The Art of Hindutva by udhav naig 

Why is Roja the most important among all the films released in last decade of the previous century?

The last decade of the previous century witnessed a sharp ideological shift in the Indian political history which saw the rise and success of the Hindu far-right. The rise of the Hindu nationalist movement coincided with economic liberalisation. It was a period of great political instability (there were 4 elections in the span of 10 years). India let go of her Nehruvian ideas of socialism and secularism, and consumed a deadly cocktail of pro-western capitalism combined with an exclusivist Hindu ideology which tried to paint the Muslim minority as “others”.

It is in this context we need to look at the cinematic text of Mani Ratnam’s Roja. Now, the big question is, what is the need to isolate Roja?

The question can be answered in two parts: Mani Ratnam is one of those filmmakers who became nationally popular without actually making a film in Hindi. The second important reason is that the film significantly differs with popular dominant forms of narration and even tries to replace the dominant form with a new brand of aesthetics.

The Fuss about aesthetics

Roja’s narrative structure has two main story lines or segments, which are completely different from each other. These two unrelated segments have their own resolutions, and are held together in a rather unusual way.

In his work, The Ideology of Hindi film, Madhava Prasad explains how these two segments are organised. The first segment or the first story is about this young, upper caste, middle-class male, Rishi Kumar, who goes to a village to marry a girl, but rather ends up marrying her sister. This segment qualifies as a story by itself; it has its own form: ‘Incident’, ‘progressive complexity’, ‘crisis’, ‘climax’ and ‘resolution’.

The second segment is basically a story about how this young, newly married couple (Rishi and Roja) get caught in a world inhabited by aliens (literally), and how they escape it. This segment too has its own ‘form’.

So how does Mani Ratnam connect these two different segments, and weave it into a narrative which the audience perceives it as a single coherent story? Quite interestingly, Mani Ratnam does it by invoking ‘formal breaks’ in the narration. He shows a part or a fragment of the second segment (the Kashmir story) right in the beginning. We get to see the dreaded terrorist Waseem Khan hunted down by the armed forces at the very beginning of the film. He then cuts to a picturesque village situated somewhere in rural Tamil Nadu, South India. With this 'cut', we understand that there has been a ‘rupture’ in the narrative.

A part of the second segment of the narrative is shown upfront to sort of sandwich the first segment between the fragment and the second segment. Why would a filmmaker begin his narration with a story, and then cut to narrate a completely different one?

The reason is that the opening few minutes tells the viewers what to expect further into the film. The fragment hovers over the 'action' in the first segment leaving the audience with an unexplained sense of what to expect. The resolution of the conflict in the first segment leaves us feeling incomplete. Once the conflict of the first segment is resolved (when Rishi is accepted by Roja), the story immediately moves into the second segment. This is where the fragment shown upfront comes along to provide meaning to the overall film.

The question which we must ask ourselves is what would happen if we remove the first fragment and start the film by showing the village? The problem would be that the audience would not be able to perceive the completion of one plot and the beginning of the next one.

Mani Ratnam shows us the capture of Waseem Khan, there by invoking what the academics call the masking effect. This effect conceals the break between the two segments (first story and second story), and helps smooth over the narrative. And we do not really feel the fragmentation of the narrative as it moves from first to the second segment, and it all makes sense when seen as a whole.

The Politics of ‘Othering’

Now, what could possibly be the problem with this intelligently narrated film? Well, the answer is: its politics. For a filmmaker with strong aesthetic sense, he unapologetically panders to the chauvinist and exclusivist ideology propagated by the religious right movement of the 80s and the 90s.

The shift in ideas of secularism from Nehruvian to a Gandhian/Veer Savarkar during this period is visible in Roja. Nehruvian idea of secularism propagated a rigid separation of state and religion, in tune with western ideals of secularism, while Gandhian idea was mostly about majoritarian ‘tolerance’. Veer Savarkar’s idea was exclusivist, and it was about creating a Hindu secular state.

Going back to the very beginning of the film, we see the army closing in on a terrorist camp, and capturing Waseem Khan. This information is passed onto the audience in the documentary style to create the effect of imminent danger. This feeling of ‘terror is real and immediate’ is compounded when the writer/director cuts from Kashmir at dusk, and shows us a beautiful sunrise with a girl singing about her “small desires”. It creates an effect as if the terrorist was captured the day before Rishi Kumar goes to the girl’s village somewhere in South India where people are having a splendid time. These techniques have been used very well to create the 'mood'.

