Zare zare main uska noor hain
Zaankh khood main von na tujhse door hain
Iskh hain usise to sabse iskh kar
Is ibadat ka yahi dastoor hain
(Every particle of dust has His presence
Look within He is not far away
If you love Him, love all
This is the only norm of the worship)
These opening lines in the film Delhi-6,
directed by Rakeysh Mehra, emanates the idea that the path of spiritual
bliss and peace can only be attained through loving God’s each and
every creation. Spiritual love is a key link that can unite the adherents of different faiths into a common thread of humanity. The universal truth of all religion, it says, is love for humanity. In essence, this is the central idea that the film conveys.
Delhi-6
spins an entirely unique, fresh and original idea to tell us how a
‘small’ issue can get blown out of proportion leading to serious
implications in the society. It constructs a moral parable deploying
one of the most inventive story-telling devices that Hindi cinema has
ever seen to express its thematic concerns. As a mode of address it
utilises the metaphor of Kala Bandar (Black Monkey) to
examine our own human conditions and roots of conflict in contemporary
society. It holds the mirror and tells us to look inward and confront our own demons (as symbolised by Kala Bandar). It is within us
that good and evil vie with each other for supremacy and when human
beings succumb to its appeal the evil side completely dominates us. In
its triumph lay the failure of humanity to rise above greed, anger and
hatred that has poisoned our soul. The attainment of the highest social
ideal, which is the love for humanity, therefore necessitates
an absolute triumph over our dark and evil impulses. The film tells us
that the power to create a society of perfect human beings in a state of
perfect balance lies within us.
The film is inspired out
of a real life incident that took place a few years ago in Delhi when the
city was plagued by the monkey menace. With the incident serving as the
backdrop of the story the director weaves together multiple sub-plots
into a single structure of narrative to showcase a wide range of human
emotions of love, suffering, anguish and defiance. The film is a
journey (both in an emotional and spatial sense) of a Non Resident Indian,
(NRI) Roshan (Abhishek Bhachchan) the main protagonist, who visits India along with his grandmother Annapurna (Waheeda Rehman) to fulfill her last wish. She wants to reconnect with her roots before she takes her last breath. ‘Jahan Ki Mitti wahin mil jaye to accha hain’,
she tells her grandson. It’s also her cherished desire to bring her
family back home that immigrated long time back to US. And it gets
partially fulfilled, ‘the ‘native’ (since the roots of Roshan is Indian) ‘returns back’. In Delhi-6, also known as Old Delhi, where Roshan’s ancestral house lies, the traditional character of the city comes out alive as the story unfolds. Mehraweaves
such an authentic visual tapestry in all its infinite richness and
diversities that it gives the film a realistic look. The city
landscapes as defined by old historic monuments, open terrace houses,
crowded narrow by-lanes, congested roads, vagabonds and stray animals
all co-exist amidst the maddening chaos in this city-within-a-city.
It’s truly the melting pot of diverse communities that characterises
Chandni Chowk mélange. The film not only highlights the historic beauty
of Chandni Chowk but it also, for a moment, fleetingly captures the
homeless who are forced to spend their nights sleeping on the
pavements. The appalling poverty coexisting with the island of
prosperity is one of the real paradoxes of our society that
baffle many. The dysfunctional democracy has many fault lines and there
are visible signs of the caste oppression, gender division and communal
prejudices all over but despite every thing the people are tied
together in a unique matrix of social relations that makes them interdependent on each other. Interestingly, Roshan’s visits coincide with the appearance of ‘mysterious’ monkey, Kala Bandar (KB)
that is creating havoc in the area. The whole idea amuses him as much
as it disturbs him. The more he sees the more he becomes critically
aware of the ills that plague society and the harsh realities that lie
behind the appearances of the harmonious social whole.
