Content uploaded by Pankaj Jain
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pankaj Jain on Jan 26, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Pankaj Jain
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pankaj Jain on Jan 26, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Pankaj Jain]
On: 18 July 2011, At: 07:47
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Visual Anthropology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gvan20
From Padosi to My Name is Khan: The
Portrayal of Hindu–Muslim Relations in
South Asian Films
Pankaj Jain PANKAJ JAIN is the author of Sustenance and
Sustainability: Dharma and Ecology of Hindu Communities [2011]
and has published in Religious Studies Review, Worldviews, Religion
Compass, Journal of Vaishnava Studies, Union Seminary Quarterly
Review, and Visual Anthropology. His research interests include
Hinduism, Jainism, environmental ethics, Indian films, Indo-Aryan
languages and literatures. He has taught at North Carolina State
University, Rutgers, Kean and New Jersey City Universities. He
is now exploring connections between religious traditions and
sustainability in Hindu and Jain communities in North Texas.
He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Iowa and an M.A. from
Columbia University, both in Religious Studies.
Available online: 18 Jul 2011
To cite this article: Pankaj Jain PANKAJ JAIN is the author of Sustenance and Sustainability:
Dharma and Ecology of Hindu Communities [2011] and has published in Religious Studies Review,
Worldviews, Religion Compass, Journal of Vaishnava Studies, Union Seminary Quarterly Review,
and Visual Anthropology. His research interests include Hinduism, Jainism, environmental ethics,
Indian films, Indo-Aryan languages and literatures. He has taught at North Carolina State University,
Rutgers, Kean and New Jersey City Universities. He is now exploring connections between religious
traditions and sustainability in Hindu and Jain communities in North Texas. He holds a Ph.D. from
the University of Iowa and an M.A. from Columbia University, both in Religious Studies. (2011):
From Padosi to My Name is Khan: The Portrayal of Hindu–Muslim Relations in South Asian Films,
Visual Anthropology, 24:4, 345-363
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08949468.2011.583570
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded by [Pankaj Jain] at 07:47 18 July 2011
From Padosi to My Name is Khan: The
Portrayal of Hindu–Muslim Relations in
South Asian Films
Pankaj Jain
The portrayal of Hindu–Muslim relations in Hindi-language films has been a topic
of discussion in several recent writings; for instance, in Chadha and Kavoori [2008],
Hirji [2008], Ghuman [2006] and Rai [2003]. These articles mostly argue that Muslims
in Hindi films are ‘‘exoticized, marginalized, and demonized and they are portrayed
as the ‘other.’ ’’ To test this thesis I surveyed several films and found that Hindi films
themselves are being stereotyped, based on their recent portrayal of Muslims. As an
example, I will first examine an article by Booth [2004] which argues that Muslims
were the political Other even in some older films. I will then compare Mishra’s
article [2002] with Lal [1998] in light of the film Khalnayak; and then, following
Lal, I will provide my own analysis of some films that are woven around the
relationship of Hindus with Muslims but have escaped the attention of film scholars.
Although the recent upsurge in ‘‘cinepatriotism’’ and ‘‘Hinduness’’ in Hindi films is
(rightly) criticized by scholars, in this article, I look at examples from several films to
argue that secularism, embraced by films such as Padosi [1941] and Hum ek hain
[1946], has been maintained by most Indian filmmakers. I discuss these films in four
categories: India–Pakistan partition, Hindu–Muslim violence, Hindu–Muslim
friendly relations, and films about modern Muslim communities. Although most
of the films I discuss are Hindi ones I will also make brief references to Pakistani,
Bengali-language and other South Asian films.
PANKAJ JAIN is the author of Sustenance and Sustainability: Dharma and Ecology of Hindu
Communities [2011] and has published in Religious Studies Review, Worldviews, Religion
Compass, Journal of Vaishnava Studies, Union Seminary Quarterly Review, and Visual
Anthropology. His research interests include Hinduism, Jainism, environmental ethics, Indian
films, Indo-Aryan languages and literatures. He has taught at North Carolina State University,
Rutgers, Kean and New Jersey City Universities. He is now exploring connections between religious
traditions and sustainability in Hindu and Jain communities in North Texas. He holds a Ph.D. from
the University of Iowa and an M.A. from Columbia University, both in Religious Studies. E-mail:
pankajaindia@gmail.com or pankaj.jain@unt.edu
Visual Anthropology, 24: 345–363, 2011
Copyright #Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0894-9468 print=1545-5920 online
DOI: 10.1080/08949468.2011.583570
345
Downloaded by [Pankaj Jain] at 07:47 18 July 2011
HINDU MUSIC, MUSLIM MUSIC: LOOKING FOR DIFFERENCES
Before starting my analyses, I want to respond to scholarly critique of some films
that have allegedly targeted Muslims and have shown Hindu hegemony. In a
different context Philip Lutgendorf notes the scholarly agenda of excessive
criticism of Indian films:
The grand theories of our own yuga sometimes seem to me to have a similar aim: the
product of increasingly marginalized humanist academics who perceive the greater
prestige of ‘‘hard’’ science on the one hand and of mass-market entertainment on the
other, and who advance haughty analyses of the latter that imitate the former’s technical
jargon. Academic criticism of Indian popular cinema displays a particular penchant for
reductive typologies and stern agendas of improvement, based on a standard that no
actual filmmaker ever seems to achieve—only the scholar–critic possesses the knowledge
to imagine the ideologically perfect film. [2006, p. 240]
An article by Booth [2004] can stand as an example of such academic criticism
of Hindi films. He discusses Jhanak jhanak payal baje (hereafter, JJPB) [1955],
Tansen [1943], Kohinoor [1960], Sangeet samrat tansen [1962], and Baiju Bawra
[1952], and sees an underlying Hindu–Muslim opposition in them. Unlike several
other scholars who have noted the Nehruvian secularism being portrayed in the
films of that era [e.g., Ahmed 1992; Levich 2002; Sardar 1998], Booth attempts to
see an underlying communalism even in these early films.
According to him, in JJPB Hindus and Muslims are portrayed in opposite
camps because they play different instruments and wear different kinds of (male)
costume [2004: 62]. However, he misses the point that most in an Indian audience
watching Hindi films are rarely trained in classical music and cannot be expected
to know which instruments were historically played by Muslims or by Hindus,
as wrongly claimed by Booth. Similarly there is hardly any male costume that
is exclusive to a Muslim community. The best example to deny Booth’s argument
is in the Punjab where Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs wore the same kinds of cos-
tume before Partition and were thus indistinguishable. Therefore the North-
Indian cinema-going public in 1955 could hardly be expected to notice the
Hindu–Muslim opposition agenda that Booth now sees in JJPB. Moreover, the
maker of JJPB, V. Shantaram, is well-known for his many other social and secular
films such as Padosi that were meant to promote Hindu–Muslim unity, as Booth
rightly notes elsewhere in his article. I would therefore argue that it is somewhat
problematic to read a communal dichotomy into JJPB, as Booth has suggested.
Having established a highly problematic thesis that is not verifiable by any
account (as he admits), Booth then goes on to discuss Tansen and Baiju Bawra.
He equates the humorous depiction of classical musicians in Hindi films with
the ‘‘humorously intended racism’’ found in American popular culture [2004:
66]. According to Booth, comic representations of Muslim classical musicians gen-
erate a subtle spotlight on attitudes toward such musicians because such films
‘‘are participating (intentionally or otherwise) in the reinforcement of communal
prejudice.’’ I think that Booth is stressing the Muslim identity of Naushad, who
was the music director of several musical films in the 1950s and 1960s and was
346 P. Jain
Downloaded by [Pankaj Jain] at 07:47 18 July 2011
famous for using classical music and musicians in his work. However, agreeing
with Dwyer [2006: 109] I would argue that Indian classical music was never a
‘‘Muslim-only’’ tradition. Therefore any comic portrayal of classical music cannot
be reduced to a (mis)representation only of the Muslim musicians; it would
indeed be a misportrayal of both Hindu and Muslim musicians. Moreover such
comic representations were adopted in several later films to produce humor, such
as in Boot Polish [1954] and Padosan [1968], in which the actors, singers and music
directors were not Muslims. I would argue that such comic portrayal of classical
musicians was historically done by filmmakers simply to exploit an avenue to
insert the rasa of comedy in an otherwise serious film, as also noted by Mishra
[2002: 171]. Therefore I cannot accept Booth’s ‘‘communal’’ reading of such
images. Perhaps Booth realizes the weakness in his argument and further notes
that ustad, a term that is used to refer to musicians in these films, denotes a
‘‘Muslim’’ master. He again misses the point that during the period in which these
films were released the popular language of North India had not made a commu-
nal distinction that would equate an Urdu term for Muslims and a Sanskritic term
for Hindus. Popular Hindi language (what used to be called Hindustani),
especially in early Mumbai films, differed from the official language spoken on
State-owned television, and has always borrowed liberally from the Urdu, as
shown by Dwyer [2006: 103] and Kesavan [1994].
