Resorting to politics turns ‘acid’ test for Bollywood films

If you’ve got grown up within the regular meal of Bollywood films, an aromatic concoction of politics, controversy and entertainment isn’t much of a cheat diet you’re served. But if not spiced up rightly, a remotely dramatic real-life story would taste bland to the audience.

Actor Deepika Padukone ventured into film production with ‘Chhapaak’, to tell the tale of one among many heart-wrenching stories of acid attack survivor—Laxmi Agarwal (name changed in film)—and boosts her long-dead movement to ban the sale of acid.

It’s an excellent short or documentary material or might be woven seamlessly as an extended sequence of quarter-hour during a feature. But Deepika Padukone, breaking her image of a romantic heroine nudging to fine-tune into a non-attractive character turned to be a dismissal for her target audience—the young generation.

Her supposedly honest gesture to go to Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) Delhi to precise her solidarity with the scholars who were attacked by armed assailants caused a political divide. Deepika being such a huge public figure, she has all right to express her support or dissent on any national issue—be it JNU violence, Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) or National Register of Citizens (NRC). In JNU, she remained silent, did photo ops and left. Never ever she pronounced a word pledging support to JNU students even when she got trolled. This says everything. 

 When States like Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh made the film tax-free, theatres in the BJP-led States ran dry with almost no audience. With the choice of Deepika’s visit to JNU, the makers assumed her standing with supposed ‘anti-national’ students; it successively would provide hype to the film. Such a wrong choice of events unnecessary slid the film into a political coup. The marketing or PR of the film should have realised that JNU incident was against college politics where students were fighting for campus rights, and their protest wasn’t against any purposeful torture on women torture or of its like.

But during an equivalent time Nirbhaya verdict came out where the convicts were sentenced to death. If makers would have decided to form her visit Nirbhaya’s family instead it could have saved the film.

The film misses the high drama of an acid-attack survivor; neither she wore a gruesome prosthetics to run a chill within the spine nor had to undergo an afflicting struggle to start out or establish her protest against acid sale.

Deepika co-produced the film with Fox Star Studios. Fox Star has a history of negative publicity with which it could provide a film like ‘My Name is Khan’ an enormous opening irrespective to the ultimate fate of the film. Nowadays, every film with the scantiest sensitivity gets sucked into arbitrary censorship. Either States directly or endorsing unsolicited protest of fringe-turned-hardliner religious leaders or political figures, ripples inquisitiveness among the audience.

This combustible mixture of art and politics comes to an extended way refining itself whenever, since Bandit Queen (1996) was made.

Bandit Queen—a biopic on robber-turned-politician from Madhya Pradesh, Phoolan Devi, was the primary disputed film. The film shows her life at the backdrop of early 80’s rural Madhya Pradesh when she was marched naked, gang raped multiple times but it had been typical how girls and ladies were treated by the males of upper cast and creed at that point. It also shows how Phoolan Devi had killed the Thakurs and Rajput. Phoolan Devi surrendered and she was jailed.

Cut to mid-’90s when the film was made supported Indian-British writer-activist Mala Sen’s book ‘India’s Bandit Queen: True Story of Phoolan Devi’ by filmmaker Shekhar Gupta, Censor Board had no ground to bar the film from screening, but it had been held back saying that it much of sex scenes and raw cuss words.

But Censor Board’s writ doesn’t run beyond India. Irked Shekhar Kapoor said because of the producer of the film a foreigner, he would easily release the film internationally, without a cut. But filmmakers like Subhash Ghai intervened in favour of the film and negotiated that the film should have two shows for less than women and two shows for less than men. This was the primary ever film, released on such condition in 1996.

It was an equivalent time when Phoolan Devi, came out of jail became compassionate about the conditions of the people, tortured women. She chose to fight an election representing these oppressed societies of MP and effortlessly swept votes to become Member of Parliament.

Bandit Queen was eventually banned, but not for the touted malicious sexual content or profanity.

When the film was released, Phoolan Devi and ruling Congress party of Madhya Pradesh got scared. The film shows that she got very angry after she was tortured and she or he storms into villages, kills Thakurs and any Rajput and walks off crossover their body, which is showing disrespect to deceased.

Phoolan Devi got frightened of social slight assuming people will think that what Phoolan Devi did was to appease her personal angst against them and not for people at large if that was established her newly carved political career will ruin.

She held writer Mala Sen liable for maligning her character but Mala Sen passed the buck to Shekhar Kapoor saying her book doesn’t have anything that’s shown within the film and Shekhar Kapoor has improvised it and tweaked facts to form the film appealing. Shekhar Kapoor contested the indictment showing the page numbers of the book (page no. 234, 235 of the book India’s Bandit Queen: True Story of Phoolan Devi).

 However, Phoolan Devi and Mala Sen filed a case against the film saying that the film has distorted the facts and thus, in sight of libel and slander, the court bans Bandit Queen. That wasn’t the sole reason, though.

