Raazi (2018), the title of the recently released Alia Bhat starer film signifies one’s acceptance to do something. It involves a kind of readiness, one’s intent to do something. Such a title Raazi, given the context the film is set in, that of cross border enmity between India and Pakistan, creates an interest of some development of line of action between the two nations at conflict or their willingness to do something constructive. Moreover, a film directed by none other than Meghana Gulzar does create expectations among viewers eager to watch something new, or watch something told in a new way. Alas, despite certain moments where there could have been an engagement with different issues at hand, the film reinforces what most other films on nation do.
The only major difference here, unlike other films, is that the narrative is centered on a female lead. Most films on Nation show how men are important to nation and their exploits, achievements and acts of bravery are often narrated, glorified to depict nationalism as uniquely and overtly men’s projects. Raazi, at the outset, bore an impression of being a different film, for a woman at the centre of a narrative on nation creates hope of giving different views on how women are at the receiving end of nationalist projects or views on how they can change the dynamics of conflicts. A woman protagonist can help a person see things from a completely different perspective and thus offer refreshing insights on going beyond our inherited conflicts. However, Raazi fails in creating any different views about how women suffer or for that matter about how their presence in nationalist struggles or in post-colonial conflicts can lead to different outcomes than the ones we are usually used to see in male-centred narratives.
The story line is of a Kashmiri girl trained to work as an operative and married deliberately to the son of a soon to become Pakistan General of the Army. Hidayat Khan, Sehmat’s father is a Kashmiri Muslim working for India and has deep networks in the Pakistani army. Committed to the national cause, even in his death, he pursues his mission for the Indian nation; he arranges his daughter to be married off in Pakistan and her task is to provide inputs from across the border to Indian army. This identity of the female protagonist as a Muslim and her commitment to Indian flag are important given the almost war-like situation developed in that state. Hidayat is an example of a Muslim from Kashmir, while supposedly working for Pakistan, is in fact an insider for India and is committed to the Indian cause. Raazi, like most other Indian films, suggests Kashmir as a part of India and tries to portray Kashmiris; (read Muslims) as Indians dying for the nation or ready to self sacrifice for the nation. One can see Muslims on either part of borders - Muslims can be Indians and so can be, Pakistanis. The film focuses on how Kashmiris and even their women folk can be as “nationalist” and avowed to “Hindustaan” and can even risk their lives for the Indian nation. This equation of Muslim (men and women) from Kashmir fighting for India helps in eluding the portrayal of the problematic nature of Kashmiri Independence. The same equation helps in showcasing Kashmir as a natural part of India and the whole film easily shows India pitted against Pakistan. By glossing over the differences existing between the three entities (India, Kashmir and Pakistan), the film maintains absolutely no regards for people from Kashmir and how they are sandwiched from either side. This leads to an erasure of the historical turmoil witnessed in Kashmir.
The film portrays events causing an adrenaline rush in the life of a female spy and the personal upheavals in her life owing to her covert mission. On being caught red–handed by a loyal servant, she has to kill him and also, eventually her brother in-law to conceal her mission. The dilemma between national duty and loyalty to one’s family remains a thorny question right from the beginning and I think the film doesn’t do enough justice and is unable to exploit the richness of this dilemma. The first shot of Sehmat in the film is her effort of saving a squirrel from being crushed. Ideally, the same genteel and sensitive girl should have been exposed to so much of emotional turmoil, stress and imbalance while killing a family member. The film certainly tried to capture this, but it could have been portrayed much more effectively. Alia’s performance was decent, although I felt the director could have thought of demanding a Kashmiri tainted accent from her or her father, Hidayat. The Urdu jubaan and Hindustani khadi boli accent could have been a distinguishing feature as the two nations consciously adopted them. When we watch this film, apart from the flags and dress codes of the soldiers, there is hardly anything distinguishing between the communities across the borders. The film could have sought to make subtle changes visible between the communities across the borders.