1
Thus I fail to understand
how the mere word ustad might fix somebody’s identity as Muslim.
Booth continues his agenda of finding communal tension with three more films:
Baiju Bawra and two films based on the Moghul emperor Akbar’s court-musician
Tansen [2004: 76]. Booth notes an early scene in Baiju Bawra in which the father of
the protagonist Baiju dies in the hands of Moghul soldiers, disrupting his
performance in the vicinity of Tansen’s house. Since both the rivals Tansen and
Baiju in this case are Hindus, Booth’s thesis is rendered weak at this point. So
he continues with two more films based on Tansen. Not even once does he men-
tion that the highlight of this film was its music with great ‘‘Hindu’’ bhajans, such
as Man tarapat hari darashan ko aaj, written by Shakeel Badayuni, composed by
Naushad, and sung by Mohammed Rafi—all Muslim artists. The fact that a Hindu
audience has wholeheartedly embraced these Hindu bhajans even though per-
formed by Muslim artists was apparently unimportant to Booth. Baiju Bawra’s
songs have remained some of the most memorable songs in the history of Hindi
films, in sharp contrast to the two films based on Tansen in which the ‘‘Hindu-
ness’’ of Tansen is pitted against the Muslim emperor Akbar’s court, something
that Booth focuses on in his article as a strong example of the communal agenda
of these films; while ignoring that even this tension could be interpreted in polit-
ical terms, as I would argue, rather than communal ones, as Booth does. But as I
just noted, both these films are largely forgotten by Indian audiences (they are not
even available in DVD format, for instance), while Baiju Bawra remains an
‘‘all-time favorite’’
2
(its DVD is widely available and its songs remain popular
on radio and TV shows among Indians worldwide). This argues that the commu-
nal opposition, if we were to agree with Booth, shown in the two films about
Tansen was emphatically rejected by the masses. I should also point out that
Mishra [2002: 157–202] convincingly shows that in Baiju Bawra all the old rivalries
are resolved in the end and the protagonist in fact mercifully forgives Tansen.
Hindu–Muslim Relations in Film 347
Downloaded by [Pankaj Jain] at 07:47 18 July 2011
In a scholarly zeal to over-analyze Hindi films one of the most important
components, audience reception, is often ignored, as I have just shown in Booth’s
writing. While he saw Muslims as ‘‘outsiders’’ in several Hindi films, I now
compare two articles by Mishra [2002: 203–234] and Lal [1998: 228–259]: both
analyze Khalnayak [1993] and reach completely different conclusions. Here I
would like to present my own reading of several more films below.
KHALNAYAK: APPLYING AN INSIDER/OUTSIDER DICHOTOMY ON
HINDU–MUSLIM RELATIONSHIPS
In their articles both Mishra and Lal choose Subhash Ghai’s Khalnayak to make
two different points. Mishra reads the use of Hindu symbols and myths as the
‘‘filmmaker’s acceptance of the new order of Rama that the fundamentalists have
established in India’’; but he raises more questions than answers:
Why is a heavy and often unmitigated discourse of Rama essential for a film about drug
overlords, Bombay criminals, creative song-and-dance sequences and the sacrificial
mother? Why is it that when another religious icon is needed Khalnayak uses the image
of the sacrificial Christ and not many martyrs of Islam? If the connections between evil
and Ravana are inevitable, is it important for filmmakers to actually foreground these
connections? What is the nature of a political imaginary that forces the Indian to make
the analogies in the first instance? What is being repressed? What is it about the nation’s
history that cannot be articulated, represented? Is this an ethics of forgetting or a principle
of misguided overcoding of the text? [Mishra 2002: 227]
In contrast to this (anti)‘‘fundamentalist’’ reading of Mishra, Lal reads the same
film from a different hermeneutical framework, and makes a compelling
argument that the Hindi films have ‘‘almost no notion of the outsider or the sig-
nificant ‘Other.’ ’’ In addition to Khalnayak, Lal also discusses Deewar [1975],
Shakti [1982], and Gardish [1993], and hints that ‘‘in the school of advaita, villainy
can have no place, for when man commits an error or does some wrong, he does
so from ignorance.’’ For Lal, the ‘‘bad men’’ of Hindi films are ‘‘not the Satan of
Indian tradition.’’ So, in Khalnayak it is the nayak (hero) inside the khalnayak who
triumphs. His real self establishes its lordship over his ignorant self, and he
eventually locates himself within an inclusionary polity, and renders himself
up to the laws of community. Thus the same film leads the critics Mishra and
Lal in two different directions. While Mishra is perturbed by its Hinduness
and equates it with fundamentalism, creating more walls between Hindu ‘‘insi-
ders’’ and Muslim ‘‘outsiders,’’ Lal argues that the very notion of ‘‘outsiders’’ is
virtually absent in most Hindi films. I tend to agree with Lal and would even
suggest that this film, instead of conveying a message of Hindu fundamentalism,
criticizes one of the most ‘‘fundamental’’ texts of Hinduism, the Ra¯ma¯ya:
na.It
pleads for the acceptance of the ‘‘impure’’ Sita against the original text in which
she is humiliated and banished.
I want to apply Lal’s thesis to a reading of several Hindi and other South Asian
films in which Hindus and Muslims are portrayed. Do these films consider
Muslims as ‘‘outsiders’’ or ‘‘insiders’’? As mentioned earlier, I have chosen films
348 P. Jain
Downloaded by [Pankaj Jain] at 07:47 18 July 2011
in which Hindus and Muslims are shown as having different social relationships,
and have not chosen ‘‘Muslim social films’’ in which only Muslims are shown, as
this has already been done by Dwyer [2006: 97–131], for instance. I have also not
chosen films that are already discussed by other scholars such as Kazmi [1994:
226–243], Daiya [2008: 150–174], Chatterjee [2008: 77–116], Dissanayake [1994:
xix], Desoulie
`res [2007: 123–146], or Hines [2007: 147–170]. I mention only
relevant sections from the plots of films such as Zakhm [1998], Train to Pakistan
[1991], Salim langde pe mat ro [1989], Dor [2006],and Iqbal [2005]. Basic plots are
now available on websites such as IMDb and Wikipedia, and other printed ency-
clopedic compilations such as Rajadhyaksha and Willemen [1998] and Gulzar
and Chatterjee [2003]. In addition to presenting plots of a few films, I will also
refer to several other films in which Hindu characters appear with Muslim
counterparts.
FILMS WITH INDIA–PAKISTAN THEMES
In this category of films, I discuss Train to Pakistan [1991], Khamosh pani [2003] and
a few other films based on Hindus and Muslims living in India and Pakistan
respectively, such as Mammo [1994]. Mammo is a sensitive portrayal of a Muslim
woman who had migrated to Pakistan during Partition, but whose family did not
treat her well after her husband’s death. She returns to India to live with a sister
in Mumbai, and eventually produces some fake documents to stay in India for-
ever. While Veer Zaara [2004], Henna [1991] (made in India—discussed in Virdi
[2003]), and Lakhon mein eik [1967] (made in Pakistan—discussed in Morey and
Tickell [2005: 208–210] and Gazdar [1997: 109]), all have love stories crossing
the political boundaries of India and Pakistan, only the first film ends happily
while the latter two end in the death of a Muslim and a Hindu woman respect-
ively, on the national border.
Another unique portrayal of a Hindu=Indian and Muslim=Pakistani relation-
ship is done in the Oscar-nominated short film Little Terrorist [2004], in which
a young Muslim boy accidentally crosses the border from Pakistan and stumbles
upon a Hindu Brahmin who protects him from the Indian army and eventually
lets him go back to Pakistan. Ramchand Pakistani [2008] is a similar Pakistani film
in which a Hindu father and his son cross over to India and suffer in an Indian
jail while the mother-wife struggles alone in Pakistan. Such films present human
relationships that often succeed in transcending the religious barriers, though
unfortunately they fail to cross the political boundaries created in the mid-20th
century. Thus the ‘‘outside’’ element in these films is the political identity of
the characters, not the religious one, as also is suggested by Dwyer [2006: 128].
