FROM RAJ KAPOOR TO RAJ MALHOTRA- THE RAJNEETI OF HINDI CINEMA.
The term politics is most often applied to the art or science, as maybe, of governance. Inherently it is also the means used to gain such power, formulate policies and decisions for the purpose. Personally, it simply stands for the views of an individual about political issues. And any cinema that aspires to be political must express such views or better explain, debate and justify them. Unfortunately cinema about politics is sometimes confused with political cinema. But more often than that, cinema on issues that concern us as a society is confused with cinema on politics. The lines naturally are blurry. But not one bit redundant.
Over the last decade Indian mainstream cinema (by and large) has transformed into a high-class multiplex, NRI friendly product, barely ever concerning itself with any sort of ground reality- social or political. For a number of decades earlier cinema took on socialist hues from time to time. Partly owing its genesis to two high drama periods- one, the post independence high idealism and two- the post-emergency high disillusionment. Besides the target audience was what one would loosely call the masses, who were directly affected by socio-political injustice and always most disgruntled. But for their ire, these films had to make sure political rhetoric was toned down and over-simplified to warm heart cockles and not step across the line into intellectual elitism.
The new Hindi cinema watcher is not about to get emotionally strung on the heroic rebellions of an exploited mill-worker or coolie. Nor are they naturally inclined to engage with larger political issues that are defining our fate. So the product is confined to feel good escapism for the upper middle classes. It is easier for the masses to ascend to la-la-land than for the gentry to get their feet wet in the damp modesty of the average Indian life.
Suddenly in this consistent climate, the horizon is sprouting forthcomings like New York and Jihaad. Someone else is hinting at a G dynasty biopic and the big ones in person are writing My Name Is Khan type things. Has the gentry finally found an issue that might concern it? Especially since now it is abundantly clear that you don’t have to mount lowly trains to get fried by a terrorist?
This is not to discount the Yahaan, Rang De Basanti, Munnabhai and like efforts. But simply to question, through the journey of our cinema, have we ever had any real political cinema?
The essential difference here is between cinema about politics and political cinema. Films like Gulal, Apaharan, Gangajal, Haasil etc are more about politics than political films. In that, they observe politics from a distance, usually concluding that it is murky. For a film to be political perhaps it needs to take a stand; and preferably one that isn’t obvious, like terrorism is bad. In that sense the socialist cinema of the likes of Raj Kapoor, Bimal Roy and even some early 70’s potboilers, which was decidedly pro-poor and anti-rich were more political than an objective film about how political systems are oppressive. Even films like RDB and Dilli 6 might allude tangentially to the BJP, but largely remain apolitical films about asking the youth to stand up against corruption and communalism- which is more in the realm of social messaging. (Unless ofcourse, Rakesh Mehra is willing to concede that the reactionary violence of RDB’s climax was condoned by the film.) A film like Amu on the other hand is more willing to point fingers at a particular party and its involvement with the 84 riots and goes a notch above stating communal violence sucks. This is perhaps more significant in the light of the fact that the party in question sets itself apart from its big rival by touting it’s own secular credentials. BJP on the other hand has perhaps willingly flaunted its devious agenda a bit much to fear films scathing their reputation.
It is wishful thinking to imagine that the gulfs that divide India into many entities economically, socially and educationally; will not reflect in its film industry. The masses here still comprise of economically and literacy challenged millions and even among the privileged section ‘intellectualism’ has always been a very niche activity, barely ever pervading common life. As a result it is extremely difficult to turn out, in balance, a film that will engross, do justice to the medium as an art/craft form, take clear stands and layer the narrative to instruct thought and arouse constructive debate.
Having said that it might be worth asking why there isn’t even niche space for cinema with sophisticated thought. Why in a country which is suddenly contributing competitively to the upper echelons of world fiction and non-fiction and being recognized for it, we cannot have cinema that speaks only to a select few perhaps but endeavors to confirm to a different standard of thought and expression? Why can we not have the cinematic equivalent of Basharat Peer’s Curfewed Night, Mohammad Hanif’s Case Of Exploding Mangoes or Sudeep Chakravarti’s Red Sun?
Speaking of Naxalism, Sudhir Mishra’s Hazaaron Khwahishein was a film that came close to pushing boundaries. It was a film about politics, a certain political era, one of the most significant in this country perhaps. It employed a personal story to explore the larger political climate, drawing its essence yet never labouring over the narrative. But that is not to say it wasn’t political itself. Of course Mishra makes no overt statement but in tiny vignettes his unforgiving memory of the powers that be of those times, is betrayed crucially. Whether it’s the comment on Nehru in the opening dedication, or the Indira like figure taking a bow, or that one shot of the Sanjay Gandhi’sque character saying “Do we look like the kind of people who won’t be around?”. This last dig especially was deliciously incisive and below the belt, sharp shooting an inkjet of venom as concisely as possible.
