Response to Shatranj Ke Khiladi

Aishwarya Vardhana

The film Shatranj Ke Khiladi paralleled the game of chess with the strategic game of war played by Indians and the British during colonialism. Specifically the film retold the story of a key moment in India’s colonial history: the fall of Awadh following the Indian Rebellion of 1857. Using two concurrent narratives the film explored themes of classism, racism, sectarianism, the tragic hero, royal patronage of the arts, Lucknowi culture and is possibly a critique of both the Indians and the British. I am particularly interested in the scene in which Wajid Ali Shah is watching the sun sink over Awadh and he tells his prime minister that he will surrender the kingdom to the British. For me the script, the pathos, and the camera angle of this scene exposes the humanity of the king. The moment is loaded with meaning and we, the audience, are left to unpack everything from the king’s intentions to the ability of Indians to govern themselves to the manipulations of the British.

As the sun sets over Awadh on the eve before the British invade the kingdom the audience arrives at this scene with the belief that the king will meet force with force having seen him, in the previous scene, sit on his throne and exclaim, “the only way they will remove me as king is with force”. However the camera zooms in on Wajid Ali Shah’s face as he watches the sun sink and we see a tremendous amount of emotion on an already emotional character’s face. He begins to recite poetry to capture the moment, the gravity of which is only valid if he follows through with what he recites, namely that this evening is his final evening as king of his ancestral land and what a tragedy it is to lose one’s homeland to foreign invaders. In order to allow the lines of his poem to reflect reality Shah then has no choice but to forgo his kingdom peacefully. This made me deeply question the quality of his character and his ability to rule his people (despite claims that there were no complaints within the kingdom), it also exposed is humanity, how despite being king he was weak, selfish, and greedy. This new humanness attributed to the king contrasts strongly with the earlier portrayal of him as a compassionate, gentle-spirited poet and generous patron of the arts. In this moment we see the king capitalizing on his chance to be the tragic hero of his own poetry. This undermines not only his ability to rule and protect his people but provides irrational validity to an uncomfortable inkling the audience harbors throughout the film while watching the chess players do nothing but play chess all day, namely that the Indians are incapable of governing themselves or of winning the game of war against the British.

In this final scene the king’s words, his facial expression, the tears in his eyes, the blood red color of the evening sky, the darkening of half his face as the sun sets, and zoom-in angle of the camera all emphasize tragedy but if analyzed closely we see these artistic choices illuminate not the tragedy of the king but his willingness to abandon his people to be considered romantically tragic. This is naturally distasteful but adds a brilliant layer of complexity to the king’s character and makes us question everything about him. In questioning his character we are less likely to sympathize with him and less likely to condemn the British for their unjust manipulations thus by making the king’s integrity highly questionable director Satyajit Ray brings greater complexity to the viewing experience.