Who are the real criminals in Rang de Basanti?

I do not wholly agree with the message screened in Rang De Basanti. The movie, for all its comedy, drama and performances of the actors, suggests a very dangerous breed of patriotism. Simply put, you cannot assassinate the Defense Minister of the world’s largest democratic nation. It’s against one of the most fundamental ideals of the legalism India enjoys, that of due process, under which a convict is legally tried for his crime in the court of law. Similarly, the Defense Minister too should’ve been tried in the correct forum rather than being gunned down by a bunch of college students.

Indeed, what the minister said and did in the movie was unbecoming and wrong, and undeniably, the movie gives a very strong base message (that the youth should make an effort to right the wrongs), however what Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra shows in the movie is drastic to say the least. Instead, if he had shown Aamir Khan and co. making an effort to rightfully convict the minister (Perhaps a sting operation? They could’ve sought access to the minister via Siddharth’s father), the movie would’ve made its mark much better.

An analysis of the events transpiring before the assassination makes a rather strong case for Aamir Khan and his friends’ antipathy towards the minister. Amongst their best friend (an Indian Air Force officer) lays down his life in an aircraft crash to protect a town in Northern India, but rather than winning praises for his heroism, is subjected to humiliation and derogatory remarks from the minister. Also, on a parallel note, they had been casted in a movie documenting the lives of and sacrifices made by Bhagat Singh and his friends in the name of freedom from colonial rule. Hence, their inclination towards patriotism at the time is also understandable. However, the movie overlooks some major points; Bhagat Singh laid down his life in 1931, back when India was still reeling under British imperialism and parliamentary democracy was years away. Also, in view of the turbulent climate back then (Jalianwala Bagh massacre, Quit India movement etc.), perhaps violence could’ve been justified to an extent. However, it would be unreasonable to apply that same scenario to modern India. The British have left, the democratic ideals of the nation have solidified and the ordinary citizen (to a much larger extent) enjoys basic democratic rights such the right to speak and the right to hold a non-violent protest. Also, in light of the second right mentioned, I believe that the movie was unwarranted in its screening of police force being used against the members of the candlelight vigil at the India Gate. I genuinely doubt that any government in India would be willing to take the risk of doing something of such severity. In fact, in doing so, it would be breaching Article 19 of the Indian Constitution (which allows citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms ). Certainly, the movie fabricates this incident without realizing the negative impact it would have on Indians’ confidence on their nation’s democracy.

The assassination shows a form of parallel government, one in which the college students are taking matters into their own hands in the name of justice. Had this been within the domain of law, it would have been laudable. However, something as drastic as assassinating a cabinet minister gives them overriding similarities to terrorists and makes their act a step towards anarchy. If Mehra suggests that students should take up arms against their government, the movie is wrongly portraying the points it intends to deliver. Sure, corruption in India can get overwhelming, yet the elements of due process have to remain solid to ensure a constructive opposition to the same and prevent India from becoming a political turmoil. It’s indeed moving to see the candle light vigil being disrupted so violently and Ajay’s (the officer who sacrificed his life) act being disgraced and ridiculed by the minister, yet emotions shouldn’t be shown dominating rationality, which would surely not the suggest the assassination of a cabinet minister.

Emotions dominating rationality is also evident in the scene when Siddharth kills his father. Upon learning that Anupam Kher (who plays the role of his father) was an important member of the entire MiG-21 corruption scandal, the unfortunate fallout of which was the crash of their friend’s aircraft, an angry and disillusioned Siddharth kills his father. Their relationship wasn’t friendly to begin with, yet showing one kill his own father is disheartening. Turbulent as it may have been in the movie, the relationship one shares with his parents should be cherished. Not only do I see this assassination as ineffective in solving any of Siddharth’s problems and grievances, more importantly, it demeans the sanctity and importance of the establishment that is familial relationships. Anupam Kher should’ve undoubtedly been indicted for his role in the corruption scandal, but as suggested earlier, within the domain of law. Perhaps a more effective solution would have been to get an audio or video recording of his father confessing to have been a part of the scandal, however his murder implicates Siddharth in an issue that not only violates the law, but amongst the most fundamental of all human relations.

Moreover, I believe that neither Anupam Kher nor the minister commit crimes worthy of a capital punishment, for neither had a direct agenda against the Air Force officer. Certainly, they played a huge role in the aircraft crash by purchasing sub-par quality machines, however the reasons behind the malfunction can be extended to other causes as well. Hence, both their assassinations were not only illegal, but also excessive of a worthy penalty. Had they been rightfully convicted in the court, the law would’ve punished them to a prison sentence. Therefore, if the law doesn’t believe that they deserve a death penalty, then that incriminates Aamir Khan and his friends as the real culprits in the movie, on an account of homicide.

Beyond these killings, the movie is also incorrect in showing the response taken by the government upon learning of the students’ presence in the All India Radio building. The movie was finally headed in the right direction when they accepted their crimes via a radio broadcast. Perhaps, the claim that not a single minister has been convicted for his crimes also gives a marginal level of justification for killing the minister. However, the movie was again wrong in showing commandos gunning down the students without the latter firing back at them. Like in the case of police force being used to break a peaceful assembly being illegal in democratic India, this incident would be breaching the law as well. As stated multiple times in the essay, the movie shows no traces whatsoever of due process. The students should’ve been taken into custody and then tried in the courts, rather than being shot at without firing at the commandos themselves. If Ajmal Kasab, despite having killed hundreds of people in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks as well as having fired violently at police and military officials, was taken into custody rather than being gunned down on the spot, why not the students? In this regard, the movie tends to raise more questions than it answers.

Rang De Basanti is not a bad film, but a misdirected one. As noted earlier, the essential message being shown in the movie, that the youth should make an effort to improve the state of affairs in their nation is a righteous one. The means suggested by Siddharth in his radio broadcast are noble as well; join the IAS, the Army, politics etc. However, killing the defense minister or your own father wouldn’t solve any problems, but instead add to them. For a nation to succeed in the long run, democracy and legalism need priority over any personal grievances, however severe the latter might be, and this is a premise that Rang De Basanti largely overlooks.