CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

So, why films for this research? Films have shaped the society in a way that we do not realise immediately. How does one tell the past? How is that vanished world of events and people rendered in the present? How can we (try to) understand the human generations who came before us? In an attempt to answer such questions, this research has utilised both film theory and historical theory.

History in film is not that of the past but ‘history’ as that which signifies the changes in the present. As a student of history, the presence of history in cinema is understood as being of importance. But it is not the historical accuracy which is sought, but the change of the contemporary society which is seen from each film of the different periods (made on the same era). What happened and why is less important, than the meaning created by the story on screen. Cinema as we know it is the mode of representation of the contemporary society. Every film represents the ideologies of the period it was made in rather than the period it is made on. The data for the past counts less; the themes embodied in the characters, stories, and genres as well as cinematography, production design, editing, colour, music, and acting count for more.

In the same way that the historian is subjective, when he comprehends his sources to bring out a ‘history’, so is the film-maker, who cannot remain aloof from his personal biases, his ideologies and the consciousness that surrounds a particular event/person. In a history, the book (written by the historian) is simply a means, where it is left to the audience to imagine the scenario, based on the description, provided. However, the film does not leave that scope, instead it is the film makers’ imagination/version of the particular era/person/event which is shown and the audience receives that. The scope for imagination lessens yet still the perception of the audience (of each individual) changes from region/religion/personal experiences - all these too, comprise ‘history’.

147 The point is, film and history does not merely comprise of how history is dealt in films (accurate or distorted; nor does it imply only on whether it can be seen as a source of the past. History refers to the contemporaineity of the society within the given times and space, and also the presentation and perception of the subject by the film maker and the audience.

Visualising History through Film

Film Representations or reconstructions are complex and involve many fields of study. Naturally, the complex first thing, we need to know in order to make a representation is exactly what we are trying to represent. A historic representation, in other words, requires through investigation of the conditions of that time. But how can we be sure about what happened in the past?

“Already a fictitious past occupies in our memories the place of another, a past of which we know nothing with certainty—not even that is false.”

- Jorge Luis Borges, Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius."^

According to heritage theorist, David Lowenthal, historical knowledge can be derived from three sources: memory, history and relics."^

Some of what we know we remember fi"om our experiences or those that people have shared of their memories. Other parts belong to the collective written history; and then there are old artefacts and buildings which remain as witnesses to the past. These three sources of knowledge fill in for each other and listening to what all have to say, we get close as possible of knowing the past.

However, this knowledge is limited. Of all the things that have happened, we only remember a selection of events. Most artefacts break or disappear with time, and descriptions of the past events- which we term as ‘sources’ (archival primary sources)

Jorge Luis Borges, Tlon, Uqbar, Orhis Tertius, Labyrinths: Selected Stories and Other Writings, 1962, p.16. David Lowenthal, The Past is a Foreign Country, Cambridge University Press, 1985, p. 187. 148 cannot bring them back, simply because they are descriptions and not the events themselves. Furthermore, story about an event will always be subjective, both for the story teller and the listener, and it will be coloured by the experiences we have at the time.

This goes for any type of representation, abstract or visual. Every time we make a new statement about an artefact or an event, we are making a new interpretation, and then something new is bom, different from the original happening. In this sense we always change the past. Therefore it is possible to conclude that the past really doesn’t exist, at least not in the way we think it does. What we know about the past is mostly based on interpretations; and cannot ultimately be proved. The past is a cultural construction. In the similar way, the films are also a new interpretation of the past and if we can accept sources why then can’t we accept films?

Some of the knowledge derived passes on from one generation to the next generation. It can be mediated through various expressions representing the knowledge or message, such as speech, writing and pictures. When making a representation we have the opportunity to tell a story the way we want it to be told, so how do we decide what parts to represent?

When history is the issue, there is not always enough information available about the object we want to reconstruct. How can we solve this problem? The balance between fact and fiction is a dilemma for the directors. The balance between fact and fiction is where films and popular combine with the history.

A traditional problem in the field of representation, in films is the question of authenticity. A copy should be as close to the original as possible. A representation is based on a selection and therefore it reduces the original setting. The models cannot include the whole original experience; the director/story writer must extract certain characteristics in order to make a representation. Does this imply that the ‘film’ is of less value than the original or the academic history? It is not a new thought that representations can give us experiences we would not have otherwise. Culture expressions like painting and theatres serve as the best examples. Hermeneutic aesthetics

149 is consistent in arguing that it is the subject matter which makes the work an art work. The image should not be thought of just the visualization of an object but should also make people understand larger connections - Identity or Historical identity, the identity with their popular consciousness. As was discussed earlier in the thesis, visual experiences leave more impact on the memory of the larger audience, than the books which reached only to a few.

