Nationalism and Cinema

Nation, as defined by Anderson is an “imagined political community- imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign.” (Anderson.1991.p6). It holds different connotations for each one of us, how we divide this imagined community in order to make it precisely and uniquely ours is the debate for the different ideas of nationalism. It is a historical construct, the attachment to a land and the willingness to die for it is an ideology planted and nurtured through time, and hence cannot be studied in isolation. Anderson proposes the idea, “nationalism has to be understood by aligning it, not with self-consciously held political ideologies, but with the large cultural systems that preceded it, out of which- as well as against which- it came into being.” (Anderson.1991.p12). In the context of India, hyper nationalism as discussed in this essay finds its root in the partition and its aftermath. The Indian subcontinent has been a centre of attraction for various powers throughout history and while each of them powers left a mark, British Raj is what left India with the immediate effect and the idiosyncrasies as it carries today. The colonial rule of about hundred years ended in 1947 with the partition of the subcontinent into two independent nations based on religion, India with a Hindu majority, and Pakistan with a Muslim Majority. The partition, rooted in the imperial policy of ”divide and rule”, and the “two nations” theory, led to the displacement of over fifteen million people and claimed more than a million lives from both communities. (Dalrymple.2015). A state, Kashmir, which did not join any of the two nations at the time of partition, stands today as one of the most militarized zones in the world and often finds itself at the center of the battleground of nationalism between the two nations as both claim their sovereignty over the land. (BBC, 2023). Partition, religion, and Kashmir are among the key themes invoked by cinema in India for its nationalistic phenomenology.

History, as a chronicle record of the past, is inevitably shaped by the ideological biases in its documentation. Cinema which adopts any historical narrative cannot be understood without the knowledge of what dominant ideology commands nation in that discourse. An approach with awareness about the historical, cultural and political landscape is crucial, as “films, then, both as systems of representation and as narrative structures, are rich sites for ideological analysis.”(Turner&Duckham.2006.p181). The following essay observes ideology through the invocation of past in three films, which sometimes critique, but more often promote hyper-nationalism based on religion. Bombay (Ratnam.1995) is used as a critique and Gadar: Ek Prem Katha (Sharma.2001) and The Kashmir Files (Agnihotri.2022) are seen as examples of nationalistic propaganda. Ideology throughout history evolved but ultimately served in the interest of power. Foucault arguing on the discursive power, defines it as “a body of anonymous, historical rules.” (Foucault.1972.p117). These anonymous historical rules tainted by power are further exploited to support an ideology of the present. The ‘divide and rule’ policy of the Britishers can now be observed into the notion of a ‘Hindu Rashtra’ (A land of Hindus) by the ruling political party, BJP in India. Nation and its narrative also shift along with the power, bringing us back to the words of Turner, “Like other ideological constructions, representations of the nation are not ‘fixed’: their political and cultural importance is such that they are sites of considerable contestation”. (Turner&Duckham.2006.p185). Cinema with nation as the protagonist, extracts from the populist ideology in the society, capturing multiple representations through time, and providing us the window into the analysis of motivation and intentions.

Bombay (1995), is a story of an interfaith couple Shekhar Narayan Pillai- a Brahmin Hindu, and Shaila Bano- a Muslim woman, who elope from their village after objection from their families to Bombay. They get married and have twin sons named Kabir Narayan and Kamal Basheer. The family is shattered when caught amongst the religious riots sparked by the demolition of Babri Masjid (a worship place for Muslims which was destroyed by a group of radical Hindu nationalists to establish a temple of a mythical Hindu God, Ram, believing it to be his birthplace). During the chaos, the brothers, Kabir, and Kamal are separated from their parents and later from each other. The film however concludes with the family’s emotional reunion and a powerful monologue by Shekhar, condemning the riots and killings. Shekhar highlights that those in power foster and manipulate such violence for their personal gain, leaving the ordinary people to suffer and mourn their loved ones. Directed by Mani Ratnam, the film draws parallel with the name of two sons, mixed with Hindu and Muslim labels, as a symbol of the fragmented identity, while also attempting to promote a sense of collectiveness and brotherhood between two religions. In one of the sequences, Kamal asks a question to a transgender who briefly rescued him from the mob, “Hindu aur Muslim aapas mei kyun ladte hai? Kiski bhool hai?” (Why does Hindus and Muslims fight with each other? Whose fault is this?). To which they reply, “Kisi ki nahi, ye bade log angaar laga dete hai, beech mei hum jaise log marte hai” (No one is at fault, the powerful ignites the spark and people like us suffer in the middle). This particular dialogue also leads us to believe that children in Bombay represent those who play no role in the riots but are helpless at the sight of it. Promoting consciousness in the audience, “their personal troubles tend not to remain personal: they mark audience awareness of itself as a class by reconstituting social differences into a new polarity of collective experience.”(Sadr.2002.p237). By doing so, they trigger audience to reflect on similar questions regarding the partition and its after math, questioning an ideology by referring and making connections to its historical implications. The event of destruction on Babri Masjid is used as an indicator to a broader conflict, partition, and the communal violence. Power is also debated in the narrative, and a glimpse into the riots is provided with suffering from both sides, allowing us to debate the selected versions in history. Bombay challenges the idea of hyper-nationalism by exhibiting the struggle and defeat of humanism when faced with the idea of nation, identity, and religion. Family unit asserts the presence of multiple identities in India and the possibility of them existing in harmony together, raising a question on the intolerant ideology used for political dogmatism. It stands the test of time, challenging the unsecular ideology now more than ever.

