Why the so-called liberals of India hate Bahubali the movie so much

Bahubali, the movie, is outraging the liberals, this is fairly noticeable. The first part of the movie had also outraged them, but the second part, which is breaking all trade records, is hurting them even more. They can barely conceal their petulance as people are trooping into the theaters across the country and even abroad to savor this ripping length of yarn.

‘What ignoramuses!’ they are exclaiming while turning up their haughty noses. But the masses are not paying heed. They are enchanted by the graces of the beauteous and brave Devasena, the proud Sivagami, and the heroism of the mighty armed father and son – Amarendra and Mahendra Bahubali.

Since their upturned haughty noses failed to stem the tide of Bahubali fans flooding the theaters, the liberals took to spreading canards about the film. Never before, in my memory, a film, a mere film, has elicited such a quantum of intellectual effort from so many.

- Advertisement - - Article resumes -

Sundry commentators and social justice warriors hectored us ignorant folks on left-leaning news portals. We ought not to watch this film, one of them told us, because of its ‘casteist, supremacist logic’ and the ‘reek’ of ‘Aryan supremacy’ that rises from it. Apparently, the film provides a poor olfactory experience because it has ‘fair skinned heroes and heroines’ who uphold the rigid caste hierarchies of their land. Well, to my eyes, the skin tone of all the principal actors of both the Bahubali films is a smooth and (very attractive) shade of South Indian brown. The liberals, however, seem to wear oddly tinged spectacles which keep their eyes from discerning the true shades of the people and things around.

Secondly, the narrative does not ever even hint that its chief characters are striving to preserve the primordial hierarchies of caste. The villains are motivated by their jealousies and the hero by the desire to realize his destiny. The only allusion to caste in both the films is the Kshatriya status of the principal characters. But if that amounts to consciously promoting caste than probably William Wyler’s Ben Hur showing the enslavement of its Jewish protagonist Juda Ben Hur is a promotion of both anti-Semitism and slavery.

Our liberals, I assume, are familiar with the tropes of literary criticism (being generally privy to an elite liberal education) and might do well to remember that depicting a situation in a narrative does not necessarily amount to countenancing it.

The Bahubali films have also been faulted for their portrayal of the Kalakeyas as these ‘dark skinned savages’ who refuse to accept the ‘beautiful civility of the caste system.’ Yes, the Kalakeyas are indeed shown to be dark skinned savages but neither of the two movies tell us whether they accept or reject the ‘civility’ of the caste hierarchy. We do not know, but somehow the liberals do.

A film meant for popular consumption needs villains to establish the heroism of its hero and the Kalakeyas serve precisely that purpose. Also, talking of the pales of caste, isn’t Bahubali junior nurtured outside it? After all, in the first film we saw him being raised by a forest dwelling tribe outside the limits of both Mahishmati and caste. The liberals, since they choose their examples with a casual liberality, conveniently ignore this detail.

What about the roar of the praja (people) bringing down the royal chatra (canopy) at a point in Bahubali 2? That is another radical moment that seems to have completely escaped the notice of our outraged liberals.

Why are the liberals so outraged? The reasons, in my understanding, are several.

To begin with, the story’s setting, the Kingdom of Mahishmati, seems so like a polity straight out of a classical Sanskrit political treatise or epic. Like the characters in the Mahabharata, those of Bahubali 2 debate and etch the tensions between vidhi (the law of the land) and dharma (a very protean term which in this context could mean ‘realizing and doing what is just in a given situation’).

I do not know if it does so consciously, but Bahubali 2 evokes India’s classical literary heritage and does so unabashedly. Afflicted with a deep rooted, and to me incomprehensible, self-hatred as they are, this is seemingly somewhat unacceptable to our liberals.

Then there is the film’s visual platter. It is a gorgeous feast for the eyes overlaid with a creative mingling of classical South Indian art and architecture and an aesthetic imagining that seems to derive both from the paintings of Raja Ravi Varma and the panels of Amar Chitra Katha. Bahubali 2’s visual platter is a very effective fusion of the classical and popular strains of Indian art. It is so very Indic. But that is not the chief reason why it is not appealing to our liberals.