‘History’ that is taken in films like those mentioned earlier, is that which is popular, not just in academic field but popularly accepted. It is wrong to put forth that history ignores certain eras or dynasties or regions, but it will be right to say, that though it is not avoided, there is an absence of recognition. Like stated earlier, that histories of particular eras are lesser than others, and hence we see more material available for it, in the form of books. It is because of this that even a film-maker would make a film on not only the history he knows most about, but which he can easily glorify and fictionalise for the audience to find meaning in and accept. There was not a lack of kings, love-sagas in the ancient or pre-Mughal period, but film makers are unwilling to experiment with them, not only due to lack of sources (in the form of books by academicians) but also as they will not gain a popular support from the masses. For the common Indian mind, Mughals have been reflected as ‘great lovers’ and it is this why Mughal stories and Rajput stories (for the availability of folktales valorising their bravery and love) are commonly accepted. This lack of sources (that has been mentioned) does not refer to the avoidance of history by historians but for a historian, history would not comprise about how a ruler became a ‘great’ ruler, and what were the forces behind it or how his relations with his concubines or queens. However, we carmot say that this is not history, it is history of a kind, a different type, more interpersonal in nature. Here, if we look at the commentary on the article of Dr. Anirudh Deshpande by Maansi Parpiani, Parpiani goes on to state:

“Positivist and structuralist ideas have dominated the practice of history by placing too much faith in concepts of absolute facts that are removed from context and upheld as unquestionable truths. Questioning of these ideas and

Robert Rosenstone, History on Film/Film on History. Pearson. New York, 2006. (2"'^ ed. 2012) pp. xi-24. 150 the incorporation of multiplicity and subjectivity in history are steps towards a reorientation and expansion of the idea of “doing history”."*

If we look at the female characters of the specific studied films, we have a lot to compare and study how women of the past (characters) are shaped by the contemporary ideas.

In the films selected for the study, two movies are based on the lives of legendary characters: (Amrapali) and Anarkali (Mughal-e-Azam). Their existence in history is unknown and uncertain, yet the Director has weaved a plot around them passing a social message. Both Amrapali and Anarkali, though of different times, have one thing in common- they are court dancers. Where, Amrapali is a patriot and prioritizes national love over personal love, on the other hand is Anarkali, whose love stands against national interest. Both the women are the most beautiful of their times, but where Amrapali holds a strong social status, Anarkali is a mere slave girl. Amrapali can make her own decisions unlike Anarkali, who has to surrender to the royal demands. Maybe, this has to do once again with the fact that like our Nationalist historians had enunciated, women in Ancient had more powers in society, unlike women of Medieval India.

Amrapali and Anarkali, as said earlier, are shown as having an aim, Amrapali the patriot, and Anark^i, the sacrificing lover. But then, with the coming of the colonial rule, these or tawa’ifs not only lessened, but began to be reduced to prostitutes. The prostitutes of Colonial times may have emerged or descended from these courtesans, who no longer had patronage.

Anarkali and Amrapali were not prostitutes. They were courtesans. They were dancers and they were respected for their art/talent and beauty. They were not meant only for satisfaction of desire. They belonged to the Ganika tradition. It is also easily detectable , to see the difference in the two. Apart from these two, there is a third woman,

Maansi Parpiani, “Scepticism Is the Only Fact of History”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 48, No. 24, June 15, 2013 (pp. 76-78) was a commentary on, “Remaking the Indian Historian’s Craft: the Past, Present and Future of History as an Academic Discipline” by Dr. Anirudh Deshpande, EPW, Vol. 48, No.7, 16 February, 2013, pp. 60-68. 151 Heera of Mangal Pandey. Now, we all know about the issue raised in the film portraying Mangal Pandey, having a love affair with a prostitute. She is very different from the previous two. She lacks their etiquette. Unlike them, her male counterpart is not a ‘king’ or prince. She is not only for performing, she is to be owned. She is to be sold in the market and holds (or is supposed to) no will of her own unlike Amrapali and Anarkali. However, she is shown as bold, being the protagonist, who gets involved and leads the fight for independence after her lover, Mangal is hanged. We should not forget that during the period of Mangal Pandey, the dance bar (and dance bar girls) issue in India was fresh, where girls who had been forcibly taken into this profession, strove for respect.

Under the Nationalist lens, each of the three characters portrays a nationalistic sentiment (unlike the other protagonists Jodha of Jodhaa Akbar and Kaurwaki of Asoka or even Khurshid of Shatranj ke Khiladi). This is, as said above, particularly true of the first two, more due to the period they were made in, but the last was specifically depicted a prostitute, who served the high ranking colonial officers, least bothered with the happening of the revolt, and who takes it up after she feels chained in the system and her lover (later husband) is killed. In other words the film maker tried to promote that the colonial rule was so harsh that even prostitutes revolted.