Bhaskar Sarkar in his book Mourning the Nation [2009] makes just a fleeting ref-
erence to Train to Pakistan [1991], a film based on Khushwant Singh’s celebrated
novel of the same title [1956] set during the aftermath of India–Pakistan Partition.
Sarkar claims that the film treats the Partition in a very ‘‘temporal’’ way, as if its
significance can only be imagined as an event frozen in time some decades ago
that has very little, if any, relevance to Indian society today. While Sarkar con-
tends that the trauma of Partition has indeed been mourned by Indian society
Hindu–Muslim Relations in Film 349
Downloaded by [Pankaj Jain] at 07:47 18 July 2011
in general and Indian films in particular, I tend to disagree: having recently
watched that film after reading Sarkar’s book, I would argue that it makes several
important points about Hindu, Muslim and Sikh relationships in that trauma-
tized time, and yet today after more than six decades the event can be imagined
as largely a temporal event. Going even further I would argue that its trauma was
indeed limited only to families directly affected in the Punjab, Bengal and some
other northern areas of India. In the aftermath of the recent ‘‘rise’’ of India in the
global economy, all the traumatic traces of Partition are indeed distant fleeting
memories, especially for Indian youth—the biggest component of its population
today. Be that as it may, let me dwell a bit more on this particular film.
The film succeeds at several levels to portray the roles of several agencies
involved, the governments, the armies, the local police, the local administration,
and even local Indian social workers. The film shows a Sikh-dominated village
in Indian Punjab during August 1947 which suddenly starts receiving trains full
of refugees from Pakistan, people initially alive but now some are dead bodies.
Meanwhile, a communist worker has already arrived in the village hoping to main-
tain the social calm, and so have Indian military forces trying to control the social
unrest. In the midst of this simmering communal tension, in reaction to seeing the
dead bodies of Hindus and Sikhs arriving from Pakistan, the handful of Muslim
families in the village are apprehensive about their own safety. The local magis-
trate and the police inspector are also unsure of how to deal with the situation
and keep fabricating stories to misguide different religious factions, hoping thus
to avoid any communal outburst. The magistrate is also the narrator of the film
and recalls his loss of both wife and daughter, in his nightly meetings with a young
prostitute. Another important character in the story is the local Sikh dacoit who is in
love with the daughter of a Muslim weaver; a love affair that makes him sacrifice
his own life trying to stop other Sikhs from killing the Muslim refugees leaving for
Pakistan. A somewhat similar story was also presented in Partition [2007].
Who is the ‘‘outsider’’ in this film? Instead of being outsiders, Muslims are
shown as an integral part of the village throughout the film. Crane [2005:
181–196] has argued that Hindus are portrayed as ‘‘outsiders’’ or as stereotypes
while Sikhs and Muslims are the dominant players in the story. However, all
the village decisions are taken at community level in the panchayat council setting
where Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs participate, speaking the same language
(Punjabi) and wearing the same kind of clothes. Even the social worker Iqbal
who has come from elsewhere to this village is perplexed by the harmony in
the village and is not sure about his role. He is quickly arrested by the police
and thus rendered even more helpless in the fast-turning communal situation;
thus this communist social worker indeed ‘‘fits the bill’’ as an outsider for the
village. Beyond all such ‘‘outsider’’ attempts for social harmony, it is the human
relationship at the most basic level between a Sikh dacoit and a Muslim woman
which in turn works to save the lives of hundreds of Muslims in the train going
to Pakistan in the film’s climax. There it succeeds in conveying a message of
communal harmony and unity: the outside forces fail while the internal
inter-religious relationships succeed.
While Indian filmmakers always found it too risky to show atrocities done on
Sikh women by Pakistani Muslims, Khamosh pani has no such qualms and boldly
350 P. Jain
Downloaded by [Pankaj Jain] at 07:47 18 July 2011
portrays Muslim fundamentalism working against the Sikh minority in Pakistan,
both during Partition and after 1979 when Pakistan officially became an Islamic
republic led by General Zia-ul-Huq. While the Indian Hindu political party, the
BJP, failed to win in Indian elections in 2004 and in 2008, religious fundamental-
ism has only grown stronger in Pakistan (and in Bangladesh), a phenomenon
only recently appreciated in Western countries. Khamosh pani shows the misery
of a Sikh woman who had to hide her religious identity and adopt a Muslim
name just to be able to survive in a society suffused with fundamentalism and
fanaticism, especially after 1979. Unfortunately her true identity was revealed
in the end and she had to throw herself into the ‘‘silent water’’ of a well where
several such Sikh women had already committed suicide to escape Muslim rio-
ters—also depicted in the Indian TV miniseries Tamas. In their zeal for balanced
portrayal Indian Partition films, such as Tamas and Gadar, have never blamed
Muslims alone for the riots and violence. Both Hindus and Muslims are equally
blamed as perpetrators [Sarkar 2009: 245–248]. Thus, I would argue, Khamosh pani
may be the first film in which Muslims are singled out for their communal
violence—something which Indian films could never afford to do, partially from
the influence of Nehruvian secularism but undeniably to ensure their box-office
success too.
3
A recent Bangladeshi film, Matir moina [2002], also dares to explore religious
conflict in Bengali society and the role of Islamic fundamentalism there. It’s a
heartbreaking story of a Muslim family in Bangladesh in the late 1960s, in which
a Qazi patriarch forces all of his family members to forego all traditional Bengali
things that he considers ‘‘un-Islamic,’’ including traditional Bengali festivals that
incorporate Hindu myths, allopathic medicines, paintings on the children
dresses, use of colorful dresses during the Eid celebration, and even the use of
tissue paper. The Qazi’s younger brother Milon once takes the Qazi’s son Anu
to the village fair—reason enough for the Qazi to send Anu to an Islamic madrasa,
a residential school where dozens of children are taught the Classical Arabic
language, Islamic theology and history. Here again the use of Bengali words is
strictly prohibited, as is any contact with ‘‘Westernized’’ or ‘‘Un-Islamic’’ chil-
dren. Unfortunately two children suffer harshly from such dogmatic beliefs.
While Qazi’s daughter succumbs to her high fever, Anu’s friend Rokon is tor-
tured at the madrasa for, supposedly, an evil spirit in his body. The film’s climax
shows the invasion by Pakistani forces of poor Bengali Muslim villages. The
Qazi’s house, his books, and medicines are all destroyed in the attack, not to
mention his faith in an ‘‘Islamic peace-keeping’’ military. After suffering all
her life under the Qazi’s zealotry, his wife ultimately leaves with her son Anu,
while the Qazi’s brother Milon dies battling the Pakistani forces. Unlike some
Indian films, this film does not take a far-left stance and it even ridicules commu-
nism as a Western import, asserting that Islam is an indigenously developed
hybrid tradition of Bangladesh. Elsewhere one of the employees at the madrasa
also criticizes the mind-closed instructor and the politically motivated use of
Islam. Overall this film succeeds in criticizing fundamentalism and fanaticism
in some sections of Islamic society in Bangladesh. Such a stance was never pol-
itically or financially safe for Indian filmmakers, as I will now show with several
more films below.
Hindu–Muslim Relations in Film 351
Downloaded by [Pankaj Jain] at 07:47 18 July 2011
FILMS ON HINDU–MUSLIM VIOLENCE
In this category of films I will discuss Zakhm [1998], with a few others whose
theme is Hindu–Muslim riots in independent India. Zakhm was the last film
directed by Mahesh Bhatt, one of the most important Indian filmmakers, whose
earlier films Saaransh [1984] and Arth [1982] were widely acclaimed by the
critics for their powerful portrayal of contemporary social conditions. Like most
of Bhatt’s earlier films, Zakhm weaves a personal narrative (often alleged to be
based on his own life) with social realism. In the initial scenes the protagonist
Ajay is shown with his wife and their troubled relationship. While Sonia wants
to leave India and give birth to their child in England, due to the social insecur-
ity caused by continuing Hindu–Muslim riots, Ajay is ambivalent about leaving
India. Suddenly he is also caught up in the latest round of violence because his
mother is seriously burnt by rioters. Only Ajay is aware of the Muslim identity
of his mother, and wants to bury her after her death according to her wishes.
