FIlm reviews

The Ideological reading of Lage Raho Munnabhai

"Maati pukare, tujhe Desh pukare, Aja re bapu aja re…
(Our country's soil implores you, O' Gandhi come to our rescue and shows us the path)

These are the opening lines of the song from the much talked about film Lage Raho Munnabhai (Carry on Munnabhai), henceforth LRMB, that aptly capture its central premise. Harking back to the ideals of M.K Gandhi it comes both as a social lament about the loss of social ideals and a moral indictment of the society for its failure to uphold the values that inspired a generation during freedom struggle. The song expresses utopian hope of Gandhism to redeem humanity. Even as the film recycles popular myth about Gandhi just as earlier films based on "Gandhian melodrama" did, it nonetheless imbued with freshness and originality. Without sounding didactic and pedantic, it shows how a political idiom could be reformulated and deployed to communicate with the people in their own language. In that it attempts to rediscover the relevance of Gandhism and reconfigure it to provide solution to the problems of the intermediatery class in the era of globalization.

Directed by Rajkumar Hirani LRMB tells the story of a lovable goon Munnabhai (Sanjay Dutt) who has fallen in love with the voice of a Radio-Jockey, Jahnavi. A quiz show on radio about Gandhi gives Munna an opportunity to meet his dream woman. There he blurts out that he is a history professor when Jahnavi asks him about what he does for a living. Munnabhai real problem starts when now impressed Jahnavi invites him for a lecture on Gandhi at her bungalow where senior citizens thrown out by their children also live. The only choice left for Munna is to read about Gandhi to keep up the pretense of being a history professor. It is while reading about Gandhi in a dust covered library that Munnabhai gains "enlightenment". Due to intensive reading there occurs a "chemical imbalance" in the brain of an exhausted Munnabhai. He starts "seeing" Gandhi. The surreal encounter of the meeting with Gandhi lefts him all excited and confident. Gandhi promises to help him whenever he calls him. In a way the film attempts to rescue Gandhism that has largely been relegated to moth eaten library books or as an official mantra to be remembered in state's official functions into a living action oriented thought.

The success of the film fueled renewed interest and further debate about the relevance of Gandhi today. It also drew comparison with another hit film Rang de Basanti of the year which is said to highlight the contribution of revolutionary hero Bhagat Singh. Polemics were raised in the mainstream media about the diametrically opposite message the two films convey. The debate was posited as Bhagat Singh path of violence as opposed to Gandhi's path of non-violence. Displaying a formal understanding of both violence and non-violence the debates in large part failed to highlight the main question, the question of differing world view. How the two contending ideologies reflect the outlook of two different social forces and guided by different methods and programs keeping in view its specific class interests. History tells us not only the means adopted by the Gandhi and Bhagat Singh were antagonistic in nature but also their vision of restructuring society. While LRMB received stupendous response and praises for its humour and social criticism, it is nonetheless marked by limitations in its attempts to provide solution to the social problems that demands radical solutions. Its solution, therefore, appears simplistic which to reinforce dominant ideology of the ruling class.

One of the brilliant examples of the non-violent tactics which LRMB highlights is to shame the corrupt official for his acts in front of the people. A senior citizen whose pension gets blocked by a corrupt clerk, who demands bribe to get it released. As per as Munna's advice he goes to the clerk and starts taking off things including his clothes and putting it on the table listing out the cost of each item so as to cover up his bribe. This creates a huge commotion around and visibly embarrassed clerk has no other option but to release his pension. Munnabhai shows indispensability of Gandhian tactics by effectively testing it and verifying it in practice. While individual action in certain cases becomes a decisive factor in the resolution of piecemeal grievances. However, no matter how noble individual efforts are, it will not only be limited in its scope but also may prove to be diversionary if it fails to address the real problem. It is the withdrawal of the state in providing social security measures including attacks on the pension benefits to the senior citizen that fundamentally constitutes a bigger problem than corruption which is a result of the ineffective working of the system. The focus is on the effect and consequences not on the class character of the state which is part of the problem. It thus addresses the symptoms not the diseases.