Amrapali loved her country more than her lover, hence, national over personal; while Anarkali was the love story of a poor girl to a rich, to depict that equality could be achieved through love, which was blind to caste, creed, sect, religion, class. But once again, the love failed against the ultimate power, the power of the nation (represented in the form of Emperor Akbar). It is evident, when Akbar fails to distance the lovers on the social grounds of pride and royalty, but succeeds, on the grounds that a slave girl cannot become the Empress of India. Salim wages war against Akbar, but loses to him. Heera not only lacks the grace of the other two women (grace not in their dancing but as in their maimerisms- she speaks loud, her appearance has a vulgarity), but she also lacks the dignity (respect) the other two get. They are treated with regard, their beauty is heavenly, and their presence recognised and respected. Heera, on the other hand, first gets rebuked by Mangal, who realising her wit and misery, falls in love with her. She is a mere

152 entertainer and a body for fulfilling desire. It should also be pointed out that, in historiography, a clear distinction was made between the ‘common’ prostitute, and the tawa’if. One scholar has suggested that

“In the princely states like Oudh, the nawabi culture was epitomised by legendary misrule, abnegation of most, if not all, public duties, and a patronage of lifestyle which centred on songs, dances, musical soirees, cock-fighting, pigeon flying etc. The nawabs were themselves in possession of a huge Harem full of dozens of concubines, slave-girls, ‘Muta’ wives (who were all but concubines in name). The famed courtesans of Oudh were also an extension of this nawabi ‘high culture’ and were proud inheritors of a distinctive genre of dance and songs, social etiquette—what later on came to be termed as ‘Awadhi Tahzib’ of polished marmerisms and refined maimer of speech. In the pre-1856 days, prior to Awadh’s acquisition under Lord Dalhousie’s regime, the courtesans or ‘tawaifs’ seemed to have been the most pampered and glorified of prostitutes as could have existed in any society. The best of these tawaifs were individually patronised by the top nobility and the richest merchants of Oudh. Scholars specialising in Oudh’s history believe that the rising centrality of tawaifs in Oudh came about with Shuja-ud- daulah’s reign (1753-74) and went on increasing till the climax reached under its last ruler Wajid Ali Shah. These absurdities went so far that it is said that until a person had association with courtesans he was not a polished man. The nawab’s courtiers would even send their own sons to the tawaifs kotha (mansion) for lessons in social etiquette.”

Unlike Heera, there is a domesticated Jwala in Mangal Pandey. She is a widow, who was saved from Sati by William Gordon, stays with him till the end. To understand this, we can see as Spivak mentions,

The Hindu widow ascends the pyre of the dead husband and immolates herself upon it. This is widow sacrifice. (The conventional transcription of the Sanskrit word for the widow would be sati. The early colonial British transcribed it suttee.) The rite was not practiced universally and was not caste- or class-fixed. The abolition of this rite by the British has been generally understood as a case of ‘White men saving brown women from brovm men’. White women - from the nineteenth- century British Missionary Registers to Mary Daly - have not produced an alternative understanding. Against this is the Indian nativist argument, a parody of the nostalgia for lost origins: ‘The women actually wanted to die.’

119 Sudhanshu Bhandari, in Colonial India, Mainstream, Vol. XLVIII, NO. 26, JUNE 19, 2010, http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article2142.html

153 Critically looking, Mangal Pandey is the only movie amongst the list of films selected which does not deal with elite cultures and people directly. It is not a story of a king or the nobles. It deals with the effects of a historical event on the common mass. It is well known, and not just to the academic world, that Sati was one of the major issues discussed through the 19*’’ century, and was one that was of concern particularly to the upper castes. It is possible that it is this understanding that comes up in the representation of Jwala’s character, as a ‘Sati’. She belonged to an upper caste, and went on to stay as the mistress of Gordon. The English officers did not keep girls of lower castes with them (staying without marriage but getting the same status), as mentioned in the following quote from Durba Ghoshs’ book:

“In India, as in Britain, definition of family included persons who resided in the household, such as servants and apprentices, as well as blood or legal kin, such as children, spouse, and in-laws.In Britain and its colonies, men held civil obligations and reaped certain civil benefits as heads of the households in terms that were recognized by various institutions of the state. In maintaining the relationship between the state and its subjects, the family unit was central: men as patriarchs were assumed to have civic authority over the bodies that were constitutive of their households and families. Thus being a subject of the empire was a gendered process that affected men and women differently. In British India, the sexual social contract was also a highly radicalized one that constructed white men as having familial and political authority over native women.Even though many of these relationships lacked a marital contract or legal

Naomi Tadmor, “The concept of the household-family in the eighteenth-century England. Past and Present, 151 (May 1996): 111-30. Susan Dwyer Amussen, An Ordered Society: Gender and Class in Early Modern England (Oxford: Blackwell, 1988), pp. 38-41, 68; Ann Twinam, Public Lives, Private Secrets: Gender, Honour, Sexuality and Illegitimacy in Colonial Spanish America (Stanford University Press, 1988), p. 28; K. Brown, Good Wives, Anxious Patriarchs. For Europe see, Carole Pateman, The Sexual Contract (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988); Amussen (1988), chapter 2; Susan Dwyer Amussen, “Being stirred to much unquietness: violence and domestic violence in eariy modem England.” Journal of Women's History 6 (1994), pp.72-3, For Colonial India, see Lata Mani, Contentious Debate on Sati in Colonial India (Berkeley: University of Califomia Press, 1998) Sudipta Sen, Distant Sovereignty. National Imperialism and the Origins of British India. Routledge 2002, pp. 88-92 154 justification for the state to uphold the right of the father and husband, criminal and civil courts treated these conjugal relationships as if a legal marriage had occurred.’ 124