What I found interesting is the position of Sehmat’s husband. Iqbal Syed, a jazz loving, thorough gentleman and an extremely sensitive husband is in love with his wife and till the end, sides with his wife despite all odds. Sehmat’s pregnancy suggests their firm bonding and her desire to have a family life despite the mission she is in charge of. Their relationship could have been a game changer and a completely transformed Sehmat could have meant a possibility of dialogue. The transformation could have suggested that there are good people on both sides. Such a depiction would have shown that Pakistan and its people are not as bad as we think them to be, that after all both the countries share a lot in terms of cultural values and ethos and the people in Kashmir are somewhat like their counterparts across the borders. The protagonist’s transformation as a pacifist would have also implied that change is possible, that circumstances and intent can bring fruitful changes for communities, that while people are products of history, they do have a sense to orient their lives towards a better future. The film does at times create a sense of well-being and values of Tehzeeb within the Pakistani family by the way the General treats his family, the way Sehmat is treated as a new member and the loyalty of servants like Abdul towards the family. However, all this happens unfortunately in the background and the foreground is filled with Sehmat’s preoccupations of her mission and her sense of national duty. The film thus reinforces that irrespective of age, sex and religion, duty to Nation is our only and our primary duty. Any act of murder or atrocity committed in favour of saving the nation is permissible and thus, legitimizes the murders at the hands of Sehmat. As said in the opening dialogue, the film indicates that men are not the only heroes of the nation, there are ‘veeranginis – the females warriors’ too. While relationships can be life changing, the potential game changer or the strongest point of the film of an enduring relationship becomes toothless and one takes away the same old adage of “national duty is our primary duty”. The same stale food/diet on nation and its conflicts with one’s neighbours as enemies is reinforced this time not by a fighting male soldier, a honest police officer or a male coach, but by a female Kashmiri (Indian) spy agent.
At the end of the film, Sehmat is pregnant and delivers a baby boy who then becomes a soldier in the Indian army. I would have loved to see a crippled child to show how the cultures of hate existing between communities across our borders impact our future generations and how they are unhealthy/handicapped right from their birth. There is one positive side to this birth though - the feeling that the child is born out of love and not rape. The fact that Sehmat decides to keep the (healthy) baby is an acceptance of love of her husband. This is an acceptance that we are humans first and nationalism shouldn’t guide our decisions. I can’t resist quoting Sahir here.
The only major difference here, unlike other films, is that the narrative is centered on a female lead. Most films on Nation show how men are important to nation and their exploits, achievements and acts of bravery are often narrated, glorified to depict nationalism as uniquely and overtly men’s projects. Raazi, at the outset, bore an impression of being a different film, for a woman at the centre of a narrative on nation creates hope of giving different views on how women are at the receiving end of nationalist projects or views on how they can change the dynamics of conflicts. A woman protagonist can help a person see things from a completely different perspective and thus offer refreshing insights on going beyond our inherited conflicts. However, Raazi fails in creating any different views about how women suffer or for that matter about how their presence in nationalist struggles or in post-colonial conflicts can lead to different outcomes than the ones we are usually used to see in male-centred narratives.
The story line is of a Kashmiri girl trained to work as an operative and married deliberately to the son of a soon to become Pakistan General of the Army. Hidayat Khan, Sehmat’s father is a Kashmiri Muslim working for India and has deep networks in the Pakistani army. Committed to the national cause, even in his death, he pursues his mission for the Indian nation; he arranges his daughter to be married off in Pakistan and her task is to provide inputs from across the border to Indian army. This identity of the female protagonist as a Muslim and her commitment to Indian flag are important given the almost war-like situation developed in that state. Hidayat is an example of a Muslim from Kashmir, while supposedly working for Pakistan, is in fact an insider for India and is committed to the Indian cause. Raazi, like most other Indian films, suggests Kashmir as a part of India and tries to portray Kashmiris; (read Muslims) as Indians dying for the nation or ready to self sacrifice for the nation. One can see Muslims on either part of borders - Muslims can be Indians and so can be, Pakistanis. The film focuses on how Kashmiris and even their women folk can be as “nationalist” and avowed to “Hindustaan” and can even risk their lives for the Indian nation. This equation of Muslim (men and women) from Kashmir fighting for India helps in eluding the portrayal of the problematic nature of Kashmiri Independence. The same equation helps in showcasing Kashmir as a natural part of India and the whole film easily shows India pitted against Pakistan. By glossing over the differences existing between the three entities (India, Kashmir and Pakistan), the film maintains absolutely no regards for people from Kashmir and how they are sandwiched from either side. This leads to an erasure of the historical turmoil witnessed in Kashmir.