On their arrival at the Delhi airport Ali Baig (Rishi Kapoor) an old acquaintance of the family welcomes them. As they enter the bustling streets Roshan
is captivated by the sheer magnitude of the size of the crowd milling
around, jostling for space. ‘Awesome’, is all he could say. If it is Mamdu
(Deepak Dobriyal), the Muslim sweet-seller who offers him sweets as they
enter Chandni Chowk it is the turn of local women who welcome them in
a truly traditional style on their homecoming. The whole area seems to
be electrified with the news of the Dadi and Roshan visit. Gobar (Atul Kulkarni) is ever ready to give his helping hand to Roshan and Dadismilingly. He acts as buffoon to make people laugh. Even though he displays rank casteist attitude towards ‘low’ caste, his social conservatism doesn’t come in conflict with his friendship with Mamduwho is a Muslim. Both Mamdu and Gobarstrike
an instant chord with Roshan with their moral integrity and innocence.
Interestingly Mamdu is shown to be a worshipper of Hindu God Hanuman and working also as a volunteer in Ramlilas. The construction of such a typical Muslim is a way Hindi cinema idealises a ‘good’
Muslim to be. As a representative of the unique Indian secularism he
has to be an epitome of forbearance and tolerance and accommodative of
Hindu cultural traditions and norms. It’s only towards the end that the
stereotypical construction of a good Muslim gets disrupted and
redefined. The film takes the audience to Chandni Chowk through Roshan’s eyes and maps out its unique social, cultural, history, and politics in all its myriad forms. Roshan
is drawn to the diverse characters that live in the area. He comes
across as a deeply sensitive soul who has an insatiable curiosity to
learn about the people and their culture. The people live in their own
moral universe with the remnants of feudalism which are still clinging to
their social consciousness in a vice-like grip. The wind of modernity
seems to have by-passed the area. The joint-family system still
persists. Roshan's closest neighbours in the area are like the big extended family of two brothers Madangopal (Om Puri) and Jaigopal (Pawan Malhotra)
who can’t see eye to eye with each other. A wall in the middle of their
house marks the physical separation between the two families but the
daily interaction between their wives and their sons goes on as usual.
The representation of women in the film is in contrast with most of
the mainstream films. Here they occupy a prominent place playing out
diverse characters. The division of labour is starkly clear; while the women's
place is fixed at the kitchen, the men play out their social role
outside the home. They are the sole breadwinners. One of the most
endearing characters in the film is Jalebi (Divya Dutta), the smart, gutsy dalit woman, who is a sweeper by profession and collects the garbage from homes. Since an outcaste is outside the pale of society it gives in a certain sense a licence to men to take liberty
with her as they please but she is unafraid to deal with them. She
freely uses coarse language and other invectives to deter their
advances. She is also taken to be sexually more permissive and open due to her low
caste status. But the irony is that as much as she is desired she is
also repulsed as far as the social customs in dealing with low caste women goes. Bittu (Sonam Kapoor), the beautiful daughter of Madangopal, on
the other hand is an expert in deftly negotiating through the various
obstacles set by patriarchy to curtail women’s freedom. She has learnt
the fine art of manoeuverability by which she can be both traditional
and modern at the same time in her appearances. If Shashi (Geeta Bisht), the unmarried self-effacing aunty of Bittu, has spent her life meekly following the rules set by patriarchy, Bittu
is just not content with living according to its dictates. She seeks to
create her own identity even if it means clashing with the traditional
mores. Growing up in a restrictive social milieu Bittu knows very well that there are few choices available to her and to pursue her big
dreams there is no other option but to break free from the chains that
tie her to the social customs and norms. As a personification of
cosmopolitan and progressive values Roshan is quite fascinated with the woman who often crosses swords with the traditional values system and remains unrepentant. For Roshan, Bittu
represents a modern woman who wants to live a life in her own terms and
not as someone’s appendage. Eventually, he falls for her but does not
make it obvious to her. He is willing to confront the patriarchal
authority for her sake and earn their ire but still could not muster
enough courage to tell her about his feelings. Bittu also has a soft corner for Roshan
but waits for him to express his truest feelings towards her first.
Does the fear of breaking the traditional social-codes weigh on the
minds of the characters so much that they have to hide their feelings
till the last? The declaration of love by Roshan has to wait till the climax when Bittu decides to run away with Suresh (Cyrus Sahukar), the photographer, to Mumbai to pursue her dream of becoming an Indian Idol.