Jwala’s character is least affected by the revolt and in fact, instead the colonial rule marks as a boon. She is saved fi-om Sati, just as Spivak mentioned “White men are saving brown women from brown men”.'^^ Jwala’s least being affected also denotes how most of the emerging upper middle classes were least affected and involved in the revolt. They deemed the colonial rule as bliss, a boon as a scope to emerge, develop and advance (through English education and ideas. These were the new elite Indians [also known as ‘Babus’], Brown in colour, English in mannerism). If Jwala signified the domestication of a woman outside royalty, Jodha Bai of Mughal-e-Azam and Jodha of Jodhaa Akbar are clearly seen as domesticated women within royalty.

These are two representations of the same historical character, but neither in the same movie nor in the same situation. Jodha bai of Mughal-e-Azam is a plump, aged, nurturing mother, who loves her son seamlessly, and a wife who cares for her husband so much that even her love for her son fails in comparison. She is first her husband’s wife and the Empress, then the mother of the heir to the throne. Both the characters are shown as devout Krishna devotees, though for one the "pooja' and devotion is a celebration and a symbol of the unity between her and her husband; while for the other, it is a symbol of her connection to her roots (religion), which she retains, marrying in another religion (like an NRI abroad going to a temple every once a week).

The Jodha of Jodha Akbar, is sleek, slim, pretty, who is a warrior, a princess who stands up for her rights and respect, even if it means distancing away from her husband- whom she in love with. She has the power (or audacity) to fight with her husband unlike the former Jodha, who treated her husband like a deity. The same historical figure, but difference in their presentation cannot only be due to the fact that the former Jodha is a mother-figure, aged and hence, toned down unlike the young, hot-blooded Jodha; but this difference of the period these women represent.

Durba Ghosh. Sex and the Family in Colonial India: The Making of Empire. Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp.12-13 Gayatri Spivak, “Can the Subahems Speak?” p. 296, http://www.mcgill.ca/files/crclaw-discourse/Can_the_subaltern_speak.pdf 155 One of the most importance social aspects of the representation of women is that of woman as wife and mother. This framework is clearly seen in Jodha of Mughal-e- Azam. \nJodhaa-Akbar, though one man’s decision does change her fate (whether father or husband) but Jodha still speaks her mind and does what she deems correct. Initially, she is shown as an individual, who has not completely accepted or subordinated herself to her husband, unlike Jodha bai, who prioritises husband’s honour and country over the love of son. But Jodha of Jodhaa Akbar despite being shown as such, later becomes ‘the domesticated “wife”’. Unlike Jodha bai of Mughal-e-Azam who is shown to attend court, be with her husband whenever required, attend performances and so on, Jodha of Jodhaa Akbar, keeps herself confined to her palace, she is seen more in gardens, writing/drawing. Hence, whether a woman within or beyond royalty, a woman has to be domesticated. This domestication is most visible in her position as a ‘wife’, as her role with her husband and his family is all set up within the patriarchal set up and is equally distinguishable. Both the Jodhas have been represented as idealised wives of their times, and probably reflect the film makers idea of how it happened then, and perhaps how it should happen now. Hence, when a film maker conceives a character, he not only imagines it within the fi-amework of his set of beliefs but also to bring out a portrayal of an idealised character, so they become a role-model for the audience. This is fiirther proven by the portrayal of Akbar banishing her from his fort, simply because he doubted her fidelity. After realising his mistake, go to her and apologize and eventually win her back. Once again, we notice, in how many patriarchal ways the film is submerged. How easy it was for the film maker to portray and how easy it was for the audience to accept it. Though Jodhaa Akbar is made in the 2T‘ century, where women are much more empowered and independent than the women in earlier times. Could it be that the film maker did this subconsciously? Or could it mean that though women are independent, they still should be kept within their familial duties. Even a princess could not get away with it - who like an ordinary wife performed the various duties towards her husband, e.g. cooking, proving that though 21®‘ century, patriarchal notions have still not left the Indian mind set.

156 In a recent discussion it clearly came out that young girls, are more accepting of domestic violence. If the husband hits her for something she has done, and later apologizes, they feel it is a validated action. This brings us to re-think that do women (we will focus on the protagonists only for the moment) really have a ‘will’ of their own? Or do they simply just accept and follow the situations that they come across? Very obviously Kaurwaki, Jodha and Heera (all post 2000) surprisingly do not. They have to mould themselves according to the situations. They know how to fight, to stand up for themselves, but they never had a ‘will’ - a chance to simply do things because they felt like it. Even if they did, they succumbed to it later. In a way we can understand this difference, as in the 1950’s (when Amrapali and Mughal-e-Azam were made), there was a still a fresh new euphoria of an ‘Independent’ nation, where the new constitution stated that all were equal- women had equal rights as men. It was in this background, with nationalistic sentiments combined that the movie ‘Amrapali’ was made. A woman having equal status to a man, (despite being a - so even in Independent India, women of such grades also had equal rights) to the extent that for the nation, she rebukes him. It could also be the reason, that the movie was accepted by the audiences. But Mughal-e- Azam, though made under this euphoria, it focussed less on the equality aspect, and more on new nation, which was secular and clearly in the film, there is no question of any Hindu-Muslim tension. They co-exist.