Like Bombay, many films with a nationalist discourse use the narrative of love stories and children to evoke an emotional response and resonance. As pointed out by Banaji, “The supposedly ‘historical’ settings of some of these films, that directors may attempt to represent merely as backdrops to ‘love- stories’, are frequently read as being important contributions to historical knowledge and are in some instances, confused with history itself.” (Banaji. 2006.Pg 173). Gadar, employs the same technique, equates love and patriotism, using historical setting to reaffirm the image of India as an inclusive and a humanistic nation, and Pakistan as the demonized narrow-minded other. Gadar- Ek Prem Katha (2001), is a love story set against the backdrop of the Partition of India. It conveys the story of Tara Singh, a Sikh truck driver and Sakina, a Muslim woman from a wealthy aristocratic family. Sakina is separated from her family amidst the chaos and is saved by Tara Singh, who rescues her from a violent mob by putting vermilion on her forehead- a Hindu marriage tradition, symbolically making her a ‘Sikhni’- a Sikh woman.

They eventually fall in love, marry, and have a son, Charanjeet. However, their life is disturbed when Sakina’s father, Asif Ali- a Pakistani nationalist and a political figure, discovers of her being alive and deceives her into coming to Pakistan alone. Tara, along with his son sets on a journey to reunite his family and is faced with multiple challenges along the way. Towards the end of the film, he is faced with a radical crowd and is asked to convert to Islam in order to be with Sakina. Tara accepts the conversion, chants ‘Islam Zindabad’ and ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ (Long live Islam and Pakistan) but is furious when one of the conditions by Asif Ali to prove Tara’s worthiness of being a Muslim is the cry of ‘Hindustan Murdabad’ (May India be destroyed). Tara refuses and instead raises the slogan of ‘Hindustan Zindabad’ and questions the need of a Muslim to hate India to be a true Pakistani. He then singlehandedly fights with a plethora of people, establishing the honour of India. The film concludes with a happy ending where love and patriotism win and Tara, with his family make his way back to India. Hall advocates that meaning is constructed within a discourse, certain codes by repeated use become naturalized and act as “the means by which power and ideology are made to signify in particular discourses.”, adding to the ‘maps of social reality’, which “have the whole range of social meanings, practices, and usages, power and interest written on them”. (Hall.1980. pp55-57). Gadar magnifies the coded meaning of India as a kind nation, Pakistan as the violent other, a Muslim woman as the oppressed victim to only be saved by Hindu man, and anger and strength as the attributes of an upper caste male patriot. It does so throughout the film by reframing the memory of partition and capitalizing on the nationalist emotions.

Another film resting on selective history to promote ideology is a recent one, The Kashmir Files (2022). As suggested by the name, it is an attempt towards documentation of an event of the past, a sensitive and debated event, commonly termed as the ‘Kashmiri Pandit Exodus’ of 1990s. During this period, Kashmiri Pandits (an upper caste Hindu community), an ethnic minority in the region faced threat to their identity by the extremist militant groups. Thousands of pandits migrated from the valley while many were killed, the issue is highly politicized, with their suffering being used as whataboutism to victimize the Hindu identity in Kashmir, while erasing as well as questioning the difficult past of Muslims living in the region. The Kashmir Files follows the fictional story of Krishna Pandit, a student at JNU (often mischaracterized as an extremist institution in India), who gets involved in protests in his institution. Initially believing that his parents died in an accident, he discovers the truth after the death of his grandfather that they were in fact killed during the exodus. The grandfather, Pushkar Nath Pandit’s archives set Krishna on a discovery of truth about Kashmir, the radical terrorists living there and their connections to his professor, Radhika Menon at JNU. Krishna finds the horrors of the conflict as well as the ongoing extremism in the valley. Krishna’s experience is summarized on his return in a speech at the university. He begins with the remembrance of the rich history of Kashmir, essentializing its image as the heaven on earth and how that heaven was created by and has always belonged to the upper caste Hindu community, Pandits. His claim is asserted in the film using various selective and manipulated stories and sources from history, one of which is the distortion of numbers in terms of migration and death during the conflict while labelling it as a genocide. Krishna’s emotional speech stresses on the threat to his identity of an upper caste Hindu because of the existence of fanatical other, Kashmiri Muslims. Kashmir Files uses various methods to justify its version of history. First, it attempts to manipulate people into being subjects through the use of trauma, testimonies, violent visuals and a documentary filter. Second, it employs semiotic codes as ideological tools, stark cinematography, and violent visuals to heighten the realism for an emotional response from the audience. This can be witnessed in two sequences, one in which a group of militants shoot at a line Hindu captives, and the camera elaborates on the visual and sound of each bullet and body, with pauses for conviction in between. Other, a scene in which a woman is stripped of her saffron gown (a colour with a Hindu religious connotation) and cut into pieces using a machine by the extremist militants. Both sequences, though triggering, are not censored; instead, they are emphasized.

