What was wrong with the movie ‘Satygraha’

As a student of the social sciences, my approach to movies is not merely in terms of what they have to offer in terms of a cinematic experience in the general sense of the term, but also how they define social narratives. Movies may often use modes of analysis and symbols that may not appeal to me to drive home their point; yet, as someone who believes in respectfully disagreeing with perspectives that one may not subscribe to, I have often appreciated such movies too, provided they do not showcase blatant prejudice. So, while I am not a leftist, I appreciated Matru ki Bijli ka Mandola for raising legitimate concerns viz-a-viz crony capitalism (here’s a Facebook status I posted on that movie – https://www.facebook.com/511065172/posts/10152852367775173) and I appreciated Raavan for its brilliant interpretation of the Ramayan being wedded into the contemporary problem of Naxalism (here’s a piece I co-authored on the same  - http://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/11514445/introduction-mani-ratnam-an-acclaimed-film-maker-who-has-), in spite of both movies taking a leftist stance. Equally, though I do not support the separatist movement in Kashmir, I appreciated the movie Lamhaa in spite of its pro-separatist stance for showcasing the plight of the Muslims in the valley but also being impartial enough to highlight the suffering of the Hindus who were displaced from their homeland and not demonizing the Indian Army as a collectivity, aside from showing how motivated by vested interests and intolerant of moderate approaches many of the separatist leaders are.

I quite liked Prakash Jha’s movie Rajneeti for exposing how dirty and criminalized politics is in India, though his movie Chakravyuh on Naxalism following the same proved to be a disappointment for being subtly biased in favour of the Maoist rebels, not showcasing their excesses or how they are sponsored by foreign powers belligerent to India. Yet, I thought Satyagraha would not prove to be a disappointment.  But it did, on several fronts.

The film conveyed in clear terms that businessmen’s greed is a major driving force behind corruption and big corporate houses should hence be demonized. What else could the character played by the big B saying the same in so many words to the character played by Ajay Devgan in one of the first few scenes signify? And then even later, when the character played by Devgan comes to meet the character played by Amitabh in jail, the latter tells the former that his ilk is also responsible for corruption, and therefore, the latter desires no help from the former. And later in the film, the character played by Devgan renounces his business and the character played by Bachchan hails him as a fakir!

Do only corporates pay bribes? Doesn’t the so-called common man bribe the traffic policeman or even the dalal to get a driving license? Doesn’t the so-called common man not dream of being effluent and if he were to succeed in setting up a business empire, would he not pay bribes to promote his vested interests (the best example being Dhirubhai Ambani)? The idea that corporates in general can be dubbed as people who only know how to extract resources from the society and not give back, as the character played by the big B states, is a blatant lie. What about corporate social responsibility initiatives? Of course, they would be written off by armchair pundits as publicity stunts, just as they would conveniently label all NGOs and government officers to be corrupt and all autorickshaw and taxi drivers to be crooks (who do they spare?!). Crony capitalism is a problem in India, but it’s because the government has not put in place systems that ensure as far as possible the functioning of market transactions and natural resource allocation in a clean and transparent manner. Unfortunately, in spite of refrains like sab chor hain for politicians across party lines, voting patterns of educated people (who do not blindly reject a party for alleged communalism or pseudo-secularism) are not determined by proposed policy initiatives but charisma and development of the crony capitalist variety! Only if people are not driven by sentimental and melodramatic sloganeering and take a keener interest in debates over policy would things improve in this country.

Is it a part of Indian culture to look down upon commercial activity? Is earning big money antithetical to being moral, as the character played by the big B says, an attitude rooted in our mileu? This question deserves an answer. For a long time, we have tried to condone our economic backwardness by seeking solace in claiming to possess some kind of spiritual and moral superiority over the West, an attitude that annoyed Nehru no end, as one can infer from his autobiography. Yet, Bollywood kept showcasing this attitude for decades after independence, and only since the 2000s, when India came to be seen as a rising economic power did such narratives considerably fade away from popular culture (such as cinema) and even daily parlance, and one did not expect something like this to surface in a movie made by a director of the stature of Jha.

Coming back to answering the question, Indian culture does lay more premium on defining a moral and legal code of conduct and its enforcement over profit-making activities. Thus, scholars and rulers were placed higher in the caste hierarchy than the traders. Yet, this is not to suggest that acquisition of profit was looked down upon. The four goals of a man’s life are dharm (to lead a virtuous life), arth (to acquire wealth), kam (pleasure, including sexual pleasure) and moksh (salvation). Why forget the second in this list? Ancient Indian history is full of references to rich merchants, and indeed, the Mahabharat and Kautilya’s Arthashastra highlight the importance of not overtly taxing merchants, for their migration to other kingdoms would cost the economy dear!

Indeed, someone may point out that I am perhaps not being fair by equating Indian culture with Hindu culture. So, Buddhism, Jainism and Islam too may be examined in this context. As for the first two, the religions themselves segregate laypersons from monks and among the laypersons, among the most devout followers of Buddha and Mahavir were rich merchants to whom their philosophy of non-violence appealed for the flourishing of trade, a fact acknowledged even by left-leaning historians of the likes of the late Ram Sharan Sharma. Speaking of Islam, though it is a religion that did not originate in India, it has left its mark on Indian culture in many ways, and Prophet Muhammad’s wife Khadijah was a successful businesswoman (this fact being a tight slap across faces of those maulvis who decreed that women taking up careers other than nursing, suing and medicine is antithetical to Islam) and so was the Prophet’s companion Abu Bakr.

Then, the largest opposition party in the movie, a clear reference to the BJP by another name, being highlighted as a communal party was ridiculous. I am as strong a critic of communalism as anyone can be and have written a book on addressing and dispelling anti-Muslim prejudices (those interested can download it from here for free – http://www.free-ebooks.net/ebook/Anti-Muslim-Prejudices-in-the-Indian-Context-Addressing-and-Dispelling-them), but when the issue being agitated against was corruption, and it was clear that the BJP-like party in the movie too is not free from this malaise, then that was a good enough reason to reject its participation in the movement, for it would amount to affiliating the movement to a certain party. Why does the issue of communalism or secularism crop up at all? It is unfair to, in general and in every context, label the BJP as a communal party overlooking the fact that none of the mainstream political parties in this country have a squeaky clean record in terms of secularism, i.e. keeping religion aloof from the affairs of the state and not appeasing any religious grouping. And does someone not being a member of the BJP but being an ordinary man or woman from the crowd automatically translate into his/her being secular? The issue of the agitation being portrayed in the movie is corruption, and communalism as an issue doesn’t have to be forcibly dragged everywhere, and if it does, then it should not be dealt with in a one-sided fashion. Indeed, some notable exceptions apart, the tendency of some (not all) Bollywood movies to speak of secularism or communalism only in the context of Hindus and not other religious groupings in this country has started to irritate me.

[Though I do agree that if an alleged mass murderer stands for elections in a certain constituency and if one does believe that there is weight behind those allegations, then one ought not to vote for him, and if he is the prime ministerial candidate, then one ought not to vote for his party in the national elections. Yes, this is what I believe and I am not couching my statement in allusions, and I am referring to Narendra Modi, and his communal record (other than his alleged complicity in the 2002 riots, his calling Muslims “child-producing factories” in spite of very many rural and some urban Hindus having more than two children and ironically being the third of his parents’ six children himself, his comparing lives of innocent Muslims to those of puppies and his proclaiming himself to be a “Hindu nationalist”) apart, his cabinet colleagues too have been arrested in corruption charges (the latest example being a minister in Gujarat being convicted for illegal limestone mining, and Gujarat’s fisheries scam runs into crores of rupees; so, how does Modi’s personal honesty matter if Manmohan’s doesn’t?), Gujarat lags behind in literacy and bank access, hundreds of farmers have committed suicide and as regards the rural electrification Modi’s supporters boast of, more than 99.5% of the villages in Gujarat had been electrified back in 1991, much before Modi came to power, and Gujarat has neither the highest GDP, nor the highest GDP growth rate, nor the highest per capita income, and it has actually seen a rise in rapes under Modi, nor could the Modi administration prevent terrorist attacks in the Akshardham temple in Gandhinagar in 2002 or the Ahmedabad blasts in 2008, and highways apart, roads in the state aren’t everywhere all that fabulous, and waterborne diseases like jaundice have spread in Gujarat under Modi’s tenure, nor is seeing people in rags on the road even in urban Gujarat an impossibility, and roads in Gujarat are as flooded in the rainy season as elsewhere in the country. Modi’s putting a price tag on Tharoor’s wife and condemning someone for being a non-vegetarian are also very distasteful. So, my contention viz-a-viz the BJP, as stated above, should certainly not be seen as my being an ardent supporter of that party, or worse still, Modi in particular, and in fact, I am not an uncritical admirer of any political party or leader.]

Lastly, the movie also shows alcohol consumption in very poor light, which is quite an extreme position, though not something delved much into throughout, fortunately. Intoxication has always been a part of every civilization, and the Vedas speak highly of the spiritual value of soma, an intoxicant (Ram is also shown enjoying alcohol in the Ramayan), while warning against excess drinking, and indeed, if excess eating leading to obesity and heart problems is not seen as immoral, there is no reason why drinking, smoking or any other form of intoxication should, and indeed, many of the great figures in world history have consumed intoxicants. I do, however, understand that a case can be made against drinking (the most clinching argument, in my opinion, being the possibility of lethal crimes being committed in drunkenness), and while it is legitimate to campaign against drinking, merely alcohol consumption and entrepreneurial aspirations cannot be disqualifications for living in someone’s house, as the character played by the big B’s treatment meted out to the character played by Ajay Devgan suggested! I know that Anna Hazare has very extreme views against alcohol consumption, but there was a lot in the movie that wasn’t exactly in line with the Anna movement, the best example being that Anna is very much alive, while the Anna-like character played by the big B gets martyred in the movie.

On the whole, as a part of the youth of this nation, I must say that this extremely illiberal attitude towards business and intoxication, as also the tendency to define communalism only in terms of a certain affiliation, is something that I reject and this is a movie not in keeping with the times, though dealing with a subject that is very much relevant today, which is corruption.