Is Bollywood Fida On PM Narendra Modi? It's Dangal Break In B-Town!

Fifty-six years바카라�that바카라�s the gap ­between Lata Mangeshkar바카라�s two songs. Over half a century in which the country and the world have changed irrevocably, at even subtle cultural levels. Now, 바카라�nationalism바카라� does not evoke just a simple love­바카라�indeed, it often ­entails hate for the 바카라�other바카라� even within India. Lata, who has sung Naushad바카라�s delectable version of the Krishna leela-based thumri Mohe panghat par for Mughal-e-Azam and also backed the Shiv Sena in recent years, has the dichotomy running through her, more or less. 

Sometimes, the culture industry seems to exist just to voice the ideas of the ruling ideology. In Lata바카라�s case, it바카라�s also personally driven. She has long been an admirer of Modi. Back in November 2013, Lata had openly said she would like to see Modi as PM. That went by without being noticed much바카라�it probably wouldn바카라�t in these days of hyperactive social media바카라�but it was perhaps the first mark of a deeper syndrome. Of the whole Hindi film industry being vertically divided on politics. Along a binary that바카라�s unc­haracteristic of an industry which has always been markedly apolitical (and secular), at least on the surface, through much of its 106-year-old history.

바카라�Apolitical바카라�, of course, is relative. Much has been written about its coded nationalism during the freedom ­struggle and after, when it went on to ­become the primary 바카라�soft power바카라� voice of India. But today, it바카라�s different바카라�knives are out between warring camps. For decades, film personalities avoided mixing political affiliations with work and rarely joined issue with co-workers over politics. Now, it바카라�s not uncommon to find actors and film-makers trading no-holds-barred barbs and even insults.

The issue is simple. Not everybody is enamoured of Modi in B-town: his ­polarising effect has touched even the largely risk-averse film world. Five days after Lata uploaded her song, a phalanx of film personalities, mostly those with a theatre background바카라�veterans like Amol Palekar, Naseeruddin Shah and Girish Karnad to young turks like Anurag Kashyap and Konkona Sen Sharma바카라�issued a call to voters to oust the Modi government. In an appeal uploaded on artistuniteindia.com in 12 languages on April 4, they openly sought a vote against 바카라�bigotry, hatred and apathy바카라� and for 바카라�the freedom to dream바카라�. It was an unusually hard-hitting statement coming from Bollywood, speaking of 바카라�Hindutva goons바카라�, the des­truction of 바카라�the livelihoods of millions바카라�, and 바카라�rogues바카라� looting the country and scooting, the rich growing 바카라�astronomically바카라� richer, all that.

The comeback didn바카라�t take long. Actor Anupam Kher was among the first to hit back, taking a sarcastic swing against 바카라�people from my fraternity바카라� who are 바카라�officially campaigning바카라� for the Opposition. 바카라�At least there are no pretensions here. Great,바카라� he tweeted, only to encounter a Swara Bhasker repartee: 바카라�Yes, it바카라�s called dem­ocracy, sir.바카라� The back-and-forth saw actress Soni Razdan (incidentally, the wife of film-maker Mahesh Bhatt, who had given Kher his big break in Saaransh) coming in against Modi, as also Richa Chadha of Masaan fame, tweeting against 바카라�the destruction of the nation바카라�s social, moral fabric바카라�.

The split has never been so open, and unbridgeable. Film-maker Anubhav Sinha, who feels 바카라�the film industry is behaving exactly like the rest of the country,바카라� isn바카라�t surprised. The maker of Mulk (2018), a film about a young Hindu girl바카라�s legal fight to restore the honour of her Muslim in-laws which had raised the hackles of right-wing activists, tells Outlook: 바카라�I had seen it coming five years ago, though it was not so vicious then.바카라� His allusion was to a signature campaign launched by about 60 film personalities, from the likes of Mahesh Bhatt, Imtiaz Ali, Vishal Bhardwaj, Nandita Das, Govind Nihalani, Saeed Mirza, Zoya Akhtar, Nandita Das and Aditi Rao Hydari, in favour of 바카라�a secular party바카라�.

