Arti Shukla
posted 4 March 2005

Watching James Bond foil the North Koreans' plan for a nuclear attack in the recent Bond movie, Die Another Day, a sudden realisation dawned on me. Here was, yet again, a movie portraying a particular country in a negative light, as a bunch of evil-doers; if not the people, at least their leadership and the army. Although made for entertainment, was it possible that such movies might be having an effect on the way people actually think of those countries, I wondered! Almost instantly a chord of similarity struck me as I thought of a few recent Hindi films, in which the Pakistanis were similarly always up to no good.

I realised that like the majority of my countrymen I had only seen my neighbour 'through the window'. And in that frame he has always appeared evil and the root cause of all the problems in my house. 'The window' is the frame of the Hindi film that has in the last few years consolidated the tittle-tattle of streetside political discourse in India into concrete images of an essentially malevolent Pakistan. Indian film, like Hollywood, and any national film industry for that matter, is both a leader and follower of public opinion. In portraying foreign characters it reflects what it believes to be the popular attitudes of the times, but it also turns these often vague attitudes into concrete images.

The use of cinema as means of political mobilisation has long been acknowledged in the West, with the propaganda genre coming into existence before the Second World War and employed with maximum force during that war by both sides to discredit each other. However, its possibility, in explicit terms, in the Indian cinema, was never recognised, until recently, because of its rejection, by the critics, as a serious and meaningful medium. Kitsch, melodramatic, repetitive in its themes, Hindi cinema was relegated only to be a mode of popular entertainment. Indian Film Historian M Madhav Prasad writes of Indian Cinema as a as a not yet cinema, a bastard institution in which the mere ghost of a technology is employed for the purposes inimical to its historic essence. Indeed, Indian films have always been studied for their lack of realism and multiplicity of melodramatic emotions, jovial endings, chance meetings, supernatural interventions, songs and dances.

All criticisms withstanding, it cannot be denied that cinema in India is extremely popular and ubiquitous in nature, which is made apparent, through the music that is played in people's homes, through the clothes worn on streets, weddings or social gatherings, as well as on the hoardings and the posters in the streets, on the magazines, on television and on the internet. The cinema permeates every aspect of the Indian culture and is a part of everyday life, part of its habit and speech, dress and manners, background and foreground. In that case, I wondered - in the context of the recent flurry of films that have released in India over the past eight years on the subject of India-Pakistan-Kashmir relations - did cinema also permeate the way people thought of political issues so critical to the security of their country and themselves?

The idea excited me and I sat down to watch all the films of the Indo-Pak genre. I restricted my film watching spree to the Hindi films primarily as I knew the language very well and the fact that only the Hindi cinema could be called the national cinema of India because of it audience reach and language status.

A brief backgrounder on this genre of Hindi films, I believe, is necessary. Living up to its image of a cinema indifferent to the political dimension, preferring to situate films in a continuous tradition of Indian myth-making and autonomous folk culture that did not have any real connection to the day to day life of the people or the state, popular Indian cinema traditionally did not depict anything of Partition, Pakistan, Kashmir or any of the burning topics that are so important to India's history and present. Indeed, it was not until 1973 that a young Hindu filmmaker from Kerala, MS Sathyu traversed this uncharted territory with a Hindi production (Garm Hawa) centring around the experiences of a Muslim family from Agra in the aftermath of partition. But Garm Hawa (Hot Winds) was for a long time the only film made on such subject.

However, as India Pakistan relations heated up, with the increase of violence in Kashmir, the above-mentioned revolution in Indian cinema commenced, and the controversial subjects were no longer taboo. Indian cinema began exploring topics that required the explicit portrayal of Pakistan. Henna, released in the year 1991, was the first film to make such a portrayal. Although released during the height of militancy in Kashmir, keeping to the traditions of the past mainstream cinema, Henna did not touch upon any controversial issue. It was a pioneer though in the sense that it introduced the 'other' and openly used the term Pakistan. Usually in the past, even if a reference to Pakistan or China was made, they were always termed as padosi desh (neighbouring country) or as desh ke dushman (enemies of the country).

Towards the mid 1990s, things changed dramatically. Indo-Pak relations became a favourite theme. This trend also coincided with the first ever extended rule of any non-Congress government, the BJP. Border, released in 1997, marked the breakthrough. This film was based on the India Pakistan war of 1971 and introduced the idea of Pakistan as an adversary, and was released just two months before the fiftieth anniversary of independence celebrations. Since the BJP was in power, its allied associations such as the Shiv Sena (Army of the Hindu God, Shiva), the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World Hindu Council) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (National Volunteers Organisation) have been very prominent and active in bringing forward the idea of a more aggressive and a more Hindu brand of nationalism that, needless to say, viewed Pakistan as a menace.

Thus, there were now scores of Hindi films made on the subject of India Pakistan relations. While some were made on the partition issue, most of them concentrated on militancy in Kashmir or on the border disputes. Also, while some films like Sarfarosh (Betrayer, 1999) portrayed the more human and complicated aspects of Indo-Pak relations, others just cashed on anti-Pakistani sentiments through the average genre techniques of an action or war film. Gadar (Mutiny 2001), based on the partition riots, turned out to be one of the most successful films of the Hindi film industry and made Sunny Deol (the lead actor), an icon of the 'anti Pakistani' rhetoric.