A turning point occurs in the film when Lucky Singh, a builder who utilizes the services of Munnabhai for his nefarious activities, forcibly takes possession of Jahanvi's house while she along with Munna and the old men are holidaying in Goa. When Munna comes to know about it he is filled with remorse and anger as his own men are responsible for the act. Munna is in real dilemma. As an advocator of Gandhism, he cannot force Lucky Singh to give out the keys back to the rightful owner who now threatens to expose his real identity to Jahanvi. This inflames Munna who vows to use the strategy of Gandhigiri to get the keys back. Towards this endeavour, he utilizes radio as a platform to experiment with his technique of Gandhigiri. As a part of Satyagrah he hits out on the road along with Jahanvi and the senior citizens right across the road where Lucky Singh resides. Acting upon the instruction a security guard attacks Munnabhai with a baton. Munna gleefully turn the other cheek. After further attack Munna realizes he has no third cheek to offer. To make him stop he hits him back much to the disapproval of Gandhi. It is interesting that Munna is not shown to be an unqualified proponent of non-violence. He breaks with the rigid frame work of Satyargrah as and when the situation demands, in that he acts as a pragmatist. Earlier in the film he thrashes a recalcitrant son who is unwilling to come to celebrate his father's birthday. He puts him upside down till he wriggles out the promise to him that he will go for the party much against his wishes. Later in the film Munna and Circuit storms the radio station. Circuit wipes out a gun to scare away all those who were trying to stop them. In that context dogmatic adherence to non-violence would not have served their purpose. The bad son sees reason only when he is turned upside down by Munna. Gandhi's adherent has to take into account the objective factors to decide whether they have to pursue a course of action in a non-violent manner or use force. While it is true that social tension could be resolved within the framework based on non-violence achieving everlasting peace in the society cannot be brought without upturning the institution based on violence and privileges. Peace is must but there could be no peace without justice. Gandhi reposes faith in pricking conscience of the oppressor by willingness to undergo untold suffering in the belief there may occur a change of heart of the oppressor. It will be highly misleading and simplistic to believe that oppressed in human history have got their rights due to change of heart theory. Does British colonialist give freedom to India because it went through change of heart? The Christian preaching of brotherhood and oral teachings against killings could not convert the American imperialism to adhere to its belief. The construction of positive images in the film could be seem as an attempt to validate Gandhian thesis of change of heart that rests on the foundation that human beings are essential good. The builder who takes illegal possession of Jahanvi's house appears more as a buffoon rather than a villain. The policeman is shown turning misty eyed on hearing Munnabhai forceful moral appeals. The emphasis on appealing to the good will of an individual fails to see that that individual is not abstract individual he/she is an ensemble of social relations holding outlook of certain classes or as a representative of certain groups. In that the film seeks to humanize repressive institution. The creed of non-violence collapses in the context of a fascist state where any semblance of protests is sought to be crushed with the iron heel or in the feudal country side like Bihar where private militias of upper caste massacres defenseless poverty stricken dalits in collusion with the state. There opposition to the "evil" with any means becomes a necessity for self-defence and self-preservation. The ideology of non-violence tends to equate violence of both oppressor and oppressed in the same light. As a creed it ultimately tends to criminalizes those who wages armed struggle against injustice. The preoccupation with non-violence as the defining aspect of the "ethical" means presupposes that it will necessarily lead to "good" ends. It could also lead to other way round also. What is needed to be probed here is the class nature of a "good" society. Will the society run by supreme moral order render unequal power relations obsolete or will it magical dissolves the acute class contradictions? The film does not take any of the questions into account because it sees change in society through change in individual consciousness and not as a result of the transformation of the underlying material reality that leads to qualitative changes.

