The month of June 2024 was rife with news about the recently released Yash Raj film production, “Maharaj,” directed by Siddharth Malhotra. According to many critics, it was another poorly made film despite a powerful performance by actor Jaideep Ahlawat. However, the film managed to grab the audience’s attention for two reasons. Firstly, the film, based on the historical 1862 Maharaj libel case, was a critique of blind faith. The protagonist, Karshandas Mulji, played by the debutant Jaunaid Khan, is a social reformer and journalist who challenges the religious conservatism of the godman Maharaj, played by Ahlawat. Secondly, the film courted legal and social controversy as a case of offense to religious sentiment was filed in the Gujarat High Court, which eventually ruled in favor of the film.
India has seen many such cases against popular films dealing with issues related to the dominant religion, Hinduism. Films like “PK” (Raju Hirani, 2014) and “OMG” (Amit Rai, 2023) quickly come to mind. The cardinal question is whether popular cinema has the space to foster humanistic and critical relations with gods and godmen.
Many cinema scholars such as Ashish Rajadhyaksha, Ravi Vasudevan, Aruna Vasudev, and Madhava Prasad have critically discussed the locus standi of early cinema in India. In light of such discussions, there emerges an understanding that humanized relationships with gods and godmen are not new to cinema. Mythological tales were central to silent cinema. In the era of filmmaker Dhundiraj Govind Phalke (1817-1944), popularly known as Dadasaheb Phalke, films like “Satyavan Savitri” (1914), “Satyavadi Raja Harishchandra” (1917), and “Kaliya Mardan” (1919) were not merely about devotional surrender but also about humans’ personalization of religion and spirituality. This trend continued even after cinema acquired sound following the release of the first talkie film “Alam Ara” (1931). Vijay Bhatt’s famous film “Ram Rajya” (1943) even had Mahatma Gandhi among its audience, despite his reservations about the medium of cinema. Furthermore, there were many films offering criticism of dominant Hindu values. Franz Osten’s “Achhut Kanya” (1936) is always remembered as a historical milestone. The film ridiculed the godmen who were custodians of discriminatory Brahmanical values.
Chidananda Dasgupta, the film critic and historian who co-founded the Calcutta Film Society with legendary filmmaker and Oscar awardee Satyajit Ray, wrote extensively about cinema’s tryst with mythological gods. Though he is more renowned for his translations of Rabindranath Tagore’s, Manik Bandopadhyaya’s, and Jibananda Das’s works, Dasgupta’s critical readings of early cinema are significant. In his book “Seeing is Believing,” published by Penguin, he made the romance between early popular Hindi cinema and Hindu mythology vividly dramatic. The stories of gods, goddesses, and monsters that Hindu believers had only heard in the oral tradition became visual-sensorial experiences in the first decade of modern cinema in India. Seeing gods alive on screen meant that they were available for a relationship with mortals. The earthly mortals applied their social and cultural logic in these newly forged relationships with the divine. Perceived through the prism of human emotions, gods and goddesses became available for friendly associations. In addition to evoking devotion and surrender, the gods inspired humans to raise questions and put the divine through uncanny trials in these mythological films.
Thus, Hindi cinema has consistently tried to free gods and spirituality from the clutches of godmen and dominant values, even while restoring faith. A film scholar like Rachel Dwyer has categorized many such films under the label of “Hindi socials.” These films are not anti-religious but do tend to trigger a critical engagement with religious notions. Two examples from the past are worth recalling.
. One was a film directed by Kidar Nath Sharma based on a famous novel by the Hindi littérateur Bhagwati Charan Varma titled “Chitralekha.” Sharma made the film by the same title twice, in 1941 and in 1964. The film centers on a courtesan, Chitralekha, and the spiritual guru Kumargiri, who seeks to free a prince named Beejgupt from the courtesan’s enchantment. The 1941 version featured Miss Mehtab in the role of Chitralekha, while Meena Kumari played the same role in the latter version. Surprisingly, the 1941 version met with objection from the Censor Board due to a bathing scene featuring Mehtab. However, there was no controversy regarding the film’s most crucial depiction: the sexual downfall of the saintly spiritual guru, Kumargiri. The cinematic narrative unfolds a philosophical debate between the beautiful courtesan and the morally upright saint. Conceding defeat, the courtesan follows the guru and joins the path of spiritual upliftment through penance. However, the guru falls for Chitralekha and realizes the weakness of a dehumanizing morality and other-worldly spirituality.
The songs in both versions of “Chitralekha” presented a disarming criticism of dominant religious notions. In the 1941 version, playback singer Ramdulari sang potent lyrics penned by Kidar Sharma and composed by musician Jhande Khan, trained in Indian classical music. The title of the song is self-explanatory: “tum jao bade bhagwan bane” (pretentious godliness, go away). Similarly, in the 1964 version, legendary poet Sahir Ludhiyanvi penned numerous songs, sung by Lata Mangeshkar and composed by Roshan, including one that derides the guru: “sansar se bhage firte ho bhagwan ko tum kya paoge” (what god will you find, for you are running away from the world).
Another film seeking to liberate god and godliness from the clutches of godmen and societal dominance is I. S. Johar’s “Nastik” (1954). A commercially successful film, “Nastik” featured a song sung by Kavi Pradeep to the tune of musician C. Ramachandran that summed up the film’s temperament. The song, in the nasal voice of the singer, remains popular in India, stating, “dekh tere sansar ki halat kya ho bhagwan” (see what your world has come to, God). The film, set against the backdrop of Partition violence in India, revealed deep social fissures. The protagonist, Anil, turns to atheism and becomes a sworn enemy of the priest, the custodian of religious virtues. The film portrays an acrimonious relationship between the protagonist, who is an anti-hero, and god.
Lastly, one cannot forget a gem of popular Hindi cinema directed by Yash Raj Chopra in 1975, “Deewar” (The Wall). The quintessential angry young man, Vijay, played by Amitabh Bachchan, encapsulates the frustration of 1970s India, which enabled his character to maintain an unusual relationship with god. Vijay, an agnostic, enters a temple for the first time in the film’s climax. This iconic scene is etched in the collective memory of many. Following his mother’s accident, Vijay enters the temple to deliver a critical monologue in front of the idol of Lord Shiva. It was not blind faith that spurred Vijay to talk to Shiva but an eternal dialogue that reflected varied emotions such as anger, fear, contempt, love, and devotion.
Suffice it to say, popular cinema provides abounding social and cultural logic for engaging with religious ideas. Whether met with protests or not, such relationships and engagements will continue to thrive.