Those days, only a few movie celebs stood clearly in favour of Modi: Madhur Bhandarkar, Vivek Oberoi, Tusshar Kapoor, for example. The film industry was largely steeped in its old Nehruvian ethos. But over the past five years, the number of Modi supporters has swelled by leaps and bounds. Over 900 of them, from film and allied fields, including Vivek Oberoi, Koena Mitra, Pallavi Joshi, Shankar Mahadevan and Anuradha Paudwal, released a joint statement recently, asking people to vote for a 바카라�majboot sarkar바카라�. This was a riposte to the other camp바카라�s statement. Pro-right film-maker Vivek Agnihotri tells Outlook: 바카라�I would have appreciated it had they issued a direct appeal to vote for a particular party, not against the Modi government. More than half the petitioners are cardholders of Communist parties바카라�it only underlines their hypocrisy.바카라�

Agnihotri rues an entrenched ­culture where he feels right-wingers get ostracised even today. 바카라�There was a time when nobody abused Sunil Dutt just because he was a Congressman. But now, people like Anupam Kher and I find ourselves isolated within the industry because of our unam­biguous political stand. My recent movie (The Tashkent Files) was ­completely ignored. The irony of it is that some of its stars declined to talk about it. Anupam has also shifted to Hollywood in the face of a dearth of offers here.바카라�

Whatever one feels about Agnihotri바카라�s politics, his lament points to a kind of rupture Bollywood was never known for in the past. Balraj Sahni, Kaifi Azmi, Shabana Azmi, A.K. Hangal and many others, associated with the Indian People바카라�s Theatre Association, a cultural wing of the CPI, were as central to the ­industry as Sunil Dutt and Nargis, die-hard supporters of Indira Gandhi바카라�the times were equally fraught, there was Partition, there was Indira Gandhi바카라�s draconian Emergency, but no one was persona non grata. Yes, the divide was always there, sometimes hitting critical points. Gulzar바카라�s Aandhi, widely bel­ieved to be based on Indira바카라�s life, was banned, while the negatives of Amrit Nahata바카라�s Kissa Kursi Ka were allegedly burnt. Even more extreme, AIR imp­osed a ban on Kishore Kumar바카라�s songs simply because of his refusal to sing at a pro-government concert organised by Sanjay Gandhi. And Nargis, as a Congress Rajya Sabha member, once criticised Satyajit Ray for showcasing 바카라�India바카라�s poverty바카라�. But overall, bonhomie ruled. No art­iste ever refused to be part of the numerous charity programmes organised by Dutt and Nargis.

It was not as if politics did not run through the industry, even in its creative genius. Or even overtly. When Dev Anand launched a political outfit called the National Party to contest elections against Indira Gandhi바카라�s policies, he had the support of many industry people. It was quickly dissolved after the Janata Party came to power, but no Congress supporter held a grudge against the ­evergreen star after their party bounced back to power. Similar was the case of Amitabh Bachchan, who has spanned the whole political gamut바카라�from being a Rajiv Gandhi campwallah (as a childhood friend) and the Allahabad MP for the Cong­ress to proximity with the Samajwadi Party and, now, being the voice for the Modi government바카라�s ad campaigns. He faced no discrimination either.

One notable blip came in the early 1990s when Rajesh Khanna and Shatrughan Sinha fought against each other in a parliamentary byelection to the New Delhi seat. Rajesh went on to win the bypoll, but nursed a grievance against Shatrughan all his life. Shatrughan, who later called the ­contest his biggest political mistake, apologised to Khanna, but it failed to mend their ties. Nevertheless, neither brought their differences to the public domain. As a BJP candidate from Patna Sahib in 2009, Shatrughan faced a similar ­situation when the Congress fielded fellow actor Shekhar Suman against him. Shatrughan won the polls easily, but the relationship between the two stars from Bihar remained sour for a few years till they decided to let bygones be bygones.

