'Sholay'
(Embers) is considered to be a landmark Indian film. While the film industry
pundits appreciate the fact that it ran for a record number of days, over the years, its rerun on
every platform is hitting maximum viewership; I have also known a few serious
commentators who hail the film as one that, hold your holy
breath, pre-empt the 'Emergency' days of Mrs. Indira Gandhi or was a precursor
to it. While it is understandable that people laud the film for it's box office collections, for it's entertainment value, for it's cinematic language; or for it's super hit songs; what is
it within the body of the film that suggests that it pre-empts the 'Emergency' days?
To
narrow down the essence of the 'Emergency' days, those two years in the mid
Nineteen seventies meant the subversion and misuse of the state machinery; and the
country's constitution for the sole purpose of self survival of one particular
individual who it seemed wanted to continue to rule over the then 62 odd crores
of her fellow country men and women at any costs. Apart from the fact the 'Sholay'
was released about two months after the declaration of the state of 'Emergency',
what connection would possibly the two events be having?
Well,
it is alleged that the climax of the film was forced to be changed because of
the stringent censorship norms that was imposed during the Emergency days. The
original climax had the ex-cop kill the villainous bandit with his own hands,
oops sorry with his own legs (as he had his hands chopped off in the film) and
that the censor officials or the Information and Broadcasting Ministry did not
want an ex-cop in a pot boiler film indulge in any form of violent vigilantism.
This is what I remember reading
somewhere. But that, if it were true, is actually a frivolous
argument to argue that it pre-empts emergency.
The
Hindi Film industry is ridden with examples of characters who are vigilante
ex-government servants. Just to quote an example, the 1971 film 'Mera Gaon Mera
Desh' (My village my country) had a retired military officer who hires a ordinary
convict to neutralize a dacoit troubling his village. That 'Sholay' was
inspired by this film, so much so that even some of the 'shot taking' were
similar, is a different matter. Besides, not killing the dacoit would not make the ex-policeman in 'Sholay' any less of a vigilante.
Even if the
change in climax in 'Sholay' is attributed to the misuse of the censorship laws
of the land during its time, the magnitude of it dwarfs when compared to
the blatant suppression of films like 'Kissa Kursi Ka' (Story of the Chair) - a
film lampooning Mrs. Gandhi herself during that period. Apparently, the negatives
of the said film were destroyed, unlawfully under the supervision of the then
Information and Broadcasting Minister himself. The film had to wait for three
years and a much publicized legal battle before it saw the light of the day in
1979, much after the internal emergency was lifted in 1977.
 |
| A still from 'Sholay' |
Does
'Sholay' deal with the issue of subversion and misuse of the state machinery
and the county's Constitution that were the hallmark of the emergency period, by the ruling elite? If it were, probably the film would
not have even been made during those troubled times. 'Sholay'
is a plain and simple family revenge film. While he is still in active service, bulk of the family of the cop get killed and his hands chopped off by a dreaded dacoit. After his retirement from the police force, he hires two good natured
convicts to get even with the dacoit.
While doing so, it could be very well said
that the ex-cop is operating beyond the limits that the state machinery, that he was part of once, would have imposed
on him. He is surely not subverting the state
machinery, in the manner that was done during the 'Emergency' days. After the near elimination
of his family, the ex-cop simply does not have any faith left in the state
machinery. He therefore uses criminals to work for him. Government servants subverting the state machinery seems to be more
popular characters in relative recent times, in films like 'Andha Khanoon', 'Sarkar',
'Dabang', 'Raid' etc.
The
other myth that needs to busted about 'Sholay' is that it is often said that it
has a brilliant script. No doubt the screenplay keeps you on the edge of the seat and it makes you identify with the
characters. But the
film also normalizes eve teasing and female groping. In a scene an macho alpha male
character is teaching an unsuspecting ever talkative female to use a gun. Under
the pretext of teaching the craft, he gropes the oblivious lady, taking pervert
pleasure in it. The writers treat the sequence as a 'comic interlude'; and
worst, after a few scenes the female actually falls for this eve teasing tormenter. The shrew is now tamed.
An entire generation of youngsters loved this scene and found
it cool. Normalizing of such regressive acts was complete. We laughed
and whistled our way as we watched. The irony is that
one of the co-writers of the film is presently considered to be a poster boy of the liberal progressive worldview. He was also a Member
of Parliament who had played a key role in bringing about a reformative copyright
act, that gave much needed due to lyricists and music directors. As they say,
integrity occurs when the spurious past is acknowledged. Curiously,
that aspect seems to be missing here.
The
ex-policeman's widowed daughter-in-law in 'Sholay' wears a white sari and has a bland life. An
apparent melodious sad music flows onto us, every time she
comes on the screen. She is a very dutiful female, loyal to her almost
nonexistent family. She might be having a soft corner for one of the convicts
that her father-in-law has inducted, but she can't even afford to
have a gaze at the man without being censured by her father in law.
She has to switch off the lantern lights at twilight and symbolically be in the
dark. The singularity of her lonely fate is fixed, the man she probably likes
has to be scripted and killed. Her identity is firmly and regressively attached
to that of her patriarchal father-in-law.
'Sholay'
glorifies violent revenge as a form of personal redemption. For it, institutional
redressal is not at all an option, but individual valor and physical
strength is. The film endorses the masculine toxicity that everyone seems to be
recognizing in mainstream films these days. In the Japanese film 'Seven
Samurai', the mercenaries brought in to guard the village are super heroes for
sure, but they train hard and use the services of the village folk. Unlike in
'Sholay', the redressal is collectivized. We are talking of Indian mainstream
films; without patriarchal values they never get made.
'Sholay' did serve a social purpose. So what if your neighbor was jailed and beaten up for
protesting against the 'Emergency' in his college? So what if a few of our fundamental
rights were suspended during that period? So what if there was rampant fear
mongering around, all over the place? People could still go into the dark hall where
films like 'Sholay' were beamed. They could project themselves onto the loveable screen
characters - the super heroes and heroines - being completely unmindful of the
world outside, at least for a few hours.
Far
from reflecting the times that people lived in during its release,
'Sholay' - as is the case with another film released on the same date called 'Jai
Santoshi Ma' (Hail Goddess Santoshi) that dealt with a fictitious goddess that
people really began to pray for real later - provided an escapist opening for
the people oppressed by the atrocities that they suffered on the aftermath of
the declaration of the 'Emergency'. Well then, what did the 'Emergency' achieve?
The trains ran on time, family planning scheme was in full swing, we got our
own indigenous 'peoples' car and of course more importantly, 'Sholay' became a
super hit movie and lo, we got our 'national' film!!!