However, his brother Anand, a colleague of the Hindu fundamentalist leader
Subodh, is against all Muslims, and this leads to the dilemma in the final part
of the story. The film also has several flashbacks showing Ajay’s mother and
her relationship with her Hindu lover, whose own mother is strongly against
their marriage. The film shows several other Hindu fundamentalists like Ajay’s
grandmother, such as Anand, Subodh and other rioters who are attacking
Muslims either physically or verbally. It is only the happy ending that finally
resolves all tensions.
So who is the ‘‘outsider’’ in this film? Once again, the mother of the pro-
tagonists, and Muslims in general, are not shown as outsiders but are an
integral part of the society being treated like ‘‘outsiders’’ by the real culprits
in the film, who are people like Subodh and Ajay’s grandmother. The film
thus develops as a strong criticism of Hindu fanaticism and tries to heal
some of the wounds inflicted upon Muslims during recent communal riots.
A similar conclusion might also be drawn from one of the most widely
acclaimed films on Hindu–Muslim riots, Mr. and Mrs. Iyer [2002], made by
Aparna Sen, in which Hindu rioters attack the passengers of a bus and kill
some Muslims. The heroine’s Hinduness is also problematized through her
companionship with a Muslim co-passenger. A similar theme is also in Aloo
chaat [2009], where a Hindu hero and Muslim heroine try to convince the
hardliner Hindu parents.
Both Firaaq [2008] and Parzania [2007] are similar in their portrayal of Muslim
and Parsi minorities in the wake of the Gujarat riots of 2002. Both are critical of
Hindus and of the BJP state government of Gujarat for their role in this, one of the
most ghastly incidents of communal violence in recent Indian history. Both show
no part played by Muslims in the violence, and portray them simply as the
helpless victims of a Hindu majority. Thus instead of an objective exploration
of the reasons for communal violence, these films simply show the oppressive
aftermaths on non-Hindus—something that was also done in regard to Sikhs
in Maachis [1996], Kaya taran [2004], and Amu [2005]. Thus in this category of film
it is the fanatic face of modern Hindus that is being criticized by filmmakers such
as Mahesh Bhatt and Aparna Sen.
352 P. Jain
Downloaded by [Pankaj Jain] at 07:47 18 July 2011
FILMS ON FRIENDLY HINDU–MUSLIM RELATIONSHIPS
A relatively recent film, Dor [2006], is still fresh in the memories of Hindi film
audiences and critics for its sensitive portrayal of two Indian women, a Rajasthani
Hindu and a Himachali Muslim. This is one of the rare Indian films in which there
is no lead male hero. Although it becomes clear that these women must persevere
to change their plight, we have to notice that it is the Muslim woman who is
shown in stark contrast with her Hindu counterpart. While the latter is a widow
who must undergo all the taboos and tortures attached to the stigma of being a
Hindu widow, the Muslim woman is a modern progressive person freely moving
from one town to another in pursuit of her goal. Thus, I would argue, the plight of
the Hindu woman is here shown in stereotypical ways. To the urban and the dia-
spora audience a Hindu widow under the tyranny of a medieval-thinking family
will appear as an ‘‘outsider’’ while the courageous Muslim woman charting her
own destiny will appear as the real protagonist of the film. While the portrayal
of Muslims is criticized, that of Hindus is rarely criticized.
My next film continues with this stereotyping of Hindus while showing a dis-
abled (deaf and mute) Muslim protagonist emerging as a successful cricketer.
Iqbal [2005] is the name of a Muslim boy born amidst the widespread cricket
enthusiasm in his village, a microcosm of cricket-loving India. Although his
father is against his ambition to become a cricketer, he is accepted by Guruji,
the ex-captain of the Indian cricket team who is now running a cricket academy
to train young boys. I would argue that, unlike words such as ustad and master
which are commonly used in the Hindi language to refer to a teacher or trainer
in any skill or art, the word guruji used here is singularly meant to highlight the
conservative and orthodox Hindu identity of this coach against the Muslim Iqbal.
It is this orthodox coach who is seen as easily influenced by corruption and who
indulges in different kinds of immoral behavior—such as first removing Iqbal
from his academy but then trying to bribe him in the climax of the film. A guru
is one of the most respected and revered titles in the Hindu tradition, usually
applied to saints and sages. One wonders why this title was applied to an evil
coach. Contrariwise, Iqbal proves his name right, proves Guruji wrong: trained
by another coach Mohit, Iqbal secures his place on the Indian national team.
Although this other coach also has a Hindu name, the success that Iqbal enjoys
serves as a strong criticism of the dubious intents of his earlier coach Guruji.
Once again, far from being an ‘‘outsider’’ or stereotyped Muslim, Iqbal is an
epitome of all underprivileged subaltern Indians who have to struggle against
the prevailing dominance of rich and powerful social forces. Iqbal’s Muslim
identity is not shown as an impediment to his success, even though the film
makes a mockery of the Hindu Guruji. Similarly, in Halla bol [2008], a Muslim
boy Ashfaque becomes a superstar, Sameer Khan, despite his Muslim identity.
Another sports-based film, Chak de! India [2007], is inspired by the unfortunate
humiliation of a Muslim hockey coach; but there is a tremendous celebration
of his hockey victory in the climax; and the huge success of this film at the
box-office also seems to join in his victory. While Chak de! India criticizes the
earlier humiliation of the Muslim coach, the two films Dor and Iqbal, both
directed by one of the most recent and critically acclaimed filmmakers, Nagesh
Hindu–Muslim Relations in Film 353
Downloaded by [Pankaj Jain] at 07:47 18 July 2011
Kukunoor, make a point of criticizing some Hindu characters and celebrating
Muslim protagonists.
There are many more films in which Hindus and Muslims appear as close
friends or colleagues. In Andhaa kanoon, for example, both Vijay and Khan are
victimized by criminal elements in the society and are deprived of their families
in different incidents in their earlier lives. Years later they meet and Khan
becomes a key ally in Vijay’s personal battle to avenge the perpetrators. The
Muslim and Hindu identities of the protagonists are treated with equality here,
far from showing anybody as an ‘‘outsider’’ or as a stereotype.
I may mention several films where Muslim characters are in ‘‘game-changing’’
important roles. In Zanjeer [1973],a Khan helps a Hindu police officer in his
revenge mission. Religious identities are reversed in Raakh [2001] when Aamir
Khan (also his screen name) is helped by a Hindu police officer to avenge his girl-
friend’s rape. In Bas itna sa khwaab hai [2001] Naved Ali is the main inspiration
who changes the life of the Hindu protagonist Surajchand. In Pyaar ki jeet
[1987], in contrast to other Hindu doctors, a Muslim doctor Rehman is shown
as an honest and kind person. In Hey Ram [2000] it is Amjad Khan who ultimately
stops the Hindu protagonist from killing Gandhi. In Munna Bhai MBBS [2003],
the death of Zaheer is the turning-point in the story. In Kismat konnection
[2008], a female Muslim psychic reader is the central character. In Khuddaar
[1982], a Muslim provides shelter to the two estranged young brothers. In A
Wednesday [2008], while several terrorists are Muslims, one of the most dynamic
and honest police officers is also a Muslim. In Yaadon ki Baaraat [1973], Hindu
Shankar’s best friend is Usman, a Muslim. In Vidhaata [1982] revenge by the
Hindu protagonist for the murder of his Muslim caretaker becomes the central
theme of the film. In Junoon [1978] the Muslim protagonist sacrifices his love
interest in the service of the Indian freedom struggle in 1857. In Khuda gawah
[1992],Amitabh Bachchan, playing the role of a Pathan from Afghanistan, is
aided by a Hindu police officer in completing his mission. In Muqaddar ka Sikan-
dar [1978], Amitabh is adopted by a Muslim woman and later guided and
inspired by a Muslim darvesh. He has loved a Hindu girl since his childhood
but can never express his feelings. In the climax, he evokes strong sympathy from
the audience when he sacrifices his life for his love. In Ghulam-e-Musthafa [1997]
early hatred and bitterness between a Hindu woman and a Muslim man are
eventually overcome by their mutual trust. In Saawariya [2007], an adaptation
of Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s short story White Nights, the Muslim girl Sakina charms
the Hindu boy Ranbir Raj but eventually is united with her older lover Imaan.
