Islamophobia & Intolerance: ‘Mulk’ Demonstrates Just How Bad It Is
Art is a reflection of society, and ‘Mulk’ reflects a society plagued by intolerance, prejudice and Islamophobia.
advertisement
Anubhav Sinha’s Mulk is a great film. The plot is engaging and the courtroom drama scenes, tense and gripping. Taapsee Pannu and Rishi Kapoor steal the show with earnest and consistent performances, while the entire supporting cast does a brilliant job of holding the story together.
But I couldn’t help but feel really troubled throughout the film.
Everything about Mulk, from the characterization to the dialogues and overarching plot, serves to counter Islamophobia in India today. Not only is it deeply problematic that such a film needed to be made in the first place, but what is more troubling is that its messages are considered provocative and path-breaking, when they should be elementary in a (supposedly) secular society like ours.
So what are these messages I am referring to? Let’s take a closer look at the many “controversial” statements that Mulk makes.
(Beware: the rest of the article contains spoilers!)
Muslims Are (Also) Human
Just how overtly Sinha tries to humanise Muslims makes you wonder: do those many people in India not think Muslims are just as human as them?
In the first half, several references are made to the lip-smacking Muslim food, in a clear attempt to make that an important aspect of Islamic identity, rather than... well, whatever Muslims are known for now (more on this later). An overwhelming number of shots are also dedicated to showing the love and camaraderie among the family, the festivities, their pain and suffering, and various other basic aspects of human existence.
Watching this portrayal made me think of the character of Shylock, the Jew, from Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, particularly his iconic speech.
The play is set in 17th century Venice, when Jews were systematically persecuted, othered and discriminated against. That is why Shakespeare felt the need to show his Christian-dominated audience that Jews too are just as human as them.
Muslims Are Not Terrorists
The entire plot of Mulk is dedicated to disproving the notion that Islam and terrorism are intertwined. In the second half, Arti Mohammad (Taapsee Pannu) fights against Santosh Anand (Ashutosh Rana) in court, attempting to prove that the Mohammad family is not guilty of terrorism just because one member of the family ends up becoming a terrorist.
Debating the very meaning of terrorism, Arti arrives at a definition, which is repeated more than once in court.
Having established this universal definition, the film goes further to also counter the idea that “even if all Muslims aren’t terrorists, all terrorists are Muslim.”
Finally, in a powerful speech at the climax, the judge (Kumud Mishra) asserts that the number of Muslims like Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, who have contributed positively to Indian society, far outweigh the number who are terrorists.
While I commend Sinha for blatantly subverting such stereotypes, Mulk serves as a sad reminder that such misconceptions and prejudices are the norm in our society.
Muslims Are as Indian as Other Religious Communities
Of course, how could Sinha leave out the famous “go (back) to Pakistan” trope? In Mulk, the Mohammad family’s allegiance to India is constantly questioned. In fact, in court, a major chunk of the debate is dedicated to Muraad having to prove that he is a “good Indian citizen”.
She also explains that one’s patriotism should be based on how one contributes to their country, by, for instance, keeping it clean, paying taxes and resisting corruption, rather than one’s religion.
Citing the Mughals, the bigoted Santosh also obviously plays the quintessential right-wing Hindu card that Muslims are outsiders in India. The judge dismisses this too, specifying that resorting to history to justify communalism in the present is an extremely archaic and regressive thing to do.
Lastly, following a major show-down regarding Muslims growing their beards, the judge clarifies that the Indian constitution allows for the freedom of religious expression.
Prejudice Is Bad
In court, Arti dedicates an entire speech to discussing the dangers of an “us vs them” narrative. She points out that although we are all united by our Indian identity, there is a constant tendency to classify people into religion, thereby dividing society.
With reference to the Pyramid of Hate, Mulk portrays India at stage 3, bordering on stage 4. But all the stages, right from the first, begin with an “us vs them” narrative or mentality, which “others” or marginalises minority groups. According to the pyramid, each stage naturally lends itself to the next, if the society does not check its prejudiced attitudes.
A particularly interesting example that the film provides is that of the police inspector (Rajat Kapoor), who is a Muslim but has internalised Islamophobia.
He eventually admits that he actively suppresses his Muslim identity as he too finds himself on the receiving end of Islamophobic backlash in the police force.
Finally, through the court scenes, Mulk also explores how stereotypes about Muslims as largely illiterate hooligans are dangerous.
As Arti repeatedly emphasizes in the film, “This entire case is based on prejudice.”
While Mulk serves as a reminder of just how long it will take us to get rid of all the intolerance, it also attempts to take us one step in the right direction.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)