The spirit of bonhomie trumping ­differences has gone, says film writer Vinod Anupam. 바카라�There was a time the trio of Raj Kapoor-Dilip Kumar-Dev Anand used to happily go together to meet Nehru. Today바카라�s top stars are hardly seen with each other,바카라� he says. Financial insecurity is part of it, he feels, as is a new factor like the BJP. 바카라�Also, a whole new crop of educated people have joined films, and they have all come with their fixed ­beliefs and ideologies,바카라� he says. 바카라�They think they can propagate their ideologies through their films. In Anurag Kashyap바카라�s Mukkabaaz (2018), for example, a character says, 바카라�Aay­enge Bharatmata ki jai bolte hue aur attack kar ke chale jayenge바카라� (They will come chanting the name of Mother India, attack us and leave). Such trends are not healthy바카라�a movie cannot be made for limited audiences.바카라�

The discomfort is not unnatural. Hindi films, the most mainstream cultural expression of India, have been famously non-political in a cur­ious way through the most political of times. India has seen world-historical events like the Partition바카라�as full of human drama and pain as you want바카라�that have rarely, if ever, been portrayed in cinema. There was a stray Garm Hava, and a few others of that ilk. (Unless one looked to the Partition-infused ethos in Ritwik Ghatak바카라�s Bangla films.) What one had, instead, was a kind of broad-brush nationalism, neatly coded in the pre-Independence years, and getting suffused with the spirit of social realism in the early decades thereafter, before getting narrowed down to more personal stories even in war films. An investigation of war, as in Chetan Anand바카라�s Haqeeqat, was rare. A truly introspective approach was not quite its hallmark. Overall, the characterisation of Hindi films as not overtly political (subliminal messaging and readings apart) holds.

But is it happening more often these days? Decidedly so. Villains in the 바카라�90s, like Amrish Puri in the 1992 kitsch classic Tahalka, still ruled fictititous Himalayan kingdoms. The 바카라�nationalism바카라� trope started getting fleshed out and more directly expressed in the last two decades. The war film Border (1997) was an inflection point, so was Mission Kashmir (2000). As was the Anil Kapoor film Pukar (again 2000), ostensibly about on the army and terrorism in Kashmir, where a critic wrote that, strangely, for a film on Kashmir, there was not a single Kashmiri represented. The film won a national award, though. In between, there was also Aamir Khan바카라�s Sarfar­osh (1999), where the popular idea of a Muslim ghazal singer (with connections to Pakistan) being of dubious political leanings is fully fleshed out in Naseeruddin Shah바카라�s villain. Pakistan, terrorism바카라�the line traced itself to the Indian Muslim seamlessly. So if one were to ask, 바카라�Is cinema being used to propagate a particular ideology?바카라�바카라�the question answers itself.

The mask is now truly off: there are no more sly metaphors or allusions. Films are being produced, and consumed, in a flat and open political space. A well-mounted movie based on the 2016 surgical strikes on Pakistan, Uri, turned out to be this year바카라�s biggest grosser so far. Its makers were accused of airbrushing the image of Prime Minister Modi and his National Security Advisor Ajit Doval. One of the staunchest supporters of the Modi regime, Anupam Kher, played Manmohan Singh in Accidental Prime Minister (2018), which was based on an unflattering biography of the former prime minister of the Congress. In an upcoming biopic of Modi, Vivek Oberoi plays the eponymous role. It was all set to ­release this month, but the Election Commission declined to give it the ­go-ahead because of the model code of conduct. A biopic on Rahul Gandhi, My Name is RaGa, made by Rupesh Paul, also met a similar fate바카라�as Prem Chopra may have said, 바카라�muft mein maara gaya바카라�.

