The Secular Nation Crumbles

How Right-Wing Politics Is Ruining The World’s Largest Democracy

“If there is harmony in the home, there will be order in the nation. When there is order in the nation, there will be peace in the world,” an ancient, yet apt Chinese proverbs hypothesizes. However, taking a look at their neighbor to the south, this aphorism doesn’t seem to be put into practice. India, the world’s largest democracy in terms of sheer population, is facing, by far, one of its toughest times of turmoil and a period of mass chaos people have seen coming from a mile away. On Dec. 11, 2019, the upper house of India’s Parliament passed the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) which grants persecuted minorities (i.e. refugees, illegal immigrants, etc) an easier path to naturalization. This bill, which the Parliament says will “improve” upon the 1995 act, will provide a simpler process to citizenship for all persecuted minorities besides Muslims, a fact that has been greatly emphasized and celebrated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Minister of Home Affairs Amit Shah, as well as by right-wing Hindu nationalists across the country and around the world. Unsurprisingly, both Modi and Shah belong to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the world’s largest political party in terms of membership, which has its founding roots in toxic, nationalist Hinduism, and to this day, holds those same views. The BJP is currently the majority ruling party in Parliament, therefore having the government be run by individuals who are only putting the interests of those belonging to the Hindu community at the forefront and essentially undermining all other groups, with a forceful and marked mistreatment of Muslims, irrespective of their citizenship status. This is an extreme and damaging diversion from India’s constitution which solidifies the country as a secular nation.

The Muslim community is the largest minority group in the country. However, as outlined in the 2006 Sachar Committee Report, which was presented to the lower house of India’s Parliament, the Muslim community has not been provided with the same affordances and treatment in various states throughout the country as have other communities such as educational opportunities, economic stability and essential resources that should be a given right to every citizen. The report suggested methods and solutions for “inclusive development” of the Muslim community in India. In 2013, the report was pushed to the Supreme Court and deemed unconstitutional as it only focused on the furtherance and aid of the Muslim community and “simply ignored other minority religious groups”. The report became dormant and no progress was made.

The BJP who’s driving force, as stated on their website, “is a national approach to all issues rising above caste and religion”. However, just the party’s use of “Jai” (a Hindu word for hail or praise), immediately denounces that principal. The party also claims that it follows the principle of “value-based politics” with a “commitment to nationalism and national integration”.

Violent protests have occurred around the country since the moment the act was passed, primarily in Delhi, the country’s capital. Campuses and landmarks have been destroyed by protestors and the military who have reverted to volatile abuse towards peaceful protestors. Individuals of all faiths have poured out to speak against the bill. Following the announcement of the act, Jamia Millia Islamia and the Jawaharlal Nehru University, two historic universities in Delhi, had been raided and destroyed by right-wing activists.

However, there has been a significant and notable silence from within the Hindi film industry, a group of people who arguably hold the most influence not only around the nation, but across the world. The Hindi film industry, (read: Bollywood), has over the years, been known to have strong ties to not only the underworld of Mumbai, the metropolitan city from which the industry operates, but also to the BJP and right-wing Hindu nationalists. An interesting aspect that must be taken into consideration is that before a film can be released in theaters around the country, it must be certified by the Central Board of Film Certification, a governmental department of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Considering the fact that the government of India is currently being helmed by the BJP, it is interesting to see the way in which content in films have changed since the party took over. When deeply analyzed, it is apparent that films have, over the years, pushed the good Muslim Indian out of the picture and have primarily focused on the Muslim without have any nationality and have positioned them as an invader rather than some who is in support of the nation’s furtherance. Muslims in films have been resorted to secondary characters and are very rarely seen as the protagonist even though the religion makes up India’s second largest community. It is important to examine the shift of how Muslims have been portrayed in Hindi cinema during its inception and throughout its early years until the rise of the Shiv Sena, a Mumbai-based political party, and the BJP.

The BJP and Shiv Sena gave rise to a problematic phase in India’s history. The onslaught of the Hindutva movement, which promoted Hinduism throughout the country and its main motive to unify the nation under one overarching religion, caused extreme riots and countless deaths. The movement seeped into Hindi films as well, with prominence in the 90s where films were only adhering to the Hindu narrative with glaringly obvious symbols within a closed nuclear family that represented a closing of its borders to anyone who did not comply with their rituals. Films like Hum Aapke Hain Koun…! (1994) and Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham (2001), both massive successes at the time of their respective releases, evidently played into the Hindutva narrative where the families (devoutly Hindu) in the film would place a certain invisible distance between themselves and the Muslim characters who would constantly be showcased in stereotypical costumes that pronounced their “Muslimness” to the audience.

