cinema and politics in india

8/3/2019 Cinema and Politics in India

1/5

Cinema and Politics in India

By

Dr. Binod C. Agrawal

Director

TALEEM Research Foundation

City Plaza,

Bopal, Ahmedabad 380 058

INDIA

Introduction

The Indian cinema and freedom movement against British imperialism had been intricately

interwoven and organically linked since its advent. It is over a century old story in one form

or the other. After Indias independence, in 1947, the purposeful cinema that contributed

in the freedom struggle faded away. It was replaced by a new ideology to promote and

support nationalism, linguistic and cultural identity and egalitarian society. The

worlds largest film industry of India produce films in more than a dozen Indian languages, in

which Hindi cinema continue to dominate the scene. The largest number of Hindi and non-

Hindi speakers watch Hindi cinema across the world. The popularity of Hindi cinema can be

gauged easily by visiting any music and VCD stores across the world, though more so inAsia, and countries where people of the Indian origin reside. In order to understand the

political linkages and ramifications of the Indian cinema, one has to peep into the brief

history of politics of India after independence.

Politics and Cinema: A Localized Phenomenon

It must be made clear that political connections and organic linkages of cinema are fairly

localized and confined to certain States of the country, though the trend is changing. There is

an upsurge of Abhineta (actor) trying to become Neta (leader) to try out their fortunes in

politics. In the National Parliamentary Elections 2004, political election meetings and rallies

of various parties were flooded with film stars of all ages. Many of them have become

Members of Parliament since then. Today, few of them are also occupying Ministerial posts

in the Government of India.

1


2/5

The most discussed and published organic connections of cinema with politics have been

reported from Tamil speaking Southern state of India - Tamil Nadu. Dravida Munnetra

Kazhagam (DMK) was firmly established as political party and a movement before

independence. After independence of India DMK thrived on strong caste, regional, and even

secessionist sentiments (Chandrika, M. Mukherjee and A. Mukherjee 2000:300).

Among those who established DMK was Annadurai, a brilliant writer, skilful orator and an

excellent organizer. Along with M. Karunanidhi and M.G. Ramachandran (MGR) and other

film personalities actors, directors and writers Annadurai used drama, films, pamphlets

and other mass media to reach out to the people and over time succeeded in building up a

mass base, especially among the youth with a rural background, and a vibrant political

organization (Chandra, M. Mukherjee and A. Mukherjee 2000:300). Within a short span of

time the party started breaking like Hindu joint family after internal personality clashes.

DMK in last fifty years have split many times and several of them are still politically active,

though few are no longer directly or remotely associated with cinema.

In another southern State Andhra Pradesh, a similar observation can be made about another

actor in politics. A charismatic film actor N.T. Rama Rao started TeluguDesham, a state

political party, in 1982. N.T. Rama Rao stressed the pride of the Telugu people. In less than

two decades, the party split and the present leaders are no longer directly associated with

cinema. Here no organic connections and linkages can be established between cinema andpolitics.

In this context another point to be highlighted is that in each of the two state parties film

industry has contributed very little beyond few top leaders, whose personal popularity kept

the party going. Once the leader was not there, the party fortunes began to dwindle and

cinematic charisma to a large extent.

2

We had two popular film actors, Mr. M.G. Ramachandran in the State of Tamil Nadu and Mr.

N.T. Rama Rao in Andhra Pradesh, who lead the respective states as its Chief Ministers. In

addition, Mr. K. Karunanidhi, film writer and Ms. Jayalalitha, a film actress, both from

Tamil Nadu have had occupied the position of Chief Minister alternatively as political rivals

after split in the party. Tamil Nadu is the only state in India where political ideology, it

seems, has been shadowed by cinema as an important mass medium to reach and

communicate with people. It must be mentioned that cinema viewing is a craze among Tamil


3/5

people. Also film stars are worshiped like Gods by their fans. Many M.G. Ramachandran

fans immolated themselves after learning his death, who was most popular hero and leader of

Tamil Nadu masses. Such a unique relationship with cinema is unknown in any other parts

of the country.