All these movies are, of course, a ­natural corollary to a kind of clear ­divide the film industry app­ears to have experienced since Modi became prime minister. Several stars such as Akshay Kumar, Ajay Devgn and Kangana Ranaut have come out in open support of Modi. While Akshay took Modi바카라�s much-talked-about 바카라�apolitical바카라� interview the other day, Devgn had campaigned extensively for the BJP in the 2014 elections. Last year, Kangana Ranaut asserted that Modi deserved to come back to power again in 2019 since 바카라�he is the rightful leader of the democracy바카라�. 바카라�He is not in this position because of his parents, he has worked hard to be here.... There should not be any doubt about his credibility as a prime minister,바카라� she said.

Earlier this year, a phalanx of A-list Bollywood stars led by film-maker Karan Johar, including Ranbir Kapoor, Ranveer Singh, Varun Dhawan, Alia Bhatt et al called on Modi in Delhi and famously posted a group selfie with him. On the other side of the fence, artistes like Naseeruddin Shah, Amol Palekar, Nandita Das, Shabana Azmi, Richa Chadha, Swara Bhasker, Aditi Rao Hydari and many others have been highly critical of Modi. In fact, many decisions of the Modi ­government, inc­luding the appointment of actor Gajendra Chauhan or Anupam Kher as the head of Pune바카라�s Film and Television Institute of India (FTII) or Pahlaj Nihalani as the censor board chief came in for scathing criticism from the anti-Modi camp.

And after Akshay Kumar바카라�s Modi ­int­erview, southern star Siddharth (known among Bollywood fans mostly for Rang De Basanti) took a dig at him, saying the Kesari star was 바카라�very underrated as a villain바카라�. The Tamil actor, who is known for his strong views on social and political issues, had earlier let go a sarcastic quip, saying how the trailer of Modi바카라�s biopic had missed out on how Modi had won India its independence by 바카라�singlehandedly wiping out the British Empire바카라�.

All through these battles, in a polarising Bollywood, however, many top actors and actresses have chosen to keep mum. In stark contrast to Hollywood, where big stars have had no qualms in targeting US president Donald Trump since his election victory in 2016. Director Anubhav Sinha says the big stars are the most vulnerable­바카라�they simply cannot afford to speak up against the powers-­that-be because of their high stakes. 바카라�And if at all someone speaks up on any sensitive issue, they will make his life hell,바카라� he points out. 바카라�The problem is that you cannot afford to remain silent today. You have to speak up in favour of somebody, ­otherwise you will be viewed with suspicion as an opponent.바카라�

True enough. When Naseeruddin Shah and Aamir Khan expressed concern over rising incidents of ­intolerance and mob lynchings across the country some time ago, they were trolled viciously. Naseer had alleged that the life of a cow had become much important than that of a police officer in the country. The maximum venom was reserved, though, for Aamir, who was quoted as saying that his wife Kiran Rao was talking about leaving the country in view of the prevailing situation. His generally risk-averse nat­ure, and ­profuse apologies thereafter, have not dented the image of someone 바카라�who spoke out바카라�.

Observers on the other side, though, impute a clear political motive behind film artistes launching campaigns against the Modi government. Actor-turned-politician Vani Tripathi says that, as of now, only a handful of 바카라�theatre artistes바카라� are against Modi, while ­almost all the big stars are his ardent supporters. 바카라�I wonder why anti-Modi groups launch campaigns only once
in five years when the elections are around the corner? What initiative do they take otherwise to get the real ­issues faced perennially by the industry addressed in the rest of their time?바카라�

Tripathi says the vertical division in the industry is a product of rigid ideologies. 바카라�The older generations in the film industry were either pro-Congress or pro-Left, and there was no space left for the right-wing intellectuals in the artistic fields such as cinema and literature over the years,바카라� she says. 바카라�Therefore, when people with different ideologies rose to assert themselves and challenged the status quo in the past few years, the division was bound to happen.바카라� Space for thought, one might add, is always there, whatever be its flavour. It바카라�s the calibre that makes it persuasive. But what바카라�s most striking now is a kind of split that바카라�s never been seen before, one that makes cohabitation and collaboration difficult. Bollywood, finally, is a place made by collective energies.