LRMB is one of the rare films made that raises social concerns of our time. However the thematic concerns it raises and the direction in which it gets resolved conforms to the middle classes position and outlook. It serves to depoliticize the deeply political issues and effectively absorbs and accommodates the voices who are affected by the prevailing order under the rubric of broad class unity. The anger of the middle classes that could be directed against anti-people state and its institution is diverted along an altogether different channel. The film traces the root cause of the conflict in the domain of falling morality and ethical principals on the part of individual subject. It is due to this understanding that the film does not even talk of reforming the state and its institution for it believes that if the individual pursues an ideal path then the conflicting interest could be resolved both in the individual and collective interest. An oppressor could be made to realize his/her wrong path who could then finally with a change of heart acknowledge the problem and rectify it in the interest both the groups. The fact that people are not homogenous they are divided into classes holding conflicting economic interest that turn antagonistic in certain context is glossed over. The film does not take cognizance to the central feature of class division in society and seeks to hoist common morality above classes. Thus the abstract humanism the film teaches becomes yet another name for class reconciliation and compromise leading to the perpetuation of status-quo. For the middle class who are witnessing the socio-cultural deformities in society Gandhism appears as an anti-dote to all the present ills. As an ambivalent class it wavers to formulate a radical proposition due to its own stakes in the existing order however it cannot escape oppressive reality of its own precarious position. It, perhaps, one of the reasons why Gandhism continues to exert considerable influence on the minds of educated elite who regards it as the best framework to address many of today's pressing problems. The film not only obfuscates the real causes of the problem leaving behind the fundamental social and political questions of our time, it also relies on such an ambivalent class for reforms in society. At a time when class contradictions are further worsening, the much exalted alternative that LRMB offers to humanity serves to channelise and deflect growing discontent from below along peaceful lines in the name of maintaining harmonious social whole in society. For those who have no stakes in the system, the dispossessed majority Gandhism not only becomes inadequate to explain the truth about the system but also incompatible with the vision that believes only with the radical rupture in the existing order can the highest social ideal of achieving a just and humane society is possible. Any pious aspiration of constructing an ethical society in the existing grossly unequal one would be therefore reformist and illusory.








Rang De Basanti raises the burning question of our time


"A beginning has to be made somewhere," exhorts Karan Sighania (Siddharth), one of the protagonists in the film Rang De Basanti (henceforth RDB), to the youth of the country from All India Radio after he with his friends seize it in a guerilla style. Before falling to the bullets of the police along with his four comrades- Sukhi (Sharman Joshi), DJ (Aamir Khan), Aslam (Kunal Kapoor), Pandey (Atul Kulkarni), he makes an impassioned and forceful appeal. However, their death is not an end, it is just a beginning. In their death, they illuminate the path of revolt and defiance that cut through the darkness of gloom, apathy and insensitivity.

Every movement in history demands its quota of commitment and sacrifice. Without the indomitable spirit and immense courage shown by few outstanding individuals it cannot inspire social conscience of the generation. RDB seeks to do the same. The film is about the self-journey of the six college students who transform themselves through engagement with history from being fun seeking wayward youth to someone who raises the banner of revolt and sacrifice their lives in the process.

The film is built on the premise that today's generation is grappling with their existentialist dilemmas trying to find a meaning and purpose in life. The old value system is in the process of either transformation or coming in conflict with the new one. There occurs a conflict between an instinctive rebellious nature of students and the stifling social norms prescribed. The cultural explosion has brought new ideas from the West, which is understood to be dangerous and threatening by certain social and political forces. There is a merging of cross-cultural trends and youth are embracing what is "radical" and chic? Fearful of the fact the authoritarian institutions like state and family are trying to control young deviant population from its influence. The scene when Hindutuva activist, Pandey disrupts the dance party of the students in the order to stop them from getting influenced from the culture of the West, reflects the dilemma of our time. Do the westernized youth have no sense of belonging to the nation as Pandey cries hoarsely in the film? When the Saffronites debunk them as followers of an alien culture, they distort the very concept of what is our own. In the name of reclaiming the so-called golden past, they want to transport us back to old feudal times. Are the youth to be blamed for this? The film tells us the youth of today desires change but are caught in their own personal crisis and are unwilling to stake their career for it. They also do not find any worthy cause in fighting for a society fatalistic and unresponsive to change. The central protagonists of the film are the product of this time. They want to live in an isolated world of the world of their own making. The isolation breeds apathy and apathy turns into cynicism and self-estrangement. All of them have their own set of problems. If Siddharth problems arises due to affluence, DJ is afraid to be absorbed and assimilated into system, Sukhi does not want to die a virgin while Aslam is grappling with his identity which seems to be something larger than himself. Even though there is an acute realisation in them of the signs of all pervading decay and dehumanization, they feel helpless and powerless to intervene and affect any change. For an individual is set against corrupt system rotten to the core and which can easily crush and absorb any form of protest. Politics is seen to be manipulative and corruption-ridden. "Sacrifice for the corrupt system", retorts Karan questioning the absurdity of the idea. Earlier in the film, the audition test taken by British female protagonist Sue, who comes to India to make documentary film on freedom fighters, unable to find actors who can enact the role of the revolutionaries with depth and conviction. The film suggests there is little awareness and appreciation of today's youth towards the glorious chapter of the armed struggle led by revolutionaries against British colonialism. It is while enacting the lives of revolutionaries that the protagonists of the film undergoes a gradual change in their outlook but the hour of reckoning comes when their peaceful movement demanding justice for their friend, an Air force pilot who dies in the MIG plane crash, is crushed with ruthless ferocity by the state. Now they are exposed to the authoritarian side of the socio- political historical forces working against the interest of the country and the people. Disillusioned with the fact that the unjust system will never going to provide justice to their martyred friend, they seek justice themselves by annihilating the Defence Minister involved in the corrupt deals in the purchase of faulty parts of MIG and is therefore directly responsible for the death of their friend. They finally seize AIR to publicize their viewpoints and to make the deaf hear.

