Heroism- And it’s changing face in India

Heroism connotes ‘great’. The context is varied, and so is the definition and extent of ‘great’. However, what remains a constant glorification and worship of the hero. But is a hero always perfect or ideal? Is he always correct? Who is a hero then? How do we define him?

The concept of heroism seeps down to us from our sacred volumes like the Ramayana, Ram being the quintessential sacrificial, ‘good’ , righteous, ideal hero, the same depicted in the Mahabharata in Krishna, as the wise, practical and ideal one. The Quran and the Bible, talk of the Prophet and Jesus as the correct, ‘good’, leaders and ideals, who are worshipped till date and will be beyond. The depiction of the superheroes in comics and films is that of those who fight crime or the ‘evil’, whether its characters like Superman or Batman or Krissh. Good exists only when it is against evil, as does better against worse. To create and understand a hero, first the existence and importance of the anti-hero is crucial to be appreciated.

In Greek mythology, heroes like Hercules, and Odysses had to by the will of their uncles, embark upon impossible quests and fight irrepressible monsters. In narratives from the Bible, where God put down rules, heroes were those who upheld the law despite odds, and villains were those who succumbed to temptation. In the Hindu narratives, the good were given a reason to fight by the evil. So if a Lord Rama, is credited with being the savior, its hugely because Raavan’s deeds gave Rama a reason to destroy the latter. The ‘evil’ is hugely a creation of and by culture and villainy is what society believes is evil. So while the good destroyed the evil, the debate of its being evil in isolation remains intact. So quoting from the Mahabharata, while the first of the Kaurav’s is detested for having attempted the cheer haran on Draupadi, the very act of betting her is kept aside. Was that not an act of villainy? Or while Rama rescues Sita from Raavan, asking her to undergo the Agnipariksha was the biggest act of ridicule. How could that be a justified action of the righteous lord? Cultures perceive their heroes differently. While the Hindus call Raavan a rakshasa, in the Jain mythology he is a respected figure, as the 10 headed man, who had knowledge enough for 10 people. He was a figure who committed just one mistake. How is he different from Rama? The hero cannot exist without the anti-hero and both in their own right are imperfect.

Stemming away from mythological references, within the Indian history are stark examples of the ‘right’ committing the wrong, which brings me to my second point of subjectivity of the concept of heroism, and its glaring loopholes, a trend that has not changed. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, is unanimously considered the Mahatma, ahimsa and the truth being his only weapons. But then how did a man, always correct, let three 23 year old boys get hanged for their exhibition of opposing oppression and fighting against the British? Facts in the National Archives of India and umpteen researches prove that while Gandhi could have avoided the hanging of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev, he chose not to for different reasons that are debatable in their own right. Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev, and many more revolutionaries, were heroes. With cases like the Lahore Conspiracy Case, the murder of Saunders and the Kakori Conspiracy Case, to many conventional leaders of the Congress (heroes in their own right) these were trouble makers, while to many others they were the definition of the new age India then, aggressively wanting to fight for their independence.

Ideologies are different, and they hugely determine the action. One cannot question Gandhi’s contribution to the country’s Independence; however taints such as the one above will continue to haunt the pages of history, wherever he is mentioned. Do those make his acts for the country any less important? In various documentations of his decisions, both personal and professional, there are distinct facts that hint at selfish nature. Is he still a hero then? The answer is, Yes, he is.

'Lack and magnification' is a fancy way of describing a person who has very little to work with, but uses what he or she has to do the unexpected and extraordinary. Heroism, is really that simple. The existence unconventional hero, is the best way to identify this aspect. For years, the dark, brooding Heathcliff has been a hero because of his undying love for Catherine. Joe Gargery and Herbert, win hearts purely on the basis of the respective natures given by Dickens to both these characters in Great Expectations. Their acts towards Pip, instantly create that aura around them.

Cinema and its journey, is the one of the best tools one can use to study economic, social, and political changes in an era. The transition in beliefs and changing modalities and perceptions, come forth in Cinema most clearly. The depiction in most films from the 40s and the 50s, saw the hero as a struggler, a school of thought that we saw in commercial successes like Anari, Do Bigha Zameen, Pyaasa etc. He would stick to his principles and fight his battles. Many times successfully so, many times not. Films subsequently went on to depict the hero as a rebel. With the end of the studio era within the film industry, the individualistic streak of directors became more prominent, and individualism as a thought, garnered increasing respect. So if Naya Daur showcased Dilip kumar voicing against and crumbling under pressures that industrialization brought, we also had a doctor wanting to marry an innocent prisoner in Bandini, because he felt he was right in doing so. The rebel stood up for what was right, not necessarily what the society thought was correct, but he was still a hero, since he voiced and carried out what he believed in.

The 60s saw more suave men, flawless and intelligent forming the heroes. The real shift in trend came with the 70s where being the anti-hero was suddenly more acceptable, and fetched more collective empathy. So blockbusters like Deewar, that brought to the fore the ‘Angry young man’ also mirrored the then youth, where the definition of the hero was dramatically changing and the audience was becoming more and more receptive to the mindframes and logics of the anti-hero. Unconventional heroes of ordinary origin, also found expression at this time. These were characters who became heroes because circumstances forced them to be. Amitabh Bacchhan in Kaala Pathar, is the perfect example. (Literatre too throws up some examples-Frodo Baggins, the ring bearer of the Lord of the Rings, is an example, of circumstances pushing the ordinary to perform the extraordinary. The recently, hugely popular series of Harry Potter, showcase the same thing. )

With directors like Hrishikesh Mukherjee and Gulzar directing some widely acclaimed films like Chupke chupke, Golmaal, Guddi, Bawarchi, Abhimaan, Khushboo and Parichay the heroes became more believable, and those had stepped out from between us. Films like Masoom further highlighted the complexity of human emotions and provided the perspective of the fact that heroes too could make mistakes. The 90s saw the upholders of Indian values gracing the screen, but again not being perfect. So while Shahrukh Khan in Dilwale Dulhania Le Jaayenge, refused to be serious about anything but love, his Indian values were firmly intact. Yashraj and Dharma banners, emphasized on the justifications of actions, not so much on the actions themselves. Films like Roja, Bombay, and Dil Se (essentially the Mani Ratnam school of thought) brought clearly the fact that the most ordinary could become the epitome of extraordinary if circumstances bade them. The heroes were also those who resurrected themselves. So while films depicted all of this, the youth woke up to these, and also many brands that spoke the similar language.

Films like Rangeela and Ghulam, showcased Aamir Khan as a street hero, far from perfect, but his sincereity towards his love was applauded in both characters and the films went on to be superhits. 2000s have seen a definite leniency in the definition of our heroes. So whether it is a Munnabhai who loves to drink and is the typical Mumbai tapori, as long as his heart is in the right place he is our hero. Today a figure could be a hero for one cause and an ordinary man for the next. So while the world worshipped Micheal Jackson for his genius in the realm of music, it also reprimanded him for his eccentricies. Rang de basanti, widely acknowledged as a cult, brought heroes from amongst us. The repercussions of that film saw many media trials culminating in justice, and the youth waking up to their surroundings, becoming a little less selfish. Leading a change became a norm, following a leader a thing of the past. Now we believe that the only thing required to be a leader is conviction. The apprehensions are less and the belief stronger. The heroes are now one of us. Leading is the trend, and the willingness to follow palpable.