But with 1964, when the ‘Towards Equality’ Report Commission was commissioned and early results began to emerge there came the realisation, that though the constitution grants equality to both genders, it does not occur in reality is when things change. By 1970s, a questioning starts emerging of exactly how great was the past. Was it as great as mentioned by the historians? It was in this background that Shatranj ke Khiladi emerged, while reflected it was futile to fight the British and the questioning of the upper class’ mentality (which also could be seen in the ways of the failure of socialism- which the government had promised to bring better for the mass). The upper class was only concerned with their personal gains and profits. Both the movies, Shatranj ke Khiladi and Jimoon, looked at this scenario. Both the films have focused on the selfishness and worthlessness of the upper class. The Nawab of Awadh, for example, is less concerned with state affairs and more in leisure and his nobles, are genius chess

157 players but are unable to use the games’ tactics in real life. Even in Junoon, Shashi Kapoor is only concerned the woman he loves. The film makers may have possibly not just tried to portray the worthlessness of the upper class, but also their mentality towards the revolt and which was a major cause for its failure. The rich and educated Indians did not support it or at the most, even bother about it. At another level, this becomes a critique on the government and the rich business personalities, (emerging gradually just as the bourgeoisie in 1857 and the capitalist in the years that followed), that they are never concerned or aware with the sufferings of the mass.

Another facet one should look at here is that in Jodha Akbar, Jodha is shown as a vegetarian. If this is a fact or not, can be left to the experts, but the film maker perceives Jodha, a Hindu, chaste woman. She is shown to cook for her husband - perform all the duties of a wife in spite keeping away fi'om him. When she goes to the Mughal kitchen, she ensures everything has been cleaned (purely) before cooking the ‘vegetarian’ food. When they sit down to eat, the film maker emphasises on the vegetarian delicacies. A point to be noted here, is that why is it emphasized that Hindu associated with vegetarianism, while Muslims are associated with non-vegetarianism. It seems impossible to believe that Rajputs were only vegetarian. Hindu or Muslim, kings were always fond of delicacies, and these could not possibly have been simply on vegetables - at a time, when there was not even as much of a variety of raw vegetables as today. Potatoes came to India with the Portuguese, but in Jodha’s kitchen, where all the raw vegetables have been laid out, we see potatoes. Again, it is important to point to the ways in which the Hindus and Muslims are, in Jodhaa Akbar in particular, portrayed as clearly belonging to two different cultural backgrounds. For example, when Jodha is approached by her father to marry Akbar for the safeguard of the kingdom, she speaks in a distressed tone, saying that the hands that do not even know ‘the meaning of the sacred vermilion, will put it on my forehead’. The film maker here depicts marriage is a more pious or sacred institution among the Hindus than the Muslims. A Muslim man will have many wives, but a Hindu only one. But in the royalty, this did not matter, whether Hindu or Muslim, polygamy was not only followed, but popularly accepted.

158 The inter-relation between the members of the society rehes on many aspects: how their history is portrayed, their existing relations (politically, economic and social) with each other and so on. Indian society had always been divided on caste and religion, but as social scientists, we should wonder that with changing times, the change in our relations with each group (caste and religion) is because we wish to do so, or because we are being made to do so (inflicted). In Mughal-e-Azam, we see a complete harmony between the two religious groups, but in Jodhaa Akbar we see the dislike of the two religions for each other. Could this be because the director of Mughal-e-Azam was a Muslim and the director of Jodhaa Akbar was a Hindu? Or is it feasible to say that the film makers reflected their times?

Jodhaa Akbar clearly has more elements of the non-acceptance of the Hindus for the Muslims and vice versa unlike Mughal-e-Azam. Once it again it should be remembered that Mughal-e-Azam was made on the background on the ‘new nation’ where it more of class differences, and not religious. The notion of ‘equality’ is fresh after the constitution has come out, but this equality between the two sexes, not in the classes. The class conflict is clearly shown in the film, where a slave girl cannot become the Empress of India. But in Jodhaa Akbar, we see the ‘Muslim’ as the ‘other’. Though we know like mentioned earlier that Muslims, had come to India a long time before the Mughals. They were not new to the subcontinent and its people, but in Jodhaa Akbar, they are shown as the ‘other’ - who should (as they gradually do in the film) get assimilated within the society. This could be reflected in the fact that Jodhaa Akbar was made in the background, of (and after) the severe communal riots ( Malegaon 1983, Bombay 1992, Gujarat 2001). Minor riots keep happening and this scenario, a film like Jodhaa Akbar comes out, depicting Akbar - the greatest Muslim ruler of India- who was secular and tolerant. That was his ‘greatness’.

