Many might view Deewar as a family melodrama, while many others might think of it as an action-thriller. A deeper analysis, however, reveals the movie to be a strong representation of the social issues and unrest in the 1970s. Inspired by real incidents and stories, Yash Raj, the producer of the film, seems to highlight the pitiable condition of the working class, the exploitation at the hands of the rich and the powerful, widespread unemployment, state control during the national emergency and corruption rampant during this period. Many elements of the movie are also borrowed from the 1931 Hollywood classic, The Public Enemy.
Right at the beginning of the flashback, Anand Babu's strong speech to the striking poor workers highlights the lack of provision of even the most basic of needs, such as education, healthcare and housing. His remark, "we are just asking why the food barrels are empty for the poor", seems to have a direct reference to the food shortage after the 1972-73 drought and to grain traders, who had hoarded large amounts of grain to accentuate the existing shortage and had created an artificial scarcity in order to make an extra buck. The kidnapping of his family to compel him to give in to trader's demands, is suggestive of the unprecedented lawlessness during the period, often perpetuated at the behest of state power. After betraying the working class for his family, Anand Babu deserts his family and city out of shame, and we see the trial and tribulations of a poor single mother, who is reprimanded even for the most trivial of mistakes. This also reflects the class differences at that time, with the upper class looking out for opportunities to humiliate the lower classes. Vijay's character is also emblematic of the frustrated working class, with circumstances and constant humiliation making him the person he becomes-rebellious and full of resentment and hatred for the powerful and the rich. As a young shoe-polish boy, he refuses to accept money that is "thrown" at him rather than handed to him, which is symbolic of the mindset of a large fraction of the working class at that time, who demanded respect and equal opportunities. Vijay's revolt against religion is also noteworthy, as "religion" here bears the connotation of a Hindu way of life that accepts life's circumstances as fate, something that Vijay was totally against.
The dockyard seems to be yet another occasion where we see the miserable conditions of the working class. Rahim Chacha's remark, "nothing but the workers have changed for the past 25 years", seems to be hinting at the Badli (substitute) system, where a large number of workers were hired for temporary terms to avoid high wages. This meant instability of the workforce and no job security, leading to constant anxiety and fear amongst the poor. Moreover, "hafta", a fee exported from all dock workers, is yet another example of exploitation. The fact that the police had not intervened for years clearly points to corruption at the time.
Ravi, contrary to his brother Vijay, represents the disillusioned educated middle class youth in the 70s. Despite good education, Ravi has to face long unemployment lines in a world where he feels "even the last job won't be available to him," since he does not have the "connections". This points to the widespread unemployment and economic turmoil during the period, as well as the corruption within the system, with politicians influencing the hiring decisions. Later, when he falls in love with Veera, he is once again reminded of the stark class divisions prevalent in the society. The outcry during the national emergency in 1975 can also be seen in the movie. In a poignant sequence, Ravi, as a police officer, shoots a young boy stealing bread for his family. Later, when he visits the boy's family to give them some food, his conversation with the boy's mother seems to represent the general perception of the common people during the emergency, with her pointing to the collusion between the state that protects big criminals and grain hoarders, while running after petty criminals who steal food.
Besides inspiration from the events and social issues during the time, the movie also seems to be inspired by specific individuals. For instance, there is parallelism between the story depicted in the movie and the life of Haaji Mastaan in interesting ways. Mastaan, just like Vijay in the movie, had to struggle a lot as a young child, was a dockworker in Bombay and rose to the position of a powerful smuggler operating in Bombay's underworld. He is known to have single-handedly threatened Bakhia, the head of a rival smuggling gang by entering his house alone in the course of an internecine feud. By showing Vijay's life and struggles, it seems as though the producer wants the audience to empathize with criminals such as Mastaan, and carefully consider their circumstances and environment. Nevertheless, the key message of the movie still remains the victory of good over evil. The movie acknowledges the resentment in the people and justifies the action of radicles such as Vijay to some extent, but still maintains that violence and retaliation is not the way to go.
Throughout the movie, there seems to be a lot of discussion about nationalist and anti-nationalist elements. In this context, I found Kaushik Bannerjee's analysis to be very interesting. According to him, if we consider Vijay to be a kind of lawless anti-nationalist, which is questionable given the circumstances, then Ravi too is emblematic of civic disenchantment. His education does not help his poor employment prospects, which can be attributed to the corruption and nepotism prevalent in the system. Also, the circumstances leading to Ravi killing Vijay, and subsequently winning the award, are also due to him joining the police (the only job that he got after much difficulty) and leading this particular assignment. It seems then that the different qualities and ideologies of the two brothers are merely a product of their respective environments and the events that they have had to go through, which raises an important question about the development of the middle class in general at that time.
