he reasons why an
actor accepts a role change from time to time? Most times it’s a matter of
appetite and newness. Sometimes it is the lure of working with an exciting
director. Or even, in more cases than I imagined, the lure of a large acting
fee. (Something I have never had a chance to wrestle with my conscience about,
as nobody has ever offered me a large acting fee. I get offered large smiles
instead.) More seriously, when I was considering the role of Sid in Shaurya
the prime reason I accepted was because of the two questions it posed, one
direct – are Muslim soldiers in Kashmir looked upon with any kind of prejudice
by their contemporaries and superiors? The other, indirect – what remedial
measures did the army and other institutions have in place to counter the
anti-secular agenda?
The story had been written by the film’s director, Samar Khan, a
Muslim himself, who for reasons of indiscipline had been asked to leave the
National Defence Academy (NDA) five days before he would have completed its
three-year course. By his own admission his lifestyle and the one imposed by the
NDA were mutually abrasive. What is most significant are the years Samar spent
there – 1991 to 1994. Years that ‘bookend’ Ayodhya 1992, the anti-Muslim riots
in Bombay and the subsequent bomb blasts by Muslim members of the underworld.
For a man who was 120 hours away from becoming a gentleman cadet
at the Indian Military Academy (IMA), Samar holds no bitterness against the
institution. On the contrary, he loves the army, its regimen, its code, its very
raison d’être. But he believes civilian India with its growing prejudices
silently infiltrates the best of institutions in the only way infiltration can –
through a few individuals. Here he is emphatic the infiltration was neither
devised nor was it excessively malevolent. "Post-Babri Masjid it was terribly
difficult being a Muslim. These individuals expected you to hate Hindus or at
the very least were fairly convinced you harboured feelings of resentment
against them. Did they hate Muslims in turn? I don’t think so. Were they now a
little guarded around their Muslim colleagues at the NDA? Possibly. Were they
simply more aware of a classmate’s ‘Muslimhood’? Definitely."
Shaurya is about a Muslim army captain brought to trial for
shooting his superior, Major Rathore, at point-blank range while on a night raid
in Kashmir. An army lawyer defends this seemingly hopeless case only to find
that the major was one of his commanding officer, Brigadier Pratap’s band of
communal-minded protégés out to purge the country of all Muslims. The trial is
successfully fought and the captain acquitted with honour.
Discussions on the film with a few senior members of the army at
different points of time have elicited a fairly unanimous response. One, there
is no way religious prejudice in an officer would go unnoticed till he achieved
brigadier status. In all cases a communal mind-set is spotted and corrected at a
more junior level. Two, there are definitely communal elements in the army but
it is always the individual and never the institution. It is correlated to the
rise of communalism in civilian India. Three, and most interestingly, the wives
of the four officers of colonel rank who I was speaking to on one occasion
unanimously agreed that the anti-Muslim sentiment in the army was far higher
than their husbands claimed.
While all conclusions based on this random, minuscule sampling
must be severely discounted, the unanimity on all three points is certainly
interesting. On another occasion I raised the issue of being a Muslim jawan or
junior officer in Kashmir with a major-general who had served in the region. He
was absolutely sure a discriminatory attitude existed. Not sharing his cynicism,
a host of his juniors strenuously countered his argument. Both sides sounded
pretty convincing.
As interesting as the rise of the communal mind-set in civilian
India and its repercussions on our institutions founded on the principles of
secularism is, equally significant for me is how this mind-set is handled by the
institutions concerned. Few civilians know that court martials in the army don’t
necessarily have to be closed trials. The commanding officer on the case can
decide to make it a public trial.
Looking beyond the army there is absolutely no doubt that our
civil and administrative services are subtly yet definitely fractured along
communal and/or political lines. Having experienced blatant non-cooperation from
civil servants who are sympathetic to the cause of right-wing Hindutva, I asked
a few members of the civil services how this could be countered and the
startling answer was forget about countering, this trend was being further
fostered by alumni of the services meeting new inductees in their colleges to
subtly spread the communal doctrine. This was corroborated by a few Dalit
trainees who claimed they suffered discrimination during training.
So what do our institutions do about this? The only thing they
can. Reiterate the theory of secularism as laid down in the Constitution. A
theory that today seems naïve in its assumptions. That people hear but don’t
listen to. That seems utopian, pedantic and far removed from reality. Ironical,
because the beauty of secularism is that it is so easy to fall in love with
because practising it makes one feel open, free of fear, strong.
But perhaps the most important point to make is that in today’s
India a vibrant secular movement has to start from civil society. Just as the
doctrine of any religious fundamentalism, be it Christian, Islamic or Hindu,
rises from civil society and spreads its tentacles into established
institutions, so should the principles of secularism. I believe the country is
too far gone down the communal river to think that the passive, ‘kind-uncle’
secularism of the past is going to be the bulwark against communalism. It’s time
we developed an aggressive secular agenda. One that makes a convincing argument
to establish why religious non-discrimination is an energising, even profitable
proposition. One which convinces people to practise certain directives on a
day-to-day basis. This is what our institutions will be happy, even relieved, to
borrow, to effectively neutralise the spread of hatred.
Coming back to Shaurya. It is a matter of sadness to me
that in the movie the argument for hatred seems as – if not more – attractive
than the argument for peace and non-discrimination. (This is an entirely
personal opinion, I might add.) I wonder if in making for an engrossing,
entertaining climax Samar has not short-changed his emotional reason for writing
this story. Did he too unwittingly succumb to the belief that hatred and
violence are more riveting in cinema than peace and love?