Presumably, Bahubali 2’s canvass is offending and wounding the delicate liberal perceptual faculties because the deities – Shiva, Ganesha, and the Devi – periodically flit through it. Bahubali 2’s aesthetics are perceptibly suffused with a sense of the sacred.

The film’s normative landscape too is so Indic. It is a polity wedded to a socio-religious order which honors the gods. Warriors offer sacrifice to the Devi before commencing a battle, the queen mother walks barefoot to a temple to keep a vow.

However, implicit in this alliance of the polity and the socio-religious order is the assumption that it lasts only as long as it upholds and sustains dharma. In the end when it ceases to do so, the praja and even the ‘slave’ Katappa rebel and help Mahendra Bahubali defeat and kill his evil uncle.

The ethical concerns of Bahubali 2 are deeply rooted in the cultural unconscious of our people and they are resonating enormously with them. Our liberals, however, are incapable of understanding the underlying logic of this resonance.

In the end, while being aware that this is probably too big a complement to bestow upon a mere film, Bahubali 2’s pan-Indian success indicates the essential civilizational oneness of all India and our liberals’ complete disconnect with the ethical foundations of this oneness. They are, after all, not quite Indians. They are South Asians.

Bahubali 2 is no more just a film; it is a social and political phenomenon. The overwhelming approval that the ‘Bahubbali phenomenon’ has received from the Indian masses makes it a part of the enormous and curious something that has been unfolding around us since 2014.

Liberals, please take the next available flight, train or bus out of your la la land. It is about time. All your censorious reviews have not helped. The people, across the length and breadth of our vast land, are just loving Bahubali 2. Repressed or nearly effaced cultural memories and aspirations are perhaps indeed contributing to its popularity. We can expect Bahubali 2 to remain on a mighty roll for the next few weeks. The mighty liberal disapproval of it notwithstanding.


Share This Post and Support:
We need your support to survive in the media industry. Please consider paying us for the content we produce:

To know more about these payments, please click here.


Most read articles recently

NDTV suspends Deputy News Editor for celebrating Pulwama terror attack, may take further action

NDTV Deputy News Editor Nidhi Sethi suspended by the channel for her Facebook comment celebrating the Pulwama attack

“By the time this video reaches you, I will be in heaven”, declared JeM terrorist in video before Pulwama suicide attack

The terrorist is seen urging the people of North, Central, South Kashmir and Jammu to come together in the fight against India.

No, Times of India, Islamist terrorists harboured and nurtured by Pakistan, not ‘local youth’ killed over 40 soldiers

Times of India not only came out with a horrible headline, but there were also other issues with the reportage as well
Image Source: twitter

Vajpayee govt was forced to release Masood Azhar because of hysterical media coverage, former AAP leader Ashutosh says

The veteran journalist who is currently running his own news portal in Hindi revealed that media coverage of the hijack incident created undue pressure on the central government and they had to accept the demands of the hijackers, which included the release of three terrorists.

Congress supporting abusive troll claims Pulwama was an inside job by India

Sanjukta Basu is a very vocal Modi-hater and a bigot masquerading as a liberal feminist.

“He is not letting people wear helmets,” Puducherry Lt Governor’s exasperation at CM protesting against road safety rules

CM Narayanswamy has been protesting against Lt Governor Kiran Bedi for her tough stance on the use of helmets.

Soft approach has failed in Kashmir, now a decisive military action is need of the hour

India needs a strong political will backed by decisive military action in Kashmir.

What to do with these termites? Does ‘ha-ha’ reaction to terror attacks have a religion?

For some people, just the Islamic names in these 'Allah hu Akbar' brand suicide bombers is enough to empathise with the terrorists

Pulwama terror attack is a violent expression of Hinduphobia

Like crimes that are related to race, gender or caste, Hinduphobic hate crime does not take place in a vacuum.

If ‘terror has no religion’ was not bullsh*t enough, Congress leader Sidhu comes up with ‘terror has no nationality’

Navjot Singh Sidhu said that terrorism has no country, giving a clean chit to Pakistan despite Jaish-e-Mohammed, a terrorist group backed by the Pakistani establishment has taken the responsibility for the attack on CRPF soldiers at Pulwama.

Latest articles

Connect with us

136,116FansLike
109,243FollowersFollow
22,793SubscribersSubscribe

Don't miss these