Although Sardar [1998: 19–47] has criticized the portrayal of Muslims in the
famed Sholay [1975], I would argue that it is the old Muslim Imaam Saheb in that
film who is shown as a more courageous and inspiring figure than all the other
Hindu villagers, who hesitate to fight against the villain. It is Imaam Saheb who
loses his son first and exhorts others to be ready for such a sacrifice, and to lead
lives of honor rather than selling their self-esteem to an evil dacoit. In all the fore-
going examples, Muslims emerge not as outsiders but as important characters,
often as a protagonist or his=her friend.
I now discuss several other films in which Hindus and Muslims appear not only
as friends in their personal lives but work together in the service of nationalism.
354 P. Jain
Downloaded by [Pankaj Jain] at 07:47 18 July 2011
I am thinking of films such as Saat Hindustani [1969], Kranti [1981], Deshpremee
[1982], Karma [1986], China Gate [1998], Lagaan [2001], Imaan dharam [1977],
Insaniyat [1994] and Jodhaa Akbar [2008]. All are overtly or covertly nationalistic
in their themes. However this nationalism, although using some Hindu myths
and legends in its narrative (as shown in the case of Karma, cf. Derne [1995:
191–216], and of Lagaan, cf. Wright [2007: 143–165]), cannot complete its project
of nation-building without incorporating Muslims and other minority groups.
Instead of treating the minorities as second-class citizens or creating an impossible
Hindu-only nation, these nation-building projects are Gandhian in their
approach, treating all religions and castes on equal terms. This last point is
especially important. When scholars observe the ‘‘exoticization’’ of Muslims in
Hindi films, it has to be seen in the context of such stereotyped portrayal of several
other communities. Though filmmakers commonly portray Punjabis, Gujaratis,
Rajasthanis and South Indians with exotic accents and costumes [Dwyer 2006:
140–144], perhaps Muslims escape at least the linguistic stereotypes because Mus-
lims in North India speak with very similar accents to their Hindu counterparts.
Although Imaan dharam is not a nationalistic film per se it is not difficult to inter-
pret it in such terms, especially when the reformer’s name is Kabir and the two
characters to be reformed on the path of honesty are Hindu and Muslim. In another
film, Kachche dhaage [1999], Hindu and Muslim stepbrothers unite to rescue their
mother Mariam. A somewhat similar message appears from the titles of some films
that are not available to watch, e.g., Shankar Hussain [1977, in Hindi], Pandit aur
Pathan [1977, in Hindi], Ram Rahim [1930, in Hindi], Ram Rahim [1983, in Oriya],
and Ram Robert Rahim [1980, Telugu remake of the Hindi Amar Akbar Anthony
[1977] which was also made in Pakistan as Akbar Amar Anthony [1978]; cf. Jain
[2010]). Also Aap ke Deewane [1980] and Paappi devataa [1995] are both based on
friendship of the two leading men, named Ram and Rahim, although the title of
the films does not suggest that. In Johar-Mehmood in Goa [1965], Ram and Rahim
once again appear together and rebel against the five-centuries-long Portuguese
occupation of Goa. Kal ki awaz [1992] may be a rare national security film in which
the entire cast is Muslim, including the home minister and the protagonist police
officer. Similarly, in Maa aur mamta [1970], a Muslim provides shelter to a Hindu
woman who raises a boy originally given to her by a Christian priest. In Chak de!
India [2007], hockey players speaking various languages also include a Christian,
a Muslim and a Sikh player who all ultimately unite as a team to play for national
victory. In Vijeta [1982] four friends training to become fighter pilots in the Air Force
Academy are all from different religions, the Hindu Venkat, Muslim Aslam, Chris-
tian Wilson, and Sikh Angad. Angad is also shown in a romantic relationship with
Anna, a Christian. It seems that there are innumerable such Indian films in which
people of different faiths are personal friends or colleagues in nation-building or -
defending projects, without the slightest hint of ‘‘othering’’ toward any faith,
especially not the ‘‘minority’s’’ faith, as I have shown in some examples here.
V. Shantaram’s Padosi [a.k.a. Shejari in Marathi, 1941] may be the first Indian
film where Hindu–Muslim unity is the main emphasis of the story. It is a story
of a Hindu and a Muslim family living adjacently in a village, each led by a
patriarch, Thakur and Mirza, who work for a dam-construction company. Both
families also have young adult sons, their wives and their children, who play
Hindu–Muslim Relations in Film 355
Downloaded by [Pankaj Jain] at 07:47 18 July 2011
and work together harmoniously. In fact, many early scenes are woven around
the game of chess—which was poignantly displayed years later in a Satyajit
Ray film, Shatranj ke khilari [1977]. While Ray’s film is credited as based on
Premchand’s 1924 [2006] novel of the same name, it can only be speculated
whether Shantaram was also aware of the novel; at least the chess scenes are
quite similar to those in Ray’s film. Not only are both Thakur and Mirza but even
their grandchildren addicted to the game. All seems to be going well until the
local dam company announces the expansion of its dam into the village and
Thakur adopts a stand against it: he exhorts the villagers not to sell their land
for this project—almost a precursor to the opposition to various dam construc-
tion projects in India after the 1970s. To teach Thakur a lesson, the dam company
lays him off. By this sudden turn of events, Thakur is mistaken that Mirza must
have conspired against him. Meanwhile, Thakur’s son is shown to be in love with
the daughter of the company’s owner. To make the matter worse, Thakur’s son is
also falsely blamed for arson and is penalized by the village panchayat which is
headed by none other than Mirza. The stage is now set for flaring up the misun-
derstanding between the two long-time neighbors. As a reaction to continuous
humiliation and verbal attacks from Thakur, Mirza decides to move his family
out although both the families mourn for each other for the rest of the film,
especially in the song when Thakur compares their separation with the Ra¯ma¯yana’s
episode of brotherly separation of Ram and Bharat. In the climax, Thakur’s son
decides to teach a lesson to the villagers who start selling their lands to the dam
company. He steals some explosives and plants them in the building of the
dam. When Mirza’s son shares his doubt about this activity with Thakur, they rush
to the dam site only to witness the explosions. Soon Mirza also rushes to the site
and in the final scene both he and Thakur are killed amidst the explosions with
their hands joined in eternal friendship, in repentance for their earlier misunder-
standing. In addition to the idea of Hindu–Muslim unity, the film’s other ideas
have also reappeared elsewhere, such as its depiction of urban industrial mod-
ernity invading the rural society in Naya Daur [1957] and in a Marathi film, Pandhar
[2004]. Of course, the idea that communal harmony among Hindus and Muslims
can be shattered by outside forces is depicted in several films after Padosi;for
instance, in Train to Pakistan, as mentioned above. Perhaps the most outstanding
achievement of Padosi is its futuristic symbolic depiction of the impending
partition of India and Pakistan by way of looking at two neighbors. And this
was later repeated in a number of films, several of which are discussed above.
Based on the examples offered, it is clear that seeing Hindus and Muslims as
personal or ‘‘nationalistic’’ friends has been the norm in Indian films. I now
examine some films that focus on Muslim communities living in the larger
non-Muslim society.
FILMS PORTRAYING ISLAMIC COMMUNITIES IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY
Like Khamosh pani, discussed above, Khuda kay liye [2007] is a rare Pakistani film
about social problems among Muslims. It seeks solutions in a reformed Islam
without pointing fingers at outside agents. Probably for the first time in a feature
film, a fundamentalist Muslim leader is shown brain-washing innocent young
356 P. Jain
Downloaded by [Pankaj Jain] at 07:47 18 July 2011
Muslim boys and turning them into terrorists. However, it is because of such
terrorists that the larger Muslim diaspora is also seen in a suspicious light—a
subject which also appears in the Indian films New York [2009] and My Name is
Khan [2010]. Also shown is the plight of Muslim women, given the medieval
mind-sets of Muslim society in Afghanistan. I have chosen to mention these
two films briefly, Khamosh pani and Khuda kay liye, just to make a contrast with
Indian films, which could never take such bold approaches in criticizing Muslim
social and religious customs—even though they can do so with medieval Hindu
customs, as we saw.
Like Garam Hawa [1973], Salim langde pe mat ro [1989] has been acclaimed by
scholars for portraying real Muslim conditions in Indian society [Chatterjee
2008; Dissanayake 1994]. According to the film it is the harsh economic con-
ditions that make Muslims easy prey for politicians who use them for selfish
and evil motives. While this thesis is generally acceptable, a similar thesis would
also apply to Hindu ‘‘subalterns’’ who live in Mumbai slums: two similar films
immediately come to mind, Mashaal [1984] and Arjun [1985], both written by
Javed Akhtar, one of the most respected writers for Hindi cinema. In both films
the unemployed slum-dwelling youth, who happen to be Hindus, are shown
leading lives quite similar to the Muslim protagonist Salim in Salim langde pe
mat ro. My point is simply that Muslims are not alone in suffering poverty and
unemployment, though at least Mashaal and Arjun would have us believe that.
Instead of singling out Muslims in the Mumbai slums, films such as Gaman
[1978] and the TV series Nukkad [1986] include both Hindus and Muslims in
portraying their socioeconomic hardships in Mumbai: this in my view is a more
realistic representation of Mumbai’s millions of slum-dwellers.
CONCLUSION
With the defeat of the Hindu nationalist party BJP (Bharatiya Janata Parishad) in
several states and at the national level in the 2004 and 2008 elections, the
perceived threat of a burgeoning Hindu nationalism in Hindi films should also
subside. To ensure the box-office success of their films and to maintain the
official secular policy of the Indian nation-state most Indian filmmakers, I am
optimistic, will not veer toward jingoism and will not attack or criticize any parti-
cular religion. This is evident from all the films discussed above. In all the cate-
gories of film presented here Muslims are rarely, if at all, singled out for criticism.
In India–Pakistan Partition films, the religious identity of Pakistanis or Indians is
a much less important factor than their national identities, as in Henna and
Mammo. In films that involve Hindu–Muslim violence, it is the Hindu fanaticism
that is criticized in Indian films and not Islamic fundamentalism, as we can see in
Zakhm, Firaaq, or Mr. and Mrs. Iyer. In films about Hindu–Muslim relationships,
both categories are on friendly terms, often in the service of nationalism, such as
in Dor and Deshpremee. And lastly, in Muslim community films, their portrayal is
quite sympathetic, as we see in Salim langde pe mat ro and Gaman. In their entire
history, Indian films have built upon the legacy of Gandhian social harmony and
Nehruvian nationalism and secularism, as illustrated in Padosi and Hum ek hain.If
Muslim ethos in Indian cinema is celebrated in one word as ‘‘harmony’’ by the
Hindu–Muslim Relations in Film 357
Downloaded by [Pankaj Jain] at 07:47 18 July 2011
veteran film critic Iqbal Masood [2005], I hope that this harmony will continue its
tradition into the future.
It must never be forgotten that India is one of the largest Muslim nations on
earth; and for business reasons, if none other, no commercial filmmaker is going
out of his way to make a potential audience of around 160 million Indian
Muslims feel uncomfortable at the movies. Moreover, those filmmakers are well
aware that their films are heavily consumed by almost all the Muslim nations,
including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia and other countries with
a big Muslim majority throughout the Middle East and Africa.
NOTES
1. I have found some disagreements with Kesavan’s article in Trivedi’s one on the Hindi
language [2006].
2. In contrast to Booth’s approach, Philip Lutgendorf acknowledges the enthusiastic
reception that Baiju Bawra continues to enjoy: http://www.uiowa.edu/~incinema/
baijubawra.html (accessed June 30, 2009). This is one example showing the importance
of an ethnographic study of Indian films as against a ‘‘textual’’ study.
3. Just as Hindu–Muslim harmony is maintained in other businesses where both these
communities have their financial interests interlinked [Varshney 2002].
REFERENCES
Ahmed, Akbar S.
1992 Bombay Films: The Cinema as Metaphor for Indian Society and Politics. Modern Asian
Studies, 26(2): 289–320.
Booth, Greg
2004 Pandits in the Movies: Contesting the Identity of Hindustani Classical Music and Musicians
in the Hindi Popular Cinema. Asian Music: Journal of the Society for Asian Music, 36(1): 60–86.
Chadha, Kalyani, and Anandam P. Kavoori
2008 Exoticized, Marginalized, Demonized: The Muslim ‘‘Other’’ in Indian Cinema. In Global
Bollywood. Anandam P. Kavoori and Aswin Punathambekar, eds. Pp. 131–145. New York:
New York University Press.
Chatterjee, Gayatri
2008 Designing a Course on Religion and Cinema in India. In Teaching Religion and Film. Gregory
J. Watkins, ed. Pp. 77–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crane, Ralph J.
2005 Inscribing a Sikh India: An Alternative Reading of Khushwant Singh’s Train to Pakistan.
In Alternative Indias: Writing, Nation and Communalism. Peter Morey and Alex Tickell, eds.
Pp. 181–196. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Daiya, Kavita
2008 Violent Belongings: Partition, Gender, and National Culture in Postcolonial India. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Derne, Steve
1995 Market Forces at Work: Religious Themes in Commercial Hindi Films. In Media and the
Transformation of Religion in South Asia. Lawrence A. Babb and Susan Snow Wadley, eds.
Pp. 191–216. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Desoulie
`res, Alain
2007 Religious Culture and Folklore in the Urdu Historical Drama Anarkali, Revisited by Indian
Cinema. In Indian Literature and Popular Cinema: Recasting Classics. Heidi Rika Maria
Pauwels, ed. Pp. 123–146. New York: Routledge.
358 P. Jain
Downloaded by [Pankaj Jain] at 07:47 18 July 2011
Dissanayake, Wimal (ed.).
1994 Colonialism and Nationalism in Asian Cinema. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Dwyer, Rachel
2006 Filming the Gods: Religion and Indian Cinema. London: Routledge.
Gazdar, Mushtaq
1997 Pakistan Cinema 1947–1997. Karachi: Oxford University Press.
Ghuman, Gagandeep
2006 The Muslim as the ‘Other’ in Bollywood. Countercurrents.org (February 21). http://
www.countercurrents.org/arts-ghuman210206.htm (accessed July 1, 2009).
Gulzar, Govind Nihalani, and Saibal Chatterjee
2003 Encyclopedia of Hindi Cinema: An Enchanting Close-Up of India’s Hindi Cinema. New Delhi:
Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.
Hines, Naseem
2007 From Ghazal to Film Music: The Case of Mirza Ghalib. In Indian Literature and Popular
Cinema: Recasting Classics. Heidi Rika Maria Pauwels, ed. Pp. 147–170. New York:
Routledge.
Hirji, Faiza
2008 Change of Pace? Islam and Tradition in Popular Indian Cinema. South Asian Popular Culture,
6(1): 57–69.
Jain, Pankaj
2010 From Kil-Arni to Anthony: The Portrayal of Christians in Indian Films. Visual Anthropology,
23(1): 13–19.
Kazmi, Fareed
1994 Muslim Socials and the Female Protagonist: Seeing a Dominant Discourse at Work. In Forg-
ing Identities: Gender, Communities, and the State. Zoya Hasan, ed. Pp. 226–243. New Delhi:
Kali for Women.
Kesavan, Mukul
1994 Urdu, Awadh, and the Tawaif: The Islamicate Roots of Hindi Cinema. In Forging Identities:
Gender, Communities, and the State. Zoya Hasan, eds. Pp. 244–257. New Delhi: Kali for
Women.
2009 The Decline of Urdu and the Rise of Khans. LiveMint.com (March 26, 2009). http://www
.livemint.com/2009/03/26211837/The-decline-of-Urdu-and-the-ri.html (accessed June 30,
2009).
Lal, Vinay
1998 The Impossibility of the Outsider in the Modern Hindi Film. In The Secret Politics of Our
Desires: Innocence, Culpability and Indian Popular Cinema. Ashis Nandy, ed. Pp. 228–259.
London: Zed Books.
Levich, Jacob
2002 Freedom Songs: Rediscovering Bollywood’s Golden Age. Film Comment, 38: 48–51.
Lutgendorf, Philip
2006 Is There an Indian Way of Filmmaking? International Journal of Hindu Studies, 10(3): 227–256.
Masood, Iqbal
2005 Muslim Ethos in Indian Cinema. Indian Express (March 4, 2005). http://www.screenindia.
com/old/fullstory.php?content_id=9980 (accessed July 1, 2009).
Mishra, Vijay
2002 Bollywood Cinema: Temples of Desire. New York: Routledge.
Morey, Peter, and Alex Tickell (eds.)