The film portrays events causing an adrenaline rush in the life of a female spy and the personal upheavals in her life owing to her covert mission. On being caught red–handed by a loyal servant, she has to kill him and also, eventually her brother in-law to conceal her mission. The dilemma between national duty and loyalty to one’s family remains a thorny question right from the beginning and I think the film doesn’t do enough justice and is unable to exploit the richness of this dilemma. The first shot of Sehmat in the film is her effort of saving a squirrel from being crushed. Ideally, the same genteel and sensitive girl should have been exposed to so much of emotional turmoil, stress and imbalance while killing a family member. The film certainly tried to capture this, but it could have been portrayed much more effectively. Alia’s performance was decent, although I felt the director could have thought of demanding a Kashmiri tainted accent from her or her father, Hidayat. The Urdu jubaan and Hindustani khadi boli accent could have been a distinguishing feature as the two nations consciously adopted them. When we watch this film, apart from the flags and dress codes of the soldiers, there is hardly anything distinguishing between the communities across the borders. The film could have sought to make subtle changes visible between the communities across the borders.
What I found interesting is the position of Sehmat’s husband. Iqbal Syed, a jazz loving, thorough gentleman and an extremely sensitive husband is in love with his wife and till the end, sides with his wife despite all odds. Sehmat’s pregnancy suggests their firm bonding and her desire to have a family life despite the mission she is in charge of. Their relationship could have been a game changer and a completely transformed Sehmat could have meant a possibility of dialogue. The transformation could have suggested that there are good people on both sides. Such a depiction would have shown that Pakistan and its people are not as bad as we think them to be, that after all both the countries share a lot in terms of cultural values and ethos and the people in Kashmir are somewhat like their counterparts across the borders. The protagonist’s transformation as a pacifist would have also implied that change is possible, that circumstances and intent can bring fruitful changes for communities, that while people are products of history, they do have a sense to orient their lives towards a better future. The film does at times create a sense of well-being and values of Tehzeeb within the Pakistani family by the way the General treats his family, the way Sehmat is treated as a new member and the loyalty of servants like Abdul towards the family. However, all this happens unfortunately in the background and the foreground is filled with Sehmat’s preoccupations of her mission and her sense of national duty. The film thus reinforces that irrespective of age, sex and religion, duty to Nation is our only and our primary duty. Any act of murder or atrocity committed in favour of saving the nation is permissible and thus, legitimizes the murders at the hands of Sehmat. As said in the opening dialogue, the film indicates that men are not the only heroes of the nation, there are ‘veeranginis – the females warriors’ too. While relationships can be life changing, the potential game changer or the strongest point of the film of an enduring relationship becomes toothless and one takes away the same old adage of “national duty is our primary duty”. The same stale food/diet on nation and its conflicts with one’s neighbours as enemies is reinforced this time not by a fighting male soldier, a honest police officer or a male coach, but by a female Kashmiri (Indian) spy agent.
At the end of the film, Sehmat is pregnant and delivers a baby boy who then becomes a soldier in the Indian army. I would have loved to see a crippled child to show how the cultures of hate existing between communities across our borders impact our future generations and how they are unhealthy/handicapped right from their birth. There is one positive side to this birth though - the feeling that the child is born out of love and not rape. The fact that Sehmat decides to keep the (healthy) baby is an acceptance of love of her husband. This is an acceptance that we are humans first and nationalism shouldn’t guide our decisions. I can’t resist quoting Sahir here.
“Tu Hindu banega, na Musulman banega, insaan ki aulaad hain, insaan banega...
maalik ne har insaan ko insaan banaya, humne use hindu ya musulmaan banaya,
kudrat ne to bakhshi thi humein ek hi dharti, humne kahin bharat, kahin iran banaya...”
maalik ne har insaan ko insaan banaya, humne use hindu ya musulmaan banaya,
kudrat ne to bakhshi thi humein ek hi dharti, humne kahin bharat, kahin iran banaya...”