If the protagonists are the personification of the revolutionaries, the question here arises, is this what Bhagat Singh would have done if he had been alive today as the film pertains to argue. In all probability, no. Bhagat Singh became convinced towards the end of his life that only by relying on the masses can bring about a revolutionary transformation in our society. For him, armed struggle must be accompanied with mass struggle in order to be popular and successful. While Rang de Basanti does not go beyond the official historiography when it comes to the portrayal of Bhagat Singh (as his contribution goes much beyond than the image of a firebrand revolutionary who shot dead Saunders and threw bombs in the Assembly Hall). It is in spite of all these limitations Rang De Basanti is infused with refreshing frankness rarely seen in Hindi cinema, a film that celebrates death defying spirit and courage of the youth for a cause. Against leading a life of a isolated, disembodied individuals RDB stresses on the realization of the critical faculty that question the existing state of affairs. It seems that the messages of the film have gone down well considering the huge number of people particularly the youth flocking the cinema hall. It not only has a breathtaking epic sweep of the history of our freedom struggle but it also makes it relevant for the present generation by connecting the past with the present. Its message appears quite authentic and convincing, why? Because the image of reality that RDB offers mirrors the political reality of India, where corruption, communalization and crimination have become part and parcel of the Indian political system. It is, indeed, difficult to imagine that a film on such a politically engaging cinema that sees things from a socio-historical perspective coming out of dream factory in Mumbai. In this context Hartosh Singh Bal's article "We don't need no revolution" (Tehelka, 18/02/2006) seems to be one-sided cynical and pessimistic.
One must not forget that within the genre of commercial cinema, which primarily operates under the dictates of market and the benevolent gaze of state, Rakesh Mehra has made such a thought-provoking, meaningful and compelling film. Why it looks so youthful and fresh? What makes its appeal so contemporary? Do the youths who sacrifice their lives in the film are the voices of conscience or someone who have gone astray? Is it not due to RDB the youths are debating their own commitment to the country? Hindi cinema which of late portraying super rich or the Gangsters as the heroes and catering the public with dispirited pastiche, RDB goes against the established convention creating a work of art which is truly original and most importantly portrays Bhagat Singh as a role model for today's generation.
Of course, for the likes of Hartosh Singh Bal India's reality is not as bad that merit any revolt. No wonder for him revolutionary martyrs like Bhagat Singh "has no real relevance". It seems to him that the stories of distress and discontent coming out on a regular basis from the vast countryside are insignificant. Beneath the thin veneer of democracy, there lies the brutal face of Indian state, which is unleashing fascist political repression against the working masses to implement its anti-people policies. Is it not an open truth how the law favours the rich and powerful. If the beer guzzling rich kids, in the film criticize the political corruption and injustice on which the state is based, Bal arrogantly dismisses it as nothing but "self-righteous pretension". History is not static it has its own dynamics and movements. Dialectics teaches us that today's beer guzzling youth can be tomorrow's guerilla fighter. That the beer bottle could be used as a Molotov cocktail. Bal fails to see the possibility of rupture and advancement in the development of characters belonging to upper middle-classes in a given social context. Continuing with his analysis of the history of students' movement, Bal discredits the entire history of youth movement calling it "misdirected" and "stupid". He further corroborates old right wing canard by calling Naxalite students "playing their game with burrowed ideas". So did Bhagat Singh. After all, he symbolized the vision of a secular, democratic and socialist India. Bal fails to appreciate the full scope of RDB objective importance and its impact in the cinematic history because of his own elitist viewpoint. The film does not treat the issues superficially but raises thematic concerns and poses topical questions about the direction in which the country is moving. It compels us to think and debate.