2005 Alternative Indias: Writing, Nation and Communalism. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Premchand (¼Premacanda)
(1924)2006 Sataran
˜Ja Ke Khilari: Aura Anya Kahaniyam. London: Indian Book Shelf.
Rai, Amit
2003 Patriotism and the Muslim Citizen in Hindi Films. Harvard Asia Quarterly, 7(3) (online
publication).
Rajadhyaksha, Ashish, and Paul Willemen
1998 Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema. 2nd edn. London: British Film Institute.
Hindu–Muslim Relations in Film 359
Downloaded by [Pankaj Jain] at 07:47 18 July 2011
Sardar, Ziauddin
1998 Dilip Kumar Made Me Do It. In The Secret Politics of Our Desires: Innocence, Culpability and
Indian Popular Cinema. Ashis Nandy, ed. Pp. 19–47. London: Zed Books.
Sarkar, Bhaskar
2009 Mourning the Nation: Indian Cinema in the Wake of Partition. Durham, NC: Duke University
Press.
Singh, Khushwant
1956 Train to Pakistan. New York: Grove Press.
Trivedi, Harish
2006 All Kinds of Hindi: The Evolving Language of Hindi Cinema. In Fingerprinting Popular
Culture: The Mythic and the Iconic in Indian Cinema. Vinay Lal and Ashis Nandy, eds.
Pp. 51–86. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Varshney, Ashutosh
2002 Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life: Hindus and Muslims in India. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Virdi, Jyoti
2003 The Cinematic Imagination: Indian Popular Films as Social History. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
Wright, Melanie Jane
2007 Lagaan. In her Religion and Film: An Introduction. Pp. 143–165. London: I.B. Tauris.
FILMOGRAPHY
Aap Ke Deewane. Director, Surendra Mohan; starring Rishi Kapoor and Rakesh Roshan, 1980.
Akbar Amar Anthony. Director, Haider Chaudhry; starring Asif, Iqbal and Mustafa. Saima Hyder, 1978.
Aloo chaat. Director, Robby Grewal; starring Aftab Shivdasani and Aamna Shariff. Mavrick Produc-
tions, 2009.
Amar Akbar Anthony. Director, Manmohan Desai; starring Amitabh Bachchan, Vinod Khanna and
Rishi Kapoor. Manmohan Desai, 1977.
Amu. Director, Shonali Bose; starring Konkona Sen Sharma, Brinda Karat and Ankur Khanna. Jonai
Productions, 2005.
Andhaa kanoon. Director, T. Rama Rao; starring Rajnikanth, Amitabh Bachchan, Hema Malini and
Madhavi. A. Purnachandra Rao, 1983.
Arth. Director, Mahesh Bhatt; starring Kulbhushan Kharbanda, Shabana Azmi, Raj Kiran and Smita
Patil. Kuljit Pal, 1982.
Arjun. Director, Rahul Rawail; starring Sunny Deol, Dimple Kapadia, and Anupam Kher. Karim
Morani and Sunil Soorma, 1985.
Baiju Bawra. Director, Vijay Bhatt; starring Bharat Bhushan and Meena Kumari. Prakash Pictures, 1952.
Bas itna sa khwaab hai. Director, Goldie Behl; starring Abhishek Bachchan, Rani Mukherjee and Jackie
Shroff. Shrishti Behl, 2001.
Boot Polish. Director, Prakash Arora; starring Rattan Kumar, Baby Naaz and David. R. K. Films and
Studios, 1954.
Chak de! India. Director, Shimit Amin; starring Shahrukh Khan. Yashraj Films, 2007.
China Gate. Director, Rajkumar Santoshi; starring Om Puri, Naseeruddin Shah and Danny Denzongpa.
Rajkumar Santoshi, 1998.
Deewar. Director, Yash Chopra; starring Amitabh Bachchan, Shashi Kapoor, Nitu Singh and Nirupa
Roy. Gulshan Rai, 1975.
Deshpremee. Director, Manmohan Desai; starring Amitabh Bachchan, Hema Malini, Navin Nishchal,
Parveen Babi, Shammi Kapoor, Uttam Kumar and Premnath. Subhash Desai, 1982.
Dor. Director, Nagesh Kukunoor; starring Ayesha Takia, Shreyas Talpade, Gul Panag and Girish
Karnad. Elahe Hiptoola, 2006.
Firaaq. Director, Nandita Das; starring Sanjay Suri, Paresh Rawal, Deepti Naval and Naseeruddin
Shah. Harindra M. Singh and Shailendra Singh, 2008.
Gaman. Director, Muzaffar Ali; starring Farooq Shaikh, Jalal Agha and Smita Patil. Muzaffar Ali,
1978.
360 P. Jain
Downloaded by [Pankaj Jain] at 07:47 18 July 2011
Garam Hawa. Director, M. S. Sathyu; starring Balraj Sahni, Farooq Shaikh and Jalal Agha. Ishan Arya,
M.S. Sathyu and Abu Siwani, 1973.
Gardish. Director, Priyadarshan; starring Jackie Shroff, Dimple Kapadia and Amrish Puri. R. Mohan,
1993.
Ghulam-e-Musthafa. Director, Partho Ghosh; starring Nana Patekar, Raveena Tandon and Aruna Irani.
S.G.S. Cine Arts International, 1997.
Halla bol. Director, Rajkumar Santoshi; starring Ajay Devgan, Vidya Balan and Pankaj Kapoor. Samee
Siddiqui, 2008.
Henna. Director, Randhir Kapoor; starring Ashwini Bhave, Rishi Kapoor and Zeba. R. K. Films and
Studios, 1991.
Hey Ram. Director, Kamal Hassan; starring Kamal Hassan, Shahrukh Khan and Rani Mukherjee.
Kamal Hassan, 2000.
Hum ek hain. Director, P. L. Santoshi; starring Dev Anand. Prabhat Films, 1946.
Imaan dharam. Director, Desh Mukherji; starring Amitabh Bachchan, Shashi Kapoor and Sanjeev
Kumar. Premji, 1977.
Insaniyat. Director, Tony Juneja; starring Amitabh Bachchan, Sunny Deol and Chunky Pandey. Tito,
1994.
Iqbal. Director, Nagesh Kukunoor; starring Shreyas Talpade, Girish Karnad and Naseeruddin Shah.
Subhash Ghai, 2005.
Jhanak jhanak payal baje. Director, V. Shantaram. Raj Kamal Kala Mandir, 1955.
Jodhaa Akbar. Director, Ashutosh Gowariker; starring Hrithik Roshan, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Ila
Arun, Kulbhushan Kharbanda and Raza Murad. UTV, 2008.
Johar-Mehmood in Goa. Director, I. S. Johar; starring I. S. Johar and Mehmood. Johar Films, 1965.
Junoon. Director, Shyam Benegal; starring Shashi Kapoor, Jennifer Kendal and Shabana Azmi. Shashi
Kapoor, 1978.
Kachche dhaage. Director, Milan Luthria; starring Ajay Devgan, Saif Ali Khan and Manisha Koirala.
Ramesh and Kamal Taurani, 1999.
Kal ki awaaz. Director, B. R. and Ravi Chopra; starring Dharmendra, Raj Babbar and Amrita Singh.
B. R. Films, 1992.
Karma. Director, Subhash Ghai; starring Dilip Kumar, Anil Kapoor, Jackie Shroff, Sridevi, Poonam
Dhillon, Naseeruddin Shah, Anupam Kher and Nutan. Subhash Ghai, 1986.
Kaya Taran. Director, Sashi Kumar; starring Seema Biswas and Angad Bedi. Span Media, 2004.
Khalnayak. Director, Subhash Ghai; starring Sanjay Dutt, Jackie Shroff, Madhuri Dixit and Rakhee.
Mukta Arts, 1993.
Khamosh pani. Director, Sabiha Sumar; starring Kiron Kher and Shilpa Shukla. Aamir Ali Malik, 2004.
Khuda gawah. Director, Mukul Anand; starring Amitabh Bachchan, Sri Devi and Vikram Gokhale.
Nazir Ahmed and Manoj Desai, 1992.
Khuda kay liye. Director, Shoaib Mansoor; starring Shaan, Fawad Khan, Iman Ali, Hameed Sheikh and
Naseeruddin Shah. Shoman Productions, 2007.
Khuddaar. Director, Ravi Tandon; starring Amitabh Bachchan and Parveen Babi. Anwar Ali and F. K.
Rattonsey, 1982.
