Success of Shah Rukh Khan’s ‘Pathaan’ shows that audience for Hindi cinema is still bewitched by rhetoric of hyper-nationalism

In the early years of nationalist cinema, films strived to be meaningful and socially responsible. The dominant themes in Hindi cinema’s “Golden Age” (1950-60s) revolved around constitutional morality, indigenous civilisational values and a secular ethos. From the pre-Independence period, Dadasaheb Phalke, considered the “Father of Indian cinema”, is known for creating the mythological genre, which helped develop a sense of pride in India’s religious values. After 1947, as building a modern nation-state assumed importance, Gandhian and Nehruvian principles began dominating mainstream cinema.

For example, Gandhi’s teachings began to be used to portray India as a spiritual and sacred entity, which needed to be protected from the ill effects of modernity and westernisation. B R Chopra’s Naya Daur, Raj Kapoor’s Shri 420, V Shantaram’s Do Aankhein Barah Hath and Bimal Roy’s Sujata examined social problems through the lens of Gandhian principles, providing meaningful content.

On the other hand, Nehruvian values were used to characterise the modern hero, who is committed to the new state and showcases his patriotic zeal to fight anti-social elements. Bimal Roy’s Mother India showed India’s transitory phase, when feudalism is collapsing, to welcome the era of modernist development. In Gunga Jumna, we see the contest between the rebellious dacoit (played by Dilip Kumar) and the law-abiding police officer (played by Nasir Khan), in which the latter is uncompromising in his adherence to the law and readily kills his brother for its sake. In Chetan Anand’s Haqeeqat, we see how India fought against China’s aggression under Nehru’s leadership.

Many popular filmmakers publicly displayed their Leftist leanings and endorsed the Nehruvian modernist project, making films that talked about rural poverty (Do Bigha Zameen), unemployment and migration (Jagte Raho), untouchability (Sujata), crises of modern development (Purab aur Paschim) and growing political corruption (Leader). Here, Hindi cinema offered nuanced nationalist expressions, dipped into social and historical contexts and provided “meaningful entertainment”. This genre gave rise to the idea of “good films”, which provided entertainment along with a moral message. The “parallel cinema” of the 1970s up to the 1980s, with films about the feudal oppression of agrarian classes (Paar and Nishant), Brahmanical hegemony (Damul and Sadgati), patriarchal and caste exploitation (Ankur, Mandi and Manthan) and urban tragedies (Arth, Chakra, Jane Bhi do Yaron) further extended the discussion on cinema’s intellectual role and responsibility towards social and political changes.

Films were valued as artistic endeavours, responsible for showcasing the hidden social and class realities. Art-house cinema told stories without much fear of censorship or political opposition. This genre made its audience aware of tragedy and exploitation and kept socially and economically marginalised communities central to the narratives. Such films, however, had a niche audience and lacked the populist appeal of the “Golden Age” films.

The late 1970s were also a time when Hindi cinema was growing as a commercial industry, attracting large investments. This period saw the growing power of big stars, such as Rajesh Khanna. The arrival of the “angry young man”, Amitabh Bachchan (in Zanjeer) on the silver screen disturbed the progressive ideological values around which earlier “good” films were made. As the rugged hero on screen, Bachchan would defeat villains with his super-masculine grit and his larger-than-life image would transport the audience to a fantasy land of entertainment. His charisma helped Bachchan rule the industry for over two decades, distancing cinema from “meaningful and responsible” content and introducing the idea of “superstardom” (later followed by many like Mithun Chakraborty and Sanjay Dutt) and cinema coated in “masala”.

Within the film studies discourse, popular cinema was often understood as a “pedestrian” art form, crafted mainly to entertain the masses. Popular cinema therefore often revolved around fictional heroism (Gadar), patriarchal-sexist stereotypes (Kuch Kuch Hota Hai) and highlighted the cultural values dear to the social elites (Hum Aapke Hai Koun). Importantly, the late 1990s also witnessed a sudden rise of films that offered hyper-nationalist values (Roja, Border, Sarfarosh, Mission Kashmir) depicting Muslims as the new villains.

Mainstream cinema is a commercial venture that stays away from socially sensitive narratives. However, it overtly serves the cultural and political ideology of the ruling elites. With the arrival of the BJP regime at the Centre, “nationalist cinema” has become the most popular genre, with films that depict communal conflicts (The Kashmir Files), the perpetual Indo-Pakistan warfare (Uri, Parmanu, Mission Majnu) and patriotism (Holiday, Manikarnika, Samrat Prithviraj). Such films build a powerful discourse around cultural nationalism and demonise Muslims.

The grand success of Pathaan in such conditions is surely significant as it has disturbed the political logic of right-wing cinema and offers some creative variations to the stereotypes imposed by contemporary “nationalist cinema”. However, on a critical note, Pathaan also endorses similar ideological and commercial concerns and hardly breaks into cinema that offers “meaningful” narratives. In Pathaan, we again see the stereotypical Pakistani ISI agents, the criminal plans of Islamist militants threatening to destroy India and a macho super-spy ending these plans with hyper-violence.

Pathaan’s budget and canvas are big and filled with all the elements of a mass entertainer. Importantly, it underlines people’s adoration of mainstream popular cinema, stardom (Shah Rukh Khan) and stories that narrate extraordinary fictional tales about patriarchal-nationalist values. Pathaan is an example of popular cinema that lacks the courage to challenge conventional narrative styles and overtly serves a commercial purpose. Such cinema transports the audience away from the nation’s precarious class realities and social crises. Popular mainstream cinema, including Pathaan, is like an expensive cracker that makes a big bang and continues polluting the environment.

The writer is assistant Professor, Centre for Political Studies, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi