Even after more than seventy years of gaining independence from the British rule, we do not seem to have broken off from the ugly caste conventions in our society. Rohith Vemula’s suicide and the continuous lynching of Dalits occurring throughout the country is proof of that. It is necessary to analyse the historical representation of Dalits in one of the most influential media in India. Cinema is globally used to mirror the conditions of society. In India too the storyboard is no different.
The portrayal of Dalits in Indian cinema began with Bombay Talkies’ Achhut Kanya (1936), followed by many mainstream and low-budget ones, to Sairat (2016). These films mostly depicted the political oppression of the Dalit community which is pertinent in our country. But we will have to ask whether these movies are genuine artistic forms of expressing unrecognised lives around us or is merely milking the cow.
Films like Shyam Benegal’s Ankur(1974) seems to have lingered on the caste perspective, without being melodramatic. Earlier films stand out because they are prior to a period where the film industry had made a trend out of it. In Ankur, Lakshmi (Shabana Azmi) plays a Dalit woman whose husband leaves home after being publicly shamed. She surrenders to the wishes of zamindar’s son,for societal and financial stability. There was no struggle for survival there, Lakshmi choose that easy way. The zamindar’s son is a liberal who defies the caste system and eats food cooked by his Dalit maid. But when he realizes she is carrying his child, he tries by every means to evade the social stigma and abandons her. The Dalit is exploited, used and thrown away, even without a guilt feeling in this cinema. If we take the examples from international films, there are a lot of movies which portray the social conflict and the victimhood of the protagonist, like The Great Dictator. These movies portray the particular forms of political oppressions pertinent in that particular country. But what sets these films apart is that they have a degree of complexity. Victimhood of the character is not the axis which these movies revolve around.
When we come to Indian cinema, victimhood is treated differently. Here, ‘Dalits’ gain significance only in relation to the caste society. Social preconceptions play a larger role than unbiased observations since Indian cinema depends heavily on positive reception by the mass audience.
Art is an imitation of the world, which at the same time makes space for individual expression. The major reason behind this is because the lion’s share of Indian art is based on mythology, and therefore there is no space for complexity or ambiguity. It plays with a set of handed down knowledge, which is nothing but Brahminical. “The majority of the stakes in the film industry is held by higher castes, their films portray a very elitist image and way of life. The culture and traditions shown in the films, for instance, are very Brahminical. Or the concept of class has taken over caste in popular cinema.” (Swati Mehta, ‘Exploring caste in Hindi cinema’) Karan Johar and Yash Chopra films are classic examples of this.
There have also been attempts to exploit the caste issue to encash it in the name of the box-office victory, by channelising huge-budgets and casting big stars. This also helps the makers to get tax exemptions and maybe also an award or two. Two examples of playing the Dalit card for box office gain would be Priyadarshan’s Aakrosh (2010) and Vidhu Vinod Chopra’s Ekalavya (2007).
Victimhood is made the essence of Dalit life. The gaze of the Indian cinema is essentially still Brahminical, viewing the Dalit vocations as ignoble, which reeks of false-consciousness. Dalits would have their own conflicts, and interpersonal reactions, which haven’t found its path to Indian cinema. Aligning the lives of Dalits with their oppression only, side-lining all the other aspects of their lives also is born from the top gaze, which is consistent with Brahminism.
The hegemony of Brahminism which has defined the rules of our society also seems to have defined the rules for Indian cinema. This has to do with the fact that the Indian film industry is largely in the hands of upper-class, upper-caste elites. It is no wonder that ‘Dalit’ movies made by such an industry turn out to be mostly ‘casteist’ or ‘caste-blind’. Even the films of the ‘Parallel Cinema Movement’ which do portray Dalit characters do so based on the viewpoint of its makers, which is a ‘harijan’ understanding of Gandhi, rather than ‘Dalit’ understanding of Ambedkar-Phule. This has to do with the continuous alienation of Dalits from education and also from mainstream society. Representation of Dalits in the film industry is paltry. Even though there are pioneers like Kanjibhai Rathod, who was considered the first successful director of Indian Cinema, their identities go unnoticed.
On the other hand, small-budget and regional films made mostly by novice film-makers seem to be better at profiling the Dalit identity. Chaitanya Tamhane’s Court (2014) is not about the Dalit identity at all. It is the tragedy of a sewer cleaner dying while cleaning sewers. The reason for his death is unknown. What led to his death doesn’t matter, just like his death itself, or even his life. Mainstream movies also seem to be following course, at least some of them. Masaan (2015) is also such a film which doesn’t offer easy answers. It shows the Dalit as risen above the caste lines and is portrayed with dignity and confidence. Newton (2017) took the narrative of the Dalit protagonist to another level. It depicts the protagonist as a castles freeman who disrupts conventional norms and stereotypes. The identity of the protagonist is projected through the subtle use of symbols and social codes. His behaviour with others and the way he is treated as normal, which is a far cry from the oppressed and tortured treatment in the films of earlier years. Mainstream or art-house, the characterisation of Dalits have changed with times, as have their own elevation in the society. But we will want to wait to see if such movies will continue to be made, or if they are just one-off films.
About the Author
