Rang De Basanti: New Commode, Same Shit

SAMIDHA SATAPATHY

17 February 2006
MUMBAI, INDIA

Co-writer of the Rang De Basanti script Rensil D'Silva had this to say to rediff.com, (which incidentally was full of praise for the movie): "If you have to contemporarise patriotism, you have to do it with an issue that is relevant like the MiG issue. The characters in the movie, like the audience, are cynical about such issues and therefore relate to the movie."

As we read the rest of the article, it becomes clear that the 'relevant story' is not really important. It can be any story. Pick one from a cauldron of 'issues' – communalism, the rape of 'our' women, corruption, terrorism, etc. etc. Keep it general enough so that nobody is really disturbed. Imagine a movie with a real social message that actually ruffles no feathers, upsets no political applecarts -- and in fact, earns commendation from an ex-PM known for soft peddling Hindutva.

At least one section of the population has regularly seen the Hindi film with a disapproving eye: the middle classes. For them, at best it is an 'entertainer;' harmless, but otherwise pointless. At worst, it stands as the bastion of immorality, the harbinger of Western modernity and the 'fast' outlook on life that is ruining 'Indian culture' with its sensationalism and dancing girls.

Rang De Basanti has suddenly won much acclaim from those very sections, the legitimate guardians of 'our' morality, culture, heritage, etc. etc. It is, after all, a film that makes 'our' youth want to become 'better' citizens. It doesn't matter what the issue, as long as the youth are awakened and aware, the film has done its work.

The Aamir Khan-led group become the 'good' terrorists, the youth who are begging to be disciplined, regulated, monitored, and told how to be 'good' citizens. The movie tells us to join the government (the IAS), the police, and other state institutions, while it is battling the very same institutions. Would it be too irrational to say that the appeal of the film lies not in its pro-status quo message (since when did joining the police become a radical act?), but the actual action that draws on the narrative of how terrorist attacks are carried out.

The film draws on, what is in reality, a highly dangerous and criminalized fight for justice that is nowhere fully approved, least of all by the State, which hunts them down as criminals, denying them any right to exist, whether they are Naxals or sex workers. The 'heroes' in the film need a cause to become revolutionaries, not the other way around. And these very 'heroes' never fail to praise every State institution they can find. The 'problem' is actually 'corruption,' located in a few individuals.

Is the 'problem' really solved by shooting a few politicians? Is this simplistic narrative of a fight for justice not a narrative that wants to erase what in reality are often difficult contradictions for the individuals involved? The film wants us to face the 'horror' of British oppression, the 'horror' of police brutality. Apparently these things happen because some politicians are greedy, because sometimes the government is negligent. Things like that. That's all there is to it.

The film almost seems to say, just be brave enough to watch these horrific things I'm going to show you, don't miss the coca-cola ads, notice how eloquently Aamir Khan fights against completely 'wrong' people, and that's all there is to politics, justice, and saving the 'nation.' So what is the film really telling this 'youth' it has constructed?