Indian cinema has always played a significant role in bringing forth issues that surround society and impact the lives of people in different ways. Time and again, directors have skillfully taken up heated issues and tried to portray the same on the screens in the best possible ways. The latest creation that joins the league is “Article 15“, released on June 28. Right from the time, the film’s trailer went on-air, there have been some speculations about the movie being a bold and hard-hitting one.
Director Anubhav Sinha’s previous venture “Mulk” was also a story based on the discriminatory treatment of marginalised or minority communities. The film garnered a lot of praise, and the lead actors did a commendable job. However, do people remember “Mulk” as something more than a sensational courtroom drama with great performances by Rishi Kapoor and Taapsee Pannu? Do they remember it as a movie about Muslims? The message that the movie tried to convey did that hit the audience hard? Did that in a real sense make a social impact? Well, we all know the answer—it didn’t, not even a bit. Same can be said about another movie “Pink”, which, too, was made on the lines of a courtroom drama. Have people started valuing the concept of consent since then?
“Article 15”, is an adaptation of the infamous and horrific Badaun gangrape case of 2014 in which two minor Dalit girls were assaulted, killed and hanged. The movie goes on with the backdrop of caste-based discrimination prevailing in India since time immemorial, thereby significantly rupturing the society and outraging people’s modesty. I have read several reviews saying that the movie raises some uncomfortable situations and question that need to be pondered upon. The reviews talk about the technicalities, Ayushmann Khurrana and the supporting cast’s performance, well-written dialogues and certain aspects in terms of cinematography. All have been praised.
Compliments. That’s all “Article 15” seems to have achieved. There isn’t, and there cannot be a lawful implementation of the same—because movies are meant for entertainment purposes only. The protagonist of the film belongs to the upper caste and declares himself ‘casteless,’ i.e. he does not believe in the caste system and isn’t even sure of what caste he belongs to. It isn’t exactly credible that a Delhi University graduate and an IPS officer didn’t have the slightest idea of caste-based discrimination.
Many of us choose to condemn the caste system strongly, but this option of choosing to be ‘casteless’ is available only to the upper class. It’s impossible for a Dalit in India to go ahead and declare that they do not believe in caste, and face no repercussions for doing the same! They are compelled to remind themselves that they belong to a lower caste—every time they try to enter a temple, a school, a university or even a government office. So once again, the system is coordinated by the privileged category only.
Another remarkable thing about the movie is that the director played it safe as much as he could. He portrayed many instances of oppression faced by the people of lower caste; however, not even once fingers were pointed on the person who does this. Ayan’s fight was more with the system than with the society itself. Not even once was a message directed at the people belonging to the upper caste. Then where exactly does the chance of improvement in society lie?
The question is, how many people from that oppressed category have benefited from the engaging script of the movie so far? Most of them don’t even know that their reality is being shown off on huge screens of multiplexes; they cannot even dream of being inside. And let’s assume that the movie turns out to be a blockbuster, will the deceased victims get justice then? Many of us are not even aware of the fact that the perpetrators were set free, and this case was closed after being given a conclusion of suicide. In a country where the legal support system denies to be in favour of those who are poor, who are deprived and secluded, why is a movie expected to do miracles?
Who are the ones practising this nasty system to torture others? Are they not people like us? It’s not just the rural upper caste, but the educated, modern and highly urbanised population too. All of us are perpetuating the caste system. The recent suicide case of Dr Payal Tadvi says it all. I understand the director’s intention behind making this movie, but when years of higher education and modern lifestyle and thought process could not get ‘caste’ out of our heads, how can this movie change that in a span of few weeks? However, I genuinely hope that it does.
The fact is that the menace of the caste system is known to everyone well before the movie was made. Clearly and distinctly! The entire nation knows what had happened in Badaun, but in the past five years, nobody has really cared about the injustice. Such incidents have always been happening, and yet we haven’t achieved anything significant with respect to diluting the dire consequences of caste discrimination and untouchability—because the Article 15 of our Constitution lost its importance years ago. The law does not punish those adequately who practice this cruel system.
The worst part is that ‘Ayan Ranjan’ is a fictional character, and in reality, these poor girls never had anybody like him who would go overboard to get them justice. Instead, the reality was simply the opposite of this. The legal system in practice still fails to address untouchability as a punishable offence though, in the 17th paragraph of Constitution (1955), it is clearly categorised as a punishable offence and later in 1976 amended to ‘Protection of Civil Rights Act’. But the irony is since 1955 the atrocities related to untouchability have only risen. Sometimes they are not even treated as civilians, so protecting their so-called rights sounds ridiculous. This injustice will continue, but for how long? We don’t have an answer. The change needs to happen at the base of the societal prejudices which practically cannot be brought about by a movie overnight. For now, “Article 15” is just a good movie and not a social message. The difference we hope to see is still a distant dream.