After demonising Kashmir by darkening the landscape, and greying the screen, Mani chooses to romanticise the country side, by harping on its scenic beauty and the kindness of its people. This country side is not anywhere close to Kashmir, but far away down south. Mani Ratnam chooses to paint the village life in South India as if it is a paradise on earth (incidentally, Kashmir is called a paradise on earth). The entire village gets together to celebrate a marriage, the word ‘caste’ doesn’t even exist in the dictionary of the people, and the fierce rivalry between two families (the girl’s family and her lover’s) is resolved within seconds. This is exactly the kind of village that rationalists of South India would love to see. As Nadim Asrar argues in his work, The Muslim Others of Indian Cinema, the problem with such a depiction is that Mani Ratnam deliberately chooses not to address the problem of the ‘nation with many nations’, and creates an illusion of nasty Kashmir but a dynamic village.

Handsome, cigarette smoking, upper middle class software engineer, Rishi Kumar, goes to a village in the hope of marrying a girl. The girl tells him that she is in love with someone else, and pleads with him to tell her father that he doesn’t like her. Rishi, instead, tells the girl’s family that he would like to marry the girl’s sister, Roja. Roja feels that Rishi has betrayed her sister, and refuses to accept him as her husband even after the circumstances lead to the inevitable marriage.

Rishi, Roja, and state: The role of the village

This is a typical patriarchal South Indian village where women are told what to do by the village elders. Even though Roja is married off to Rishi in a public marriage ceremony, she subsequently rejects him. Here Rishi becomes a male symbol of patriarchy, or state. Later, when Roja seriously ‘questions’ Rishi (or state), he explains that it was actually her sister who didn't want to marry him. Roja finally reconciles with her unreasonable stand of rejecting Rishi, and dutifully accepts, whole heartedly, her new authority…Rishi in this case.

The conflict in this story is resolved only when Roja accepts her marriage with Rishi voluntarily, and submits to patriarchy. With this resolution, we are sold the idea that Rishi (or the state) has not been understood properly by the one who rejects him. Remember that it was the opposite in Mouna Ragam, where Mohan gives his consent for the divorce by law (unwillingly), and Revathy finally decides against it.

Kashmir militants, Roja and the state:

The second segment is almost a mirror image of the first segment. Rishi is caught between those who reject the state and the state itself. Roja speaks for the entire nation, on its behalf, and pleads with the state to restore justice. Rishi Kumar steps into the shoes of the state, thereby engaging in ideological discussions with the Kashmiri terrorist, who rejects the authority of the state. Then there is the actual state itself which negotiates with the terrorists for the release of Rishi Kumar.

It is important to reflect on how this second segment begins. After the resolution of the first segment, Mani Ratnam cuts to a group of Muslims praying with guns by their side. This makes sure that the movement does not get any legitimacy from the audience, in the context of this film, because it has already been established that India(Sundarapandya puram) is one cohesive, homogenous entity, and it is always tolerant of ‘others’.

Rishi Kumar is seen answering Roja's questions on Kashmir with one word answers. When Roja asks him why streets are empty, he says ‘curfew’, and follows it up with 'security' until she leans on his arm for protection. He speaks for the state now…he tells Roja (who represents the people of India) implicitly that it is not important to understand why there is so much unrest in Kashmir. Apart from the fact that the film tries to associate Islam with militancy and violence, Mani Ratnam also makes Rishi Kumar frequently speak in a foreign language with a small town girl, Roja, to make sure she doesn't understand and stands by the official state position, which Rishi Kumar subscribes to.

This segment reaches a very similar conclusion like the first one. Rishi Kumar(state) successfully manages to convince those who reject the idea of one nation (terrorist) of their misplaced struggles, and makes them give up their struggle by literally 'proving' to them that they are on the wrong path. Roja too fights for her nation, her right, and demands her state to intervene and make things right. The story would not have had a proper resolution even if the army had rescued Rishi Kumar. The conflict can be resolved, in this film, only when the terrorist accepts his ideas of separation are wrong, and willingly agrees to recognise the nation state.

As the ‘changed’ terrorist lets Rishi Kumar go, Roja, who speaks for Rishi (nation) throughout the film, falls at his feet after he escapes successfully, to acknowledge the position she holds within the structures of the patriarchal society (or the state). This means that she submits to the state set up.

Thus, one is forced to conclude that the film plays to the gallery by upholding the Hindu nationalistic ideas that were highly popular during the early 90s, and tries to smear the Kashmiri separatist movement as an unreasonable movement against a benevolent state, without ever honestly engaging with the conflict.