Hazaron was not just a film about a period in history that interested the filmmaker in terms of its dramatic potential. It was a film about a period close to his heart; about a political climate that he felt strongly about. Usually in such a scenario your personal biases slip into your work. And that is the essence of political thought-bias-a leaning and a conviction to support it. An urge to speak in favour or against something without worrying about ‘balancing’ your point of view or representing fairly all sides. Without the fear of being wrong or hated.
Europe of course is rich with cinema that has been a vehicle to political thought. Films like Godard’s Tout Va Bien are almost propagandist in their politics. Hazaron perhaps is more akin to something like Bertolucci’s Dreamers, only a tad more expressive in its dislike of the trusted party that watched a dream sour with remarkable apathy.
There is a long road ahead before a space and a reciprocal audience is created here in the realm of the Godards. For that we will have to rise above humanistic concerns, social messages and objective observations and start delving into specifics.
There was promise in what has vaguely been referred to as India’s new wave until the end of 70’s but even then, politics was more rabid in the regional films associated with the movement. Most Hindi filmmakers of the times were content in highlighting social maladies and injustice of various kinds.
That crucial one step was almost always missing. That one step that will not just talk about how all Muslims are not terrorists or how terrorism is evil but also risk highlighting the self proclaimed victim’s own roles in creating the Frankensteins. It will be in taking a Maachis and opening its humane narrative up to ask what an Indira Gandhi’s role was in fuelling militancy, was the idea of a single Indian union ever feasible given our history, were the states wholly unjustified in wanting more autonomy.
Cinema has incalculable power to bring these questions to the proverbial common man, make him a part of the India debate. It also has the power to record history by recreating it replete with sight, sounds and atmospherics that leave books pale. Given it’s range of power it’s a pity that cinema isn’t talking a more political language. That the only censorship battles it is fighting are on count of showing sex, cigarettes and cuss words. That the filmmaker is not realising his role as an artist to accommodate his role as a potential historian, journalist and politician as well.
The flip side of it is that the filmmaker is not realizing that there is politics in cinema beyond our conventional understanding of it. For instance, RGV’s numerous odes to the underworld display a clear hint of bias towards the darklords and Kashyap’s cinema has a tearing undercurrent of anti-establishment beliefsystem. There is apathy in the rich wonderlands of Chopra and Johar filmscapes (in direct contrast to the socialist leanings of their father’s films) that is in some way indicative of the shifting economic and social climate of the country.
So if politics cannot be escaped, it might as well be deliberately embraced. And there is nothing to indicate that it will take away from the artistic purity of any work, or in the case of cinema the commercial prospects of it. Of course it will be an uphill task to try and find the perfect recipe to accommodate all crucial ingredients and a very difficult battle ahead with the political powerlords. Censorship in India goes way beyond the official censor board but if we are to claim true democratic freedoms as a society, the inherent right of expression should be available to filmmakers because they represent individual thought, not affiliated to fourth estate corps and reach a much wider base of people. Civic rights are theirs to grab once the fight begins.
An artist’s merit can only be enhanced by his political thought. For art is about saying something well. As also about having something to say.
Anurag Kashyap
Abhay Deol
Dibakar Banerjee
Hansal Mehta
Khalid Mohamed
Kundan Shah
Anish Kuruvilla
Jaideep Verma
Manish Gupta
Navdeep Singh
Bhavani Iyer
D. Santosh
Onir
Ashvin Kumar
Ramu Ramanathan
Sudhir Mishra
Pankaj Advani
Revathy
Saurabh Shukla
Shilpa Shukla
Sujoy Ghosh
Suparn Verma
Santosh Sivan
Shashank Ghosh
Shivajee
Pavan Kaul
Partho Sen-Gupta
Prroshant Naryannan
Sam Langoria
Satish Kasetty
Hey Ram was an failed but briliant attempt to redesign the era of partition. The political films can also be measured in the light of time difference between actual event and its adaptation on big screen. Or,to take a taboo issue and make a brutal film on it.Dil Se was focussed on marganalised state in our nation. This article will guide you in my point. http://vikramvgarg.wordpress.com/2009/05/09/dil-se-and-marginal-aspirations/
On naxalite movement in hindi cinema, the last remembered movie for me is Lal Salaam.With the rise of self middle class
Cont from 1…
With the rise of self indulged middle class, the Chopras and Johars will make money and ‘entertain’ elite middle and NRI consumers on issue of minority. I think the treatment of the subject would be non better than B grade Mithun Da movies. Returning to the main point, hindi film industry don’t have balls to touch even a pity political or even social cause on screen. A fake sense of celebration in all hypocrisy is tampering growth of Indian cinema. You are quite correct in pointing RGV and Kashyap’s attempt to deglamourize the reel cinema into reality. Hazaaron Khwaehein Aise was a pure political reflection of turbalance times but how many political films were made after that. Our generation only wants to “Be a rebel” without knowing the recent 60 years of past of our own country and cinema. where is ‘HazarChaurasi ke maan ‘ like films , nobody knows.’Manthan’ was made once in India through cooperation of farmers, a fact highly unknown to majority of us. Seclusion of middle class from politics is the reason of shift our cinema from political isssues.we have made ourselves alien from ground realities of India, like our great entertainers chopras and Johars.. Great article Pragya.
