One of the puzzling and unresolved questions in evolutionary biology is this mysterious need for two sexes- male and female – to produce offspring. If the goal of evolution is merely to produce offspring, and to genetically clone the species as perfectly as possible; then it seems the easier path would have been to continue with the single-sex reproduction like bacteria or pursue some form of hermaphroditism ( a single body containing both the sexes). In fact, there are still abundant species on this planet, which don’t need two distinct sexes to reproduce, and some of these organisms can form copies of themselves at will and thrive well; equally, there are other species where the boundaries between the male and female gender are so thin that it is hard to distinguish one from the other, and furthermore, some among them can also change from one sex to another depending on the circumstances. For instance, there is this Japanese Goby fish, that flips between being a male or a female based on social cues. In a community of Goby fish, there is usually a lonely dominant male – the bully, the progenitor, and the protector, all in one. But if this thug gets lifted away by a passing bird, which happens pretty frequently, then miraculously ( at least to human eyes it seems a miracle) one of the “females” in the group quickly transforms itself into a male with all the biological bells and whistles needed for the role – including the aggression. Charles Darwin himself was puzzled about why in the higher organisms the two-sex arrangement became a more rigid arrangement, instead of the convenient fluidity prevalent in other species. This is not the essay or the place to get into why the two sex theory works well for mammals – especially in humans, but the short answer is that having two sexes come together in their elaborate rituals of courting and mating gives the genetic pool of our species the resilience and variety it requires to continue its lineage, to fight evolving external environment threats, and therefore adapt better. Evolution prefers the survival of the fittest in any given local condition, and the higher species ( Such as man. Also Higher doesn’t imply better, but only in the complexity of the organism)) don’t reproduce enough quantities of offspring to trust in the mercy of volumes to battle the vagaries of a defective gene pool. For instance, from an evolutionary standpoint, If a human can produce 1000 offsprings a year ( which many species easily do), then continuing with unisex reproduction may have made sense; but given that our numbers are low, the selection process has to be precise, judicious and good enough. The best genes have to come together, and for that, we must mate with care, concern, and responsibility with the opposite sex who provides half or more genes of the genetic pool of the newborn. Such an arrangement, therefore, has a better chance of canceling out any unwanted genetic mutations. In unisex reproductions, an entire lineage can procreate itself to death by copying faulty genes over and over again. Only bi-sexual reproduction can give the variation to cancel out deformed genes and meet new challenges. Man is lucky, he needs two of his species to make one more.
In the human family then, the female is given the womb to carry the baby, and it is the Male who provides the necessary trigger to start the process. To the nagging and unarticulated question: Can the Human male ever develop a womb to carry and nourish a child? The answer is that there is an abstract theoretical possibility, but the way to get there is nothing short of rewiring every conceivable part of the adult male, which in evolutionary terms is a costly affair, hence never done. Medical science is nowhere close to it and can only push a body that has a genetic propensity towards one sex or the other, to become that – biologically and behaviorally; but to create the reproducing womb of a female is a challenge of a different order. After all, we are not Goby fishes and we cannot switch ( perhaps in science fiction yes), and that’s the price we pay for evolving into a complex organism.
So we need a female womb to reproduce, even if that womb is not the mothers. Oop’s isn’t there a problem in the previous statement. If a child comes out of a womb, then is not the woman from whose womb it came out its mother? The answer, hundred years ago would have been unambiguously, unequivocally, and categorically “yes”. But times have changed. In the last few decades, we have begun to transcend biology ( at least that is what we think we are doing). Life spans have expanded, our understanding of the biological processes has increased at an exponential rate, and diseases are much better understood and treated than we could have ever imagined in the past. Along with these giant strides, we have also understood how to grow a human child without its biological mother. We can now clone genes, grow children in artificial incubators ( As warned by Aldous Huxley in his utopian work “The Brave new world”), and artificially fertilize a womb with a man’s sperm and woman’s egg ( Insemination is the right word, perhaps the easiest to do). The women who lend their wombs to carry other’s babies are called surrogate mothers. In fact, the technical term for this process is called gestational surrogacy – which simply means that the womb that carries the fertilized egg is just a temporary container and has no “formal” ties to the life it carries within. Of course, there are variants to this: Sometimes, only a single parent is involved in providing the sperm or the egg, or it could be a same-sex couple who aspire to become parents. I was stunned to read that the Surrogacy industry ( Industry!!! how quickly we commoditize everything) is projected to be around 25 billion dollars by 2025. Speaking of India, surrogacy is picking up. Not surprising at all, considering the poverty levels of the population and the undreamt money offered for such procedures. In 2019, the Indian government stepped in and issued a notification that surrogacy options cannot be offered to Foreigners or at least one of the parents should be a passport bearing Indian. Again, it is difficult to assess how effectively this regulation is implemented, there is always a chance that clandestine procedures quietly escape the net of the well-thought-out policies.
Surrogacy is the subject of the latest Hindi film”Mimi” starring the sizzling and talented Kriti Sanon and the brilliant Pankaj Tripathi ( Omkaar and gangs of Wasseypur fame). I was skeptical when Netflix threw up this recommendation. I read the synopsis, watched the trailer, and something about the trailer caught my attention. I can’t define what it was but in that short scene between Kriti, Sai Tamhankar, and Pankaj, there was veracity of emotions that instantly shone through. It was a hot Saturday afternoon, I closed my french windows and settled down to watch this adaption of a Marathi story. Two hours flew past, and until the last twenty minutes or so when the story wound itself up to a predictable conclusion, I was alternately laughing( till I had tears in my eyes), awed, and deeply engaged with the narrative. When the screen credits scrolled on, I wondered what is that about this movie that held my attention.
The immediate answer is the performance of Kriti Sanon and Pankaj Tripathi. Kriti is a model first and then an actor, in the mold of Susmita Sens and the Priyanka Chopra’s of Bollywood. And just like them, she has tremendous potential. I have watched her performances in bits and pieces in several movies, never a full-length film, until this one. The character she plays in this film is to an extent stereotyped – the story of a village girl ( smart, lissome, and a go-getter) aspiring to be a Bollywood star and in dire need of money to become one. She is offered a chance to become a surrogate mom, and the story takes off from there. The authenticity that Kriti brings to the role, the shades of subtle histrionics that gently color her transformation, the range of emotions that flit ever so often across her expressive face, lifts Mimi – both the character and the movie – to a level where the viewer begins to forgive the familiar storyline and the predictable twists and settles down to enjoy the sheer presence of a fine actor in full throttle. Kriti is ably backed by Pankaj who plays the role of Bhanu, the taxi driver, the Hero of the movie ( in my view) who gets Kriti the chance to make her money. Known for his wry, sardonic humor and a laid-back approach to acting, Pankaj is the perfect foil to the ebullient Mimi. Together, they create magic on screen for roughly one and a half hours.
AR Rehman has tuned some hummable numbers, and Kriti sizzles in one of them. The editing is crisp, and the support roles played by Supriya Pathak and Manoj Pahwa adds to the charm of the overall film. The movie doesn’t have a specific message on the ethics, morality, or ownership in the act of surrogacy, other than what we expect, but the film ends with a much-needed emphasis on an alternate way of parenting that is much more meaningful in today’s world. Is it worth transcending biology to beget a child, when millions of children are orphaned each day and waiting for a secure home? Should we try to play God, when there are more pressing requirements on earth?
Mimi is primarily an entertainer, in the process, however, it raises few important questions. That is how a movie should be.
It is showing on Netflix.
God bless…
yours in mortality,
Bala
Nice comments. Try to see the movie👍😋💚🌹⚘
Thanks.