In 1938, Charlie Chaplin started work on great dictator, Even though it criticized the Nazis, Chaplin was forced to sponsor, direct, and write the project himself because most mainstream Hollywood studios were hesitant to sever ties to German finance, or to pursue an overt But he was taking the risk of making a political project. Additionally, many in the establishment felt that Adolf Hitler could operate, so official censorship was also a real threat. Nevertheless, Chaplin pressed ahead, showing tremendous personal and ideological fortitude. The film met expectations and became Chaplin’s biggest commercial success. It was nominated for five Academy Awards and became a cult classic.
Give context to the enormity of Chaplin’s achievement. Swimming against the tide, his film mocked Hitler’s fetish for photo-ops, self-aggrandizement schemes, and criticized attacks against minorities as a way to divert attention from economic failures. Most importantly, it exposed the futility of appeasing authoritarians. This was when Hollywood deliberately avoided taking an anti-Nazi stand on screen, even if it opposed Nazism in private.
point of contention
A similar case has come to the fore in India as well. India’s film industry has now become a site of ideological and political struggle The Kashmir Files And Pathan shed light on the controversies. To woo the audience, BJP is constantly taking the help of films. Combining religious imagery, patriotism and nationalist ideals, these films systematically propagate the mythology of the dominant Sangh Parivar. The importance given to this effort is demonstrated by the fact that the Prime Minister had several meetings with key film industry stakeholders in an effort to produce “nation-building films”.
There has also been a concerted effort to stifle projects that are not compatible with the BJP’s vision for India and India. As a result, barring a few notable exceptions, India’s film fraternity deliberately censors itself, hoping to ride out the storm. Faced with a system that stops at nothing, this self-preservation imperative is understandable. After all, why should an actor or producer or director stand up for constitutional values when he has to face ostracism and threats, when investigative agencies open up on him, and when no one stands up for him in public? ?
Incidentally, the attack comes at a time when the nature of film consumption is undergoing a structural change. As the DVD and retail business model has become obsolete, filmmakers no longer get a second shot at making a profit. This is exacerbated by the unfortunate reality that confronting regressive values and inconvenient truths is now a high-risk endeavor, as it may invite the wrath of regressive forces. Faced with these legitimate concerns, filmmakers are opting to churn out extravagant, high-budget films that are more detached from reality, or ‘safer’ films.
But India’s film industries do not have the luxury of escaping socioeconomic and political realities. Firstly, the BJP is creating a ‘committed film sector’ by attacking the structural integrity of the film and television sectors. By channeling the full resources of the state (merging four film media units while ignoring criticism from the industry, subsidizing projects of aligned filmmakers, withholding censor board clearance, etc.) To persuade his core vote bank. The BJP is leapfrogging the market for political and ideological projects. that’s partly why movies like The Kashmir Files And Tanhaji Well done professionally.
Second, progressives are targeted not just for their project choices or because they disagree with the BJP, but for what they represent – an India where you can succeed no matter who you are. Be or where you come from. These regressive forces, driven by their ideological imperatives, need to continuously reinforce two things to their core vote bank, that broad-minded, outspoken and disruptive actors/filmmakers cannot shape India’s own image and Nor is there equal space for them in films.
Third, it seems that audiences are not watching movies to escape reality. An ideologically captive audience is supporting such films, which are force-fed daily through electronic and digital media. It is not simply an act of solidarity with a populist mythologies linked to national, religious and community pride; It also enables them to exercise illusory control over those with whom they do not agree.
However, following Newton’s third law, it follows that there is a liberal audience that rejects films with regressive values. that’s why i like movies Emperor Prithviraj, Dhakad, Manikarnika, Adi flopped at the box office, despite the early leads they got from the BJP’s machinery. If the viewership trends on OTT and digital platforms are to be seen, the silent majority are desperate for films that do not propagate communal, casteist, xenophobic, racist and undemocratic values. In this reading, films that objectively and sensitively address socioeconomic and political realities can be commercially successful. it is included Jai Bhim, Mandela, Article 15, Sardar Udham, Raazi, Mulk And pink, Similarly, films on farmer/student movements; the lived realities of women, Sikhs, Muslims, Christians, Kashmiri Pandits, OBCs, Adivasis and Dalits; And India’s many successes since 1947 can positively resonate and bind Indians together.
Of course, it takes courage to make them come true. But the film fraternity needs to realize that it is an equal partner in promoting national consciousness. While it need not wade into polarized political debates, it can (and must) use its craft to defend our shared values. until it leads to films and serials that remind us to preserve our humanity, that weave together India’s many voices and envision a better tomorrow (by being true to today) ), this tsunami of hate will not pass.
common work of progressives
Yet, the onus of furthering constitutional values does not rest solely on India’s film fraternity. It is also on other progressive forces (including political parties). Seeing how regressive forces are colonizing the minds of our fellow Indians, all progressive people need to support each other in this noble fight for the soul of India. We need to creatively propagate our shared values because high-sounding appeals to defend secular, democratic and liberal values do not sway the silent majority. Also, looking at the condition of a section of media in India, we need to open new frontiers. Until we demonstrate politico-cultural dynamism, the BJP will keep changing its goalposts and waging new culture wars that liberals will struggle to contain. That’s why progressives need to support the film and television industries. Civil society/political action against organizations that attack film sets, raising their issues in the legislature, media and judiciary, and setting up new platforms and means of support are some of the ways in which tangible support has been given to India’s film industries can go.
BR Ambedkar argued that “constitutional morality is not a natural feeling. It has to be cultivated”. Viewed in this light, progressives have an obligation to contribute to the growth of collective sentiment. To do so would mean political rhetoric, Influencing social consciousness through disruptive movements such as the Bharat Jodo Yatra and the strategic use of popular culture. Despite the assault on India’s constitutional framework, we must acknowledge that this is also a moment of possibility – to redesign our operational methods To overcome ideological weaknesses and to create a more liberal, just and compassionate India.
Pushparaj Deshpande is director of the Prosperous India Foundation, a multi-party platform that advances India’s constitutional promise and is series editor Rethinking India series (penguin)