Filmflam of Aarakshan

In a week of high drama, from the theatre of the Anna Hazare movement to the temporary demise of Indian cricket in England, littler dramas got sidelined.

One such now-forgotten episode centred around Prakash Jha’s Aarakshan, a much-touted film about reservation.
Today’s film has trailers of two types. There is first the trailer which provides an over-dramatised fragment of the film as an introduction; the second comprises the debates, the anticipated controversy around the film. This battle often creates an intellectual or operatic prelude to the film. Aarakshan expectedly created more than a storm in civil society’s tea cup.
Dalits objected to it saying they were misrepresented. Filmmakers struck back by talking about the freedom of expression. Dalits argued that freedom of expression did not include the freedom to misrepresent a social group. Critics hit back by emphasising the integrity of cinema and the creativity of the artist. As stereotype battled stereotype, artistic licence on both sides was heightened by the fact that few had seen the film.
Key actors of the film were present in most of the TV debates. Jha said that he would not waste `70 crore merely to misrepresent a group. Meanwhile, bureaucracies entered the fray. What the Censor Board passed, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes had to question, summoning the Censor Board chairperson to appear before it as if it were a vassal. The soap opera quality was exaggerated further by protests in a few cities and the banning of the film in three states. People in other states felt privileged that they were going to see another Jha classic. What they witnessed was an insult to good cinema, the debate on reservation and the quality of democratic discussion.
The publicity of the film was misleading. Reservation is only one of the issues discussed; Jha’s film is more a battle of tutorial colleagues. The plot thickens in an interesting but a predictable way.
The story centres around the relationship between an idealistic old teacher and his student. The old man, or should one say the angry old man, is played by Amitabh Bachchan. If Bachchan’s films in the Seventies epitomising the angry young man created cinematic history, Bachchan as the angry old man here in Aarakshan is boring and utterly predictable. It is almost as if he’s lost his cinematic touch. Aarakshan, in fact, looks like a continuation of Mohabbatein with Bachchan as headmaster. Only, instead of Shah Rukh Khan, Saif Ali Khan plays both the idealist dalit and angry teacher. Deepika Padukone as Bachchan’s daughter and Khan’s friend waters down the plot even more successfully. Bachchan, caught in the reservation battle, is dismissed and his old school becomes part of a tutorial college chain. Bachchan, never one to give up, sets up a tabela school opposite the tutorial college and a battle of tutorial colleges ensues. The tutorial college, which is the real villain of the show, charges exorbitant fees for those who do not get admission in regular colleges because of reservation.
Bachchan, seeing the hypocrisy of reservation and its unintended consequences, single-handedly teaches a school for poor students. The battle warms up as the original tutorial college, jealous of his success, tries to evict him. The conspiratorial link between politicians who see in school an ideal business and educational entrepreneurs is played up. Their collaboration represents investment without responsibility. Khan, who had left for Cornell University, returns to help Bachchan. The battle between good and evil develops Bollywood-style. By that time, even if you do not have reservations about reservation, you develop some about Jha and Bollywood. Aarakshan is atrocious cinema where the whole issue of good and bad education, reservation versus merit is trivialised. Bad cinema is no answer to social injustice and devious publicity is no answer to the question of freedom. Jha trivialises the movie twice, first by directing it, and then by discussing it in public space. When bad acting combines with bad sociology, even Bollywood should look embarrassed.
I remember somewhere during one TV discussion, a commentator added that “sunlight is the answer to censorship”. One can go a step further. I think exposure is the answer to a bad film. The audience realises that they have been conned. I am surprised there were no protests after the film. It was terrible.
The film’s ending is the last straw. The chairperson of the old college, who had taken sanyas, returns to remedy the situation. She requests Bachchan to return to his old college and head the centre for remedial education. The choice before the Indian student is stark. It is the tutorial college versus remedial education. The battle is between a pedagogy that sees shortcuts to education as the solution and a project that sees the poor and the backward as needing remedial treatment rather than justice, empathy and fairness. Two pathologies confront each other in the name of pedagogy, while the issue of justice is quietly ignored. When Bollywood creates these forgettable reconciliations, the audience feels cheated. A movie which was to prove an act of courage turns out to be a con game. The social debate becomes a cover to encourage fan attention.
There is another critical issue. It is the question of stereotypes. If one looks at the TV debates one has to ask why are dalits always presented in a restricted manner. They are always seen as being obsessed with their social status. Why cannot one expect a dalit to make an aesthetic point or raise an issue about the politics of the imagination? I think liberal stereotypes combined with electoral politics do greater injustice to the creativity of the dalit mind. Dalit intellectuals are cosmopolitan creatures who can survive the provincialism of caste elites.
The question is what makes the debate on justice so wretched in this movie. I think it is the notion of sentimentality. To assume that goodness is attuned to the demands of social justice is false. Philanthropy and fairness live in different worlds. Goodness can be socially blind and politically witless. Jha’s movie does not allow for real struggle or genuine ambiguity. It creates surrogate villains in the tutorial college, it disempowers history and creates an impotent politics. There is a dishonesty here, which he must account for.

Shiv Visvanathan is a social science nomad