Bahubali - A Propaganda Movie?
It is very depressing to see some reviewers and journalists categorise Bahubali as an upper caste Hindu film. Certain articles in newspapers and journals somehow picturise it as a film that promotes the caste hierarchy as it emphasises on Kshatriya Dharma in a few instances. Some say that it reinforces Hindu iconography as it shows giant elephants and Brahmin priests chanting shlokas and conducting yajnas; that it somewhere, somehow has transformed itself into a Hindu propaganda movie.
Bahubali, no doubt is very similar to ancient Indian mythology that most Indians are familiar with. But does depicting Indian mythology in a film make it a propaganda movie? Does depicting giant elephants and Brahmin priests suddenly make the movie divisive?
Values that real Hindutva embody, contrary to what right wing elements spread today, are values that can be considered true learning lessons of life. Bahubali is no different. The movie depicts a great prince (who unfortunately was not crowned the king), an epitome of good leadership who commands loyalty and trust over his entire kingdom not just because of his great skills as a warrior, but because of the great human being that he was. Contrary to his cousin who was crowned the king, Bahubali is loved and respected by his aam aadmi for the humility and greatness he exhibits. Even when he is ousted out of the palace precincts, he happily lives with the same aam aadmi in their tiny huts, helping them out with their daily chores, eating the food they eat and wearing the clothes they wear.
Going by the verbatim of these writers, the aam admi depicted in the movie are farmers,tillers and craftsmen, people who belong to the lowest rung of the caste hierarchy in India. But Bahubali, who belongs to the upper caste, living with them and eating out of their hands especially in a system which has rigid restrictions on sharing of food, are all instances where he tries to break the caste barrier rather than reinforcing it.
Bahubali is an example of what a leader should be. And unlike the writers who say that the film shows that Kshatriyas are destined to command and others to obey, Bahubali was the people's choice. This is not to say that what worked in the kingdom of Mahishmathi was democracy. But Bahubali indeed was a great leader, and a popular one too.
Now, even if the above statement by the writers saying that the film glorifies absolute authority of Kshatriyas is meant to indicate the crowning of Bhallaladeva contrary to popular opinion, a very valid justification prevails. Bahubali is a story set centuries back when Kshatriyas were the ruling class, while democracy came in India just 70 years back. Rajamouli has tried to depict that mythological era and has no reason to not show Kshatriyas as a powerful class, as that was a historical reality. Just because they affect certain sentiments, the truth and the past needn't be hidden from the public eye.
But what Rajamouli did is break the stereotypes regarding the perfect Kshatriya. By depicting Bahubali as a humble Kshatriya who willingly gave his service and time to the poor people of Mahishmathi who were most likely to be Shudras, Bahubali creates a new image of the perfect Kshatriya.
Bahubali might not be a perfect movie. But it is definitely not a propaganda movie. If it had indeed been one, how would millions of people, irrespective of caste and religion throng the theatres everyday, standing in long queues, just to watch this movie? The kind of support and warmth the movie has received from its wide audience itself is a proof of its acceptance.
Bahubali, no doubt is very similar to ancient Indian mythology that most Indians are familiar with. But does depicting Indian mythology in a film make it a propaganda movie? Does depicting giant elephants and Brahmin priests suddenly make the movie divisive?
Values that real Hindutva embody, contrary to what right wing elements spread today, are values that can be considered true learning lessons of life. Bahubali is no different. The movie depicts a great prince (who unfortunately was not crowned the king), an epitome of good leadership who commands loyalty and trust over his entire kingdom not just because of his great skills as a warrior, but because of the great human being that he was. Contrary to his cousin who was crowned the king, Bahubali is loved and respected by his aam aadmi for the humility and greatness he exhibits. Even when he is ousted out of the palace precincts, he happily lives with the same aam aadmi in their tiny huts, helping them out with their daily chores, eating the food they eat and wearing the clothes they wear.
Going by the verbatim of these writers, the aam admi depicted in the movie are farmers,tillers and craftsmen, people who belong to the lowest rung of the caste hierarchy in India. But Bahubali, who belongs to the upper caste, living with them and eating out of their hands especially in a system which has rigid restrictions on sharing of food, are all instances where he tries to break the caste barrier rather than reinforcing it.
Bahubali is an example of what a leader should be. And unlike the writers who say that the film shows that Kshatriyas are destined to command and others to obey, Bahubali was the people's choice. This is not to say that what worked in the kingdom of Mahishmathi was democracy. But Bahubali indeed was a great leader, and a popular one too.
Now, even if the above statement by the writers saying that the film glorifies absolute authority of Kshatriyas is meant to indicate the crowning of Bhallaladeva contrary to popular opinion, a very valid justification prevails. Bahubali is a story set centuries back when Kshatriyas were the ruling class, while democracy came in India just 70 years back. Rajamouli has tried to depict that mythological era and has no reason to not show Kshatriyas as a powerful class, as that was a historical reality. Just because they affect certain sentiments, the truth and the past needn't be hidden from the public eye.
But what Rajamouli did is break the stereotypes regarding the perfect Kshatriya. By depicting Bahubali as a humble Kshatriya who willingly gave his service and time to the poor people of Mahishmathi who were most likely to be Shudras, Bahubali creates a new image of the perfect Kshatriya.
Bahubali might not be a perfect movie. But it is definitely not a propaganda movie. If it had indeed been one, how would millions of people, irrespective of caste and religion throng the theatres everyday, standing in long queues, just to watch this movie? The kind of support and warmth the movie has received from its wide audience itself is a proof of its acceptance.
Comments
Post a Comment