Tippu Sultan: Biopic and Politics
No art escapes politics. But a true
art is an art first, and politics next. If political choices, that too, blatant
political choices of the establishment decide what art should do, then it becomes
propaganda. Such politics devour art. Contrarily, true art creatively engages
history, politics and society and redefine them in terms of universal
consciousness and for refinement of humanity.
For me, the provocation to reiterate this
well known truth came when a few BJP satraps appealed to Super Star Rajnikanth
not to act in the proposed biopic on Tippu Sultan on the ground that Tippu was
‘anti-Tamil,’ ‘anti-Indian’ and a ‘religious bigot’ who caused cruelty on Tamil
population when he invaded the western part of Tamilnadu in the eighteenth century.
Even Makkal Thilakam M.G. Ramachandran’s autobiographical note has been
surprisingly dug out and quoted to historically place Tippu’s invasion of
Palakad in 1789. Thanks to the historical sensibilities of BJP and the
allowance made to, and the concern shown for Tamil identity.
My concern is not politics per se but politics that prevent cinema
evolving into a better art form than what it is today. Wherein, the increasing
political intimidation is a recent phenomenon, the Indian cinema was already
ailing from several other afflictions: it’s extremely populist appeal through
formulaic productions, the star system, covert and overt political ambitions of
leading stars and their political alliances, the control of the industry
through such alliances, cultic fan following devoid of film appreciation,
absence of genre consciousness etc. These factors have denied Indian cinema,
its ability to critically and creatively engage culture and society. Less said
better about its engagement with history.
Compared to other film genres, the
genre of ‘Historic films’ and its fraternal twin, the genre of ‘biopic’
(biographic films), always have to storm rough weather as these films have to handle
harsh facts in order to maintain accuracy and integrity. Even if a historic or
biopic film genre grants some artistic freedom and a few aesthetic devices to
the director or producer, it is still a tight rope walk to adapt a piece of
history or biography for a film. With artistic license, a historic film or a biopic
is certainly prone to ‘polish’ or ‘romanticize’ or even ‘exaggerate’ some
historical fact or facts. However, when the Lakshmanreka
of artistic freedom is crossed in a historic/biopic film, then the film
ends up either as a mythological extravaganza or a cheap propaganda glorifying
someone or some event in history. This is what Indian cinema has done largely.
In other words in India, a biopic is a rare exception than a rule. Going by Indian
film making tradition, BJP’s worries are ironically justified. They cannot
afford to allow Thippu’s ghost ossify into another deity and become part of the
pantheon of the myth loving Indians.
Added to this is the complication that
arises out of the fluid nature of history itself. The second set of
controversies that surround historic/biopic film genre is related to two other questions.
Why that portion of history or historical figure for the film? And what version
of history the film maker would rely on?
This problem arises from the ‘fluid’
nature of history itself. It is an obvious fact that even well researched
history inevitably leaves a gap between ‘what was truly the past’ and what is
represented as ‘truth of the past.’ Any history is always selective, and the truth
it represents is only partial. Validity of any piece of history is therefore
relative only to the questions the historian raised as he started his/her
probe, the information or data he/she could access about the past event or
events under question and finally the perspective or point of view with which a
historian interprets the said information to draw meaning. Simply stated, no
History is Gospel Truth. There can be multiple histories. And every truth claim
of history today would be modified tomorrow as new facts come in and as
perspectives change. This is the reason why, what was considered subversive or
anti-national in the past becomes nationalistic or patriotic later, and one who
was hanged as a traitor earlier is beatified later as a martyr. For a film
maker, this ever present ambiguity in history is a real intellectual and political
challenge. In making several of the decisions on the complex historical subject
handled, the film maker is to be solely guided by what he/she thinks as to what
aesthetically and politically makes sense for him/her at the time of film
making. The film maker has this right, and as a true artist, he/she has to
exercise this right to the best of his/her ability.
For BJP however, history is an
immutable ‘Holy Gospel’ which they alone as ordained priests are entitled to
hold in their hands and interpret. At their sweet will, they go about making
‘history out of myths’ and ‘myth’ out of history. As myth makers, they see Ashok
Kenny, the Kannada film maker who is inclined to make Tippu biopic as another
myth maker and villainous competitor. No wonder, they intimidate him.
Yet another point that needs attention
is the film viewing culture. Reality hurts our film goers.
Cinema is continued to be seen as an
entertainment that provides a world of escape with its fantasy, mythology,
gloss and grandiose. Biopic and historical films go against the grain. This is
the reason why the mainstream producers who start with historic films or biopic
end up making compromises and mythifying historical subjects adding to existing
prejudices and stereotypes.
It is true that there were forced conversions
of a few thousand defeated Nair soldiers and Kodavas by Tippu. These were acts
more of political exigency governed by 18th centaury standards in
war, than a policy that characterized his rule. This need not make anyone round
him off as a religious bigot.
He was by all standards an emerging ‘early
modern’ ruler of India who put up a
modern state, raised a modern army in the European fashion, practiced
international diplomacy and reorganized the revenue system to pave the way for
early capitalism in then Mysore, patronized public aesthetics by putting up public
gardens like Lalbagh etc. His Mysore Kingdom included half of present day
Kerala and Tamilnadu at the height of his power.
His heroic charm came from his military genius
and personal courage. He was possibly the last Indian King to have entered into
a treaty on equal footing with the British. (II Anglo Mysore War followed by
Treaty of Mangalore 1784). He was the first in the world to have used rockets
in modern warfare. He stunned the British with his rockets in the Battle of
Poliur. Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, the former President of India, in his Tippu Sultan Shaheed
Memorial Lecture in Bangalore on 30th November 1991, called Tippu
Sultan the innovator of the world's first war rocket.
Tippu
was adept in international diplomacy too. Only on his instigation Napolean Bonaprte
invaded Egypt thinking that he can invade India crossing over Suez.
Till the final hour Tippu led from the front and
died fighting gripping his sword. He died at the age of 49.
Tippu’s life thus provides a multiple
narrative. His rise and fall over a period of about 30 years certainly provides
a narrative arc that is fascinatingly engaging even in prose. What is expected
of the producer is not a reverential approach to construct a hero out of Tippu.
With the artistic tools in his command and from a critical distance, the
Producer/Director has to necessarily fathom the depth of a personality who
proved historically consequential. Such a biopic would teach what history can’t
teach about human nature. The question whether Tippu is a hero or villain
becomes secondary.
@@@
T. Chinnaraj Joseph