There resonating words crystallise what should have happened with the new born. The baby born from a Pakistani father and an Indian mother could be a symbol of our political imagination of beyond the borders. However again, unfortunately, the film fails to show such a thing. If this were really the case, the child would have become anything else but an officer. A boy born and bred in the absence of his father turns out to be so healthy that he becomes a soldier and is again ready to fight for the Indian cause! His proud allegiance to the national flag was therefore a sorry sight. Doesn’t his mom learn anything from violent experiences of her past and teach her son to be something different? A woman who loses a doting husband and dignified family members in situations of conflicts can’t possibly be so emotionless to let her son become an officer unless she is a diehard ‘nationalist’. But this is what the viewers are shown. In another situation, Sehmat could have also decided to abort her child though this act could imply her nationalist stand, that of refusal of husband’s love or it could have meant her humanist side, that of her unwillingness to raise a child in a context where there is so much violence and hate for each other. The latter position would have been welcome.
This whole episode in fact could have been simply avoided if the film had ended at the bomb explosion killing both Sehmat and her husband Iqbal, thus implying that there are casualties on both the sides of fighting nations. At this juncture, the climax of the film has a short exchange of dialogue between Sehmat and Iqbal who suggests she should kill him and commit suicide as well. Now, this double killing could have suggested an acceptance of his love. Death in such a case is embracing one’s peaceful future by cutting one’s connections with the present whose violence has gone beyond one’s control. Sehmat’s acceptance of death would mean that such covert operations are futile in the end and a suicide along with her husband would mean they live ever after in peace. But then, no... this doesn’t happen and after all, India has to win the match at whatever costs. Sehmat’s life is spared as if to validate the death of innocents to save India’s national female warrior.
One doesn’t realise but then such films also unconsciously have certain interesting implications. Iqbal’s (Sehmat’s husband) death is his sacrifice and proof of his love for his wife; his humanism becomes way stronger than his wife’s. In contrast, Sehmat’s life is saved thanks to the killing of another innocent woman. Sehmat herself can be perceived as someone short on ideals, someone trying to win the game at any cost. The only thing that matters is thus national duty and anything else has to be compromised for the same. Such a film is thus simply a disguise of a female lead executing male functions. It justifies India’s political crisis and covert warfare with Pakistan, the killing of one’s and other’s family members in the name of nation and thus, encourages the violence and politics of hate that it should have out rightly condemned. A film directed by none other than Meghana Gulzar is therefore quite a disappointment. It is like saying uncritically and without any deliberation, whatever happens to the murdering soldiers, their family members and the victims, our Indian nation is great, let’s bow down to it and to protect India from its villainous neighbours, let innocent be killed, let there be atrocities to soldiers and their families, in brief, let violence be justified and be therefore celebrated!
This whole episode in fact could have been simply avoided if the film had ended at the bomb explosion killing both Sehmat and her husband Iqbal, thus implying that there are casualties on both the sides of fighting nations. At this juncture, the climax of the film has a short exchange of dialogue between Sehmat and Iqbal who suggests she should kill him and commit suicide as well. Now, this double killing could have suggested an acceptance of his love. Death in such a case is embracing one’s peaceful future by cutting one’s connections with the present whose violence has gone beyond one’s control. Sehmat’s acceptance of death would mean that such covert operations are futile in the end and a suicide along with her husband would mean they live ever after in peace. But then, no... this doesn’t happen and after all, India has to win the match at whatever costs. Sehmat’s life is spared as if to validate the death of innocents to save India’s national female warrior.
One doesn’t realise but then such films also unconsciously have certain interesting implications. Iqbal’s (Sehmat’s husband) death is his sacrifice and proof of his love for his wife; his humanism becomes way stronger than his wife’s. In contrast, Sehmat’s life is saved thanks to the killing of another innocent woman. Sehmat herself can be perceived as someone short on ideals, someone trying to win the game at any cost. The only thing that matters is thus national duty and anything else has to be compromised for the same. Such a film is thus simply a disguise of a female lead executing male functions. It justifies India’s political crisis and covert warfare with Pakistan, the killing of one’s and other’s family members in the name of nation and thus, encourages the violence and politics of hate that it should have out rightly condemned. A film directed by none other than Meghana Gulzar is therefore quite a disappointment. It is like saying uncritically and without any deliberation, whatever happens to the murdering soldiers, their family members and the victims, our Indian nation is great, let’s bow down to it and to protect India from its villainous neighbours, let innocent be killed, let there be atrocities to soldiers and their families, in brief, let violence be justified and be therefore celebrated!