According to the film, Phoolan Devi became a terror within the early ’80s and within the Congress ruling MP. Chief Minister Arjun Singh became wanting to line up of her and her team—dead or alive. He ordered to poison every well, pond, abandoned water reservoirs around the vicinity of her den, as wherever they’re in the underground, they might need water to cook food or quench their thirst. However, the straying animals of the farmers were dying in mass a day, which became an enormous issue. Arjun Singh said thanks to the Bhopal Gas leakage many water bodies got contaminated. 

 In 1996, it had been again a Congress government in MP with Digvijay Singh as Chief Minister when the film released, but Arjun Singh got frightened of getting exposed of his deeds and he too filed an injunction saying the film is trying to tarnish the image of the govt. And Bandit Queen got banned in India, though it had been an enormous hit in its course of theatre run.

 That’s the sole film politically banned in true sense.

 Aamir Khan’s ‘Rang De Basanti’ (2006) first reaps the film promotion tryst with politics then he tweaked the trick to get a big opening from ‘Fanaa’ (2006).

During Rang De Basanti, Aamir Khan’s PR mumbled call at the press that the film has heavy use of animals without informing Maneka Gandhi and the first poster of the film has Aamir Khan sitting open-armed on a horse substantiated it. Reams of newsprint on this issue heated up­­­ the film. But the entire film has no use of animals except a nano-second shot in song shown Aamir riding the horse.

Then his PR spread the news that because the film has shown some corruption of Central government, the ruling UPA government has decided to ban the film.

In 1978 when Russia stopped using and manufacturing MIG-21, the then Congress government in India bought all the MIG-21s in scrap and on dry chase 14 to fifteen MIG-21 crashed. The govt started talking thereon but didn’t ban the film, saying it’s an ingenious choice of makers. If police or doctor showed corrupt during a film all police or doctors can’t start protesting against the film. But Aamir Khan ostensibly created an enormous hue and cry saying he won’t let the film get banned. PR kept on fanning the fuss. The film got an enormous opening and clothed to be an enormous hit. He understood that unique publicity can make his film an enormous hit. He didn’t do publicity of Thugs of Hindustan and Secret Superstar and both flopped at the box office.

 Again, before ‘Fanaa’, Aamir out of thin air became anti-Modi and jumped on to the support of social activist Medha Patkar in her long-standing protest—Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA). NBA is a movement, led by tribal against a variety of huge dam projects across river Narmada, which flows through the states of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra.

Narendra Modi, the then chief minister of Gujarat got irked by Aamir’s move and he decided to ban him in Gujarat. When his film Fanaa was close to release, the Gujarat government didn’t allow releasing it there. Yash Raj Films producer and distributor were adamant to release the film in Gujarat and that they moved court. When a movie is banned during a State and therefore the makers are fighting for that slice of stake, it automatically pumps the curiosity of the audience who thought it should have shown something objectionable that the film is banned in Gujarat.

Finally, it had been not let to release in Gujarat but it got an enormous opening across the country, though it turned to be a dud because it couldn’t live up to the expectation of the audience. But Aamir Khan got a trump.

 ‘Chhapaak’ isn’t the first film where Deepika endured political anger. Her every film with Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s –‘Goliyon Ki Rasleela Ram-Leela’, ‘Bajirao Mastani’ or ‘Padmavaat’—is presented plumed with political protest. ‘Padmaavat’ surfaced series of protest and public ban before its release. Firstly, members of Karni Sena staged an angry protest at Jaigarh fort in Jaipur where Bhansali was shooting for ‘Padmaavat’ (then Padmavati). Rajasthan’s Chittorgarh became the centre of the protest. Schools and colleges remained closed. Rajasthan home minister Gulab Chand Kataria formed a panel to observe the film before granting permission to release within the State. Protests rippled in many nations including Rajasthan, Gujarat, UP, Bihar and Karnataka. The film’s name was changed to Padmaavat. The Supreme Court stayed the ban on Padmaavat within the four States, ensuring an all India release on January 25.

Earlier, Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s ‘Goliyon Ki Rasleela: Ram-Leela’ faced protests in Indore, Rajkot, Jalandhar and within the capital regarding its title and content. Despite the film’s title been changed, first from ‘Ramleela’ to ‘Ram-Leela’, then to ‘Goliyon Ki Rasleela: Ram-Leela’, there was still controversy. Bajrang Dal workers in Indore stopped the theatre owners from exhibiting the movie due to its controversial content. The film also faced the ire of spiritual groups in Jalandhar and stalled its screening in one among the multiplexes and burnt the posters.

BJP activists protested against ‘Bajirao Mastani’ in Pune, forcing a multiplex to cancel all shows of the Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s work of art. They alleged that the storyline has ‘distorted’ historical facts of the age of Peshwa rule.

So, Bollywood has always been a favourite child of political controversies and latter has always saved, even prospered its loyal beneficiaries.