The Hindu Jodha is reluctant to marry a Muslim Akbar. Her mother, gives her poison, as it is better to die than to be disrespected (read ‘raped’ in the Rajputi context) by a Muslim. The Muslims/Mughals like Maham Anga and Sharifuddin are reluctant to accept her as part of the dynasty. Funny but true, both sides label the other side as ‘unholy’ or ‘impure’, but both fail to explain who set the concept of ‘holiness’ and

159 ‘purity’. What should we deem as ‘pure’ or ‘holy’ and can there be a unitary definition for them? Let us leave that for the scholars of philosophy to answer.

It would be appropriate to say here, that through fihns or even in reality (the ways of society), if a Hindu boy marries a Muslim girl, it becomes an issue but still acceptable. But if it happens the other way around - it becomes a major issue [termed as love jehad in contemporary notions]. Could it be so because, a woman - symbol of the patriarchal system, married into another religion - means the loss of the domination of that religion over the other? Or do we seem to promote the ideas that the Hindus are more adjustable to the Muslim presence unlike the other way? From Bombay (1995) to Raanjhanaa (2013), this phenomenon is showcased consciously or subconsciously in films. Whether the film maker is trying to subtly put forth his point or whether it came into the film plot subconsciously is what one- as a film scholar has to decode. Another aspect to be seen in the religious stereotypical representations is when a Muslim marries a Hindu woman, it becomes a major issue but when a film depicts a terrorist- he is always a Muslim, why is there never an issue created over that? Depictions are not necessarily accurate, but depictions are stereotypes - fihn reinforces stereotypes - and one of those stereotypes is the Hindu-Muslim divide.

Like other films that began showing in that period, in Ray’s SKK, also it is very clear that women were not given an equal status, nor that they could step out of their stereotypical familial set up. Women in the films of Satyajit Ray depict a society where they are silenced, and where their experience and particular insights are undermined or dismissed. Yet, they differ in their historical contexts, their social backdrops, their positioning within the family and their financial status. They represent the marginalisation of women, and sometimes defy stereotyping in subtle ways. In conventional narrative films, forms are complicit in producing women as subordinate, but the creative imagination of Ray has used these forms to present positive, dynamic and alternative representations of the fair sex, writes Shoma A. Chatterji.

Though Ray is popular for his directors-gaze and he does critique the women’s position in a subtle manner. The two women in Shatranj ke Khiladi: Khurshid (Shabana

160 Azmi), Mirza’s wife, who feels lonely and abandoned by her husband’s constant chess playing in their home and lashes out in humorous, ill-tempered ways in her few scenes. One of the cutest scenes is when she finally pins Mirza down on the bed despite his clear wish to be back in fi-ont of his chess board. As she looks down at him and starts to undo his shirt ties, she makes her intentions clear by licking her lips! His scared schoolboy reaction is all the more hilarious. On the other hand, Nafisa (Farida Jalal), Mir’s wife, who is young and not affected being abandoned, while her husband is away for hours in endless chess games, instead gets involved in an affair with a handsome younger man Aqueel (Farooque Shaikh), who is also her husband’s nephew. Another hilarious scene ensues when her husband catches the lovers at home and they outsmart him. So in a way, where Ray shows, one woman who suffers in the domestic household, there is another who finds a mean to break-free and choose what she likes to do.

Could it be deliberate that Ray chose to show that of these two women, the one who was fi-ivolous was younger than the other. It could be interpreted that it was meant to be shown as such to signify that the younger groups in society were breaking the traditional marriage norms. Very clearly, Nafisa though having a solicit affair, by no means had any intention of leaving her husband. As mentioned in the dialogues by Mir, she was a good wife, who always took care of him, sent him to play chess and when he retumed, massaged him to a good sleep. That describes a ‘good’ wife- she who does not interfere in his matters and who served him. Khurshid, who is domesticated, still is not termed the ‘good’ wife by Mirza, as she urges him to stop playing the game and spend some time with her. She seeks attention and stops him from his game- hence not the ‘good’ wife.

An unhappy chaste woman, (whether she suffered by her husband) was still sought better than a happy cheating woman. This has been portrayed by Ray in two ways; firstly, when Khurshid, tells Mirza, she preferred when he sat at the ‘kotha’ all night than to be home all day playing the game and not focussing on her. When he questions her why she cannot be like Nafisa, who does not mind her husband away playing games, she adamantly says, why will she? The entire city knows she is having an affair with someone younger than your friend. He cannot even control his wife. Though unhappy,

161 Khurshid’s tone clearly indicates Nafisa as cheap. This indicates that women too felt proud in their chastity, or that is what they were brought up to think.

We should also say that, both the period being made on and the period being made for, women did not absolute rights. Labelling it within a religious culture, that women in Muslim community are more domesticated than women of the Hindu families, would become a biased baseless statement, as both Hindu and Muslim, women were kept confined to their household duties.