Previously, Hindi films of the 50s and 60s showcased India’s deep and rich history and the country’s indisputable relationship with Islam. Whether it be presenting the lives and stories of the Mughal Dynasty which brought along the most rewarding and fruitful period of Indian history through films such as Chaudhvin Ka Chand (1960), Anarkali (1953), Taj Mahal (1963), and Mughal-E-Azam (1960). These films posited Muslim characters at its forefront, celebrating their grandeur, grace, and accomplishments for the country They merged their Indian identity with that of their Muslim identity without making a statement about their religious preferences. Unlike films now, if the characters within the film are Muslim, then the character is mostly seen as the antagonist and an emphasis is put on the character’s “Muslimness”. This change has slowly been gaining steam in the industry starting in the 80’s, catapulting in the 90’s, and exponentially increasing in the last few years.

This main rationale for writing this article is due to the recent onslaught of historical films that have been produced by the Hindi film industry. It is essential to analyze films such as Padmaavat (2018), Panipat (2019), and the recently released Tahaji: The Unsung Warrior (2020). These films have very clearly and transparently been created with a Hindutva mindset and a staunch Islamaphobic agenda. These three films and, rest assured, many films in the near future, are being written specifically to further add fire to the consistent tensions between Hindus and Muslims, when in fact, the writers could have picked any event from the period or reign’s well-known history. The protagonist in each of these films is a devout Hindu, with clear marks of religious symbology apparent in their garb and mannerisms, while the antagonist is Muslim with stereotypical features (mainly long black clothes, a long beard, a covered head). These two distinctions are fine...stereotypical, but fine. The issue arises when the antagonists are shown to be vile, filthy, angry, monstrous people, swaying on the cusp of even being referred to as human. For example, Alauddin Khilji in Padmaavat (played by Ranveer Singh) is shown to be overtly villainous and barbaric (he eats raw meat like a wild animal, abuses his wife physically and sexually on multiple occasions) rather than being shown as the strategic leader that he was. This trope, for which Singh was heavily applauded for, has now become a motif for all historical films that have a Muslim antagonist and is clearly carried over in both Panipat and Tanhaji. When presenting the Muslim character within these films, the camera angles are lowered, the color palettes are darker and more ominous, and their mannerisms are vicious. On the other hand, when the Hindu characters are seen, their palaces and surrounding environments are cheerful, the camera angles at eye level, the color palettes bright and hopeful, and their mannerisms regal. This dichotomy presents the fact that the sole reason between these wars and the fight for territorial reign was simply based on religion on not on the advancement of each dynasty. This added and intensified emphasis on religious discord is distorting the true history behind these stories and can leave a detrimental impression on those who might not have the ambition to seek out what actually occurred.

There is no issue with presenting these historical events on film. The problem is that filmmakers and producers must understand the time in which they are making these sort of films with these types of characters. The political climate not only in India, but around the world, does not make it an apt time for characters like these to infiltrate our daily viewing and pop culture. These films are heavily Islamophobic and while there is no need to make these at all, producing these films with a veiled right-wing agenda is not appropriate.

If not presented in a period film, the Muslim ceases to exist in the environment of a Hindi film and if they do, they are very rarely represented as any regular Indian. As mentioned above, they are depicted with religious distinctions to make sure that the audience knows they are Muslim (see: Gully Boy, 2019).

Now, the question remains, why is the film industry being plummeted with criticism for adhering to the BJP’s vision of nationalism and not speaking out against the CAA act. Why are the same expectations not being held against the sports industry? Films are more impactful than you might imagine. Even though you may think that a film cannot affect you or alter your thought processes, a powerful and celebrated film will always leave something in you without even you realizing it. The remembrance of it will invoke a certain feeling or memory. The film industry, having the status and overbearing presence that it has not just in India, but worldwide, has the impetus and the capability of bringing about societal change, which in turn, will transition into political change.

While only a handful of Hindi film celebrities have spoken about the issue, the ones that have the most leverage and influence have decided to keep silent. Recently, Deepika Padukone was the first “A-list” (for lack of a better word) celebrity to be present during the protests against the act while promoting an upcoming film in Delhi. It is understandable as to why some celebrities have decided not to speak on the topic for fear of losing brand deals, criticism on social media, etc.

However, it must also be understood that the onus is not only on the Hindi film industry to speak up against this unrightful discrimination against Muslims. It is on every Indian citizen, every Indian in each diasporic community, and every human, irrespective of the faith they practice, to stand alongside Muslims around the world in solidarity and peace. There is no need to “other” certain communities that differ from the majority. A lack of brotherhood among those belonging to differing communities will time and time again invoke violence and unrest.