In the first half of the film the economy and rhythm loses a
certain sense of balance with the succession of songs strung together
combined with the long drawn spectacle of Ramlila utilised
to create an emotion of identification with the characters and to
establish them in their social-cultural context in the minds of the
audiences. After the spectacular beginning the change of pace makes it
a little tedious and takes it away from the main plot line. The film does
succeed in transferring the menace of KB into the minds of
audiences but does not maintain its tempo as far as the first half is
concerned. The search for the elusive KB reaches a decisive stage in the second half. The electronic media hungry for news finds ample ways to keep the myth of KB alive with the stories about it travelling far and wide taking on a fantastic form. Soon KB
is turned into a commodity by the market to sell their wide range of
products named after it. The role of the police also comes into
question during the whole affair. Due to its utter failure in
preventing the ‘attacks’ it has already lost its legitimacy and the
confidence among the people. They display neither the will nor the inclination to tackle the KB menace and in fact contribute in its myth-making exercise. Ranvijay (Vijay Raj), the area inspector, is a typical caricature of what the repressive face of the Police is all about. He is nothing less than a goonda in Khaki uniform targeting innocents and the upright people according to his whims and fancies. As the KB ‘attacks’
remain unabated the people of the area turn towards a Hindu Baba to
find solution to the problem. With his entry the atmosphere gets
vitiated in such a manner that people starts looking at the Kala Bandar’s
menace through the prism of religion. It’s a shot in the arm for the
religious fundamentalists of both the communities. The film is also
about how communal stereotypes about the Other get
manufactured and enter into the pores of our social fabric in all its
subtleties to become part of the everyday discourse. The Baba
aggravates it further by exhorting its followers to demolish the old
mosque in the area as a solution to ward-off the problem posed by KB.
This leads to further tensions in the area as it antagonises the
Muslims. The turn of events in the film parallels the BJP/RSS
agitation for the construction of Ram Mandir at Ayodhya that led to the
demolishment of Babri Masjid. In that the film rightfully delineates
how communal tensions erupt with the arrival of Hindutva
forces in the scene. The ease with which Baba and their cohorts are able to
utilize the religious contradiction among the people in pursuance of
their vested interest is quite glaring. It points out to the fact that
divisive forces can easily fill the political vacuum in the absence of
a real political alternative and divert the attention from the real
pressing problems to arouse the gullible Hindu masses. Roshan
soon comes to a realisation that his identity of being born to a Muslim
mother and Hindu father has become bigger than himself. The society he
felt so proud of is being increasingly divided on the basis of
religion. The geographic boundaries that divide both the
communities turn into a mental barrier etching out a complete
separation between the two thereby foreclosing any possibility of
mutual dialogue and exchange. The society slowly slides down into
regression. The cracks in the surface appear. Roshan, who has
already implicated himself in the affairs of the people, cannot just
remain a silent spectator to what’s happening all around him. The threat from those who want to alter its very character is real. Roshan
makes a desperate last-ditch attempt to stop the society from tearing
itself apart even if it means embracing death and it is through the
churning process that Roshan finally rediscovers himself and finds his true calling.
