TheDaak review

Book: Contested Representation: Dalits, popular Hindi Cinema, and Public Sphere by Dhananjay Rai, Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 15 July 2022, 268 pages, ISBN 9781666901337, ₹7,948.00

by Dharmanshu Dhakar

Dhananjay Rai’s recent book provides an entry-point into understanding the nature of representation of Dalits in the social language of Hindi cinema.  Here, ‘Social language’ can be understood as “a mode of direct or indirect communication consumed, perceived, understood and practised in everyday life” (p. 21). It also attempts to provide reasons as to why the Dalits often appear submissive or neglected altogether over the big screen. 

Hindi cinema, indubitably, has emerged as one of the most integral and popular components of the public sphere. This book, through cinema, also engages with Dalit representation in the social language of the public sphere. While Rai appreciates Habermas’ understanding of the potential of social languages in rejuvenation of the public sphere, he disagrees with the latter’s view that social language of the public sphere should be insulated and unhinged to the material and social spheres. Taking recourse through the views of Bakhtin, Pierre Boudieu and David Harvey, he argues emphatically that the social language of Hindi cinema should not be viewed as just reflection of material spheres. In fact, it should be viewed as a replication or mediation of both material spheres and social spheres. Contrary to the common understanding, the author argues that the Dalits serve a dual purpose of the dominant material and social force. In the material sphere, their representation becomes a justification of a particular dominant material sphere against another. There is absence of a single group capable of occupying complete control over the production process. This multi-polarity of dominant material spheres produces different discourses. 

The author identifies majorly six cinematic perspectives in order to understand the nature of Dalit representation. The vantage point of the six perspectives are ‘tradition’, ‘society’, ‘ideology’, ‘content’, ‘aesthetics/creativity/entertainment’ and ‘history’ which are not mutually exclusive with each other (p.115). A holistic perspective is missing and therefore, the author proposes an alternative perspective which he calls a ‘microcosmic perspective’(p.169). Unlike the aforementioned perspectives, it captures the factors of social language of Hindi cinema (both material and social spheres) and meaning of social language. 

Rai also raises the question why the emergent/oppositional social language borne out of Dalit movement’s upsurge is not exhibited in the social language of Hindi cinema?

The author argues that there is a specific vantage point of perceiving problems and of providing solutions which are foregrounded in the social language of Hindi cinema. He selects three movies to discuss this issue: Sujata, Sholay and Swades. These three films are chosen based on three criteria: they have different narratives, dissimilar commercial success and unrelated time frameworks. However, being Dalit is the common vantage point of the three narratives. In Sujata, the protagonist is a Dalit, whereas in Sholay, the Dalit representation is absent (the author argues to take seriously absence of Dalits as a mode of representation) and in Swades, a Dalit is represented through a marginal protagonist. Commercially, Sholay has been an all-time superhit. Sujata was a semi-hit and Swades was a flop. When it comes to the third criterion, all of them are located in different time frames. Sujata, Sholay and Swades released in 1959, 1975 and 2004 respectively.

The films in question are examined from two perspectives: material sphere and social sphere. The social language of Sujata, Sholay and Swades reflects the ‘crisis of material spheres’. In each film, a different material sphere is seen as dominant. Sujata is a product of the phase of state capitalism. According to the author, Sujata should be seen as an assertion of an industrial bourgeoisie against the rural way of life, primarily, the rural gentry. Sholay vouches for the return of feudalism when the modern Indian state failed to counter the bandits. Swades, on the other hand, is a product of globalisation and finance capitalism. In Sujata, Sholay and Swades, central problems are untouchability, bandits and brain drain, respectively. A particular production system has been shown as more benevolent while expressing contempt for others (Sujata– state/industrial capitalism, Sholay-feudalism, Swades– financial capitalism). 

From the lens of the social sphere, Brahmanical social order acts as the singular force. The upper caste ambience is ceded a capacious space. In all three films, three upper caste families are present: a Brahmin family in Sujata, a Thakur family in Sholay and a Brahmin-led initiative in Swades. For Rai, “the social of three families looms large in films while foregrounding problems” (p. 197). Additionally, in Sujata, the vantage point of the problem is from the social status of a Brahmin family. Sujata, a Dalit woman, seems incapable of raising her concerns and therefore, lacks agency. In this case, untouchability, rather than the Brahmanical social order, seems to be the issue. Likewise, the social status of Mohan, a Brahmin, decides the nature of problems in Swades. Even though Sholay’s story is set in the backdrop of a village, Thakur’s valour remains the assertive force and dictates the mode of fight against the illegality of the bandits. 

The cinematic narrative not only stops at problematically foregrounding the issues but it furthers the interests of the dominant forces while providing solutions in the films. Problems and reconciliation syndrome born out of the social language of Hindi cinema creates three types of social language which are based on three priorities.  Films belonging to the first priority are those which are compatible with dominant material and social spheres. The second priority involves those films that neither confirm nor become a threat to dominant material and social spheres. Those films that are non-compatible and a threat to dominant material and social spheres can be put in the third priority. Rai opines that the third-priority films are an aberration rather than a norm in Hindi cinema.

Dhanajay Rai ends the book with a positive note by saying that the conditions in the material sphere are conducive to producing the crisis of social language of Hindi cinema (in the absence of material conflict among the forces in the material sphere, due to the impending dominance of financial capitalism and thereby the threat to the relative autonomy to Hindi cinema). This is because the need for the mere formal representation of Dalits would wither away and might carve a space for the disenchantment with the social language of Hindi cinema by the deprived sections.

A question can be posed to Rai’s argument which suggests that  ‘private capitalism and finance capitalism in the era of LPG is becoming the only dominant mode of production’. Firstly, ‘is the triumph of finance capitalism irreversible’? Renewed talks of the need to scale-up the manufacturing sector points to the possibility that the equation between material forces might change. Also, the phenomenon of ‘Dalit Capitalism’ is a product of neoliberalism, which can be associated with the advent of the rise in the number of Dalits becoming prominent players in the cinema industry and have the potential to portray Dalits and their issues in a right manner.

This book deals only with Hindi cinema, but the breadth of the public sphere is now widening. Therefore, it would be very interesting to see the nature of representation of Dalits in social media and its influence over Hindi cinema. With Dalits making their presence felt over social media platforms through their content like podcasts, short films, stand-ups, etc, a light needs to be thrown over the differences in the way they portray the community and its conundrums.

A number of commentaries and write-ups deal with the issue of portrayal of Dalits in Hindi cinema. However, a full-fledged systematic book reflecting on the nature of representation of Dalits has been missing. Rai has attempted to fill this vacuum and has done a commendable job. His book must also be appreciated for contributing methodologically, by adopting a “dialectical method and content analysis” (p. 9) to the field of cinema studies. 

©TheDaak2023