a political film would be akin to playing with fire here in India. Speaking of ‘Fire’ would you call it a political film ?
Also, the comedy brigade can pull of as many gags as they want on most of the political class. But when you use their names seriously in films, you are inviting trouble.
by the way…this is the best article i have read in recent times.
Hazaaron Khwaishen was a class apart. It is perhaps the best political drama of Hindi Cinema. Yes, films raising the bar of thought like Do Bigha Zameen or Awaara are missing in action
@ashwini thanks a lot. yes it is a little tiring to see infinite satires on politicians and noone wiling to talk shop.also the political scenario is a hotbed of fabulous stories waiting to be screenplayed..fire would be a socio-political film i guess, political if at all, only coz it takes a pro-choice stand..and that connects up with the laws and state policy in this regard. but having said that, “unnatural sex” ban which criminalizes homosexuality affects gay men more direly than lesbians..besides Fire for all its good intentions didn’t make a clear case for lesbianism..but then however misplaced, any sort of side-taking should loosely classify as politics
@yayaver thanks a lot. would love to read more of your writing.
Excellent Article Pragya. What I liked about the article was that you walked the talk and took sides in the article. I like the fact that you respect your views as your own views, and not something that has been constructed to get social acceptance. You are remarkable. Some more moc=vies that I liked: Aandhi, Mere apne, Dev.
@Pragya
fabulous ,fantastic piece of writing ,critical, pragmatic and measured in it’s approach ,for a moment I was tempted to believe that PFC was moving away from serious academic discussion into frivolous ,commercial concerns ,but articles like these bring the spotlight back.
@Pragya
Yes many of your observations are spot on ,India lacks political films ,this can partly be attributed to the fact that cinema grew along with our country and in fact predates our existence as a single nation ,which is why our national leaders felt compelled to discourage dissent in any form to keep the supposed unity of our country intact.
If that was the case 30-40 years ago today it is the lack of political activism in the middle class ,which is growing more and more distant from the political atmosphere in this country. today freedom means convenience and prosperity rather than the right to express oneself ,so as a dollar seeking middle class tends to find itself more at ease with Narendra Modi than anyone else everything else suffers as a result.
Thought provoking article, Pragya…I think ‘Damul’ was a very powerful political film and in recent times it was ‘Satta’ and ‘Gulaal.’ My only grouse is when movie-makers make a political movie very rarely one takes home a positive feeling. the movie ends and a repulsive feeling grows on you, towards the political system. I think enough of negativity, negativism, why not make something inspiring? Sorry, I digress but thats how I feel abt our political movies.
@vineet thanks. very glad you wrote back. that’s a real nicely made point about dissent being suppressed for different reasons through the ages.
@sonali thanks. and i completely agree. most so called political films merely harp on how depressing the scenario is without any analysis of the problem or solution.
Yuva, I think is a good case where you don’t feel the apathy towards political system and it wallows itself into the politics.
A very well-written article by any standards! Some of the points are really good. Will proceed to read your other posts ASAP!
Well written piece Pragya! The point about it working subconsciously is something I’ve always thought of. I wish the people to whom it applies would understand that and like u said, embrace it, rather than escape!
while the post does raise a lot of nice questions, they will never be answered. when mahesh bhat made ‘zakhm’, he had to digitally change the color of the head-band of the hindu-brigade from saffron to green…coz bjp was in power
and these film personalities do not even vince. and its not just about SP, tat was just an example
.
moreover, our movies have only made fun of the political class but never really antagonized them. reason being that, they think its right to be apolitical. this way, they can make fun and yet remain friends coz they need the politicians. they need their favors for IT purposes, for permissions to access a lot of things which are under governmental control etc
.
unlike USofA, nobody here takes a political stand and goes public with it. its in nobody’s interest to do so. film personalities like salman, amisha, preity etc campaign for different political parties in different states and they say that “he /she is a friend, i m doing it for a friend”.