It goes to the credit of Rakeysh Mehra that he does not taken the
oft-beaten path (and the most convenient recourse) taken by Hindi
cinema that seeks to valorise the ‘unique’ and eternally ‘tolerant’
Hindu value system in the narrative of communities. Even if it
celebrates the strong kinships and loyalty that surrounds such
communities governed by primordial feelings, it doesn’t do so
uncritically. The film interrogates the oppression of patriarchy, caste
and exposes the fragility of the communitarian ties. In that, it at
least attempts to engage with the issues that the mainstream Hindi
cinema has relegated to the margins. Even the enactment of Ramlila
apart from resonating with rich symbolism serves as a device to explore
the caste and gender issues and raise some uncomfortable questions
along with it. But the most interesting aspect of the film is that it
takes the resources from the reformist and progressive content of
religion i.e.Bhakti-Sufi tradition as an antidote for the disease of
religious fanaticism in all its guises. This inscription comes close to the Gandhian notion of secularism. For Delhi-6 the civil society, constituting people of diverse faith, itself becomes a site
where the ideas about pluralistic cultural ethos are shaped and
disseminated and the misappropriation of religion by a handful of
others are countered. This articulation becomes both the strength and weakness
of the film. The film though exposes the apathy of the state and its
failure to protect the secular identity and values as obligated under
constitution but unlike his earlier film, Rang De Basanti, Rakeysh Mehra in Delhi-6 chooses not to deploy the rhetoric of secular nationalism as against the exclusionary notion of nationalism of Hindu Right. It’s because the film draws an implicit faith in the ‘pluralistic’ strain in religion that can bring together all the communities for resolving their differences in an overarching cultural framework.
While there is always a possibility for a inter-cultural dialogue and
exchange among the communities who can utilise their own resources to
maintain peace in the society but it could also act as a seriously
limiting exercise if it is used as a sole homogenising principle to unite the people. The space cannot always be left open for the ‘communities to work out their problems in their own ways’
they could be strongly resistant to internal reforms and change
betraying anti-democratic impulses, as the film clearly shows. Rustom Bharucha, in his The Politics of Cultural Practice,
points out the dangers of valorising the innate strength of the
indigenous people in their overall commitment towards preserving peace
and harmony in society. He argues, ‘…one cannot fall back on the narrative of community to compensate for the failure of the state’. A problem like communalism doesn’t exist in a vacuum it has its own history and has a definite political purpose. It has to be confronted both at the cultural and political level. The film ultimately limits itself in its task since it views the problems like communal flare up in the society from the prism of a deeply individuated experience and reduces it to a psychological level i.e. when the demon of communalism resurrects in one’s mind society goes up in flames. The battle, therefore, has to be fought at ideational level only.
This one-sided emphasis on the individual consciousness underplays the
fact of how the plant of communalism, historically, has been nurtured,
shaped and protected by the political and civic institutions, in
particularly, the state. The fight for secular ideals will remain
severely limited in its task if it fails to take into account the
unfinished task of the democratic transformation of the Indian state.
Earlier, the open pronouncement by Bittu,
about her said intentions to go to Mumbai, causes a minor upheaval in
her family. It is simply unthinkable to them that women can pursue an
independent career. Ultimately, the authority of patriarchy asserts
itself to check Bittu’s growing belligerence. And it is decided to get Bittu married off. This is the only ‘punishment’ for Bittu
for her attempted transgression. In traditional society marrying off
his daughter is understood to be the biggest responsibility of the
father. The film also deal with the vulnerability of a father, who
otherwise wields so much authority at home, that comes into play when
he has to organise dowry for his daughter. If it’s a distressing time
for the family it’s literally a windfall for those who profit by it. In
the film the unscrupulous moneylender, Lalaji (Prem Chopra)
also fishes in the trouble waters to extract his pound of flesh. The film
shows the persistence of pre-capitalist relations that still continue
to shape and decide the content and direction of our socio-economic
life. But nobody can choose Bittu’s fate other than her. The only way out left for her is to make an escape from patriarchy’s stranglehold.
While confronting the frenzied mob, towards the end, Roshan exhorts them to look inwards and find the god within. He points out the true essence of religion, which is the love for humanity after
he is abused and pushed away from the temple due to his dual identity.
This perhaps surmises the thematic concerns of the film. Roshanemerges
as conscience keeper in a society that has become communalized to the
core. He espouses a liberal humanistic religion rooted in Bhakti-Sufi
tradition to resists the fundamentalist creed on both sides but fails
to impact the prejudiced minds. Hindu Right succeeds in their
systematic demonisation of Muslims. The echo of ‘Kala Bandar is a Muslim terrorist’
in the film turns into a war cry to eliminate them. The stage is set
for the final confrontation. In this way the film exposes the
irrationality of the whole project of communalism. The incident in
which Roshan is humiliated and pushed aside becomes a turning point in
the film. He pledges to stay back much to the amusement of Ali Baig, who has now become his friend and guide. On being asked the reason why, ‘India works, the people works’,
he says resolutely. But for the audience to identify with the
character’s transformation there has to be a compelling motivation
without which it will appear to them unconvincing and uninspiring. What
are the reasons for his renewed conviction that has made him exude such
a deep faith about the people and their future? The horrors of
casteism, patriarchy and religious fundamentalism make him cringe yet
he is brimming with undying optimism about the same people who practice
it. It isgoing to work, since people are good. Why, because they are ‘our own people’.
