When cinema starts playing to the majoritarian gallery

Recent populist films paint the past in a polarising, sometimes fictional manner. Nuance becomes a casualty in these movies

When The Kashmir Files, directed by Vivek Agnihotri, was released in March 2022, it received a magnanimous endorsement from Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

“All of you should watch it. The film has shown the truth which has been suppressed for years. The truth prevailed in Kashmir Files,” he told a meeting of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s parliamentary group.

Meanwhile, supporters of the party propagated the movie and the ideas presented in it on social media, making the already fragmented social space even more polarised politically. The movie employed a lot of creative freedom in its storytelling, which was later presented as fact by vested interests.

Read | Clubs in Bengaluru for filmmakers and film enthusiasts

Today, there are movies set to be made on Hindu nationalist icon Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, RSS leaders K B Hedgewar and Deendayal Upadhyaya, and BJP leader Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Many of them aim to depict contrarian histories which are different from public knowledge.

V Vijayendra Prasad, the writer of RRR, Thalaivi and Manikarnika, is planning a movie on the RSS. He explains his motives for the movie: “In the 1970s, I came to know about the greatness of RSS. People think RSS is involved in the murder of Gandhiji but it is not true. I want to tell the story of RSS which not many know.”

How contrarian can the history in such movies become? “Godse was a member of RSS from 1932 to 1933 but killed Gandhiji in 1948. People wrongly associate him with RSS. When Gandhiji and Nehru had death threats at various places, the RSS offered protection. They are not killers, they saved them. RSS even participated in the 1963 Republic Day Parade at the invitation of Jawaharlal Nehru. All these facts I will be bringing into the screenplay,” Prasad explains.

These 'facts' are not a part of any recorded history. For example, an RTI filed by India Today in 2018 to the defence ministry received no details of RSS being a part of the Republic Day Parade.

A larger trend

This style of making movies is part of a larger trend in India where cinema follows what it perceives as a majority sentiment.

Propaganda — the dissemination of facts, arguments, rumours, half-truths or even lies — to influence public opinion, has always been subtly used in cinema more often than not.

Films like Naya Daur (1957) and Upkar (1967) were produced with the explicit aim of promoting the Congress' socialist policies and ideals. They depicted the struggles of poor farmers and labourers and emphasised the need for collective action and social justice.

“There were many films in support of the Nehruvian dream in the 1960s. But now, the politics of 'othering' of certain communities has led to a changed idea of nationalism,” says Basav Biradar, a film critic based in Bengaluru. He says that movies are following this majoritarian trend.

“Across the globe, there has been a dramatic shift towards right-wing thinking. This has percolated down to cinema in a big way. It has happened in Indian cinema as well, in terms of characterisation, plots, depiction of history and more,” says Amborish Roychoudhury, a writer and film historian based in Mumbai.

Changed shape of propaganda

But today, propaganda is taking a different shape. It is more direct and polarising, with various narratives and aims. RRR featured a fictional friendship between two prominent pre-Independence figures from the Andhra-Telangana region — Komaram Bheem and Alluri Sitarama Raju — and weaved a patriotic narrative around them. In some of the scenes, the movie even depicted them as Ram from Ramayana and Bheema from Mahabharata. The portrayal of characters and the story in a way that appeals to the Hindu majority stole hearts and made the movie a box office hit.

Not all propaganda movies become a hit. Ram Setu, Akshay Kumar’s movie on the chain of natural limestone shoals between India and Sri Lanka, tried to put forward the theory that it was human-made and not natural — something the Ramayana has propagated for centuries, while science indicates otherwise. This movie did not strike a chord with the audience.

A biopic of Prime Minister Narendra Modi released just before the 2019 election ended up being very caricaturish. Kangana Ranaut’s Thalaivi, based on the life of Tamil Nadu politician Jayalalithaa, had a hagiographic portrayal of the protagonist where the dark parts of her life were omitted. A Kannada movie Statement 8/11 that glorified demonetisation received bad reviews and failed to make an impact.

What differentiates RRR? “It had two superstars in lead roles and a director with a (good) track record. An emotional conflict which is beautifully resolved made RRR a super-hit,” says Vijayendra Prasad who wrote the script for the movie.

Compare these with the movies of the 70s and 80s that held up a mirror to the dissatisfaction of the masses when government policies failed and corruption ruled. The film industry reflected the sentiments of the working class with angry young heroes who resonated with the audience. Films like Zanjeer (1973) and Deewar (1975) depicted heroes who were disillusioned with the corrupt political system and took matters into their own hands.

In contrast, today, the number of anti-State or anti-government movies is dwindling. What changed? “There is a feeling that there is a political section which is our saviour, and the political class is not something we can complain about. Films reflect this mindset,” says Roychoudhury.

Lacking nuance

Movies made on the Kashmir issue are an example of what to do and what not to do in order to make good cinema. In Khalid Mohamed's Fiza (2000), Karishma Kapoor and Hrithik Roshan play Kashmiri siblings who belong to opposing ideologies. The film was balanced without political rhetoric and was a box office hit.

Similarly, Rahul Pandita’s Shikara (2020) depicted the struggles of Kashmiri pandits without resorting to a black-and-white narrative, trying to depict the complexity of life in Kashmir for both Hindus and Muslims.

But most movies do not project complexity, and end up depicting caricaturish characters. Movies that depict Kashmiri pandits as patriots, and Muslims as fundamentalists and barbarians by birth have no grey characters in between. “Most such films end up pushing one particular point of view, devoid of grey shades,” says K Phaniraj, convener of Udupi Chitra Samaj and a film critic.

Roychoudhury gives the example of period films like Tanaji (2020), Padmaavat (2018) and Prithviraj Chauhan (2022), where the 'villain' was shown as an animal, devoid of any nuance. Historically, in movies that had a foreign invader and an Indian king, the former would naturally be the villain. But old films showed such characters in a nuanced manner, as flawed human beings, and not one-dimensional characters.

In Border (1997), made on the Indo-Pakistan war, a song in the end — 'Mere dushman, mere bhai, mere humsaaye' — calls for peace, amid the devastation, where soldiers are dying on both sides. “This satiates the need for a feeling of equality among the audience, to avoid wrong messages going out,” points out Roychoudhury.

“But today, the villain is depicted as a brute, an animal, with no redeeming qualities. We have had films about Genghis Khan and other foreign invaders,” he explains, describing how storytelling has changed. The impact of such narratives can sometimes be damaging in today’s era of heightened social media arguments, chaos, information overload and reduced attention span, naturally leading to people believing the narratives that confirm their biases.

What next?

“Irrespective of the ideological point of view of the filmmaker, my focus would be on how convincingly the maker has explored the sociopolitical and cultural complexities while exploring the story,” notes Phaniraj, advocating complicated stories that show 360 degrees of a given issue, with no black-and-white narratives.

Also, a reality check reveals that most of the latest propagandistic movies are not commercial hits, especially when the topic chosen is not emotive and divisive enough, or has no attractive elements other than the story.

What can movies projecting a contrarian history do? Govind Nihalani, film director and cinematographer known for nuanced films like Ardh Satya (1983) and Tamas (1988), puts it succinctly: ”The past is past. This is a time when our minds should be completely free to see and express everything. History does not stop. It is always in the making. Today there are different narratives coming up on various subjects. Let all the narratives come out. We will see what happens.”