One of the more ridiculous controversies of recent times is the one concerning the Hindi film Dhurandhar. Critics have panned the movie for minor or non-existent flaws while overlooking a shortcoming of long-term significance.
Details of the plot are being left out here so as not to spoil the fun for would-be viewers. However, by now, it is probably widely known that the movie deals with the terror campaign Pakistan has been waging against India for years, and one kind of counter-measure that was taken. The broad theory is that Pakistani agencies, including Inter-Services Intelligence, would not have been able to carry out this campaign without the aid of their homegrown criminal outfits. Therefore, an Indian agency sent an operative to infiltrate the criminal gangs and eventually destroy them. How this agent (played by Ranveer Singh) assumes the identity of a Balochi Hamza Ali Mazari and gets on to the job of disrupting the gangs is what the film is about.
Two terror episodes — the hijack of IA 814 in 1999 and the 2001 attack on Parliament — are dealt with at the start of the film, and the November 11, 2008 Mumbai atrocities figure in somewhere beyond the halfway point. All three incidents are presented in documentary form (with real-time video shots and voice recordings from the Mumbai event). These parts of the film hew close to the facts and should not, apparently, have occasioned controversy. So, we can move on to those parts that have.
A criticism that the film demeans Indian Muslims is difficult to understand because not a single member of this specific community figures in the movie. All characters, excluding Indian officials who appear from time to time as if to fix the context or timing of incidents, are Pakistani Muslims. Most are members of either the Pakhtoon or Baloch gangs operating from the Lyari slum of Karachi. The remainder are corrupt politicians, policemen, or the ISI Major and his operatives.
In many of the scenes, the men are depicted as heavily armed, extremely brutal, and unabashedly foul-mouthed. Gangs sell illegal arms to Balochi nationalists as well as terror groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba. Morality is a scarce commodity, as is loyalty. This segment of Pakistani society is presented as despicable, but why should that trouble anyone on this side of the border? There is no attempt to suggest that such depravities are characteristic of the wider Pakistani society, let alone the Muslims as a whole. Criminal gangs and terror outfits are sought to be shown in their true colours, and even if there is some cinematic excess, why should any tears be shed over these deplorables?
A broader critique that the film creates a lop-sided image of Pakistan as a whole also carries little weight. Firstly, it is not true. Secondly, if some people believe otherwise, there has never been a time when Pakistan’s official media has not aired the most foul, imbalanced portrayal it could conjure about India. They can surely have a taste of their own medicine. Have they ever reciprocated the fair treatment that was accorded to them in Bajrangi Bhaijaan?
One point made against the film is that it allows characters to use language derogatory of Muslims in general. When such words are used in a film, a licence is given for the usage of the same in everyday life, the argument goes. This point does need to be considered seriously. Here, again, most epithets or obscene references are used by Pakistani Muslims against Pakistani Muslims. Further, it is just as valid to assert that films trying to show reality as it is must contain foul language if such is part of an environment replicated on screen.
Yes, Dhurandhar does have more than a tinge of pro-BJP propaganda. At one point, two Indian officials who are pre-2014 bemoaning the existence of corrupt ministers who block action against terrorists, are seen to be wishing for a “future government” that will be different. There is also a reference to a minister and his son who sold to Pakistani agents the plates used to print high-value Indian currency. While the actual language is oblique, the context strongly implies that the reference is to a minister of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA). Politicians from both sides of the current divide have made all sorts of allegations against people from the other side. None of these have been proven, and it is highly dangerous for a film to present them as true.
Political parties are entitled to use commercial films for propaganda purposes. But should they, or supposedly independent filmmakers, be allowed to present propaganda as unvarnished fact and yet claim that their movie is apolitical? Should not the filmmaker at least affirm his political preferences or convictions instead of claiming that his product is absolutely impartial?
A deeper problem is the distortion of the historical record. Here, the fault is not that of the filmmaker or even of the BJP. The fault lies with all — not just the opposition parties — who have failed to contest the distortion of the record. India’s struggle against terror has been a long one. The mechanisms, architecture, and processes needed to combat this menace have been painstakingly built over the years.
Those at the helm currently have benefited from the work of those who have come before them. Those wielding power obscure this fact to establish themselves as all-knowing, indispensable change-makers. This effort must be resisted by all patriots because the truth alone will make India strong.
Menon is a journalist who was once based in Pakistan. He is the author of the book Never Tell Them We Are The Same People: Notes On Pakistan