Kismat konnection. Director, Aziz Mirza; starring Shahid Kapur and Juhi Chawla. Tips Films Pvt. Ltd.,
2008.
Kohinoor. Director, S. U. Sunny; starring Dilip Kumar and Meena Kumar. Republic Films Corporation,
1960.
Kranti. Director, Manoj Kumar; starring Manoj Kumar, Dilip Kumar, Shatrughan Sinha, Parveen Babi
and Hema Malini. Manoj Kumar, 1981.
Lagaan. Director, Ashutosh Gowariker; starring Aamir Khan, Gracy Singh and Rachel Shelley. Aamir
Khan, 2001.
Lakhon mein eik. Director, Raza Mir; starring Shamim Ara, Ejaz ChhamChham, Talish, Mustafa Qure-
shi and Ahmad Rushdi. Afzal Hussain and Raza Mir, 1967.
Little Terrorist. Director, Ashvin Kumar; starring Zulfuqar Ali, Sushil Sharma and Megnaa Mehtta.
Ashvin Kumar, 2004.
Maachis. Director, Gulzar; starring Chandrachur Singh, Tabu and Om Puri. R. V. Pandit, 1996.
Maa aur mamta. Director, Asit Sen; starring Ashok Kumar, Nutan, Jeetendra and Mumtaz. Suchitra
Kala Mandir, 1970.
Hindu–Muslim Relations in Film 361
Downloaded by [Pankaj Jain] at 07:47 18 July 2011
Mammo. Director, Shyam Benegal; starring Farida Jalal, Surekha Sikri and Rajit Kapoor. Doordarshan
and National Film Development Corporation of India, 1994.
Mashaal. Director, Yash Chopra; starring Dilip Kumar, Anil Kapoor, Waheeda Rehman and Rati
Agnihotri. Yashraj Films, 1984.
Matir moina. Director, Tareque Masud; starring Nurul Islam Bablu and Russell Farazi. Audiovision,
2002.
Mr. and Mrs. Iyer. Director, Aparna Sen; starring Rahul Bose and Konkona Sen Sharma. N. Venkatesan
and Rupali Mehta, 2002.
Munna Bhai MBBS. Director, Rajkumar Hirani; starring Sanjay Dutt, Jimmy Shergill and Arshad
Warsi. Vidhu Vinod Chopra, 2003.
Muqaddar ka Sikandar. Director, Prakash Mehra; starring Amitabh Bachchan, Vinod Khanna, Rakhee,
Rekha and Amjad Khan. Prakash Mehra Productions, 1978.
My Name is Khan. Director, Karan Johan; starring Shahrukh Khan and Kajol. Dharma Productions,
2010.
Naya daur. Director, B. R. Chopra; starring Dilip Kumar, Vyjayanthimala, Ajit and Jeevan. B. R. Films,
1957.
New York. Director, Kabir Khan; starring John Abraham, Katrina Kaif, Neil Nitin Mukesh and Irrfan
Khan. Yashraj Films, 2009.
Nukkad. Director, Saeed Mirza and Kundan Shah; starring Avtar Gil and Pavan Malhotra. Saeed
Mirza, 1986.
Paappi devataa. Director, Harmesh Malhotra; starring Sridevi, Jaya Prada, Dharmendra, Jeetendra and
Amrish Puri. M.M. Malhotra and Baldev Pushkarna, 1995.
Padosan. Director, Jyoti Swaroop; starring Sunil Dutt, Kishore Kumar, Mehmood and Saira Banu. N.C.
Sippy and Mehmood, 1968.
Padosi. Director, V. Shantaram; starring Gajanan Jagirdar and Mazhar Khan. Prabhat Films, 1941.
Pandhar. Director, Gajendra Ahire; starring Mohan Joshi. Kantilal Oswal, 2004.
Pandit aur Pathan. Director, Joginder Shelly; starring Mehmood, Helen and Joginder Shelly. 1977.
Partition. Director, Vic Sarin; starring Jimi Mistry and Kristin Kreuk. Partition Films Inc., 2007.
Parzania. Director, Rahul Dholakia; starring Naseeruddin Shah and Sarika. Rahul Dholakia, 2007.
Pyaar ki jeet. Director, Saawan Kumar; starring Rekha, Ashok Kumar, Vinod Mehra and Shashi
Kapoor. Saawan Kumar, 1987.
Raakh. Director, Aditya Bhattacharya; starring Aamir Khan, Supriya Pathak and Pankaj Kapoor. Asif
Noor, 1989.
Ram Rahim. Director, K. P. Bhave; starring E. Bilimoria and Mazhar Khan. 1930.
Ram Rahim. Director, Sushil Mukherjee; starring Bijoy Mohanty and Uttam Mohanty. 1983.
Ram Robert Rahim. Director, Vijaya Nirmala; starring Rajnikanth, Krishna and Chandra Mohan.
1980.
Ramchand Pakistani. Director, Mehreen Jabbar; starring Nandita Das and Navaid Jabbar. Javed Jabbar,
2008.
Saaransh. Director, Mahesh Bhatt; starring Anupam Kher, Rohini Hattangadi and Soni Razdan. Tara-
chand Barjatya, 1984.
Saat Hindustani. Director, K. A. Abbas; starring Amitabh Bachchan, Utpal Dutt and Jalal Agha. K. A.
Abbas, 1969.
Saawariya. Director, Sanjay Leela Bhansali; starring Ranbir Kapoor, Sonam Kapoor and Salman Khan.
SPE Films, 2007.
Salim langde pe mat ro. Director, Saeed Akhtar Mirza; starring Pavan Malhotra, Makrand Desh-
pande, Ashutosh Gowariker and Surekha Sikri. National Film Development Corporation of
India, 1989.
Sangeet samrat Tansen. Director, S. N. Tripathi; starring Bharat Bhushan. Sur Sagar Chitra, 1962.
Shakti. Director, Ramesh Sippy; starring Dilip Kumar, Amitabh Bachchan and Smita Patil. Musir
Riyaz, 1982.
Shankar Hussain. Director, Yusuf Naqvi; starring Pradeep Kumar. Tajdar Kamal and Hari Singh, 1977.
Shatranj ke khilari [The Chess Players]. Director, Satyajit Ray; starring Sanjeev Kumar, Saeed Jaffrey,
Shabana Azmi and Farooq Shaikh. Devki Chitra, 1977.
Sholay. Director, Ramesh Sippy; starring Sanjeev Kumar, Amitabh Bachchan, Dharmendra, Jaya
Badhuri, Hema Malini, A. K. Hangal and Sachin. Sippy Films, 1975.
362 P. Jain
Downloaded by [Pankaj Jain] at 07:47 18 July 2011
Tamas. Director, Govind Nihalani; starring Om Puri, Bhisham Sahni, Deepa Sahi, Kulbhushan
Kharbanda, Manohar Singh and Dina Pathak. Govind Nihalani, 1987.
Tansen. Director, Jayant Desai. Ranjit Movietone, 1943.
Train to Pakistan. Director, Pamela Rooks; starring Mohan Agashe, Nirmal Pandey, Rajit Kapoor, and
M. S. Sathyu. Ravi Gupta, R. V. Pandit and Pamela Rooks, 1991.
Veer zaara. Director, Yash Chopra; starring Shahrukh Khan, Preity Zinta, Rani Mukherjee, Amitabh
Bachchan and Hema Malini. Yash Raj Films, 2004.
Vidhaata. Director, Subhash Ghai; starring Dilip Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Dutt. Gulshan Rai,
1982.
Vijeta. Director, Govind Nihalani; starring Shashi Kapoor, Rekha and Kunal Kapoor. Film-Valas, 1982.
A Wednesday. Director, Neeraj Pandey; starring Naseeruddin Shah. Ronnie Screwvala, 2008.
Yaadon ki Baaraat. Director, Nasir Hussain; starring Dharmendra and Vijay Arora. Nasir Hussain
Films, 1973.
Zakhm. Director, Mahesh Bhatt; starring Pooja Bhatt, Ajay Devgan and Sonali Bendre. Pooja Bhatt Pro-
ductions, 1998.
Zanjeer. Director, Prakash Mehra; starring Amitabh Bachchan, Jaya Bhaduri, Pran and Ajit. Prakash
Mehra Productions, 1973.
Hindu–Muslim Relations in Film 363
Downloaded by [Pankaj Jain] at 07:47 18 July 2011
