By total output, the Indian film industry is the largest in the world, but this statistic is a little misleading. Indian cinema is actually made up of several discreet regional industries separated by their languages. Most famously, there is Bollywood (a portmanteau of Bombay (now Mumbai) and Hollywood), the Hindi language industry in North India. There is also Tollywood, the Telugu industry (readers in the West may know about Tollywood because of the 2022 crossover hit RRR), Kollywood, the Tamil industry (taking its name from the neighborhood of Kodambakkam after the Telugu industry took the T for Tollywood), and Mollywood, the Malayalam industry, among others. In recent years, there has been some collaboration between these industries, creating a trend of “Pan-Indian” blockbusters. These films purport to have a message of pluralist and inclusive patriotism, but its idea of patriotism excludes Muslims.
Historically, these industries have primarily kept themselves separated. They’ve developed their own styles, sensibilities, and star systems with minimal overlap. There have been notable exceptions. For example, actress Sharmila Tagore started in Bengali cinema, working with the legendary director Satyajit Ray before becoming a star in the Hindi industry. However, for the most part, if a filmmaker works in one industry, they are unlikely to move to another or collaborate with filmmakers from other industries, and audiences tend to stick to one particular industry mainly. The Hindi film industry often remakes films from other industries, counting on their audience either not having seen the original, or considering the Hindi version to be a more valid version. However, in recent years, this stratification has started to soften.
In 2017, Telugu director S.S. Rajamouli released Baahubali 2: The Conclusion, and the film was a massive blockbuster hit, shattering the record for all-time highest grossing Indian film. Rajamouli’s next project would be a historical revolutionary epic aimed to promote diversity, unity, and patriotism, so he sought to include stars from other industries. For this film, RRR, he cast Hindi superstars Ajay Devgn and Alia Bhatt in major roles. RRR, of course, went on to be a phenomenon. It became the third highest grossing Indian film of all time, and was a crossover hit worldwide, going on to win an Academy Award for Best Original Song.
Following the successes of Baahubali and RRR, the Hindi industry, which had largely looked down on the other sectors, began to see the potential in collaborating with Southern Indian filmmakers. Both lead actors of RRR, Jr. NTR and Ram Charan, were cast in high-profile Hindi films; Jr. NTR being cast as the villain in the upcoming War 2 opposite Hrithik Roshan, and Ram Charan appearing in the Salman Khan film Kisi Ka Bhai Kisi Ki Jaan. Hindi megastar Shah Rukh Khan collaborated with a Tamil director and Tamil costars in Jawan, which became the fifth highest-grossing Indian film of all time. Telugu director Sandeep Reddy Vanga worked with Hindi stars Ranbir Kapoor, Anil Kapoor, and Bobby Deol in Animal, which became the ninth highest-grossing Indian film of all time. In addition to this unprecedented collaboration between industries, many blockbuster films from one given industry are now dubbed into other languages on release to reach other markets.
This is an ostensibly progressive trend —the historically hegemonic and elitist Hindi industry is finally collaborating with other industries, allowing a more diverse group of filmmakers to reach a wider stage. These films are dubbed into three of the most spoken languages in India, Hindi, Telugu, and Tamil, and market themselves as “Pan-Indian.” Despite what may seem like a noble goal, these films are not always what they may seem.
Take, for example, the “Pan-Indian” sci-fi action hit from earlier this year, Kalki 2898 AD. The film was directed by Nag Ashwin, a Telugu director, and starred Prabhas, a Telugu star (also notably the star of the Baahubali films- and director S.S. Rajamouli appears alongside him in a cameo appearance). The film also stars Deepika Padukone, one of the biggest Hindi A-listers working today, and Amitabh Bachchan, another Hindi star and perhaps the most famous Indian actor of all time. The film was dubbed into Hindi, Telugu, and Tamil, and went on to become the fourth highest grossing Indian film of all time– a truly “Pan-Indian” blockbuster by any metric.
Beyond the collaboration behind the scenes, the film positions itself as valuing diversity. In the film, a sort of Wakanda-esque secret city is walled in from the post-apocalyptic desert environment. In this city, extras of various ethnic and religious backgrounds can be seen. There are Sikh men wearing turbans, Buddhist characters wearing monks’ robes, and a Christian nun can be seen at one point. However, Muslims are notably absent from the utopian society created in Kalki. The idealized view of a society wherein people from all different backgrounds can coexist does not have room for Muslims- a microcosm of the problem of the “Pan-Indian” action film today.
Kalki is also an adaptation of Hindu mythology, as are several other “Pan-Indian” films. 2022’s Brahmastra: Part One – Shiva, which was intended to start an MCU-style cinematic universe of Hindu superheroes, was made in Hindi but was dubbed into Telugu and Tamil as well as Malayalam and Kannada- clearly aiming to be a pan-Indian hit. 2023’s Adipurush is based on the Hindu epic Ramayana and was shot simultaneously in Hindi and Telugu. Also starring Prabhas, the film features a mixture of Hindi and Telugu actors, including Hindi star Saif Ali Khan (son of Sharmila Tagore).
While it is, of course, not inherently Islamophobic to simply make Hindu mythology-based films, their presentation as being intrinsically and inextricably a part of Indian culture can be alienating to Muslims. The centering of the figure of Ram in Adipurush as well as in RRR is specifically problematic, or at the very least irresponsible, as there are connections between Ram and the Hindu nationalist party, BJP.