Althusser’s assertion that ideology employs individuals as subjects through interpellation, “Ideology ‘acts’ or ‘functions’ in such a way as to ‘recruit’ subjects among individuals (it recruits them all) or ‘transforms’ individuals into subjects (it transforms them all) through the very precise operation that we call interpellation or hailing“, is attempted in the film by building on the violent history and pain endured by the Kashmiri Pandits, used as a  metaphor for the suffering of all Hindus. (Althusser, 2014, Pg 201). The Kashmir Files manipulates history with its selective exhibition on screen. It victimizes Pandits by dehumanizing and antagonising all Kashmiri Muslims and denying them any of any visibility. Patronized as a film backed by historical facts by the Indian Prime Minister- Narendra Modi, also the leader of the right-wing party, BJP, release of The Kashmir Files has led to increased hate and violence against Muslims with hate speeches being made after the screenings in multiple theatres. (Al Jazeera.2022). Sara Ahmed, in Cultural Politics of Emotions talks about the function of emotions in guiding bodies and actions, “to become the ‘you’ addressed by the narrative is to feel rage against those who threaten not only to take the ‘benefits’ of the nation away, but also to destroy ‘the nation’, which would signal the end of life itself.” (Ahmed.2014.p12). Nationalist films cultivate on these emotions and addresses the audience as the ‘you’, paving way for conflicting situations, as seen in the above case. Kazmi also outlines a “dialectical relationship between cinema and society”, where narrative of the society produces certain kind of cinema, and cinema in turn legitimizes the hegemonic discourse of that society. (Kazmi.1999.p18). Kashmir Files also amplifies this relationship by directing past to support the present political hegemonic discourse.

The above case studies though differ in their approach towards history, offers a rather conflicted image of a woman, reflecting towards the position of women in the history. In Bombay and Gadar, Shaila Bano and Sakina are the oppressed Muslim women who find happiness and freedom only through their relationship with Hindu men, Shekhar and Tara. In contrast Kashmir Files offers a more contemporary image of a female character, provides agency to the Hindu woman, Professor Radhika Menon, but ultimately frames her as the villain. The complexities in the role of each one of these characters suggests that a woman by no means can be the ‘hero’ of the political and social narrative in history or even in the present. A Muslim woman is saved by Hinduization and domestication and a Hindu woman, if speaks out loud, seems to symbolize the evil of the society. Representation of women here adheres to Barthes’s theory of ‘myth’, a systemized set of ideas that metamorphosis into common sense with universal acceptance. “Myth deprives the object of which is speaks of all History”, as seen in the constructed myth of an ideal woman in the Indian films, cinema through its representation has deprived women of any substantial contribution in the society. (Barthes.1973.p152)

Three films over the span of about thirty years explores the similar theme of religious conflicts in the past but suggest a different image of nation. Bombay draws from the riots and suffering to offer an inclusive India, Gadar puts selective conditions on who can be a part of Hindustan, and The Kashmir Files imagines the nation explicitly as a Hindu Rashtra. Bombay released in 1995, two years after the demolition of Babri Masjid, attempts at presenting a humanistic history with agony from both sides, tries to hold the state and power accountable for violence, highlighting on their complex roles which are otherwise erased from the conversations and history as well. Whereas, The Kashmir Files, being a more recent film, focuses on one side, ignoring struggles of the other, and in the process fostering a manipulated version of history for authenticity. Through the ideological analysis and its references from the history, it can be noted that cinema with its repeated use of supposedly historical facts, not only represents but actively shapes public perception. The antagonism towards Pakistan and Muslims in India is a huge part of the political sphere and national identity today and is leveraged in cinema. Banaji’s research suggests that, “even at their best, certain sequences in a number of Hindi films dealing with India and Pakistan invite some viewers to think of themselves as ‘other’ in order to keep watching with pleasure; while, at their worst, they have to be understood, among other things, as contributions to authoritarian or ethnic supremacist ideologies which, off-screen, have resulted in violence and death.”(Banaji.2007). The need for an informed audience has never been more urgent and hence calls upon the spectators to be active in their interpretation, particularly in the case of films dealing with history and nationalism. While dissecting the past implications of a film, it is also imperative to address the current circumstances, as films created today unveil the fragility of secularism in India. Examples of Gadar and Kashmir Files must be apprehended as a lesson that when cinema embodies propaganda, ideological analysis should become the norm as it the subtle ques that penetrates our minds and reinforce existing beliefs, creating a conflict with alternative opinions. What must also be considered is the history being fabricated through cinematic representation for the future generation. With the power to influence the collective memory of a nation, films and film makers should be questioned regarding their representation and ideologies they may be perpetuating. Cinema as a form of art, cannot be separated from politics and must therefore be recognized as a medium that reflects dominant ideologies.