Growing Interest in Politics

In the recent past, actors and actresses of various states including Hindi have shown a great

deal of interest in joining politics. It seems they want to enjoy the political patronage of the

ruling class. It is not that cinema has not been represented in the Indian Parliament in the

past. As a convention popular cinema heroes and heroines have been regularly nominated to

Rajya Sabha (the Upper House of the Parliament) and have enjoyed a great deal of political

patronage without ideological or social concern. It would not be out of place to say that

actors would have ornamental value in the Indian Parliament. Exceptions are there where a

few of them have played serious parliamentarians role. They truly represent the people and

worked towards betterment of the poor, development of the region or minorities. In 1998, the

Indian Parliament has had a number of actors who also became ministers. But little is known

about their performance or contribution.

Excitement of Cinema and Politics

Cinema and politics have been considered a most exciting and rewarding activity in India.

They provide maximum public visibility and media glare. Critics believe that involvement ofactors in politics was due to their fading value in the film industry. They also believe that

their role seems similar to that of a good doer often depicted in the screen by them. Many

viewers believe that some of screen actions can be re-enacted in the real life by them.

Also most of the cinemagoers cannot distinguish and separate between real life and screen

role of the actor. Majority see an actors role bigger than normal human being who does

extra ordinary things on the screen. So viewers expect the actors to solve their problems, no

matter how difficult the task may be.

3

Only few actors seem to join politics out of their ideological commitments. Actors those who

joined politics due to their personal conviction have done well as an individual like Sunil

Dutt, who is currently Minister in the Government of India. Many others have tried, but

quickly retracted back to the safe heavens of cinema like Amitabh Bachchan. There are

others who acted in political films, but in spite of pressure from the political parties shied


4/5

away from participating in politics. Veteran Malayalam actor, Prem Nazir, having

tremendous popularity, refused to join politics.

Personal ambitions, more than political ideology had driven many of the actors to join

politics. It is this reason that there have been quick changes in political affiliations of several

actors in India. On the other hand, political parties with a single motive to attract voters and

add glamour to election propaganda do consciously approach film personalities in the

electoral game. Parliamentary Elections of 2004 epitomises such a move by almost all major

political parties in the country. Devoid of political ideology, the film stars endorsed political

parties and joined them. A large number of them contested elections. It is difficult to find any

organic connection or linkages between politics and cinema in most cases.

Are there any structural relationship and connections between politics and cinema? No

pattern can be discerned. Are there any historical legacies on the part of cinema to contribute

to the well being of the people in the country? Though no such conclusion can be drawn, the

pre-independent cinema did so. Do people believe that a good actor/actress be able to provide

good governance? There is no evidence to say so. On the whole, people do not believe so, as

they do make clear distinction between politicians and actors. As a matter of fact history has

largely frowned upon mixing politics with cinema, though film historians and journalists are

quick to draw such conclusions (Kazmi 1999).

There seems to be large contradiction in human behaviour relating to cinema and politics.

People of Mumbai elected a film hero as their representative to parliament. The actor has

found no time to attend the parliament. Does this reflect lack of responsibility or lack of

understanding of the democratic functioning of the society? It is difficult to say so.

Conclusion

4

In the conclusion, it can be said that there has been regional impetus from cinema to enter

into politics to achieve defined social goals. So far, it has not become a national

phenomenon. Parallel to this development is patronisation of socially undesirable elements

who joined politics and are holding important political portfolios both in the government and

in the party. It seems the people in India have admiration for deviants whether actor or

criminals which relates to hero worship of the powerful regardless of the source of the


5/5

power. In this respect it is difficult to find direct organic connection between politics and

cinema.

References Cited:

Chandra, Bipin, Mridula Mukherjee and Aditya Mukherjee

2000 India After Independence 1947-2000. New Delhi: Penguin Books

India (P) Ltd.

Kazmi, Fareed

1999 The Politics of Indias Conventional Cinema: Imaging a Universe,

Subverting a Multiverse. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

2004 The Glamorisation of Indian politics. Times News Network

(Sunday, March 20, 2004).

2002 Theatre of Absurd. http//www.hindu.com/thehindu/mag/2002/03/

17/stons/ 20020311700300500.htm

5

cinema and politics in india

Documents