Saffron sentiments have been hurt for the nth time, now over the teaser of Adipurush
In the saffron community, sanctimony scales a new peak every day. Members indulge in a variety of theatrics to score brownie points; the easiest one is to attack the Hindi film industry, its stars, directors, etc., on some pretext or the other. And even if there is no pretext, they create one. The latest one they have found in Adipurush, an upcoming mythological film based on the Ramayana. Directed by Om Raut and shot simultaneously in Hindi and Telugu, it stars Prabhas as Raghava, Kriti Sanon as Janaki, and Saif Ali Khan as Lankesh. In fact, such is the level of tetchiness that even a teaser of the film has incensed Hindutva hotheads, including Uttar Pradesh Deputy Chief Ministers Kesav Prasad Maurya and Brajesh Pathak and Madhya Pradesh Home Minister Narottam Mishra. Mishra has even warned of legal action if the
objectionable scenes are not removed. Satyendra Das, Ram Temple head priest of Ayodhya, has demanded an outright ban on the movie. Das told a newspaper that the portrayal of Lord Ram, Hanuman and Ravana does not conform with the epic and thus is against their dignity. Pathak is against the movie because saints are opposed to it: “Whatever saints have said needs attention.” The other UP Deputy Chief Minister, Keshav Maurya, hasn’t even seen the teaser but is against it nonetheless. In this me-too game, nobody wants to be seen as less offended: the claim of hurt sentiments is the claim of being a bona fide Hindutva warrior.
And what, pray, has hurt Hindu sentiments? Bharatiya Janata Party spokesperson Malavika Avinash enlightened us about it: “The Ravana in the photograph that I see floating around is a guy who looks nothing Indian, has blue eye makeup and is wearing leather jackets. This is our history they are representing; they cannot do it in the guise of creative liberty.” MP Minister Mishra is hurt because “Hanumanji is shown wearing leather, whereas the description [in the scriptures] of the deity’s costume is different… These are scenes that hurt religious sentiments.” That such arguments can be made in this day and age against a work of art speaks volumes about the plight of freedom of expression in our country. To begin with, art is not a Photostat representation of reality. Which implies that an artist or filmmaker need not be accurate in everything they create. The portrayal of deities is always a creative endeavour; the creativity of conventional portrayal cannot be privileged over that of the contemporary one. Besides, if every filmmaker listens to the views of every politician and pontiff, and is forced to adhere to their views, it will become impossible for him or her to direct any movie. But that, unfortunately, has been going on for quite some time. Today the Hindi filmmaker feels so constrained that they seem unwilling to take up interesting subjects. This also explains the staleness of story ideas and resultant flops.