Isn’t it a bit of a romantic idea driven plainly by over
sentimentalism? If it is Bittu factor that weighs in his mind than
their chemistry in the narrative sub-plot has not been developed to the
point of arriving at some logical conclusion about the reasons why he
wants to stay back in India. India works despite everything seems to be
the idea. Period!
In Chandni Chowk things reach to such a
state that a communal riot breaks out. Neighbours attack neighbours.
Muslim shops are looted and vandalised including that of Mamdu.
The bond of trust and faith that existed over the years finally gets
broken. Now it’s the time for fight back. The Muslim anger translates
into burning down the tree that is worshipped by the Hindus to avenge
the attacks. Baying for each other blood both sides emerge from
their respective areas marked by huge imposing gates. But before even a
single shot is fired the mob of Hindus and Muslims gets distracted by
the sight of Kala Bandar jumping from terrace to terrace.
Forgetting their immediate animosity they rush together to capture
and kill their bigger enemy, Kala Bandar. When they finally get hold of it, it’s turned out to be Roshan. They beat him mercilessly. The accumulated anger finds its release. In the final act of defiance, when Roshan is being beaten and dragged, Bittuenvelops
him and cover his body with hers to thwart the blows. Even though her
piercing cry and wail of protest doesn’t make any impact on the crowd
but the avowed and open display of love, in itself, becomes an act of subversion. This way Bittu’scharacter emerges even stronger than that of Roshan. Finally, Mamdu, who holds KB responsible for all his misfortunes, completes the task by shooting Roshan.
The anger and hatred that gripped the crowd earlier gives way to shock
and then to disbelief over the grim realisation of what their actions
have led to. It is left to Gobar to enunciate why Roshan took such an extreme step of masquerading himself as Kala Bandar. Roshan took the plunge to save the society and for the love of Bittu, he tells everyone present. Gobar
already had a realisation how his caste fellows are trying to make him
a scapegoat at the altar of politics by forcing him to bring KB’s
hair to be used in a ritual. The banality of the whole affair was clear
to him. But he is powerless to resist them. It is only when Roshan
gets shot that it gives him the courage to open his mouth. ‘There is no Kala Bandar, it’s only a state of mind’, he illuminates the truth about KB and what it
connotes in real terms. Gobar elaborates further that these demons, at
times, become so powerful that they take complete control of our minds
and we are powerless to resists them. This invariably leads us on the
path of self-destruction and we not only harm ourselves but society at
large. It is finally Gobar, the simpleton, who has delivered the truth. For the people of the area this is a moment of serious soul-searching and self-introspection. There occurs a change of heart. As Roshan
lies grievously injured they all rush forward to bring him back to life
so as to cleanse themselves of any communal stains and prejudices. The
vendor’s of violence, the main culprits, are left isolated and
bewildered at the sudden turn of events. Roshan emerges from the brink of death and goes back to the parental embrace of the caste and class oriented society. He gets Bittu and reclaims his connection with the motherland. The rupture in the society disappears and it achieves inner peace.