.
political ideology is missing, its only the personality that matters. so we have nafisa ali who stands on Cong ticket in 2004 and then for SP in 2009. educated people like sanjay dutt, nafisa, jaya pradha become a part of SP’s campaign which regressively says no to english medium of education, says no to infotech and computers
.
political posturing is not for the film-makers or for the citizens because we hate taking stands. we revel in political ambiguity
Also most of the films have romantic stories put forcefully into the narrative. There has to be romance!
@crazyrals, @manjeet. Very true points both.
there is a crucial shortcoming in the scale to which the lives of stars from the industry has ascended, leaving them vulnerable and needy for all sorts of favours they must curry from politicians. when we read the so called ‘power lists of bollywood’ we little realise how essentially opposed the ‘nexus’ is to the interests of the art form that founded this ‘industry’.
politics, filmstars, cricketers – unholy trinity of india. they are all a part of the menage-a-trois, doing small favours for each other every now and then
i meant…politicians, filmstars and cricketers and or politics/films/cricket
@ Pragya-
Well written post and quite introspective too.
If I look @ the issue from the eyes of a film maker then I see it like this- why should I make a political film? Should it be to take a stand, prove something? Or is it because the I have an arresting script which has a political base & which I think will also do well commercially?
If it is the 1st case – to take a stand/prove something etc, then probably the film maker can try to go about making the movie the way he wants and try to justify himself.But if it is the 2nd case then obviously there will have to be a lot of commercial compromises that take place.Example- didnt Gangajal or Apaharan have an item number which wasnt really required in the first place?
Also lets assume one does want to make a honest political film, in today’s political scenario, would the movie really get through if it takes any hard stand especially in a controversial issue?
@ yayaver-
Watch Gulmohar and Thalappavu, 2 recent Malayalam movies ( 2008 ) which have again spoken about naxalism and shown it reasonably effectively.
@sethumadhavan I am not sure an item number takes away from the earnestness of the film. a film that takes a hard stance does not necessarily have to be non-entertaining.There are filmmakers drawing out issues that concern us socially from time to time but most of these narratives are sketchy, focusing only on a moral story. adding a political edge to any story will only enhance it. for instance i wouldve loved to see real allusions to the likes of SP and BSP and their main politicos’ contribution to the bastardisation of politics in UP in any of the aforementioned film. of course it has to be done rightly. but then so does an item number
getting through is another battle.
Hey really nice article. We need more such articles on cinema to be able to introspect.
@Pragya, I will contribute my share in debate if it starts on your posts.I am not so hyper specialized in any field so could not contribute in form of long article. Just have few ideas on diverse topics.
@Sethu, thanks for recommending but it will be very hard for me to discover these malyalm films with subtitles.I am planning to watch Iruvar for the glimpse of Tamil politics.But I am wondering that we cannot get more films on topics like ‘Samproon Kranti Movement’ by J.P or Bhoodan Movement By Vinobha Bhave etc..
@ yayaver-
Yes do watch Iruvar, it will certainly give you an insight into the Dravidian movement in T.N & talk about personalities like MGR & Karunanidhi in particular.Periyar is another movie which can be seen- its the life story of Periyar, the doyen of the Dravidian movement in T.N.
Most certainly one of the best articles on PFC in a long time ! …Not that the competition is very intimidating.
…Nevertheless, bravo !
By definition a true political film can only be made by a politician, aspiring or active, …in which case it is sure to go down the slippery slope of propaganda.
For the rest, including film makers & viewers, who form part of society, regardless of class, any perspective will be essentially socio-political.
Cinema is not for propaganda or messages.
As Louis B. Mayer said, “If you want to send a message, call Western Union.”
I agree with Pragya on that, and disagree with you Sethu sir, I felt, agreed the item number might have been cheesy and bad, but it went well with the rustic theme, and yes getting through the censors and all that, it’s a different issue. Doesnt mean we stop making films.
thinking about it there arent any political films made in india…yes there are films set in political atmosphere…does that make it political…iruvar is a a story of two friends…its not abt dmk or aidmk…aandhi is a story of lost love set in political back drop…so is hazaaron…
@ Jehan-
I think the one you are refering to is the item number in Gangaajal.And I do agree with your statement to an extent.But the one in Apaharan is not a rustic song & certainly is out of place.(BTW I think the female who did the number in Gangaajal is none other than Manyata who is now popular as Mrs.Sanjay Dutt
Anyways my point was not about item numbers in political films, that was just an example.I was refering to compromises having to be made in political films.
again regarding censorship, I was merely stating the current scenario, not saying one has to stop making films for the same.
@ Pragya- even I feel there’s nothing wrong if these films are entertaining, thats how you’d get the masses to come in.But entertaining & doing things to dilute your story/stand that you wanna take are completely two different entities.