The 'State' of Cinema

It was not a planned series. In The Name of The Father (1993), A Short film About Killing (1988), Court (2015). Each film belonged to three different countries that had very different political climates. The first one that belonged to Britain was a tragic tale of a family that gets falsely implicated in a terrorist conspiracy. The second one is a Polish film that merely observes (and not discusses) the ethical dimensions of two separate murders. The third one is a Marathi film (I am not calling it an Indian film) that follows the distinct lives of three different people who are forced to interact with one another dictated by the exigent political circumstances. Going by my very superficial descriptions of each film, it might be hard to discern why I am trying to group these unrelated movies together. All these films have an unmissable connection- they speak about the coercive power of the State.

‘In The Name of The Father’ is set in the 1970s where Britain is ruthlessly smothering the militant elements of a rebelling Ireland in order to retain its imperial control over it. Gerry Conlon, an innocent Irishman is arrested for being in the vicinity of an IRA bombing in London and coerced to accept responsibility for it. If anything, it was the oppressive British imperial machinery that sowed their seeds for the formation of the Irish Republican Army by exploiting the Irish people and resources for its own benefit. Conlon is threatened by the investigating officer that his father will be shot if he does not confess. He succumbs to the pressure and is incarcerated only to find that his entire family is facing similar circumstances under charges of sedition. Every scene of interrogation is compellingly staged and I could not avoid myself stepping into Conlon’s shoes and guessing how I would be responding to the tortures and intimidations by the officers-in-charge. For some moments I was confused whether Conlon is under the custody of the State or inside the walls of a terrorist organization and facing third degree treatment for spying them. 

‘A Short Film About Killing’ is a 1990 movie set in Poland and follows the life of a young aimless thief. The thief performs a cold blooded killing of an innocent taxi driver to appropriate his car and soon is arrested by the law. The film cuts to the time when he is held guilty by the court and is condemned to capital punishment. The execution of the convicted is shown in fine detail in such a way that the State sponsored murder looks no less cold blooded than the crime of the murderer.

Court is set in Maharashtra and begins tracing the life of a Dalit activist who fights for better living conditions and rights for the downtrodden. He is arrested a lot of times in the film under ludicrous charges by the State in order to muzzle his propaganda and dissent.

Going back in time, we learn that a few centuries ago, kings had lions and wolves reared inside their palaces and fed criminals to them in the name of dispensing justice. That was a time when man had not yet grown out of his barbarian instinct. Slavery was widespread and inhuman conditions of 15 hour work-day were prevalent then. Some centuries later, man grew and began to realize the importance of democratically elected governments even if voting was restricted only to a privileged few. It was some progressive step towards legitimizing the power of the ruling class. Soon, through wars and revolutions, man recognized the equality of the many human races and introduced universal adult franchise. Punishments became less barbaric and electric chairs were invented to administer death immediately to the convict without physical pain. In every stage of human development, from the time of kings to dictators to Presidents, the coercive power of the State was weakened through deliberation and consensus. This was not only due to growing belief in the self-regulating nature of a civilized human society but also due to the realization of the true character that a State needs to possess. The State or the Ruler, according to Buddhist canon is supposedly a servant of the masses whose only job is to govern, just like the job of the weaver is to weave. He does not own any special privileges or powers distinct from that of others. He cannot bend the State to his whim or fancy and derive benefit out of it. By the nature of his role being subordinate to the will of the masses, he does not have a higher or any kind of Divine status and is not entitled to commit an act that others are forbidden to do. Similarly, I believe that the contemporary State which is built by a liberal, civilized and scientific society cannot own the right to kill a human life when such an act, when performed by a powerless citizen under any pressing circumstance is deemed to be an unforgivable crime.

However my argument here is not restricted to the powers that the State must be bestowed with, in an ideal society. Barring the Polish example I have described here, the other two are cases of a State that is corrupt and morally bankrupt. In both instances, especially the first one, on detailed examination it is revealed that the colonizing State is in service of the local private enterprise without which the colonial ambitions of the government are inexplicable. With respect to the Indian example, the activist’s voice is directed against the State that feeds on the poor egged on by the local corporate elite. To make my point more explicit, what moral right does such a corrupt government have to punish its citizen even if he is guilty?

I am reminded of a terrific scene in Kurudhipunal when Kamal Haasan playing an upright cop lectures the terrorist Nasser on non-violence and legally sanctioned methods of serving the society.

Kamal : ‘Enna irunthaalum Thupaaki edukradhu thappu’

Nasser: ‘Aprom nee edhuku thupaaki vechirka?’