In the last scene, when Mirza has mentioned about the solicit affairs to Nafisa to Mir, both get into a fight and Mir shoots at Mirza, but misses. He walks off, head hung but later returns. He has bird fallings on his shawl - which signifies spots (disgrace) on character. He sadly speaks, what will these nobles save Awadh, who cannot even control their wives. Though this dialogue, clearly ascertains their worthlessness as nobles of royalty, it also portrays their patriarchal mentality, a man who caimot control his woman, how can he control a nation and that is the biggest disgrace for him. Mir goes on to say, “Who will play chess with me now”? (as other men will laugh at him who cannot control his wife). Whether, he went to a tawa’if or wasted time playing games, was not important, his wife was unchaste, was a shame to him. This irony is further posed by Ray, when Ray ends the film after the last dialogue of Mirza, “I am here. Forget it all, let us play a game.”

Why were these six films chosen for this research? For Ancient period, there was not much of an option. For Medieval, there were many options for the older decades, as there have been numerous films made on the medieval histoiy (read the Mughal history). There has been only one film made on Sultanate period, as we all know - Raziya Sultan. For a film showing the medieval period, it was felt that there could be none better than the milestone - Mughal-e-Azam. There are many films which mention the 1857 events in the background, such as Umrao Jaan, but this film like Junoon, which was initially chosen but later dropped, in favour of the two focussed on here.

Studying historical films in such context makes us realise that films are the present-day consciousness of the past. Films based on medieval historical period

162 outnumber the films made on ancient and modem eras. As mentioned in the chapter 5, making films on ancient India require a lot of hard work as there is not much known of the period. Unlike the modem period, where too much research has been done and hence there will be a greater requirement for the filmmaker to be authentic as defined by the historians. The medieval has always been seen as the ‘glorious’ past, in its rich heritage and grandeur that it has left behind; it provides the filmmaker the fi"eedom of expression and the freedom of expression. Imagination can also work better for a slightly older period, as it’s not too old that has been forgotten (like ancient) and not too recent, that people still remember (like the modem - independence, partition and so on.) It is basically what the present sees of the past, just like Professor Carr had mentioned that History is the continuous dialogue between the Present and the past. Even in academic history, we perceive it within the perception of the contemporary. Hence, filmed history not only caters to this, but also as it reflects the ideology of the society for its past, it is a social history also. This was another facet, this research was taken up, to provide an interdisciplinary outlook towards not only films but History too.

History cannot be studied in isolation, but this inter-disciplinarity carmot be restricted to academic subjects like Politics, Sociology and Anthropology only, but even more common forms like popular culture and cinema - elements which comprise a culture and this culture which not only shapes but is shaped by history.

History on the screen is similar in at least two ways: they refer to actual events, moments, and movements fi-om the past, and at the same time they partake of the unreal and fictional, since both are made out of sets of convention we have developed for talking about where we human beings have come from (and also where we are and where we think we are going, though this is something most people concerned with the past don’t always admit). Filmmakers can be and already are historians (some of them), but of necessity the rules of engagement of their works with the stuff of the past are and must be different from those that govern written h i s t o r y We may also see the history film as part of a separate realm of representation and discourse, one not meant to provide literal truths

'“ Robert Rosenstone, History on Film/Film on History, op cit. 163 about the past (as if our written history can provide literal truths) but metaphoric truths which work, to a large degree, as a kind of commentary on, the challenge to, traditional historical discourse. Cinema of the 50’s onwards represents the euphoria of the ‘new nation’, with a new constitution, giving equality to all and so on. But it was soon after that events like the Indo-China war (1962) and India-Pakistan war (1965) occurred.

In Amrapali, there is a famous dialogue, “Yudh sainikka dharm hota hai” (war is a soldiers duty). It is not surprising that this film came out in 1966, with the background of the two wars. Likely mentioned previously, the film was deeply stirred in nationalistic sentiments, and such a dialogue came out as no surprise, which was a call to the youth, to join the war, as the nation required. It happened in then (in the ancient period) and it should happen now.

Partition had already brought in much communal tensions, and the India-Pakistan war made things worse. Though it is more evident in the post- Kargil war (1999) films, which sent out very clearly sending out anti-Pakistan messages, e.g. Border (1997), Sarfarosh (1999), Gadar (2001), LoC (2003) and so on. In the earlier period, (before 1965) a new constitution announced equality irrespective of religion, caste or gender, hence films focussed less on the communal elements (not that they were totally absent. One film which has largely targeted in the communal fi-amework is Anandmath (1952) [very obviously this was partition communalism]. In this scenario, when Mughal-e-Azam, comes out with Akbar- who was the most famous for his secular believes and practices, Mughal-e-Azam specified on this aspect when the film opens with a giant (post-partition) India emerges, [not as female but male] rises like the sun over a vast landscape, (unsubtly defining the terms on which the film is to be interpreted, the film takes fiill advantage of the symbolic possibilities afforded by history) speaks, “Ma/ hindostan hu,...mere in chahne walo me ek insaan ka naam, Jalaluddin Mohammad Akbar tha. Akbar ne mujhse pyar kiya, mazhab aur rasmo-riwaiyat ki deewaro se buland hokar, insan ko insan se mohabbat karna sikhaya, aur hamesha ke liye mujhe seene se laga liya....” (I am India,... among my many admirers, was a man named Jalaluddin Mohammad Akbar. Akbar loved me and taught humans to love each other (harmony) rising above religious and cultural

164 barriers, and embraced me forever...) It is reflected by this commentary, that Akbar who was impartial, did not favour towards to one religion, so should Indians too. The message- that do not judge on religion (read- Muslims are as much Indians as Hindus). Hindostan (India) also had a great ruler in Akbar - a Muslim. [If a Hindu was secular was normal but if a Muslim was secular- was great, once again leading to the previous argument, why are Hindus considered more tolerant than Muslims?] Also how India had remained united without falling apart on religious differences then, so should it now. It is also noteworthy, that twice when, there are severe communal tensions, a films comes out to depict Akbar and his secularity (Mughal-e-Azam post-partition and Jodhaa Akbar- post Gujarat riots).