As in Rang De Basanti (RDB),
Rakeysh Mehra's preoccupation with an outside agency, trying to shake-off
the social-conscience of a stagnant and apathetic society, finds a
similar reverberation in Delhi-6 too. In both films, the British Sue (in Rang De Basanti) and the US born Roshan become directly and indirectly the catalysts of change. Even as the films run the risk of privileging the more scientific, rational and modern West over the traditional bounded, backward, fatalistic East,
it nonetheless, constructs narrative strategies that betray neither a
blind adherence to cosmopolitanism nor fall back upon the ‘ancient’
indigenous knowledge system as an alternative. It takes up the
resources from our own history and culture to open up a debate about
the direction in which the society is moving. Though both films share
somewhat similar thematic concerns both spin an entirely different
narrative ploy and its subsequent resolution. If RDB
politicised a section of society provoking and forcing them to take a
stand with its searing indictment of the corrupt, communal and criminal
political class Delhi-6 serves to depoliticise the issues it
highlights and offers a tamed and diffused ending quite along the lines
of established genre conventions. Even as it achieves complete
narrative closure in all sub-plots (considering the fact it has multiple characters and themes)
it becomes overloaded and punctuated with an oft-repeated discourse on
pluralism and diversities towards the end. It falls back on a slippery
road and then slides down into an idealist swamp by invoking an apolitical liberal humanist prescription. In order to gain a ‘popular’
acceptance that neither disturbs nor offends anyone, it absorbs and
accommodates all the simmering dissension within its patriarchal fold.
Initially the film broadened its agenda when it incorporated the caste
and gender dimensions in its body but towards the end these issues get
subsumed in the larger quest to restore the imbalances created by the
communal frenzy. Without interrogating the interconnection and linkages
between various social problems the film highlights, it conflates all
the issues as one, espousing a naïve hope that it could be resolved
through dialogue and consensus alone in the narrative of community. The entrenched social problems in the film are ultimately resolved, ‘…by presenting (a) mythical solution(s) to restore an utopian world’ (Jyotika Virdi, The Cinematic Imagination). Even as it identifies and isolates the social forces that feed on the violence for its sustenance it shows that they (the communal forces) are not really the problem but rather the ‘flawed’
individuals who in their inability to fight their own demons succumb to
its appeal, leading to such problems. It is perhaps due to this reason
there appears no real villain in the film. The characters act
the way they act not because of their villainy but because they are
simply the victims of the circumstances too powerless to resist their
own demons. Thus towards the magical solution to all the problems
Roshan proffers a sound advice, ‘keep your dark impulses in check lest it manifest itself and creates problems for yourself and the society at large’. But if human beings are conditioned by their historical and structural environment isn’t it necessary to consider the dialectical interactions that constantly take place between both the internal and external
dimensions of life? How do the multiple contradictions that exist in
the society get resolved and in what direction? What are the social
conditions that breed problems like communalism? The film does not take
these questions into account because of its own naturalised assumptions
that if individuals overpower the evil within, then there will be all round harmony in the society and eternal goodness will prevail. For Delhi-6, it is not the underlying material reality but some unconscious
force that controls human beings whose decision making capacities is
severely limited by this fact. What the film says ultimately is that
only with internal (individual) change societal change could take place. It’s a reflective of a subjective-idealist
position, which its tagline ‘the journey within’ seems to amplify. The
journey of life cannot be just reduced mechanically to a journey
within. It negotiates, in the ultimate sense, through the external
world of constraints and possibilities in order to derive its rich and
true meaning. In the ultimate analysis, Delhi-6 fails to develop qualitatively its call for serious introspection into a wider critique of structural deformities.
The film however cannot be just read from its narrative closure. In the context of the mind numbing masala offerings churned out by the Hindi film industry that are completely divorced from the lives of the masses Delhi-6 makes
a brave attempt to address some of the urgent challenges that lie in
front of us as a nation. It succeeds in igniting our belief in the need
for the preservation of our pluralistic values and secular ethos that
make us a vibrant multicultural society. Delhi-6 shows us
how the practice of secular culture is itself riddled with constant
tensions that betray its own vulnerabilities and limitations within a
specific socio-cultural context. And how it acquires a new meaning when
ordinary people absorb its essence utilising their own resources. The
fundamental question is how the secularising principles can be
incorporated in our everyday lives and practices. In that the film
makes a sincere attempt to redefine the very notion of what
is meant by secularism and how it could be maintained and strengthened
through inter-faith dialogue and exchange.