Vivek Agnihotri: 'Boycott Bollywood' trend is good

From directing typical Bollywood fodder like ‘Chocolate’, ‘Dhan Dhana Dhan Goal’, and ‘Hate Story’ to declaring himself "out of the Bollywood tribe", Vivek Agnihotri's meteoric ascent has been startling.

Today, his films have nearly no A-listers, are made on a relatively small budget, but more importantly, have a hyper-nationalist narrative concerning topics he believes are under-discussed.

In a time when films with huge names and budgets are failing, his project, ‘The Kashmir Files’, made huge fortunes at box office this year.

The outspoken director with widespread notoriety for his contempt for ‘liberals’, sat down with DH for a wide-ranging conversation on films, politics, propaganda, and more. Excerpts:

How do you see the success of ‘The Kashmir Files’?

In the modern world, we measure success with box office collections. But I have never felt unsuccessful in life. For me the success is that a lot of people have subscribed to the emotion of the film. Also the families of Kashmiri Pandit victims have started to feel that they are heard, and they are healing after the film.

Your next projects?

My next film is on a ‘great achievement’ of India, and after that, I’m making ‘The Delhi Files’ for which we are doing extensive research. It released in 2024.

Your opinion on the ‘Boycott Bollywood’ trend.

It’s a complex issue, and calling for a boycott is fundamentally an individual thing. I feel the ‘Boycott Bollywood’ campaign is extremely good as it shows people’s frustration with the kind of films that Bollywood is producing, and its end result will be very positive.

These campaigns are not entirely a result of people’s frustration against the ‘content’ of the films. There is also a coordinated attack by the right-wing machinery to create further division among people as Bollywood films are seen as a ‘unifying’ factor.

I don’t think so. It's more of a cultural revolt against Bollywood than a political one. But when there is a conflict, politicians will use that. Let’s assume your theory of the right-wing machinery boycotting Bollywood is correct. Let’s take the example of Aamir Khan’s ‘Laal Singh Chaddha’. Narendra Modi has got 40% of votes. Let’s take that 40% audience out, where are the rest 60% audience and why aren’t they watching Aamir’s film? Does it mean all Aamir fans become Modi fans?

Kashmiri Muslims, Bengalis, south Indians have problems with Bollywood because of their bad representation. Bollywood films make fun of the middle class who are their buyers, and they think people are dumb. Unlike south Indian film stars, Bollywood stars are not connected with people, and they behave as if they are ‘Gods’. The subjects of south Indian, Marathi, Bengali, Odia and other cinema resonate with the masses.

Aren’t you part of Bollywood?

No, I’m not.

Then, how will you define Bollywood and the industry you’re part of?

Bollywood are people who call themselves Bollywood. It’s a mindset, which uses all tried-and-tested formulas, repackages them, and sells it to the people. I stand outside of it. Making Hindi films is not necessarily part of Bollywood. The Bollywood mindset can be part of other industries too.

The lines between art and politics are blurred. The State always uses art to spread its messages. How do you see this?

The State has never sponsored my work and I will never spread an idea that the State wants to spread unless in a situation of national crisis. Any establishment that tells you what to do is not correct.

In a globalised world, soft power is an important thing and the films as part of soft power should reflect your own realities and culture. Various forms of art have historically been used by the powers to spread their message. It's important because societies are diverse and they should be kept together by some sort of cultural glue.

Do you think there should be a fine balance between art and politics in a film, so that it won’t become a propaganda film?

Who are we to decide that? We are not the guardians of the art. I believe in absolute freedom of expression.

How do you respond to the arguments that ‘The Kashmir Files’ was more of a propaganda film for the Indian right-wing politics?

Only a very few people are calling it a propaganda movie. My film neither endorses Narendra Modi, BJP, right wing, nor did the government fund my film. Did anybody call films like ‘Haider’, ‘Mission Kashmir’, ‘Fanaa’ etc which justified terrorism as propaganda films?

Propaganda films do not make 350 crore business, and they have historically never worked. My film was based on the interviews of the victims, and anyone who calls it propaganda does not have empathy for the victims. People who support Naxals and terrorists, and professional critics who call everything coming out of right-wing as propaganda are calling it propaganda.

But, the entire BJP machinery was behind ‘The Kashmir Files’. Several BJP-ruling States made it tax-free. Even the prime minister had good words about the film…

The prime minister didn’t praise the film. He only asked detractors to watch the film before criticising it. We had actually started the film’s promotions in November 2021 in the USA. We had been putting up the film’s promos since then. The film had become a hit then itself.

Up until four days after its theatrical release, not a single person from the BJP or the government had said a word about it. When they realised that it had become successful, they jumped into the success wagon. Before my film, it was a given that one cannot make a film on the plight of the Kashmiri Pandits and nobody did.

Another recent film ‘Shikara’ by Vidhu Vinod Chopra was about the Pandits…

Yes, but what was he trying to say? People rejected that film. It was a love story and they did not even use the word ‘genocide’.

You’re quite known for your disdain for the ‘liberals’ and ‘leftists’. You have even coined the term ‘Urban Naxals’. What was the thinking behind this? Did you anticipate that it would be used to paint all the critics of government, right-wing politics in a bad light?

I am a liberal myself but I have problems with people who call themselves liberal.
I had practised leftist politics earlier. I slowly realised that being left does not mean I have to support Naxals who kill innocents and I started to question this. Then, the Manmohan Singh government in an affidavit in Supreme Court said that the biggest threat to India are ‘Urban Maoists’. I picked that up. It also said that intellectuals, people from media and other sections provide ideological and logistical support to Naxals.

But, the term ‘Urban Naxals’ has put a lot of people’s lives at risk.

The book is about my journey while making the film ‘Buddha in a Traffic Jam’ and I have given lots of examples for my argument. I am not apologetic about my book. I don’t care about how it’s being used.

Don’t you think there are differences among leftists? Not everybody supports violence, right?

There are no layers in politics. It’s only there in intellectual debates. The goal of the far-left politics is to overthrow the government by anti-constitutional means. Today, most of the violence happening across the country is the result of far-left politics and I was earlier subscribed to that. Left politics is anti-democracy.

Are you saying that those communist parties in India working under democratic setup are anti-democratic?

Their history is full of violence. I am talking about far-left politics, not about communist ideology. When communism becomes naxalism, there’s a problem.

The Far-right wing also indulges in violence...

Who in right is killing people? Who in right is saying ‘divide and destroy’ India? Who is a terrorist in right-wing politics?