The films were always oriented towards the youth, and how they could dream big, become great by doing good deeds for the nation, change social norms and protect it from attackers. Cinema, then and now, has continued to call upon the youth. Like mentioned in Chapter 4, even when it was ‘Angry young man’ phenomena or to Rang de Basanti (2006), where we move from one man to change the society, to the entire youth as a group, it is always the ‘youth’. This ‘young India’ euphoria was easily seen in the movies like Azaad (1955), Naya Daur (1957), Leader (1964); even the names suggest the same, as a call to the young to lead the nation (films have always specified that the youth should lead the country, which is never in actuality- till very recent).

With the 1970’s (post war), there was also a questioning of exactly how great was the past as popularly had been formulated all these years. As mentioned earlier, the fallacies in the constitution had begun emerging by now, and so, in films like Shatranj ke Khiladi (1977), we see the questioning on the ruling class and how India (Awadh in the film) suffered due to the ineffectiveness of its leaders/rulers to govern it properly. This depicted, that if a government was not performing its duties, as a democracy, people could oust them. It is not surprising that it was the same time that ‘Emergency’ (1975­ 1977) had been declared. And with the Press Censorship imposed, many English newspapers e.g. The Herald and The Hindu, printed an obituary on the front covers - R.I.P. Dem O’Cracy (which surprisingly most of the Indian political leaders did not understand, thinking of it as an Irish name). It was the fall of the promised ‘Democracy’

165 for the Indians. But still amongst all this and later on, the cinema’s orientation towards the youth remained. Popular family dramas or films with social messages, mostly remained for the young - with relatable young characters.

To sum it up, we can thus see that films have used history, and still do. How is this done? History is packaged to appeal the youth, to make them realise it was then, it should be now. (History as a moral- as mentioned in Chapter 1). This packaging has changed over the years (what is to be selected and how it is to be promoted- thus same historical character or event/period, but change with time, across the years, for the contemporary times- as the 6 films of the thesis). But despite the change in packaging (selection/presentation) elements remain the same, such as Nationalism; ‘Great men’ ( or Historical heroes- who did some great work in some way or another); and social ethics (how a society should function).

Thus, to look at cinema under the lens of historical themes of ‘time and space’ and ‘continuity and change, it would be something like this:

Time: 50 years.

Space: Hindi films / India

Continuity and change; all the above.

Both the old and the new movies had “Nationalist” elements in them. However, looked at closely, even this concept of nationalism has changed within the movies of the previous decades {Amrapali, Mughal-e-Azam and Shatranj Ke khiladi) and those since 2000 (Asoka, Mangal Pandey and Jodhaa Akbar). Nationalism as reflected in the old movies reflected on the weakness of the state; being influenced by the Nationalist historiography- that the past was great and had great men and the same is needed to create a new strong state. It showed that even historical figures loved their country, e.g. Akbar and could do anything for their duty for a higher moral responsibility, e.g. Ajatshatru. We should not forget that this was the Nehruvian era when new ways were emerging to look at the nation. In later movies, this sense of nationalism is gone, or we can say, changes. The sense of nation becomes the responsibility towards society.

166 ‘Greatness’ is not something one is bom with, but something one achieves, e.g. Akbar and Asoka are normal, but become ‘great’ eventually. A common man becomes great like Mangal Pandey. It also puts in an idea of Democracy, the rule of majority. These leaders are not ‘above’ the common mass but work with and for the common mass. Contemporary films also cater to the ‘youth culture’ of India. As mentioned previously in the thesis, cinema has mostly been oriented towards the youth. The established idea that history gave of great men such as Asoka, Akbar, recent films show that young Asoka and Akbar, even Mangal Pandey, were young, who like the young generation today, seek answers, make mistakes and learning from it all, turn to become great leaders. The historical films were not meant to be works of history to appeal to the academicians. This is where/how the history becomes a commercial commodity. The past told in the moving images, doesn’t do away with the old forms of history - it adds to the language in which the past can speak. How to begin thinking about this, how to understand that language, how to see where history on films sits in relation to written history, how to understand what film adds to our understanding of the past - the posing of such questions, the problems of dealing with them, and some (very tentative) answers is what the research deals with. To conclude the argument here, is that it is not the ‘history’ - the subject and its accuracy but how it is modelled to show the past according to one person’s idea of the present - it is this that makes a film a source worthy to be studied.

167