their labor. If it did, then sweatshop labor would not count as exploitation. Nor would the practice of hiring kids to hunt for diamonds in extremely harmful conditions.
From the above, it does not follow that even if the child actors are living better or will live better than many of their fellow “slum kids” as a result of their acting labor that they therefore have been treated fairly.
So it’s NOT the case, as Sangeetha suggests though doesn’t explicitly say, that setting up a trust fund was fair compensation for labor. That’s not to say that setting up a trust fund wasn’t BETTER than giving them a bunch of money right away. But no one thinks simply dumping a ton of cash straight away into the hands of utterly impoverished people is the BEST way to help them. Indeed, setting up a trust fund may be better than giving them a bunch of cash out right (although there needs to be some argument there), but it can still be a completely insufficient compensation.
What I’ve said so far doesn’t imply that the compensation WASN’T far. Rather, I think it shows that what’s been said so far by Sangeetha and thebee32 doesn’t show that it WAS.
So what is it or not? That’s the question. And Elahater is RIGHT to feel uneasy about the compensation received.
Part of the reason, at least for me, why this feels like exploitation is the conjunction of the following facts:
(a) a large profit was made from the movie,
(b) a very unequal distribution of the profits resulted (whatever form they took)
(c) the unequal distribution was not thoroughly deserved but resulted from incredibly disproportionate social and economic power inequalities
(d) those who received the least from the profits were the ones to whom the money would result in the greatest improvement in their lives
The reason I say in (c) that the inequalities were not “thoroughly deserved” is that it is sheer LUCK that the indian kids happened to be born into slums and Danny Boyle into an affluent society. But that fact is responsible for a great deal (not all) of their radically unequal social circumstances.
Given this, it seems at the least morally insensitive to not recognize that you (movie producers) owe more to those who allowed you to gain so much $.
So, yes: do MORE for these kids and those like them. Spend more wisely with more money.
And to head off an obvious objection: just because someone consents to be paid X dollars, doesn’t mean that this is fair compensation. If a person consents to going down a deep, dark, dangerous well to retrieve something for me, and the chances of him dying are very great, and I say I will pay him $5, that does NOT mean it’s fair compensation.
So… if the facts are close to what Elahater has said, then yes… it seems exploitative