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 18^th 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 30^th 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