However, Bal rightly states, "Bhagat Singh is forgotten in the movie, instead only his identification with violence is resurrected". The film talks about Bhagat Singh but not of his politics. Was it because Bhagat Singh talked about reorganization of the polity along Marxian line? The film's philosophy could be summed up in the lines of Karan when he addresses the youth of the country in the climax, "no country is perfect, it has to be made perfect… we will join the police force, army will become IAS office to change the change its course of direction..." These ideas reflect a middle class perception and idealism of bringing out reforms in the country; it addresses the symptoms and affects not the diseases. As an individualist approach to social, moral and political questions of our times, it conflicts with the ideology of Bhagat Singh and his comrades. In the brilliantly written pamphlet "The philosophy of bomb", Bhagwati Charan and Chandra Shekhar Azad wrote in consultation with Bhagat Singh"… (This) revolution will not only express itself in the form of an armed conflict between the foreign government and its supporters and the people, it will also usher in a new social order. The revolution will ring the death knell of Capitalism and class distinctions and privileges. It will bring joy and prosperity to the starving millions who are seething under the terrible yoke of both foreign and Indian exploitation'. RDB, however, does what no other films based on the life of Bhagat Singh were able to achieve. At the time when youth of the country is, groping for answers in the dark RDB explodes at the centre stage to provide the link between the white colonial masters who bear similar class character with the present rule of brown sahibs who are enacting various traitorous policies in pursuit of their naked self-interest. With history of India's revolutionary movement told in background it does not crudely play up patriotic sentiments. Without sounding too pedantic and didactic, it managed successfully to reach to the vast heterogeneous masses and the youth. The historical events interspersed in the film are used as a metaphor to highlight the uncompromising struggle of the revolutionaries against British Imperialism The director skillfully incorporates elements of documentary realism to narrate the historical events at the same time locating the protagonists in the present time. In doing so, it offloads the baggage of an historical film in the minds of the viewer to impart a contemporary ring. Thus, it transcends the limits of representation imposed by the genre of period films. Very few films in the recent time has reflected upon the prevailing mood in the country so effectively and poignantly and at the same time conveying a deep-rooted political message. Certainly the film has led to a renewed interested about the lives of revolutionaries heroes, particular Bhagat Singh whose 100 birth anniversary will be observed this year, among the youth. However, the film is not without its own high and low.
Though RDB reflects youth frustration and total disenchantment with the present discredited system, in effect espousing the aspiration of the struggling masses, however, without any connection with the masses and subscribing to no political ideology and programme, the alternative could only be vague and utopian. The political objective of this group is not revolution but seeking retribution and justice, it remains at best an anarchist militant action of which Bhagat Singh himself noted," let me announce with all the strength at my command, that I am not a terrorist and I never was, except perhaps in the beginning of my revolutionary career. And I am convinced that we cannot get anything through these methods ... I do not mean that bombs and pistols are useless, rather the contrary. But I mean to say that mere bomb-throwing is not only useless but sometimes harmful. The military department of the party should always keep ready all the war-material at its command for any emergency. It should back the political work of the party. It cannot and should not act independently..." While it is true such type of armed action does inspire people and strengthen the morale of the oppressed fighting a brutal state. But without political agenda and goal it can easily be dispersed and hence cannot provide any theoretical frame work for arriving at the correct strategy and tactics for revolution. The film though highlights the need to follow the path laid by Bhagat Singh and his comrades but fails to connect it with ideals and political vision of the revolutionaries. The film merely touches the political significance of the slogan-Inquilab Zindabad- popularized by Bhagat Singh, but does not elaborate it. Equally, notable omission was another important slogan Samrajyawad Murdabad, Down with Imperialism. Shiv Verma, one of the co-accused along with Bhagat Singh in the Lahore Conspiracy Case has written: Inqulab Zindabad represented the outlook -- the revolutionary movement will not stop at the achievement of freedom; it will continue till the system which permits the exploitation of man by man and of a nation by nation, is abolished and a basic change in the socio-economic structure of the society is brought about. Samrajyawad Murdabad indicated the immediate task at hand. A slave nation cannot establish a classless society, abolish exploitation and bring about equality amongst men. For such a nation, the first and foremost task is to break the chains of imperialist domination that bind it. In other words, revolution in a slave country has to be anti-imperialist and anti-colonial." The credit however goes to the director for highlighting the contribution of Ashfaqullah Khan that rendered invisible in earlier films like The Legend of Bhagat Singh, directed by Raj kumar Santoshi. Ashfaqullah Khan becomes a mascot for highlighting the secular character of the revolutionary movement and therefore a part of our common heritage. The Hindu right-wingers also stand exposed in the film, they are implicated in the corrupt defence deals and when are questioned, they crush the dissent with an iron hand.