Right at the beginning of the flashback, Anand Babu's strong speech to the striking poor workers highlights the lack of provision of even the most basic of needs, such as education, healthcare and housing. His remark, "we are just asking why the food barrels are empty for the poor", seems to have a direct reference to the food shortage after the 1972-73 drought and to grain traders, who had hoarded large amounts of grain to accentuate the existing shortage and had created an artificial scarcity in order to make an extra buck. The kidnapping of his family to compel him to give in to trader's demands, is suggestive of the unprecedented lawlessness during the period, often perpetuated at the behest of state power. After betraying the working class for his family, Anand Babu deserts his family and city out of shame, and we see the trial and tribulations of a poor single mother, who is reprimanded even for the most trivial of mistakes. This also reflects the class differences at that time, with the upper class looking out for opportunities to humiliate the lower classes. Vijay's character is also emblematic of the frustrated working class, with circumstances and constant humiliation making him the person he becomes-rebellious and full of resentment and hatred for the powerful and the rich. As a young shoe-polish boy, he refuses to accept money that is "thrown" at him rather than handed to him, which is symbolic of the mindset of a large fraction of the working class at that time, who demanded respect and equal opportunities. Vijay's revolt against religion is also noteworthy, as "religion" here bears the connotation of a Hindu way of life that accepts life's circumstances as fate, something that Vijay was totally against.
The dockyard seems to be yet another occasion where we see the miserable conditions of the working class. Rahim Chacha's remark, "nothing but the workers have changed for the past 25 years", seems to be hinting at the Badli (substitute) system, where a large number of workers were hired for temporary terms to avoid high wages. This meant instability of the workforce and no job security, leading to constant anxiety and fear amongst the poor. Moreover, "hafta", a fee exported from all dock workers, is yet another example of exploitation. The fact that the police had not intervened for years clearly points to corruption at the time.
Ravi, contrary to his brother Vijay, represents the disillusioned educated middle class youth in the 70s. Despite good education, Ravi has to face long unemployment lines in a world where he feels "even the last job won't be available to him," since he does not have the "connections". This points to the widespread unemployment and economic turmoil during the period, as well as the corruption within the system, with politicians influencing the hiring decisions. Later, when he falls in love with Veera, he is once again reminded of the stark class divisions prevalent in the society. The outcry during the national emergency in 1975 can also be seen in the movie. In a poignant sequence, Ravi, as a police officer, shoots a young boy stealing bread for his family. Later, when he visits the boy's family to give them some food, his conversation with the boy's mother seems to represent the general perception of the common people during the emergency, with her pointing to the collusion between the state that protects big criminals and grain hoarders, while running after petty criminals who steal food.
Besides inspiration from the events and social issues during the time, the movie also seems to be inspired by specific individuals. For instance, there is parallelism between the story depicted in the movie and the life of Haaji Mastaan in interesting ways. Mastaan, just like Vijay in the movie, had to struggle a lot as a young child, was a dockworker in Bombay and rose to the position of a powerful smuggler operating in Bombay's underworld. He is known to have single-handedly threatened Bakhia, the head of a rival smuggling gang by entering his house alone in the course of an internecine feud. By showing Vijay's life and struggles, it seems as though the producer wants the audience to empathize with criminals such as Mastaan, and carefully consider their circumstances and environment. Nevertheless, the key message of the movie still remains the victory of good over evil. The movie acknowledges the resentment in the people and justifies the action of radicles such as Vijay to some extent, but still maintains that violence and retaliation is not the way to go.
Throughout the movie, there seems to be a lot of discussion about nationalist and anti-nationalist elements. In this context, I found Kaushik Bannerjee's analysis to be very interesting. According to him, if we consider Vijay to be a kind of lawless anti-nationalist, which is questionable given the circumstances, then Ravi too is emblematic of civic disenchantment. His education does not help his poor employment prospects, which can be attributed to the corruption and nepotism prevalent in the system. Also, the circumstances leading to Ravi killing Vijay, and subsequently winning the award, are also due to him joining the police (the only job that he got after much difficulty) and leading this particular assignment. It seems then that the different qualities and ideologies of the two brothers are merely a product of their respective environments and the events that they have had to go through, which raises an important question about the development of the middle class in general at that time.
No comments:
Post a Comment