Why Bahubali raised the hackles of our liberals?

As far as general impressions are concerned, only those who are against liberal values like ‘freedom of speech’ or ‘the expressive right of art’ are the ones protesting against books and movies. But each attacker needs to have a corresponding defender, so we see that liberal support for all those books and movies, which hurt sentiments of all but the minorities, is in direct proportion to the protests they generate, i.e., higher the protests, louder the support decibel. 

Yet, the protest against books and movies are not limited to the crass, uneducated Hindutva bigot. Our liberals do not hesitate to do so, if it is their sensibilities which get hurt. Last year, we had some dissatisfied souls ranting against Priyanka Chopra’s depiction of Mary Kom in a biopic of the same name, ostensibly because this act reeked of discrimination against the North-Eastern people. Given that there is a concerted campaign (which the Government has succumbed to) to equate stereotyping with criminal racism, objections against Priyanka Chopra can be considered to be one element of the all-round campaign. Yet, given the visible absurdity of the charge, not many of our ‘mainstream’ liberals picked up the thread strongly.

While there certainly could have been others, the first time I registered a strong ‘liberal’ backlash against a movie was on the then much-anticipated, Filhaal, by Meghna Gulzaar. Starring Tabu, Sushmita Sen, Sanjay Suri and Palash Sen, it was the story of how a friend offers to be a surrogate for her buddy who miscarried and could not conceive again. It was a bad movie but still, there was a strong feminist reaction, with the movie being called regressive, misogynistic and being generally condemned for pushing the idea that motherhood was a legitimate obsession for a woman. My bigoted conservative self could not understand what the hullabaloo was all about. Very clearly, both the female characters were exercising their respective choices. If motherhood was a choice for one, did it really become a lesser choice because it did not fit in the world-view of some feminists? At the same time, the other character, even when unwed and even without taking her boyfriend/fiancée into confidence, had offered and became a surrogate for her friend. I would have imagined that in any normal universe, such acts would have been hailed by feminists as an ultimate expression of a female’s individuality and her right over her own body.

But clearly, the film failed some liberal tests and was outrightly condemned for condemning women to treat motherhood as a gift. Thankfully, the film flopped badly (well-deserved, I would say) and since there was no point flogging a movie which people were not interested in, the outrage taps soon ran dry!

The next movie which was strongly in the bad books of our liberals was the banal ‘Vivah’. This Shahid Kapoor-Amrita Rao starrer was condemned for making the couple, particularly the would-be bride, waiting expectantly for marriage, as if it was the most important thing in a girl’s life! Could she not have focussed on her career instead, our liberals screeched? It became more of their duty to save our young generations from the baneful influence of the film since it succeeded in becoming a hit, rather unexpectedly.

Other than that, there has been an outpouring of outrage against 'Sunny Deol movies' for being jingoistic and portraying Pakistan in a 'bad' light. Funny when those outraging otherwise claim that actors are distinct from the roles they enact. In any case, the outrage against 'Sunny Deol movies' are more of an afterthought, i.e., it has become fashionable to diss them now, rather than at the time when they were becoming huge box-office hits.

It is not very often that our liberals must watch Indian cinema. If they have to, it must either be a film already ‘approved’ by some western expert, or, should have something to offend sensibilities, preferably of the supposed majority. It is hence, not uncommon to hear general condemnation of our movies from our self-appointed conscience keepers, on grounds of their stupidity, misogyny, some or the other 'ism', yada yada.

Even when accounting for the disdain our elites have for popular cinema, the backlash against Bahubali has been unexpected. Some of the criticism is so contrived that it would put CGI used in the movie to shame. One claimed that Avantika was raped in the movie. Another hack claimed that the movie depicted tribals in a bad light. Others simply claimed that it was racist and sexist.

But was it really so? All the 4 female characters in Bahubali (Avantika, Shivgami, Bahubali’s foster mother and Devsena) had ample screen time and strong on-screen persona. The Kalkeyas were never declared or depicted as tribals. On the other hand, Devasena's people seemed did seem tribal and even Bahubali’s foster community was very clearly living in harmony with nature. Were they really depicted as savages? More importantly, just how is a barbaric attacker supposed to be depicted? A bunch of upper collared gents petitioning the attacked to handover their lives peacefully and without protest.

So, why is Bahubali getting the goat of our liberals? Is it because, ahem, this movie on early medieval India reeks of Hindu imagery, be it the presence of shaven headed, tuft carrying Brahmins (not ridiculed for a change), chanting of hymns, opulent worship of idols and a storyline which carries imprints from numerous Indian tales, right from Krishna-lila?

In fact, it is not about Bahubali alone. Though the television has spawned such abominations as ‘The Sword of Tipu Sultan’, ‘Jodha Akbar’ and even ‘Razia Sultan’, the bulk of historicals (if they can be called that, given the liberties they take with history) are based on stories of Indian heroes and heroines. Almost without fail, each of these depict an era and culture (rituals, festivals, dress, language etc.) which is without doubt, Hindu. It is then not without reason that Ashok Banker’s stands against ‘Hindutva-isation’ of television. Anything which depicts India’s past, untainted by the liberal version of secularism cannot be held kosher.

The unabashed use of Indian imagery in Bahubali is simply the reason why our liberals are so protective of their version of Indian history. Indian culture (and not some contrived idea of India) is a way of life defined by Indic religions. Howsoever much would the liberal like us to believe, Islam in India remained an import, aloof from the subjugated population, moulding itself on primarily Persian, and secondarily on Arabic and Turkic cultures. In fact, ridicule and rejection of the 'Hindu' way of life and lusty embrace of the 'superior' foreign cultures was a feature common to both Islamic and Christian invaders. Just how can then the Indian way of life be reflective of a style which is anything but India?

When the liberals still claim that telecast of Ramayana, a tale which sprung from our soil, which deeply influenced not only ours, but all ancient cultures which came in touch with us, was a communal act of promoting Hindutva, Bahubali which has been served with dollops of subliminal Hinduism is certain to raise their hackles. Perhaps we should remake Ramayana. Only, this time Ram better be wearing a skull cap and Hanuman a cross. Sita though, will definitely need to be a Hindu. Only then will they fit in 'the idea of India'.