The film tries to establish the difference between a terrorist and a revolutionary. Earlier in the film, Ram Prasad Bismil asks the British officer not to call them "Fasadies" (troublemakers) because they are revolutionaries. Similarly, in the present context it is the state and their apologist who dub the fighting masses as terrorist. Karan in a reply to a question enunciates how a revolutionary is different from a terrorist, while terrorist kills innocent, revolutionaries go for selective and targeted killing of a hated oppressor. They also believe in using diverse form of struggle like taking the fight to the court and turning it into a platform to propagate revolutionary ideas.
The images from history, distinguished with their sepia tone, acquire a new meaning and political connotation in the film. History becomes a reference point to develop strategies for the future. The legacy of revolutionary has to be carried forward to fight new forms of oppression and injustice. The transposition of the image of General Dwyer, the butcher of Jallianwala Bagh, with the Defence Minister symbolizing today's corrupt ministers. It articulates a viewpoint that the country-selling, traitorous political class is no different from the British colonialist. In essence, the freedom struggle has to be continued because this democracy is sham and only meant for rich and powerful, although the film does not say in clear terms. By juxtaposing the images of revolutionaries eliminating British Police officer, Saunders with the students carrying out a similar kind of militant action against the Defence minister, the film justify it as a legitimate form of the struggle since the socio-political climate remains more or less the same even today.
The film explores widespread malaise that has set in society and delivers its moral indictment against the value system that makes the youth withdraw into utter irrelevancy, passivity and social conformism. It seeks to break them away from their disengagement in taking up a social role and making a unique contribution towards society. As notion of contributing to the society cannot flows without conviction and commitment and that requires a vision, it rediscovers the relevance of revolutionaries, who lived and died to make India free. As DJ says," remain a mute witness or take up the responsibility to change the order of things". What it meant here to be responsible and constructive? Karan supplies the answers, "We will join the police, army or become IAS…the political system to change the existing affairs of the society" This does not mean rocking the boat. Therefore, the prescription is making the system better by infusing new blood. Change within the realm of individual consciousness in order to transform the objective reality. Is active engagement in society's affair means perpetuating the status-quo? The students are fighting a repressive apparatus at the same time giving sermons that ultimately sanctify it. However, one must note that the film does manage successfully to weaken and expose certain aspects of the dehumanizing and repressive character of the system. It teaches us resistance to tyranny. The final confrontation, when the socially awakened youth met a cruel end at the hands of Indian state, marks a departure from the conventional ending as prevalent in mainstream Hindi cinema. The film also attempts to interrogate the nature of both revolutionary violence and State violence. The State, which has a monopoly over the use of violence, does so in the name of national interest to camouflage their vested interests. In contrast, revolutionaries employ violence as a means to transform society. The students had to die for daring to dream and daring to fight. The killing of unarmed students, who actually wanted to surrender, evokes a sense of outrage and all round condemnation among the students, marking a birth of new radicalism. Their death does not go in vain, as it is the youth who delivers the final verdict demanding the end of the regime based on injustice.
Today when our land, water, and forests are under threat by the profit driven, rapacious TNCs, the new avatar of East India Company it is time to remember Bhagat Singh. In this context, Rang De Basanti plays an important ideological role in fuelling a renewed interest in his legacy, particularly among the youth. Though the film presents a populist image of the revolutionaries without locating them in their ideological mooring, it exposes the inhumanity of the existing order and its political message therefore should not get lost.