Even more harmful than their exclusion, many of these “Pan-Indian” films present demonized and stereotyped portrayals of Muslims. 2023’s Tiger 3, a Hindi production dubbed into Telugu and Tamil, has a particularly problematic view of Pakistanis and, by extension, of Muslims. The third installment in a series of films whose prior two were dedicated to trying to remedy Indo-Pak relations, Tiger 3 presents a deeply patronizing and paternalistic version of Indo-Pak peace. The first Tiger movie, Ek Tha Tiger, was a charming Romeo and Juliet story action comedy that paired Salman Khan as an Indian intelligence agent with Katrina Kaif as a Pakistani agent. After the two elope, the absurdity of the conflict is highlighted as the bumbling agencies are forced to work together. The sequel, Tiger Zinda Hai, relied on a somewhat regressive stereotype of a Muslim terrorist for its antagonist but held firm in its progressive Indo-Pak stance with a memorable climax sequence in which the flags of both countries are flown out the window of a truck.
Tiger 3, while explicitly in favor of Indo-Pak peace like the previous films, treats its Pakistani and Muslim characters harshly. In the film, every Muslim character’s loyalties are tested, and, in the end, nearly every Muslim character is either killed or revealed to be a traitor. At the end of the film, after Salman Khan’s character, an Indian intelligence agent, saves the prime minister of Pakistan from an attack, a choir of Pakistani children sing the Indian national anthem for him. While this is a demonstration of peace, it comes across as more condescending than unifying, as Pakistan is thanking India for allowing there to peace, rather than the equal collaboration shown in the previous films.
One of the most frustrating things about the shortcomings of the “Pan-Indian” film is that a number of them, like Tiger 3, seem to be on some level well-meaning. Take, for example, RRR. It is perhaps the most progressive representation of Muslims of any of these movies, with Jr. NTR as Komaram Bheem masquerading as a Muslim to hide from the police and being sheltered by a nice Muslim family- a far cry from the demonized Muslim terrorists of other “Pan-Indian” films. However, these are very small characters, and Hinduism and Hindu iconography are central to the film, with the two main characters becoming essentially avatars of Hindu gods in the finale.
The film is explicitly about unity of Indian people against the British, and a central motif of the film is how the two main protagonists represent opposites in various ways, celebrating the diversity of Indian culture. Bheem is uneducated but has knowledge of natural things such as homeopathic remedies. Ram, on the other hand, is well-read and street wise. Bheem rides a motorcycle and wears a kurta, while Ram rides a horse and wears Western clothes. In these two, a breadth of idealized Indian values is portrayed in the dichotomy of rural and urban, East and West, traditional and modern, demonstrating the value of diversity. But, in this celebration of diversity, again Muslims are excluded. Of course, the protagonists are based on real historical figures. I am not suggesting that Rajamouli rewrite history by altering their religious affiliations (although the film, of course, has no issue revising history when it comes to its overall revolutionary revenge fantasy); I’m simply pointing out that, for a film so concerned with pluralism and patriotism, a more significant role for Muslims would have gone a long way.
Despite its shortcomings, RRR is one of the best movies in this trend in terms of its representation of Muslims. The inclusion of the Muslim family feels like a genuine attempt at an olive branch as opposed to the tokenism of other similar films, and they are not asked to forgo their religiosity to be a better Indian. However, it is a missed opportunity that the film’s central visual and thematic motif is one of diversity, yet that diversity does not extend to a group that the current ruling party of India is trying to erase from the cultural conversation.
Under normal circumstances, these could perhaps be generously written off as oversights. With a majority of the Indian population being Hindu, it makes sense that the majority of action film protagonists would be Hindu. But these films do not exist in a political vacuum. The current prime minister of India, Narendra Modi, belongs to the Bharatiya Janata Party, a party that has essentially called for a Hindu nationalist state. Modi’s populist dog whistling has encouraged hate crimes and violence against religious minorities, especially Muslims. Given this socio-political climate, it is dangerous that the mainstream cinematic culture is contributing to the negative image of Muslims.
The motivation behind this phenomenon is relatively straightforward. The different industries showed how profitable it can be to collaborate to capitalize in a broader fan base. Additionally, few studio filmmakers are willing to stand up to Hindutva. Many stars attended PM Modi’s recent reelection oath ceremony, including Hindi stars Shah Rukh Khan, Akshay Kumar, and Anil Kapoor, as well as Tamil star Rajnikanth. Shah Rukh Khan, himself a Muslim, has a mixed track record when it comes to Modi and to Hindu nationalism. His son was arbitrarily arrested by the Modi regime, and his film Jawan is in part an indictment of Modi. In the film, Khan takes on corrupt government officials, encouraging people to vote in the climactic scene. However, in the same year as Jawan, he made Pathaan, which features another stereotypical Pakistani extremist villain that glorifies the Indian military (SRK’s one-liner before he kills the antagonist is “Jai Hind” (long live India) as he kicks him off a cliff).
The industry’s profit incentive is both a democratizing and a regressive force in this case. While it fights elitism and breaks barriers between historically stratified sectors, allowing filmmakers to reach wider audiences, it also contributes to a problematic narrative and culture of hateful violence. In a perfect world, these collaborations would be a tool for bringing people together.
In presenting themselves as “Pan-Indian” but omitting or demonizing Muslim characters, these films put forward a harmful view of what makes someone a “true Indian” and contribute to the cultural landscape that allows for violent hate crimes. The progress made regarding the collaboration between North and South Indian filmmakers can potentially be a democratizing and peaceful force. However, in its current state, the “Pan-Indian” film is anything but.