Thus, very much like a trickle that becomes a full-blown stream, India's travails with its neighbour seem to have become a genre of Hindi cinema. What, started out with Henna, as a one-off experiment, has now become a regular formula. Since 1997, at least 20 films have been made, that dealt with the issue of Indo-Pak relations, either directly or indirectly, with Gadar even turning out to be amongst the top grosser at the box office to date. (See the appendix for summaries of some of these films.)

The Pakistan of Hindi Films

There are certain recurring themes in the genre, and it is worthwhile summing them up, to get one whole idea of what these images are. The key ideas are as follows:

- People who lived in India before the partition of 1947 suffer discrimination in Pakistan today.
- Kashmiris prefer just rule by democratic India rather than tyrannical rule by Pakistan.
- Indian government and army officials are compassionate, quite unlike in Pakistan.
- The primary reason why Pakistan has problems with India is because of having being defeated in every single war, especially the humiliating defeat in 1971.
- Pakistanis want to wrest Kashmir from India so as to avenge the break up of Bangladesh.
- The Pakistani army is misguiding Indian youth through lies and treachery.
- India treats its minorities well and with respect, a fact that Pakistanis do not accept.

An important point that one needs to notice is that none of the films ever mix up Hindu-Muslim and Indo-Pak relations. Muslims are an integral part of India and this theme is reasserted in more or less every film, perhaps, keeping the tradition of the promotion of national and communal integration alive, because, in real life politics in India, these two issues do often get mixed up.

Also, except Henna, all the films have portrayed Pakistan as an adversary. The extent to which animosities exist varies. While some films separate the motives of the army, the government and civilians in Pakistan, others view them as a combined adversarial force. Also, in none of the films, perhaps except Mission Kashmir, is there any reference to follies that might have been committed by the Indian army or state. (In this film the police kill some innocents, but justify it as a mistake, because it was impossible to distinguish between the innocents and the terrorists.) The Indians are good, humane, patriotic, peace loving etc, although there are a few rotten apples (the traitors), whom the film protagonists always, of course, uproot. Thus, almost always the Indians have an embellished image compared to that of the Pakistanis. The following table summarises the dominant ideas of Pakistan that are being projected vis-à-vis India. (There are also portrayals in some films, which show Pakistan in a different and a more positive light. But that is barely significant relative to the portrayal of a vile Pakistan.)

Gaston Roberge writes, 'History of whatever type is always a vision that bears on the present'. This is particularly true of present relations between India and Pakistan, because they share a common history, especially the history of partition, which not only marked the birth of two separate nations, but, also of the hostilities between the two. Roberge continues, 'Cinema is the great interpreter of the past and constantly programmes the memory of its audience.' Thus, the way partition is remembered in Indian cinema certainly bears upon present attitudes towards Pakistan. The first visual reconstructions of the partition, besides documentaries on television were made by films like the Train to Pakistan, Gadar and 1947 Earth etc. Partition and the other events of that period are still being reconstructed through the interpretation of events, sequences, causes and effects.

Partition is an event that in almost all its cinematic constructions has been portrayed as having two essential features; firstly it was purely a result of the demands of the Muslim League. Secondly, while accepting partition as a sad memory, India has moved on; Pakistan hasn't. Both premises are arguable, and are constructions of just a single perspective. It is these myths that the films now are reinforcing. I do not argue that these films are portraying lies or half truths. As Isakaason and Furhammar write, 'reality is rich enough to provide authentic material for the most disparate interpretations'. It is just that these films represent only one perspective, which bars a proper understanding of partition and other historical events.

The second premise, that India has moved on , although quite accurate, often skips over the reasons for this. It was easy for India to do this compared to Pakistan, because not only did it inherit the majority of resources of the erstwhile British Raj, it also established satisfactory terms by force, as in the state of Hyderabad and in Kashmir, where Nehru got the Maharaja to sign the instrument of access as a condition for military support from India. Pakistan did not have any such neat conclusions to the partition saga. Not only did it struggle with state building with the meagre resources it had, but its claim to Kashmir, which was ordered by the UN to be put to a referendum was never respected by India. None of this is ever showed in any of the films.

Therefore history has been constructed on the cinema screen through the portrayal of certain selective events. Even if cinema is not the major source of information about history, it definitely influences its audience's perceptions of partition with this single and selective perspective. The second influence that these films can have is on the psychological health of the country. Isakaason and Furhammar write that ultimately propaganda is aided by man's underlying psychological need for moral value judgements in simple black-and-white terms. This need is most apparent in attitudes to political issues which are too complex and too momentous for most people's psychological resources, and which can only be coped with on a much simplified, ritual level.

