The humongous success of the 1996 Tamil blockbuster “Indian,” starring Kamal Haasan and directed by Shankar, can be attributed to a myriad of factors. These include Kamal Haasan’s brilliant portrayal of a 70-year-old freedom fighter, the exquisite numbers from AR Rahman, and Shankar’s inventive storytelling. However, the primary reason behind its instant appeal was how it resonated with the ‘common man,’ who was perpetually forced to bribe government officials to get everyday tasks accomplished.
The impact of “Indian,” along with other Shankar-directed films such as “Gentleman,” “Mudhalvan,” and “Anniyan,” has left an indelible mark on the psyche of Tamil audiences, shaping their understanding of politics and corruption. These movies often promoted the notion of vigilante justice over systemic and incremental reforms, presenting a problematic yet seemingly expedient solution to societal corruption. “Indian” was created amidst a specific socio-political context that deeply influenced its narrative. In 1991, just five years before the film’s release, the Indian government initiated a series of economic reforms aimed at liberalization to drive economic growth and create jobs, loosening the State’s tight control over the economy.
Additionally, the government’s decision in 1990 to implement 27 percent reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) led to widespread protests and debates on whether it would impact the efficiency and quality of bureaucratic personnel. Concurrently, the controversial Ram Janmabhoomi movement, aimed at constructing a temple for Lord Ram at the disputed site of Babri Masjid, was gaining traction. This Hindutva project, just budding at the time, came to fruition under Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the 21st century.
These events significantly influenced the psyche of the fictional ‘Indian’ Senapathy, the freedom fighter-turned-vigilante who eliminates corrupt government officials. The character seemed to distrust state-controlled institutions, viewing them as bastions of corruption. He subconsciously harbored a bias against reservations, compounded by personal trauma such as the death of his daughter due to systemic corruption. Senapathy’s drastic measures, including killing his corrupt son Chandru, a government brake inspector, stem from his deep-seated disdain for the pervasive corruption that he encountered.
Director Shankar’s previous film “Gentleman” also delved into the theme of vigilantism. It narrated the story of Kicha, a non-Brahmin who resorted to robbing the rich to build a college that would admit all deserving students, bypassing the barriers of caste and poverty. However, 30 years on, the premise seems antiquated, especially given the continued poor representation of OBCs and SCs/STs in various spheres of Indian society. This issue remains so pertinent that it has been leveraged as a potent slogan by the Opposition INDIA bloc in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
In a revealing interview from the 1990s, Kamal Haasan shared his ideological reservations about both “Gentleman” and “Indian.
.” He expressed his reluctance to participate in “Gentleman” due to its initial focus on a Brahmin-led militancy. With “Indian,” he acknowledged that while the notion of eliminating corrupt officials might be a common man’s dream, the narrative risked promoting fascism by idealizing a vigilante solution over judicial processes.
“Indian” employs a sophisticated narrative structure, justifying Senapathy’s actions through two separate flashbacks and numerous subplots. These elements serve to establish his patriotic past, providing moral justification for his vendetta, and to explain the selection criteria for his targets, who are invariably small-time corrupt government officials. Kamal Haasan’s critique about the film tapping into a fascist desire for a savior resonates in today’s political climate, where similar populist sentiments are widespread globally.
The film portrays government officials, many appointed through reservations, as the primary villains and prescribes death as the sole solution to their corruption. This dismissal of judicial recourse is starkly illustrated when Senapathy refuses to bribe officials to save his daughter’s life, only to later kill those same officials. This narrative implicitly suggests that the legal system is an impotent mechanism in the battle against corruption.
In the 33 years following India’s economic liberalization, big businesses have often colluded with the state machinery, resulting in a small class of wealthy billionaires whose loans are routinely forgiven. Meanwhile, politicians and political parties have often rivaled these billionaires in terms of amassed wealth.
The trailer for “Indian 2” provides glimpses into a story that continues to resonate with the desire for a savior amidst worsening socio-economic conditions. The opening voice-over decries the state of the nation, highlighting job scarcity, inadequate salaries, and systemic lawlessness. Actor Siddharth’s character underscores the need for systemic change but quickly reverts to the idea of a ‘hunting dog’ to eliminate corruption, foreshadowing the return of the Indian thaatha.
Given the last 30 years of discourse around “Indian,” there is a hope for a more nuanced portrayal of corruption in “Indian 2.” The film’s trailer hints at a potential evolution, acknowledging the complexity of corruption beyond low-level officials, as suggested by Kamal Haasan’s line: “You take the Gandhian route, I will take the Netaji route.”
India continues to grapple with numerous social ills, including discrimination against minorities and atrocities against disadvantaged groups. It remains to be seen if the Indian thaatha has evolved in his understanding of these issues and if “Indian 2” will offer a reflective and comprehensive solution.
“Indian 2” is set to release in theatres this Friday, promising to reignite discussions on corruption, justice, and societal reform.