This need is also apparent equally for complex cross-national issues, of which India has many. The issue of Kashmir itself is quite complicated and has been often simplified in black and white terms: Pakistan claiming it because it is a Muslim majority state, and India insisting on its right based on the Maharaja's instrument of accession. Within these black and white terms, the issue of Kashmiri independence, the involvement of foreign mercenaries and the UN's call for a referendum have been overlooked. These simplifications are very much reflected in the films. Thus, all the films portray one singular and simple version of India's righteous claim to Kashmir, Pakistan's meddling in the state's affairs and young Kashmiris being misguided. Thus, the complex issue of Kashmir becomes simple, events like the Kargil war understandable and the Indian army's actions justifiable. These films, therefore, not only provide entertainment, they also satisfy the audience's moral and political desires by providing a tool to makes sense of what is going on and understand the actions of the governments of the two countries.

In the films of the Indo-Pak genre, then, Indians are peace loving, responsible and take a paternal attitude to the actions of an irresponsible, fundamentalist and tactless Pakistan. Thus, the films keep us happy by providing visual pleasures along with psychological satisfaction.

This imagery of India versus Pakistan also helps to define India itself. For an ethnically diverse country like India, the lines of the nation do not neatly map on to its territorial borders. It is under such circumstances that the state has to use cultural instruments to symbolise an all-encompassing Indian nation above the linguistic, religious and racial differences. To the traditional paraphernalia, the national flag, patriotic songs etc, Sumita S Chakravarty adds the Bombay films, as they also do the ideological work of re-affirming the nation. Almost every film in the genre puts forward an idea of India that is deemed acceptable, normal and defines an essential 'Indianness'. Writing on the images of terrorism on Indian cinema, Chakravarty argues, "For while it is true that the films under consideration posit Indian terrorism as a futile exercise and show the inherent recuperability of the terrorist, they also refashion the nation-space itself into a liminal space of dreaming." Likewise, the films of the Indo-Pak genre, while reflecting upon the essential pointlessness of any of Pakistan's claims, generate a sense of an acceptable national ideology of what constitutes India and its priorities. We can draw a bit from each film and constitute this idea of India. For example, below we take a few dialogues from various films and see how those words sketch some aspects of an acceptable Indian identity.

Maa Tujhe Salaam - Hum jiyo aur jeeno do ke sidhant par chalne waale log hain….Naa hum pehel karte hain, na karenge. We believe in the principle of 'live and let live'. We have never made the first attack, nor, we ever will. (PEACEFUL)

Gadar - Is mulq se jyada Musalman Hindustan mein hain….aur unke dil hamesha yahi kehta hain,'Hindustan zindabd'. (There are more Muslims in India than this country. Their hearts always say, 'Long Live India'.) (SECULAR)

Pukar - …..jung ka ailaan karo..…saat din kah kahel hai saat din ka. Aathwe din tumhare mulq ka naamo nishan iss duniya se mita denge. Come on, declare a war!... It is all then a matter of seven days. On the eighth day, we would destroy your country from the face of this earth. (POWER AND STRENGTH)

These portrayals of the nation provide for a common identification with the nation, which is an essential prerequisite for the maintenance of the nation state's unity. This is probably the reason why the problems of Hindu Muslim relations have always been omitted from any film that deals with Indo-Pak relations. While portraying an Indo-Pak rivalry, there is an essential assumption of Hindu Muslim unity within India.

All this reinforces cultural hegemony, the process by which the audience and thus the people at large are persuaded to acquiesce to a given set of policies, rules, strategies or political consensus. Thus, the media can not only make people identify with certain notions of the Indian state as discussed above, but through the assertion and reassertion of these notions, persuade them to agree over policies, methods and strategies that the Indian state seeks to employ against Pakistan.

Many more films have come out on this theme, since I began this article. Lakshya (Aim) 2004, LOC 2004, Deewar (Wall) 2004, Zameen (Land) 2003, and Main Hoo Na (I am there) 2004, of which only Main Hoo Na portrayed Pakistan in a positive light, probably because it was released in a phase when India-Pakistan relations had cooled down to a great extent. Since then, here have been friendly initiatives between the two countries like the cricket matches, medical exchanges, release of prisoners of war etc. But, the important point is not whether Pakistan is being portrayed in a negative or a positive light, but that the films in India have come to speak of or influence the political mindset. While this phenomenon has long been acknowledged in the West, primarily due to the Hollywood's propaganda movies of the Second World War, its rise in South Asia is not only discernible, but as we witnessed, alarming.

Appendix: summary of films in the 'Indo-Pak' genre.

Other references:
Benedict ANDERSON and Richard O'GORMAN, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, Rev. ed. London: Verso, 1991.Ch.10.
Sumita S CHAKRAVARTY, 'Fragmenting the Nation: Images of terrorism in Indian popular cinema', in Mette Hjort and Scott Mackenzie (eds.), Cinema and Nation, London, Routledge, 2000, pp 233.
Ibid.p.233.
Leif FURHAMMAR and Folke ISAKSSON, Politics and Film translated by Kersti French, Studio Vista, London, 1971. p.168.
Gaston ROBERGE, Another Cinema for Another Society, Seagull Books, Calcutta, 1985.p. 133.
Ibid, p.131.